Individuals responsible for the management and administration of prisons often show a willingness to adopt innovative technologies for operational efficiency. However, in cases where a choice must be made between prioritizing security measures and the rehabilitation of people in prison, the former tends to take precedence, sometimes at the expense of the latter. The emergence of COVID-19 lockdowns, which confined individuals to their cells for extended periods and disrupted educational programs, has prompted jurisdictions to reevaluate the advantages of educational technology. Drawing from our involvement in these kinds of initiatives, we present key insights to enrich this ongoing dialogue.

1. 1
INTRODUCING TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNING IN PRISONS: MEETING
CHALLENGES AND REALISING OPPORTUNITIES
Associate Professor Helen Farley1
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr Jayson Ware2
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract
Individuals responsible for the management and administration of prisons often show a
willingness to adopt innovative technologies for operational efficiency. However, in cases
where a choice must be made between prioritizing security measures and the rehabilitation of
people in prison, the former tends to take precedence, sometimes at the expense of the latter.
The emergence of COVID-19 lockdowns, which confined individuals to their cells for
extended periods and disrupted educational programs, has prompted jurisdictions to
reevaluate the advantages of educational technology. Drawing from our involvement in these
kinds of initiatives, we present key insights to enrich this ongoing dialogue.
Introduction
Amid the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, people in prison often only left their cells for
short spans, while educational providers and other people from outside were prohibited from
accessing prisons. This pattern, further exacerbated by post-pandemic staffing shortages, has
been reported by jurisdictions globally (for example, see Schliehe, et al., 2022). Even in the
last half of 2023, educators are still unable to enter some prison sites, and educational
1
Email: helen.farley@canterbury.ac.nz
2
Email: jayson.ware@canterbury.ac.nz

2. 2
programming remains suspended in several locations. To overcome the isolation experienced
by people in prison, video conferencing was introduced to facilitate virtual visits from family
(Dallaire et al., 2021, Dünkel et al., 2022). While it appeared there would be an opportunity
to leverage these tools for education, the overwhelming demand for virtual visits coupled
with a lack of staff to supervise educational activities rendered this option unfeasible at most
sites. Even now, in person visits are less frequent than pre-pandemic levels in many
jurisdictions (Kremer, et al., 2022).
In the meantime, outside of prisons, the landscape of education is transitioning from in-
person instruction towards a paradigm that capitalizes on the affordances of educational
technologies (Bradley & Davies, 2021). However, within prisons, the strongly curtailed
access to the internet and technologies, creates significant barriers for people in prison to
effectively engage in the post-pandemic digital education revolution (Willems, Farley &
Garner, 2018).
Technology for learning
There exists a widespread consensus on the positive impact of education for people in prison,
with a concurrent recognition of the potential benefits that educational technologies could
bring. Educational initiatives within prisons generally rely on in-person instruction, facilitated
by external educators or those directly employed by the correctional jurisdiction. For
educators working within prisons, the avenues to reconnect with learners via educational
technologies are notably limited or non-existent (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016, Pulido, 2023).
The term 'security' is often used to justify the exclusion of educational technologies within
prisons (Farley & Doyle, 2014). Unregulated internet access is viewed as posing substantial

3. 3
risks to both the community and victims. The concern is that people in prison could exploit
social media to monitor victims or potential victims, access prohibited content related to their
crimes, or even engage in illicit business activities. While there are methods to mitigate these
risks, an overarching ban is frequently maintained (Farley & Doyle, 2014). Even so, in light
of staffing shortages, frequent lockdowns, the threat of future pandemics, and educational
institutions increasingly moving to the online space, correctional jurisdictions are more
willing than ever to consider these technologies.
Some considerations around technology for learning in prisons
The authors of this paper possess extensive experience within the academic realm,
conducting research on educational technologies, prisoner education, and spearheading
digital prison projects. Additionally, we have been employed in corrections agencies across
two countries, spanning multiple jurisdictions. Our collective background has exposed us to
remarkable achievements, as well as notable setbacks. It is from these insights and
experiences that we have crafted the following considerations around the adoption of
technologies for learning in prisons. Having waited this long to embrace technology, it is
crucial that jurisdictions do so carefully and deliberately with a view to future-proofing their
investments.
Don’t be overly reliant on computer labs; in-cell technologies are more useful
Normally, interactions between people of different security classifications are restricted. This
structure presents challenges for movement within the prison; people are unable to interact
even in shared spaces like walkways or classrooms. Organizing learner cohorts for classes
and computer labs becomes a significant obstacle, leading to limited or no time spent in these

