Dr Victoria Knight,[1] Associate Professor of Research, De Montfort University—written evidence (DCL0017)

House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee inquiry ‘Digital exclusion and the cost of living’

Victoria is the director of the Prison and Probation Research Hub[2] at De Montfort University. She is a dedicated researcher and expert in the field of digital prisons. Over a period of 21 years she has researched the experience and impact of technologies in prison settings. She advises and consults on this topic both in the UK and across the globe. She has an extensive track record of publications on this topic.

The Digital Poverty of our Prisons

At any one time approximately 90,000 people are[3] in prisons across the UK. This equates to 176 people out of 100,00. It is forecasted that the population is set to rise to approximately 99,000 by 2026.[4] Each prisoner costs £48,000 per year[5] from the public purse. Moreover current reoffending rates and returns to prison custody are estimated to be 25%.[6] It is also suggested that sentences are getting longer. Prisoners experience a restricted and regulated period of time and have limited access to the goods and services commonly found in the outside world. The longer and more frequent the periods in prison, the more the impact of deprivation is exacerbated. Prisoners are incentivised, following good behaviour, to gain access to many goods and services. In addition, people in prison have to pay for things like telephone calls, using a restricted email system and TV. That said our prisons are ‘communication poor’ environments (Knight 2016) - whereby opportunities to interact are limited and it therefore no surprise that digital inequality is readily experienced in prison. This does not exclude staff either. They too experience digital exclusion and deprivation.

The recent HMPPS’s Digital Strategy[7] sets out a vision for their plans to digitize our prisons in the short term:

1. Provide staff with up-to-date IT equipment and applications, so they can work effectively, efficiently and collaboratively.
2. Replace legacy systems with simpler, clearer, faster digital services, allowing staff to focus more time on the individual and their needs, rather than the administration of their case.

3. Give people in our care the digital tools & technology to support their rehabilitation.

4. Make video conferencing accessible to everyone, building rehabilitative relationships for people in prison & on probation, their families & friends and staff supporting them.

5. Capture, store and share high quality data across our services leading to better and faster decision-making about people in our care.

HMPPS’s Prisons Strategy White Paper[8] sets out more detailed aspirations to enable digital infrastructure and services to help prisons rehabilitate people in their care. In stark contrast other countries are leading the way in terms of the digital maturity[9] of its prison services by pushing a digital culture and opportunities across all government departments. UK prison communities are being left behind. Based on published evidence it is estimated that only 9700 serving prisoners (in up to 5 prisons) in public sector prisons have routine access to in-cell technology. However, this is restricted to self-service tools like making requests, ordering meals and purchasing items from the prison shop. In addition, users can access a suite of information and support and use an email type messaging system. Some of our private prisons have additional services such as SMS text messaging. Education departments can also make use of the approved service Virtual Campus to help support distance learning. In addition, addiction services can also operate from prison to the community. The pandemic brought about extended access to video calling to ensure families remained connected during lockdown. However, the numbers of people in prison having fair and equitable access to the currently approved digital services is too low. The impact of digital inequality on people entering our prisons is far-reaching. Its impact plays out not only inside our prisons, but following release as well. This increases people’s dependency on the state, particularly upon welfare, health, accommodation and justice services. This naturally compromises the ability of people who have been in prison to secure regular employment and contribute to civic society.

Reasons for Digital Inequality in Prisons[10]

Our serving prisoners are a distinctive cohort of people who cannot enjoy the choice to use online services or fully develop digital skills. The social and economic impacts of digital deprivation, as cited in the call, mean that our prisons are failing to properly prepare citizens for resettlement. Ill-prepared re-entry to the community can isolate and stigmatise individuals which in turn can increase criminogenic risk factors. Moreover, the changing labour market and administrative landscapes like banking, caring for children, attending to health and forming healthy relationships are, we know, protective factors against reoffending. With limited opportunities to stay digitally agile and competent, individuals are at risk of remaining in the criminal justice system. The harms of crimes[11] model helpfully explains how crime creates social and economic harms. The impact of digital inequality is difficult to quantify directly, but we do know experiences of poverty does directly deplete social advantage.

