In April I attended the Technology in Corrections Conference in Istanbul, organized by ICPA & Europris and hosted by the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses in Türkiye. During this conference I was able to talk with many people from all over the world and learn from their digital journeys. I also had the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences on the main topic of the conference: Digital Rehabilitation.
It was fascinating to see how the use of technology in correctional organizations has evolved in many ways since we first started this conference in 2015. I learned about various new software and hardware systems tailored to specific prison and probation settings and was intrigued by the creativity of many professionals in finding interesting use-cases for new tools. However, what was even more impressive, especially compared to the first edition almost ten years ago, is the increasing attention given to the limits of what technology can and may mean in this specific context. The worldwide discussion about both the possibilities and dangers of using artificial intelligence has certainly contributed to this agenda. The importance of new regulations and guidelines on the use of these immersive technologies cannot be overstated.
However, I have the impression and fear that this valuable work and ways of thinking shift our minds away from what I believe is still and should be the most important question: What do we want to achieve? What problems do we actually want to solve? What role does this new digital reality play or should it play in our field? Could technology support correctional reform? Don’t get me wrong: it is important to have rules and limits to technology, and I do believe technology can bring value to our prison and probation services. However, to bring value, a profound analysis of both the problem and context is necessary.
The concept of digital rehabilitation is important to analyze in this way. To understand it, we should look first at the noun ‘rehabilitation,’ defined as: “the process of an individual re-adapting to society or restoring an individual to a former position, rank, or state” (1). This definition highlights two perspectives: the individual re-adapts to society, and the individual is restored by external actions. This illustrates the complexity of the term and confirms the wide variety of perspectives on what rehabilitation really means. The taxonomy proposed by Forsberg & Douglas (2) helped me improve my understanding by classifying different theories on rehabilitation based on whether they focus on “the aims or ends of the rehabilitative measure” or “the means used to achieve the intended end.” This difference becomes even clearer when we add the adjective ‘digital’ to it. On one hand, digital rehabilitation can mean the use of digital processes or tools to assist in rehabilitation. This means-based perspective is evident in the recent UNICRI Report on Digital Rehabilitation in Prisons, which defines it as “the application of digital technologies to provide rehabilitative services or to support people engaged in rehabilitative programs.”
Without detracting from the value that technology can offer in rehabilitation, I believe this is too narrow and perhaps even a dangerous approach. It is similar to the common misunderstanding surrounding the buzzword digital transformation, where the emphasis is placed more on digital than on the transformational aspect. The taxonomy from Forsberg & Douglas offers a second perspective, focusing on the aims and transformative characteristics of the process. Digital rehabilitation covers all activities and processes that support the individual in returning to digital society. This approach aligns with the digital rehabilitation model from Reisdorf & Rikard (3), which applies the corresponding fields model from Helsper to the prison context. This model theorizes the different sociological fields that today have corresponding digital realities, which we should address to anticipate the new digital reality outside. In this way, digital rehabilitation encompasses everything we do to support an individual in re-adapting to digital society.
Digital rehabilitation is not primarily about purchasing tablet computers, installing e-learning systems, offering digital communication, or using virtual reality systems. The main challenge is to transform the environment to anticipate the new digital reality outside, shaping it to support rehabilitation or desistance processes. This involves a wide range of changes, with acquiring and implementing technology being only a small part. It often starts with strategic, legislative, and organizational reflections and changes. The fragile prison culture and relationship between staff and incarcerated individuals change as soon as digital systems are put in place, so this needs guidance to enable positive cultural change. Digital communications change the way we interact, and social media has transformed the socio-structural context of individuals. We learn from desistance theories that this socio-cultural context is fundamental, so we must assume that this new reality will impact how desistance takes place. People isolated from digital society will face challenges in returning, so developing digital skills is important. However, from well-recognized models such as DigiComp, we understand this to be much broader than just technical skills related to using a certain digital device. Both my experience and the literature on digital transformation, as well as recognized research and frameworks on the Enterprise Governance of ICT (e.g., COBIT), teach us that effective governance over information and technology is critical to realizing positive value and change in our organization.
So, what I take back from this conference is that supporting and encouraging rehabilitation in a digital age is more challenging than ever. There is a crucial need to address this strategically and holistically within every organization, with the support of all stakeholders. It gives me hope that there is increasing attention to this subject, but at the same time, it worries me that people still often think in terms of simple tools and specific technologies. I’m convinced that it is impossible to digitalize rehabilitation, as rehabilitation is a personal and social process.
What we can do—and I believe we should do—is to transform the context in which this process takes place to better match the new digital reality we are living in and take the opportunity to do it in such a way it improves prison culture, supports prisoner rehabilitation and increases public safety. This is what I believe digital rehabilitation is about.
—
(1) Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control (Vol. 367). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Garland, D. (2012). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45, 33-68. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00427.x
(2) Forsberg, L., & Douglas, T. (2020). What is Criminal Rehabilitation? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1. doi:10.1007/s11572-020-09547-4
(3) Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital rehabilitation: A model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1273-1290.