4. 4
learning environments (Farley & Doyle, 2014). In addition, corrections officers are needed to
accompany learners to computer labs, supervise technology usage by people in prison, and at
times, act as the go-between for learners and prison education staff. The COVID-19
pandemic and its aftermath placed substantial strain on frontline corrections officers (Smith,
2022). Staffing shortages were commonplace as immunocompromised people were
prohibited from attending prison sites or staff contracted COVID-19. In addition, there were
altered protocols around isolating new arrivals into the prison, restrictions on movement
resulting in meals and resources being brought to people rather than having them move
around the prison. But with prisons globally grappling with understaffing issues, activities are
prioritized, and education tends to be lower down that list (Bradley & Davies, 2021).
The introduction of in-cell technologies, such as tablet computers or laptops, significantly
diminishes the need for prisoners to be constantly escorted around a facility to attend
computer labs (Hopkins & Farley, 2015). Tablets equipped with educational content eliminate
the necessity of physical movement for learning, making education more accessible and
efficient (Hart, 2023). This streamlined approach not only conserves resources but also
enhances security by reducing potential points of friction and conflict that may arise during
movement.
The use of in-cell technologies offers a valuable solution to multiple challenges faced by
incarcerated learners. They serve as a constructive and engaging means to occupy their time.
Tablets provide access to educational content, and resources, allowing prisoners to continue
their learning journeys even in isolation (Vaughn-Somervell, et al., 2023). This not only

5. 5
alleviates boredom but also fosters a sense of purpose and personal development within the
confines of their cells (Barkworth, et al., 2022).
It would be expensive to equip each person in prison with a device, especially when you
consider the cost of updating infrastructure, especially problematic if buildings are old
(Farley, 2022). However, it does futureproof jurisdictions against the negative consequences
of future pandemics and staffing shortages. It would allow teams to work from a central
location, while promoting dynamic security through alleviating the ‘pains of imprisonment.’
Dynamic Security is a guiding concept and operational approach in which staff prioritize the
establishment and nurturing of daily communication and interactions with people in prison. It
aims to provide those people with purposeful and meaningful activities while maintaining
effective security measures (Farley & Pike, 2016). Potentially, those costs would soon be
recouped through decreased travel costs to prison sites with teams housed centrally instead of
at satellite sites and with better outcomes for people in prison.
Whitelisting is time consuming and often unsustainable
Whitelisting involves curating a list of approved websites that people in prison can access,
while blocking all other website. It is used in many correctional jurisdictions which allow
internet access (Farley & Seymour, 2022). This approach contrasts with blacklisting, where
specific websites are blocked while others remain accessible. Whitelisting focuses on
permitting only pre-approved websites that are deemed safe and relevant for users. It helps
mitigate security risks, prevent unauthorized access to inappropriate content, and provides a
controlled experience for users. However, maintaining an up-to-date whitelist can be difficult
(Russo, et al., 2022).