Access to digital infrastructure:

The unavailability of funds to resource digital architecture in prisons significantly compromises access to digital infrastructure. The UK has a significant number of prisons that are old and decaying. Cabling these environments while allowing them to stay operational can be a challenge. Moreover, Wi-Fi signals are greatly attenuated by thick walls and doors. Whilst the current prison expansion programme is underway and plans to ‘wire-in’ digital infrastructure feature, there still remains the legacy of older prisons housing thousands of serving prisoners. These people remain digitally excluded.

Access to digital devices

There are strict policies and practices which regulate, limit and prevent serving prisoners from accessing devices and the online world. The UK’s Justice Digital[12] has developed intranet type services and related content. However, these remain limited to a small number of prisons and thus small numbers of people in prison. Provision is relatively basic and restricted and does not provide a full experience of the online world. Security remains to be a challenge in softening policy in this respect. In contrast, countries like Norway, Finland and Singapore allow supervised access to the Internet, and security of online experiences are designed and supported to ensure people in prison experience a normal life.

Acceptability and Trust

The digital evolution of our prisons and indeed other justice services has been slow. The pace in which digital is implemented does not mirror that of wider society. One significant barrier has been acceptability. Policy makers both here in the UK and elsewhere have repeatedly reported anxiety and trepidation about digitizing our prisons. Concerns about security and spending money on what the public might consider a luxury are often cited in this respect. In particular, concerns about public acceptability have potentially slowed the digital maturity of our prisons. Research on public acceptability of digitizing our prisons[13] has outlined that as long as there are security measures in place, the public want services and interventions to help people with rehabilitation. They see digital playing an important role in supporting rehabilitative outcomes. This research also highlights how much of the public are uniformed about the experience of imprisonment, which could suggest an informed public would see the value in sustaining digital skills. Further research into prisoners’ and staff’s attitudes toward digital use[14] are also a factor. Prisons are low-trust environments and confidence in both systems and processes can be a challenge. Provision of digital alone is not the solution but considered support and coaching are recommended if our prisons are truly committed to digital progress.

Approaches to Digital Maturity of Prisons

Digitizing our prisons is not straightforward. The human dimensions required to create a digitally enlivened environment are complex. Our prisons are distinctive environments that demand unique and bespoke approaches. If it is acknowledged that digitizing our prisons will directly benefit economic growth, then certain dimensions are crucial for sustaining positive social outcomes. Global research into the digital maturity of prisons[15] has highlighted how different services across the globe are mobilizing the prisons in the digital age. The researchers identified five key dimensions that demand attention, investment and planning which are: Incarcerated people Centric; Organization; Culture; Technological Capabilities; and Evaluation. It is necessary for services to actively respond to digital enterprise and opportunities using these dimensions. Without attention to the needs of end users (including staff and business partners), managing the prison culture to adapt to change, procuring and developing the right digital solutions and evaluating impact, prisons are unlikely to mature, prepare and evolve in digital terms.

The digital maturity of our prisons requires economic investment. In those jurisdictions that have matured their digital offer we see how the services form valuable business partnerships and find ways to work together. In some senses the investments made through partnership working can result in equitable solutions that enable people in prison and staff to utilise digital tools to support their experience or working lives.

In terms of positioning the UK within a digital maturity framework, my assessment is that they are preparers in digital readiness and capability. They are not leaders or progressors. Early progress is certainly taking place but in order to grow their capability better partnerships and a commitment to robust evaluation is necessary. This in turn demands trying out digital solutions and being prepared to fail and try again. The ways in which digital is now framed has finally begun to change and there is a more cross-government agreement that prisons should normalise daily life for the people in their care; this includes digital equality.

Recommendations

In summary, digital is a bridge to recovery and resettlement for people in prison. In sum digital can help desistance from crime and creating social harms. Desisting citizens contribute to economic growth, as they have managed to address their basic needs and are able to work and support others- in essence become citizens in a digital world. I recommend the following to eradicate digital exclusion and reduce social harms impacted by digital deprivation:

1. Policy AND Legislation need to align to harness efforts towards normalizing digital opportunities in our prisons. Government intervention and protocols are limiting the pace of achieving digital equality for people who experience prison. Implement or roll out the government’s digital strategy across all public services to eradicate exclusion and discrimination of groups like people in prison.

2. Government should broker partnerships with industry to create labour market opportunities in a digital world for people in prisons.

3. Government should partner to share the investment in digital offers within prisons.

4. Government should pilot new ideas and solutions, evaluate and review impacts including social harms models in order to capture benefits and challenges. The pace is currently too slow.

4 March 2023

5