Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | TuneIn | RSS
This webinar brought colleagues from IN-CJ and the Probation Institute together to examine what “digital rehabilitation” means in practice across prisons, probation, and courts. Rather than treating technology as a straightforward upgrade, the discussion repeatedly returned to the question of who benefits, who is left behind, and what kinds of institutional cultures are needed for digital tools to support rehabilitation rather than simply extend control. The discussion was facilitated by Dr Victoria Knight, associate professor at De Montfort University.
Dr Bianca Reisdorf opened by positioning digital access and digital literacy as practical necessities for social participation, not optional extras. Her account emphasised that “digital rehabilitation” is not synonymous with providing devices. It is a wider capability question about whether people can build and sustain the skills, confidence, and practical access needed to navigate contemporary systems after release.
A recurring theme was that digital initiatives often fail when decisions are made at senior levels without close engagement with staff and the lived realities of custody. The point was not that innovation should slow down, but that implementation must be grounded in the conditions people actually face, including uneven literacy, limited connectivity, and risk-led institutional constraints.
The second contribution, from Dr Sarah-Elison Davis and Glynn Davis, focused on the Breaking Free programme as a practical example of digital delivery in substance use disorder treatment. They described how digital formats can draw in people who do not typically engage with group-based interventions, particularly when the content is designed for the prison context rather than imported wholesale from community settings.
They also highlighted the operational value of continuity of care through-the-gate, with work completed in custody carrying over into community support. Their research account stressed measurable improvements across substance dependence and related outcomes such as anxiety, depression, quality of life, and psychosocial functioning, while also noting that individuals with greater clinical complexity may need additional support to benefit equally.
A further distinction emerged between delivery models: staff-supported engagement in the UK compared with more independent access via secure tablets in parts of the United States, raising a practical question about what the “right” balance looks like between autonomy, support, and secure infrastructure.
Alongside reported outcomes, the presenters were candid about implementation realities. The prison environment is not naturally conducive to reliable digital delivery. Connectivity, signal mapping, regime disruption, and local variation in security controls all shape what is possible day to day.
They also highlighted staff resourcing pressures and the limits of adding additional demands to teams already “firefighting”. The implicit lesson was that a digital intervention is never only a piece of software. It is a service model that relies on leadership backing, practical planning, and staff capacity, as well as on realistic expectations about what can be delivered consistently under custodial conditions.
A pre-recorded contribution from Dr Carolyn McKay introduced a complementary perspective from criminal courts, drawing on her Australian research into the growing use of audio-visual links and other remote communication technologies. Her framing centred on “digital vulnerability” as a way to evaluate how remote systems can both assist and disadvantage vulnerable participants, depending on context and individual circumstances.
The key message for this audience was that digital justice should be assessed as an access-to-justice issue, not only as an efficiency measure. Remote modalities may protect some witnesses or reduce certain barriers, but can also generate new harms where distance from the courtroom undermines participation, comprehension, or perceived fairness.
Across the Q&A, the discussion converged on a shared set of concerns:
- First, digital inclusion in justice settings is uneven, and that unevenness is rarely accidental: it reflects procurement choices, security policy, governance cultures, and resourcing.
- Second, “innovation” can become performative if it focuses on devices rather than on capability-building and continuity of support.
- Third, the sector needs clearer ways to identify and respond to digital vulnerability, both in prisons and in courts, so that digitisation does not quietly widen gaps for those already at risk of exclusion.
This discussion is best heard as a joined-up conversation across domains that are often treated separately. Prisons, probation, and courts each have their own constraints, but the core question is the same: what would it mean to design digital systems that increase real agency and fair participation, rather than merely changing the channel through which the system exerts power?
The follow-on roundtable planned for 17 March 2026 is positioned as an opportunity to carry these questions into more detailed discussion about standards, leadership choices, and the practical requirements for ethical implementation.