6. 6
Whitelisting is a resource-intensive process due to several factors. Prisons need to ensure that
only authorized websites are accessible to incarcerated individuals, requiring scrutiny of each
website's content. Additionally, the dynamic nature of the internet, where websites frequently
update content and links, necessitates constant monitoring and updates to the whitelist
(Farley, 2022). Moreover, the limited access to the internet within prisons means that any
misstep in the process could have significant consequences, compromising security and
exposing people to inappropriate content. This demanding and time-consuming process
underscores the challenges that prisons face in providing controlled access to online resources
while maintaining a secure environment.
Implementing whitelisting for learners accessing online higher education presents unique
challenges. Whitelisting impedes the flexibility and diversity of online learning. This
education involves learners accessing a wide range of websites, including research journals,
and multimedia resources (see, Hillegas, et al., 2022). This requires extensive curation and
continuous updates to accommodate evolving curricula and learning needs (Farley & Pike,
2018). Additionally, higher education frequently relies on external sources and collaborations,
making it difficult to predict and control all relevant websites in advance. The stringent
oversight necessary for maintaining a reliable whitelist could hinder the fluidity of learning,
making it crucial to strike a balance between security and the accessibility of up-to-date
content for learners.
It could be that the extent of internet access could be tailored to the security classification of
the incarcerated learner. Blacklisting refers to the process by which access to specific internet

7. 7
sites, typically social media sites such as Facebook, are blocked. Those who have
demonstrated that they are committed to learning or rehabilitating, or who are nearing their
release could have relatively free access to the internet via blacklisting. This would also serve
to scaffold the learner as they learn to navigate the internet in preparation for release. For
those who have not earned that level of trust or who pose an unacceptably high risk, it is
possible that universities or other institutions could provide access to coursework through
networked servers (either at the university or the prison), but with no direct access to the
internet.
Don’t overestimate interoperability
Overestimating the interoperability of technology platforms can reveal unforeseen challenges
in prisons. Pieces of technology and software that should work in a complementary manner
often don’t, particularly if there are many slightly different versions of software platforms
and hardware platforms concurrently in use. A case in point arises with tablets using the
Android operating system which are commonly used across jurisdictions. Despite Android's
adaptable foundation, assuming seamless operation across every Android instance can be
fraught. Hardware variations and software versions among different devices can result in
compatibility issues (Bae, et al., 2019). Operating systems are optimised to work with
particular devices. As the hardware ages, updated software may not function optimally or at
all on those devices. Tablets within and outside prisons may not feature the same Android
version to support all educational applications. Moreover, the technology in prisons may not
receive the regular updates needed to keep apps working optimally. This hampers access to
vital resources for learners and undermines the effectiveness of initiatives. This underscores

8. 8
the need for rigorous testing to ensure the chosen technology platforms can fulfill their
intended purpose within prisons.
The challenges of interoperability are compounded by the limited understanding that
corrections ICT specialists sometimes possess regarding the specific requirements of
educational applications, hardware and software needs for effective. Similarly, educators and
administrators may find themselves making technology purchasing decisions without a
thorough understanding of the ICT requirements of external educational institutions. This
frequently leads to jurisdictions acquiring technologies that prove practically ineffective. This
leaves them scrambling to source tailor-made content to justify the purchase cost.
Alternatively, jurisdictions might find themselves restricted to procuring premium content
solely from the device's vendors. Most alarmingly, this scenario impedes the adoption of
more beneficial initiatives, as justifying further expenses becomes challenging when existing
technologies remain underutilized. Regrettably, we have observed this scenario play out in
numerous jurisdictions.
There is not one learning management system to rule them all
This point follows closely from the previous one. Challenges around interoperability arise
when jurisdictions prioritize obtaining a learning management system (LMS) for deployment
on their prisoner intranet, with the expectation that external educational institutions will
seamlessly integrate with it. While the intention behind this approach is to streamline
delivery, it underestimates the complexity of integrating different institutional systems.
Educational institutions have their own established LMS, workflows, and content formats
that may not align seamlessly with the corrections-specific system. Attempting to force

