Keep up to date with Drugs & Crime

Evaluation of digital technology in prisons

Official evaluation finds that prison digital technologies have been successful, particularly the in-cell telephones.

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

In-cell telephony

Last week (16 July), The MoJ published its evaluation of digital technology in prisons. Authored by Dr Emma Palmer, Dr Ruth Hatcher and Dr Matt Tonkin of the University of Leicester, the evaluation looked at the impact of:

  • in-cell telephony, whereby PIN telephones are installed within prisoner cells, rather than on landings; 
  • self-service kiosks on wing landings which allow prisoners to complete administrative tasks that were previously completed through a paper-based system; 
  • in-cell laptops allowing prisoners to access the same functions as through the wing self-service kiosks; and
  • mobile devices for prison staff with access to Prison-National Offender Management Information System (P-NOMIS).

The evaluation listed five key aims of these technologies:

  1. Provide more opportunities for prisoners to build skills (including IT skills), and assist in their rehabilitation.
  2. Provide prisoners with the ability to be more responsible for themselves.
  3. Improve relationships between prisoners and between prisoners and staff, thereby reducing prison violence.
  4. Improve relationships between prisoners and people outside of prison.
  5. Increase staff job satisfaction.

Key findings

The main findings were:

  • Prisoners and staff perceived that the accessibility of the in-cell telephones, self-service kiosks and laptops were a significant improvement on previous arrangements of wing telephones and the paper applications system. 
  • Prisoners reported having more privacy and time to make calls on in-cell telephones and analysis of call data demonstrated an increase in telephone use after the implementation of in-cell telephones. However, in all prisons, prisoners considered the cost of telephone calls to be too high, even though the costs were lower for the in-cell telephones than those on the wings.
  • There was no perceived reduction in the promptness of responses to applications, and prisoners appreciated the transparency of the digital technology for the application process. The benefit of self-service kiosks/laptops in cells on ordering canteen and meals was less clear-cut.
  • Some staff felt that the in-cell telephones were likely to have reduced illicit mobile phone use for those prisoners using mobile phones to keep in touch with family.
  • Outages of the in-cell telephones and self-service kiosks caused significant problems on the wings, with prisoners becoming frustrated. Contingency plans did not appear sufficiently robust and would benefit from review.
  • Staff were less enthusiastic about the P-NOMIS mobile devices, reflected in the low usage of the handsets in both prisons which had this technology. However, the staff who did use it noted a number of advantages, in that the devices allowed them to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently through having information at their fingertips.
© Andy Aitchison

Key themes

Other findings included:

  • Some prisoners and staff were hesitant to engage with the new technology, often because they were unfamiliar with it.
  • Misuse of the digital technology was rare.
  • The implementation of the technology, particularly in-cell telephones, reduced the potential for tensions on the wings between prisoners and staff.
  • It was also felt that-cell telephones reduced bullying and victimisation between prisoners using wing telephones.
  • The privacy associated with-cell telephones was seen as important in helping prisoners maintain family ties, particularly for those with young children.
  • Technology also had a positive impact in reducing staff workloads, particularly when processing prisoner balance requests and prisoner applications, menu orders and canteen.

The overall conclusion was that the implementation of digital technologies was judged to be successful, particularly the in-cell telephones.

 

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the images in this post. You can see Andy’s work here.

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Related posts

Innovation
The digital divide in our prisons

The Prisoner Learning Alliance looks at ten examples of how technology is being used as part of learning in prisons around the world.

One Response

  1. Sad to say this small amount of tech is just not enough, we are so behind the times not making services comparable to outside.

    Access to phones are limited through out the prison to cells, tech eg digital viewing/ in cell work digital limited.

    Its a lottery based on what prison you get what service you get and is restricted service providers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Innovation posts sponsored by Socrates 360

The smart solution to communication, information, and education in secure settings and beyond.

Socrates Software is  working with Probation Services, Prison Services and some of the UK’s premierprivate companies bringing innovation and life-changing improvements to the sector by providing a “mobile mentor” via tablets and smartphones for Prisons and the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme.

 

The Future of Resettlement

Socrates 360, mobile mentor, is a true Through The Gates solution for the prison and probation sector. For use by prisoners, probationers and staff.

keep informed

One email every day at noon