An ex-con is going to be more dependable in a rural situation than an urban one? An ex-con followed a path of crime because of “real world” pressures that are somehow less evident in a rural setting?
The above is your plan for saving taxpayer dollars? Have you calculated the cost of testing/evaluation, transportation, social services, recidivism and legal costs? It is cheaper to maintain a lock on the cell with a person getting 3 squares and a beautiful exercise room.
I think the confusion here is that this is not a prison. It is a low tech town for older, trustee-type ex-cons, with few modern amenities, including electronics or vehicles, outside of an emergency radio and vehicle kept by the small staff. Living there is not punishment, but a privilege for good behavior.
Since because of their original crime, and their age, they are pretty much unemployable in the rest of society, and have to live on a substantial dole of welfare, it would be a lot cheaper to provide them an inexpensive place in which they could just survive.
Already in the US we have what amounts to “geriatric” prisons that are in effect convict retirement homes with minimal guards, which works as long as they still have time to serve. But once out on the street, they can no longer function in society, often falling prey to drugs and alcohol, committing crime to survive.
If you consider several states kicking in *part* of the welfare that would have been paid directly to the ex-cons and social services like emergency rooms and Medicaid, to send them to the host state, several states save a bunch of money.