9. 9
external institutions to use an LMS designed for the unique needs of a corrections
environment can lead to compatibility issues, cumbersome processes, and limited
functionality. This underscores the importance of a collaborative approach which considers
the operational realities of external educational partners.
Regrettably, there are instances where technology providers overstate the interoperability of
systems, often due to their limited awareness of the challenges. A lack of awareness of the
extent of customization present in external LMS lie at the heart of this misunderstanding.
Universities and other providers create highly tailored instances of their LMS, incorporating
branding and refining functionalities to align with user requirements (Athaya, et al., 2021).
As a result, the assumptions made about seamless integration can be misguided, as the
specialized nature of these LMS hinder the compatibility between different systems.
One of us personally witnessed this when endeavoring to implement our university's
customized Moodle instance onto laptops for use across prisons. Our goal was to run
OpenLearn courses from the Open University in the UK, which were also built on the
Moodle platform (Pulki & Packer, 2021). Even though Moodle is an opensource learning
management system, universities routinely adapt and change that platform for their own
specific hardware configurations and branding. They will incorporate functionality from third
party providers. Though institutions may be using Moodle, their particular instances will not
resemble each other. Despite both institutions using Moodle, the courses proved to be
incompatible, revealing the complexities that can arise even when using seemingly similar
systems that were ‘theoretically’ compatible.

10. 10
As a result, external institutions are compelled to extract materials from their original LMS
and modify them to suit the jurisdictional system's requirements. However, jurisdictions
hesitate to allocate funds for this extra undertaking, misjudging the amount of effort required.
Additionally, due to challenges in enrolling enough incarcerated learners to make the effort
viable, institutions often opt to disengage from such endeavors.
This is a thorny issue to resolve. The only realistic way forward is to allow universities and
other educational institutions to make use of their own learning management systems. This
can be done by housing an instance of that system on an offline server or offline devices. This
was done in the University of Southern Queensland-led Making the Connection project
(Farley & Seymour, 2022). Another option would be to provide a restricted internet
connection or even an intranet to the educational institution so that they could still use their
own learning management system and other resources. This was done with TasTAFE and
Risdon Prison in Tasmania, Australia (Koudstaal, et al., 2009).
Technology is (relatively) easy; content is hard
Prioritizing the acquisition of technology without first considering the appropriate content
can lead to significant challenges and missed opportunities. While technologies offer the
potential to enhance education, the success of these initiatives hinge on the suitability of the
content. Blindly investing in technology without aligning it with tailored content can result in
underutilized devices. Moreover, without content that caters to the unique needs of
incarcerated learners, the potential for meaningful skill development, and preparation for
reintegration can be squandered.
Deploying technologies within prisons comes with its own set of challenges, yet these pale in
comparison to the complexities of retrofitting content to existing devices. The task of

11. 11
sourcing and adapting content for incarcerated learners is a formidable endeavor. The prison
population comprises a unique cohort, characterized by neurodiversities and trauma, which
can significantly impact learning (Gormley, 2022, McLauchlan & Farley, 2019). Though
populations outside of the prison context do exhibit some of the same characteristics, the
number of comorbidities and the overrepresentation of those with particular neurodiversities
such as FASD, ASD, TBI and so on are at much higher levels than any outside cohort.
Creating content that not only addresses these specific needs but also aligns with the
technologies is a balancing act. The inadequacy of one-size-fits-all educational materials is
writ large in prisons, where the learning environment is inherently complex. Therefore, while
the technological infrastructure is undoubtedly crucial, the quest for tailored and effective
educational content remains equally, if not more, challenging and essential.
Crafting customized multimedia-rich content is a costly endeavor, and learners, often with
ample time, tend to consume such content swiftly. As a result, the prudent approach is to
invest in off-the-shelf content packages that are designed externally. This approach reduces
the cost and ensures a steady supply of learning materials. Multimedia materials are crafted
and are commercially available for secondary and tertiary students, as well as for those
pursuing informal interests. Increasingly, materials are designed particularly for learners who
are neurodiverse (for example, see https://www.nurturingdyslexics.com). These inexpensive
packages can be mixed and matched to suit individual needs and consumed at a rate that
matches those needs and capabilities. This is only possible if using a common technology
platform that is compatible with appropriate software programs.
To maximise learning, use what’s on the outside.

