Norway’s open prisons have become an international symbol of humane imprisonment and rehabilitation. But new attention to research by the University of Oslo raises a question about the country’s celebrated prison model: who actually gets to benefit from it?
According to criminologist Pernille Søderholm Nyvoll, smaller, low-security prisons can offer better conditions for prisoners’ health, autonomy and rehabilitation than larger, more restrictive institutions. Yet these opportunities are not equally available to everyone, and some of Norway’s most vulnerable prisoners face particular barriers.
Her findings, presented by the University of Oslo on 8 October, come as Norway confronts difficult decisions about prison capacity, ageing buildings and investment in new facilities.
What makes Norway’s open prisons different?
Norway’s correctional system is built around the principle of normality. According to the Norwegian Correctional Service (Kriminalomsorgen), imprisonment should restrict a person’s liberty without unnecessarily removing other rights. Prisoners should also serve their sentences under the lowest security conditions compatible with public safety.
Some of the clearest examples are found in open, low-security institutions such as Bastøy and Leira.
At Bastøy, located on an island in the Oslofjord, prisoners have access to outdoor activities and considerable freedom of movement. At Leira, near Trondheim, everyday responsibilities and close relationships between prisoners and staff are central to how the institution operates.
Nyvoll’s research draws on 102 interviews with prisoners and staff, alongside extensive ethnographic observation. Rather than examining imprisonment only through restrictions, isolation and punishment, she investigated how prison environments can also support health, personal development and hope.
Her findings suggest that the physical layout of smaller institutions, opportunities to make everyday decisions and stable relationships with staff can create conditions that support prisoners’ well-being.
Nyvoll explained the distinction in the University of Oslo article:
It is not the absence of control and security that makes low-security prisons successful. It is the presence of trust, responsibility and humanity.
The difference is not simply the possibility of spending time outdoors or enjoying more comfortable surroundings. It concerns the ability to maintain a sense of personal identity, make choices and gradually prepare for life after release.
In a 2026 study published in Punishment & Society, Nyvoll also explored what she calls the pains of freedom. Greater autonomy does not eliminate the difficulties of imprisonment. It can introduce new pressures, including higher expectations and the responsibility of changing established behaviours.
Under supportive conditions, however, these challenges may become opportunities for personal development rather than additional sources of harm.
Even Bastøy has its problems
The international reputation of Norway’s open prisons can obscure the difficulties they experience themselves.
In a 2025 study published in The British Journal of Criminology, Nyvoll examined the impact of budgetary pressure, institutional restructuring and the COVID-19 pandemic on Bastøy and Leira.
Drawing on interviews with 51 prisoners and seven months of fieldwork in 2021, she found that both institutions had experienced restrictions and reduced opportunities.
At Bastøy, prisoners described declining trust and less contact with staff. Leira, a considerably smaller institution, appeared better able to preserve stable relationships and its existing institutional culture.
The comparison suggests that low security alone is not enough. The size of a prison, staffing arrangements and organisational stability can also influence whether its rehabilitative approach works in everyday practice.
It also challenges the idea that Bastøy can be treated as a simple blueprint for every other prison. The conditions that make open institutions distinctive require continued investment and institutional support.
Who is excluded from the Norwegian prison model?
Perhaps the most important question raised by Nyvoll’s research concerns access.
While Norway’s open prisons receive considerable international attention, not all prisoners have comparable opportunities to serve their sentences in these environments.
Nyvoll identifies three groups facing particular disadvantages.
Women have fewer opportunities to access open institutions comparable to those available to men. Although some low-security facilities accommodate women, their options remain more limited.
Prisoners with serious disabilities can encounter physical barriers, including buildings without adequate accessibility features such as lifts.
Foreign nationals may face additional obstacles when authorities consider them a greater flight risk. Nyvoll’s research found that foreign prisoners were underrepresented at Leira, although the available evidence does not establish the full extent to which nationality affects access across the Norwegian prison system.
These inequalities complicate the international image of the Norwegian model.
Security assessments remain necessary, and open prisons are not appropriate for every prisoner. Nevertheless, the research raises questions about whether access to potentially beneficial prison conditions is determined solely by individual security needs or also by structural disadvantages.
For a correctional system based on normality and equal treatment, that distinction matters.
Smaller prisons cost less, but investment choices are complicated
The debate also has an economic dimension.
According to the Norwegian Correctional Service’s 2024 annual report, the annual operating cost of a place in a high-security prison was approximately NOK 1.56 million (€145,000), compared with NOK 881,300 (€82,000) in a lower-security institution.
That makes lower-security places roughly 44% cheaper to operate on average. These figures concern operating expenditure, however, and do not establish that open prisons produce better rehabilitation outcomes for the same prisoners.
Nyvoll argues that Norway’s increasing reliance on large, standardised high-security facilities risks undermining the conditions that distinguish smaller open prisons.
The government’s own planning documents nevertheless present a more complex picture.
In its 2026 budget proposal, the government acknowledged that more prisoners could serve their sentences at lower security levels and identified a need to expand that capacity. It also committed to maintaining and developing a decentralised prison structure.
At the same time, major projects already underway include new high-security accommodation at Ullersmo and Ilseng, alongside plans to replace Oslo Prison.
The authorities face genuine capacity, security and infrastructure challenges. Many existing buildings require substantial renovation, and new facilities must also meet modern safety and welfare requirements.
The question is therefore not simply whether Norway should build fewer high-security prisons. It is how future investment can preserve the institutional conditions associated with rehabilitation while meeting different security needs.
What the research can and cannot prove
Nyvoll’s work offers detailed evidence about how prisoners and staff experience different institutional environments. Its strength lies in explaining how relationships, physical surroundings and everyday responsibilities can affect prison life.
But the research is qualitative. It does not establish that transferring prisoners to smaller open institutions would, by itself, reduce reoffending or improve measurable health outcomes.
The distinction matters when translating research findings into public policy.
What the studies do show is that Norway’s internationally recognised approach depends on more than progressive principles or attractive prison buildings. Trust, autonomy, continuity and accessibility are practical features of prison life, and they can be weakened by institutional decisions.
As Norway modernises its correctional infrastructure, the challenge will be to determine whether these conditions remain features of a relatively limited number of institutions or become more widely available to prisoners who can safely benefit from them.
