Why do so many people return to crime after serving their sentence – even in one of the world’s most humane prison systems?
That is the question Olea Linnea Andersson recently explored in her master’s thesis in cybernetics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Not only has she looked at prison sentences, but at the entire journey: from before birth, through schooling, substance abuse, conviction, incarceration and life after prison.
Through a combination of interviews, surveys and data analysis from the Norwegian Correctional Service, she has identified a pattern: Recidivism does not occur in a vacuum. It happens in the encounter between people and a fragmented system.
Wrong focus and lack of data
Currently, the factors assessed when predicting the risk of reoffending are primarily previous convictions, substance abuse and behaviour in prison.
However, Andersson has uncovered a number of other factors that are often overlooked: mental health, relationships, motivation, support during the transition phase, system failures and resource flow.
These ‘soft’ factors – such as inner drive, life skills and social support – prove to be at least as important as the ‘hard’ variables. At the same time, there is a lack of effective data collection across services. As a result, we are flying blind, unaware of what works – or why things fail.
The missing key
An important finding in the thesis is the concept of augmented grit – an expanded understanding of the ability to succeed after serving a prison sentence.
It is about more than just willpower. It is about self-regulation, social support, hope, and systems that provide genuine opportunities to start afresh.
The research shows that if prison inmates have a high level of augmented grit, they are less likely to reoffend, but only if the surrounding system provides support.
Without support after release, structure in daily life, and trust when dealing with the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, the healthcare system and housing services, motivation alone makes little difference.
Lack of coordination
One of the clearest patterns in the analysis is that the various measures all work, but that the systems rarely communicate with each other. The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration does one job, the healthcare system another, and the Norwegian Correctional Service a third. The result is missed opportunities, a lack of continuity, and ‘arbitrary’ reintegration.
A better model requires coordinated efforts, common source data, coherent planning, and individual risk assessments that include both soft and hard factors.
A holistic model
Andersson has developed a model that predicts the risk of recidivism using artificial intelligence. The model also shows how the entire support system is connected – and where it is disconnected.
The model highlights where the system is currently failing and where efforts will be most effective. This is the first time such a holistic method has been used to study recidivism in Norway, and as far as we know, internationally. The method combines technology, system analysis and practical insights from prisoners and prison staff.
From cycles to spirals
We often talk about the cycle of recidivism, but with better data, clearer understanding and coordinated efforts, we can create spirals: processes where former prison inmates are given the prerequisites to succeed, and where support systems work together rather than separately.
What if we used artificial intelligence and systems thinking – not for control, but to give people a new chance?