12. 12
For optimal transferability of digital skills, incarcerated learners should engage with
technologies that align with what they will use once released, encompassing daily life, future
studies, and employment. Our recommendation is to employ Windows computers in
conjunction with Microsoft Office which are widely used across multiple contexts. Using
laptops in particular offers several benefits, allowing learners to use them in various settings,
including with peers or in the privacy of their cells. While learners may adopt Android-based
phones upon release due to their affordability, these are less likely to be used for work or
study. Those skills such as internet searching and using apps can still be achieved using
Windows devices and are readily transferable to another platform.
Moreover, learners should familiarize themselves with the usage of usernames and
passwords, while also receiving guidance on digital citizenship. Digital citizenship
encompasses the capacity to navigate digital landscapes safely and responsibly, along with
actively and respectfully participating in these virtual spaces (Choi, et al., 2017). This
education should encompass understanding how to safeguard personal identities and sensitive
information beyond prison walls (Davis & Ostini, 2019). Notably, a significant advantage lies
in equipping women with digital skills, enabling them to safeguard their bank accounts and
personal information, thus preventing them from falling victim to technology-related
violence. This empowerment through digital literacy can contribute to their security and
autonomy upon reintegration into society (Davis & Ostini, 2019).
Don’t support multiple systems
Using existing technology procurement relationships between correctional jurisdictions and
technology providers can yield a host of advantages, despite potentially entailing higher

13. 13
costs. The long-term benefits in terms of operational efficiency and streamlined management
can far outweigh upfront expenditures. By focusing on established technology providers with
proven track records, jurisdictions can tap into a wealth of expertise, support, and solutions
that have been tailored to their specific needs. An advantage of this approach lies in the
potential for enhanced interoperability. Technologies sourced from a single provider improves
the likelihood of seamless integration between different software and hardware elements.
This minimizes the risk of compatibility issues that can arise when dealing with disparate
technologies. Furthermore, centralizing technology relationships simplifies the landscape for
corrections agencies. Rather than navigating a complex web of vendor agreements, service
contracts, and support channels, the focus can be concentrated on nurturing a robust, all-
encompassing partnership with the chosen technology provider. This not only reduces
administrative burdens but streamlines decision-making processes, fostering quicker and
more effective responses to evolving technological needs.
On the flip side, complexities arise when jurisdictions grapple with a plethora of diverse
technologies, licenses, and refresh schedules. The risk of encountering compatibility issues,
operational inefficiencies, and disjointed strategies becomes more pronounced in such
scenarios. These challenges can be avoided by jurisdictions limiting the number of systems
they support.
Don’t have technology return to base for repair
Efficiently designed systems within prisons can significantly minimize the need for
centralized repairs, licensing, and maintenance of technology. A crucial aspect of this
philosophy involves empowering on-site staff with the skills necessary to resolve most

14. 14
technology-related issues. By providing comprehensive training and resources so that staff
can teach learners how to use the devices, but also to resolve most hardware and software
issues, jurisdictions can ensure that minor glitches and technical hiccups can be resolved
swiftly at the point of use. This decentralized approach educes the turnaround time for
resolving problems and alleviates the strain on central technology support teams. The
financial investment in staff training is recouped by not having to courier devices for
replacement or repair by specialised technicians.
Moreover, the implementation of a "hot spare" system adds an extra layer of efficiency to
technology management within prisons. This involves maintaining a pool of spare devices
that can be readily swapped in to replace malfunctioning equipment. This minimizes
disruptions to learners' access to technology, as faulty devices can be swiftly replaced without
causing extended downtime. As a result, the learning process remains relatively
uninterrupted, and learners can continue to engage with educational content without
unnecessary delays. This system of hot spares also ensures that the overall technology
environment remains consistent and functional.
Tablets are (often) not the ideal technology solution
An extensive options analysis should be undertaken to identify the optimal device for
deployment, taking into account the range of activities, including future activities, likely to be
undertaken (Farley, et al., 2016). For our projects, tablets were swiftly dismissed due to the
multitude of operating systems and the significant screen real estate compromised by virtual
keyboards. Our aim was also to guarantee that the digital proficiencies acquired by learners

