Running EM in a rural versus urban environment in Norway The subject for this work shop is challenges in running an EM-programme in a country with a very distinct both rural and urban environment. What kind of effect does this geographical and demographical variations have on legal matters, the organisation, and of course on the offenders own experience of the sentence. How can we deal with the differences in a best way, bearing in mind both the need for equality for offenders and respect for the national rules and legislations. Not a subject exclusively for Norway, many other countries will have much of the same challenges when it comes to running EM in both rural and urban areas. Still, my personal experience is that Norway is difficult. A country not made for EM! “A challenge, not a problem…” Marianne Kylstad Øster, Senioradviser Directorate of Correctional Service, Norway

EM in Norway Pilot project started in 2008 Capacity of 342 Front door and back door, up to 4 months Administrative decision, execution of prison sentence Voluntary; the offender has to apply RF technology only 11 units, integrated in probation offices, 7am-23pm (10-17) One night watch-unit and one control centre monitoring the whole country, 24/7 First of all, I will start to describe the EM-program in Norway, as a background for the further presentation . Small and limited pilot project, became national in 2014. Not a court decision, but an administrative, made by the Correctional service, in fact by the local Probation Service. This fact is important for two reasons; it’s voluntary, no right for the offender, not entitle to get EM, and the decision is made locally. Only RF for now, but we are constantly considering other types of technology, like GPS, remote alcohol monitoring and voice verification. No local night-watch, because it’s not possible to reach all places anyway. Making use of one night-watch unit and local enforcements if needed. Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service

The Norwegian standard National rules, regulations and policy for EM “the level of control and supervision should reflect the fact that this is a prison sentence” Well-qualified staff of both prison officers and social workers Close and dynamic supervision; both support and control Quick and consequent reaction to breach (zero tolerance to alcohol and drugs) The Correctional Services have the superior responsibility of all parts Also bearing in mind the recommendation from EU Because EM is a way of serving a sentence, and not a court order, it’s important that it’s a trustworthy alternative to prison, and it should in some ways reflect the prison sentence. The offender has to meet for the probation twice a week, or with some other agency that the probation accept. 1-1 meetings, group meetings, participation in motivational and crime preventive program or other activities in cooperation with relevant agencies and organizations. 2 control visits weekly, unexpected supervision at home, with alcohol or drug-controls Regulations and standards which can be difficult for the organization to handle. And in combination with challenging conditions, it gets even more difficult. Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service

Challenging conditions Geographical Long distances Mountains and fjords Weather conditions Demographical Widely spread settlements Variable infrastructure These are some of the conditions we find across the country, with both geographical and demographical challenges. Long distances, with driving for many hours between the office to where the offender lives. Mountains and fjords makes it also time consuming. Challenging weather, especially in winter time, with difficult driving conditions and closing off roads. Settlements is widely spread, people are living in the most odd places. The infrastructure is not the best everywhere, sometimes depending on ferries and even air traffic. Some connection is not even daily. These conditions will have practical consequences on how the organisation is running the programme. Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service

Practical consequences Time consuming, for both offenders and officers Use of private supervisors to do the control visits Use of other agencies as police, social workers Less dynamic and personal supervision Costly Travelling time is time consuming, for both offenders and officers. Meetings in between office and home. Private supervisors are carefully chosen and trained by the correctional service, with relevant background. Often students or retired persons from prison, probation, social work or police. They have limited mandate, only for simple controls and have no decision authority. Other relevant agencies can assist with the supervision The organization is not always able to meet the legal requirement for supervision as described in the regulations, and sometimes need to use technique instead of personal supervision by the officers. Costly, the average daily costs is almost three times more expensive in rural areas than in big cities. This is some examples on consecvenses this rural conditions could have in the daily offender management Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service

Both rural and urban areas Norway is a country with big diversity when it comes to rural and urban areas. Also for many other countries with similar conditions. With these kind of variations, it’s hard to avoid differences in the programme, depending on where you live.

Possible different impacts and effects Legally? Imposing and revoking Requirements for accommodations and occupation Experience for the offender? Intrusiveness Help and support Organization? Risk for officers Economy Technical The interesting question is how, and in what degree, these differences have an impact? Here are some examples of possible impacts: Legally: Imposing and revoking: different consideration in rural and urban areas? Local authority could make a better decision! Requirements for residents and occupation: National standards of requirements for suitable resident and occupation, but still different needs and circumstances depending on where you live, so we have to make some individual adjustments Experience for the offender? Intrusiveness for the offender: the offenders have to spend more time travelling to meet the obligations in rural areas, which are more time consuming and expensive, more control in urban areas, especially less drug controls in rural areas, harder to reveal breaches.? Quicker reactions in urban areas, easier and quicker transfer to prison Help and support could be different, but it’s not necessary less quality in the rural areas. The local police in small places with a good knowledge of the offender can have a very positive impact. Organization: Risk for officers? At home visits, far away from other people and agencies to call if emergencies, even not sufficient GSM- coverage Economic: Much more expensive in rural areas. It’s a risk that economy become crucial whether to use of EM or not A tendency of extended use of technical measures, rather than personal in rural areas

Measures to decrease differences Legal possibilities to decline application Administrative possibility to postpone the implementation Local adjustments and flexibility Making use of local, social network, supervised by the Probation Office Flexible organisation, with cooperation with other units in the Correctional Service Extended use of technology All measures in the frame of national legislation Decline application when it’s not possible to implement EM due to efficient supervision, we can not accept the most extreme places of living. Eks: living alone on an island, with a ferry corresponding twice a week. Offender is asked to move another place, or go to prison. To postpone the implementation, and wait for several cases in the same rural area. The offender unfortunally has to wait, but it’s better than to decline the application. Being creative in finding local solutions and to be flexible, both in requirements and in obligation activities during the sentence, how to handle the everyday life. They are used to find different work-arounds, have another mentality Local network, often well established in rural areas. Eks: EM in Finnmark is using the same network as in other cases in public services. Flexible organisation. There is almost 100 locations within the Correctional service system in Norway, as prisons and probation offices. Cooperation across this units and also integration with regularly tasks at the Probation office. Use of basic technology instead of personal supervision if needed. Telephone instead of personal meetings, MU instead of control visits. Also interesting to consider other types of technology, as video conference, GPS, remote alcohol monitoring and voice verification. All in the frame of the common, national legislation and standards, important to make room for local judgement in the legislation

A matter of: Understanding of local conditions Making use of local knowledge Acceptance of some local judgement Willingness of paying the costs Aim for equality in the end Not possible to run both a just and cost-efficient national EM-program in Norway – but it’s possible to find a good balance! Running EM in these conditions, we have to bear in mind the importance of: To know and understand local conditions, and making use of that knowledge in the everyday offender management We have to accept some different considerations and judgements, based on this knowledge Remember the fact that it’s more expensive to run EM in rural areas, we have to be willing to pay the extras Some differences, but important to seek just and equality for everyone in the end Finally, we have to realise that it’s not possible to run the same EM programme all over Norway, and make it cost-efficient everywhere. This is the price we have to pay living in this country. Otherwise, EM will be available only in the cities, or around the country with intolerable differences.