15. 15
could seamlessly transition to the technologies encountered in post-release spaces (Farley, et
al., 2016).
Although tablets have gained popularity for leisure activities like browsing the internet or
watching movies, they might not be the optimal choice for education within prisons. While
the allure of sitting in front of a tablet and enjoying entertainment is undeniable, the
suitability of tablets for more complex tasks is limited. Tablets do not offer the full range of
software applications and features necessary for learners to actively participate in higher-level
learning. Tablets are better suited for passive content consumption rather than active content
creation, which is a critical component of fostering critical thinking, and problem-solving
skills. For example, writing a 3000-word essay is challenging using an on-screen keyboard on
a 7-inch tablet. The remaining screen real estate makes it difficult to get an overview on what
has been written. In addition, versions of software products adapted for use on tablets often
lack the range of features offered for Apple or Windows laptops. Finally, multitasking is
impossible on tablets and so it becomes impossible to use referencing software in conjunction
with a word-processing program.
Another key drawback lies in the practicality of using tablets for productive writing, largely
due to the onscreen keyboard which consumes a significant portion of the screen, making it
challenging to engage in tasks that require a larger workspace, such as composing essays,
working with complex documents, or conducting research (Farley, et al., 2014).
In addition, there is potential concern about how tablets could potentially prioritize profit
over education within prisons. Some correctional technology companies might focus on

16. 16
offering access to entertainment content for a fee, which could divert attention and resources
away from providing comprehensive education (see Bardelli, et al., 2023). This can steer
learners toward entertainment, rather than equipping them with the skills needed for
successful reintegration into society.
Promote digital literacies of prison staff, not just people in prison
Mere access to technology does not guarantee effective access to learning. In prisons, it is
essential for both educators and learners to comprehend how to use these technologies and
the rationale behind their usage. Staff who are digitally literate act as role models for learners,
able to scaffold them through their hesitant first steps towards their proficient use of
technology. The deficiency in digital literacies among both staff and learners impeded the
progress of our technology initiatives in prisons and had to be addressed with focused
instruction.
People in prison often come from marginalized communities and have already faced the
digital divide. Arriving in prison, they lack the skills and knowledge required for meaningful
engagement in the digital realm (Smith, Willems & Farley, 2021). This is further
compounded by the scarcity of modern technologies within prisons as they are not afforded
the opportunity to develop their digital literacy skills. This undermines the potential for
education to foster rehabilitation; digital literacy skills are vital for obtaining higher-level
employment opportunities. The absence of these skills confines former prisoners to low-
paying, predominantly manual jobs that have limited impact on reducing recidivism rates
(Bhuller, et al., 2020).

17. 17
Conclusion
The integration of technology for learning within prisons holds immense promise. Providing
incarcerated individuals with access to in-cell computers has the potential to address multiple
challenges while offering significant benefits. This approach allows them to stay engaged and
occupied while pursuing learning opportunities tailored to their own pace and preferences.
This need became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted lockdowns to
mitigate the spread of the virus. While the pandemic might be receding, its aftermath
remains, manifesting in staffing shortages and related operational difficulties in many
jurisdictions. Consequently, extended periods of time spent in cells, whether for security or
logistical reasons, remains a reality for a substantial number of incarcerated individuals.
These constraints on movement and interaction have reinforced the importance of providing
access to educational resources that can be accessed from within prison cells. Technology-
enabled learning not only occupies the time of people in prison constructively but also equips
them with valuable skills that can enhance their personal growth and chances of successful
reintegration into society upon release.
In our exploration of technology integration for education in prisons, we have highlighted a
series of often neglected factors that warrant thorough contemplation. Our intention in
emphasizing these considerations is to prompt reflection for those who are contemplating or
engaging in technology-driven initiatives within the prison education context. By addressing
these considerations, we aspire to contribute to more informed decision-making processes
and ultimately enhance the efficacy and success of technology-enabled learning endeavors in
prisons.
References

18. 18
Athaya, H., Nadir, R. D. A., Indra Sensuse, D., Kautsarina, K., & Suryono, R. R. (2021,
September). Moodle Implementation for E-Learning: A Systematic Review. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Sustainable Information
Engineering and Technology (pp. 106-112). https://doi.org/10.1145/3479645.3479646
Bae, S., Lee, S., & Ryu, S. (2019). Towards Understanding and Reasoning About Android
Interoperations. 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software
Engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2019.00038
Bardelli, T., Zarook, R., & McCarthy, D. (2022). How Corporations Turned Prison Tablets
Into a Predatory Scheme. Dissent, 69(2), 129-135.
https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2022.0031.
Barkworth, J., Thaler, O., & Howard, M. (2022). Implementing digital technologies in
prisons: Inmate uptake and perceived value of in-cell digital tablets. Sydney:
Corrections Research Evaluation and Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://www.dcj.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/corrective-services-
nsw/documents/research-and-statistics/rb58-implementing-digital-technologies-in-
prisons.pdf
Bradley, A., & Davies, B. (2021). Devastation and innovation: examining prison education
during a national pandemic. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 11(3), 173-187.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-12-2020-0051
Bhuller, M., Dahl, G. B., Løken, K. V., & Mogstad, M. (2020). Incarceration, recidivism, and
employment. Journal of Political Economy, 128(4), 1269-1324.
https://doi.org/10.1086/705330

19. 19
Choi, M., Glassman, M., & Cristol, D. (2017). What it means to be a citizen in the internet
age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers &
education, 107, 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002
Dallaire, D. H., Shlafer, R. J., Goshin, L. S., Hollihan, A., Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Eddy, J. M.,
& Adalist-Estrin, A. (2021). COVID-19 and prison policies related to communication
with family members. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 231-241.
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000297
Davis, K., & Ostini, J. (2019). Understanding the post-release technology experiences of
women ex-prisoners: Do they have the access and literacies to support employment
and study? Project report. Retrieved from:
https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/b2ac9648-04a0-4229-9dd4-
3c064d68f9c3/resource/87daf927-1546-4027-a4ac-7fe2b87f1d11/download/davis-
women-ex-prisoners-full-report.pdf
Dünkel, F., Harrendorf, S., & van Zyl Smit, D. (Eds.). (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on
prison conditions and penal policy. Routledge.
Farley, H. (2022). Challenges in deploying educational technologies for tertiary education in
the carceral setting: Reconnecting or connecting? ASCILITE Publications, e22245-
e22245. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2022.245
Farley, H., Dove, S., Seymour, S., Lee, C., Macdonald, J., Abraham, C., . . . Eastment, T.
(2016). Making the connection: Improving Access to Higher Education for Low
Socio-Economic Status Students with ICT Limitations. Paper presented at the
ASCILITE 2016: 33rd International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research
in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education – Show me the learning,

20. 20
Adelaide, Australia: https://2016conference.ascilite.org/wp-
content/uploads/ASCILITE-2016-full-proceedings-Updated-1512.pdf
Farley, H., & Doyle, J. (2014). Using digital technologies to implement distance education
for incarcerated students: a case study from an Australian regional university. Open
Praxis, 6(4), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.4.134
Farley, H., Murphy, A., & Bedford, T. (2014). Providing simulated online and mobile learning
experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot
project. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(1), 17-32.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2014010102
Farley H., & Pike A. (2018) Research on the Inside: Overcoming Obstacles to Completing a
Postgraduate Degree in Prison. In: Padró F., Erwee R., Harmes M., Harmes M.,
Danaher P. (eds) Postgraduate Education in Higher Education. University
Development and Administration. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-10-0468-1_39-1
Farley, H., & Pike, A. (2016). Engaging prisoners in education: Reducing risk and recidivism.
Advancing Corrections: Journal of the International Corrections and Prisons
Association, 1, 65-73.
Farley, H., & Seymour, S. (2022). Higher Education for all: Prisoners, Social Justice, and
Digital Technology. In Histories and Philosophies of Carceral Education: Aims,
Contradictions, Promises and Problems (pp. 163-187). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86830-7_8
Gormley, C. (2022). The hidden harms of prison life for people with learning disabilities. The
British Journal of Criminology, 62(2), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab061

21. 21
Hart, A. (2023). Information and communications technology access for people in prison:
strategies to maximise the benefits and minimise the harms of communication with
families and program workers. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2210788
Hillegas, L., Humphreys, A., Pokharel, J., & Snyder, R. (2022). Supporting the Academic
Research Needs of Incarcerated Students: Building JSTOR's Offline Solution for
Prison Education (white paper). https://doi.org/10.17613/rz5b-3t37
Hopkins, S., & Farley, H. (2015). E-learning incarcerated: prison education and digital
inclusion. The International Journal of Humanities Education, 13(2), 37-45.
Jewkes, Y., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2016). A brave new world: The problems and opportunities
presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
16(5), 534-551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816654953
Koudstaal, D., Cianchi, J., Knott, M., & Koudstaal, M. (2009). Creating cooperatively with
all stakeholders an advanced and highly secure ICT learning network for all inmates
within existing cultural prison practices. ACEA/Reintegration Puzzle, 1-21.
Kremer, K. P., Christensen, K. M., Stump, K. N., Stelter, R. L., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Rhodes,
J. E. (2022). The role of visits and parent–child relationship quality in promoting
positive outcomes for children of incarcerated parents. Child & Family Social Work,
27(2), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12872
McLauchlan, J., & Farley, H. (2019). Fast Cars and Fast Learning: Using Virtual Reality to
Learn Literacy and Numeracy in Prison. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 12(3).
https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v12i3.7391

22. 22
Pulido, M. L. (2023). Challenges to the educational “Digital Divide” in Spanish prisons.
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 29(2), 263-281.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-021-09493-4
Russo, J., Vermeer, M. J., Woods, D., & Jackson, B. A. (2022). Leveraging Technology to
Support Prisoner Reentry. RAND. Retrieved from:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA100/RRA108-
12/RAND_RRA108-12.pdf
Schliehe, A., Philo, C., Carlin, B., Fallon, C., & Penna, G. (2022). Lockdown under
lockdown? Pandemic, the carceral and COVID‐19 in British prisons. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, 47(4), 880-897.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12557
Smith, A. (2022). Workplace Violence, Trauma, and the Lived Experience of Corrections
Officers: A Phenomenological Study (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a1826ab0b322dacd9f14b503c76cb9c6/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Smith, M., Willems, J. & Farley, H. (2021). Technology Literacy Through the Application of
Augmented Reality. Paper presented at the 14th International ACEA Correctional
Education and Training Conference: Innovation in Interesting Times, 16-17
November, 2021.
Vaughn-Somervell, S., Poole, C., Gardner, R., Winters, B., Dewey, S., & Roberts, S. (2023).
an evaluation of tablet-Based education in two state Prisons. Journal of Correctional
Education (1974-), 74(2), 3-24.
Willems, J., Farley, H., & Garner, J. (2018). Digital equity in Australian higher education:
how prisoners are missing out. Research and Development in Higher Education:(Re)

23. 23
Valuing Higher Education, 41. https://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference-
proceedings/research-and-development-higher-education-re-valuing-higher-22
Associate Professor Helen Farley is the Director of Criminal
Justice at the University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o
Waitaha in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand. She
is interested in prisons and corrections, with her research
focussed on prison education and training, technology for
learning in prisons, dynamic security, and neurodiversities in
the prison population. Before coming to the University of
Canterbury, Helen worked for Ara Poutama Aotearoa Department of Corrections New
Zealand, overseeing prison education across the South Island’s five prisons. Helen is the
President of the Australasian Corrections Education Association, and is part of the Expert
Working Group on Technologies for Prisoner Rehabilitation for the United Nations
Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Email: helen.farley@canerbury.ac.nz
Dr Jayson Ware is a Senior Lecturer Above the Bar in
Criminal Justice at the University of Canterbury | Te Whare
Wānanga o Waitaha in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New
Zealand. His research is focussed on offender treatment and
rehabilitation, particularly the effective treatment of sex and
violent offenders. He has a particular interest in offender
denial, use of group therapy, and getting the context right for
effective treatment. He was previously Group Director

24. 24
Offender Services and Programmes at Corrective Services New South Wales, Australia. He
completed his PhD, on sex offender denial, at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Email: jayson.ware@canterbury.ac.nz