Digital Reentry: Uses of and Barriers to ICTs in the Prisoner Reentry Process

34 Pages Posted: 29 Jul 2019 Last revised: 18 Sep 2019

See all articles by Bianca Reisdorf

Bianca Reisdorf

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Charlotte - College of Arts & Sciences; Michigan State University - Quello Center

Julia DeCook

Michigan State University - Department of Telecommunication

Megan Foster

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Jennifer Cobbina

Michigan State University - School of Criminal Justice

Ashleigh LaCourse

Michigan State University - School of Criminal Justice

Date Written: July 26, 2019

Abstract

In the United States, prison reform remains the focus of policies and foundation efforts. High incarceration rates and a focus on incapacitation during incarceration lead to a “revolving door effect”, with more than two thirds of parolees rearrested within three years of release. One aspect that is missing from this debate is how access to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) might improve the prisoner reentry process.

Although there are localized efforts, such as New York City’s Prisoner Reentry Institute’s “Tech 101” course, instruction of ICTs is not a core component of prisoner reentry. Some reentry training is computer-assisted, and some prisons offer basic computer classes. Yet, most courses do not cover how to operate the Internet, and there is little research on access to ICTs and the digital skills of returning citizens. We ask:

RQ1. Which types of ICTs do parolees use, if any, and for what purpose?

RQ2. If parolees do not use ICTs, what are the key barriers to access and use of ICTs?

RQ3. Which kinds of ICTs do parolees need to access and use reentry services?

We conducted focus groups with 78 male and female returning citizens in a large Midwestern city in spring 2018. The mean age was 52 years (M=52.07, SD=19.4). Participants had been released from prison within 4 months of the focus groups and they had served a sentence of at least 2-3 years. We used a semi-structured approach to ask questions about ICT use, use barriers, and the kinds of ICTs needed during reentry. We conducted various rounds of thematic coding of the transcribed data using NVivo.

All participants had cell phones, mostly smartphones (62%), but only few owned laptops or tablets (8.2% and 9.6%, respectively). As most participants lived in temporary housing, access to computers and the Internet was limited. In addition, lack of skills was a main barrier, although this varied depending on age, length of sentence, and how much participants had engaged with ICTs before. The perceived effects of lack of access and skills were largely negative. Participants reported issues in using ICTs to search and apply for jobs, write emails, and use apps on their phones. Whereas some were able to learn from friends, family, shelter staff, community centers, or teach themselves, many were unsure where to ask for help and what kinds of help to ask for.

This study gives crucial insights into ICT uses and barriers to use during the reentry process. As part of our policy recommendations, we stress the importance of including ICT training during and after incarceration. While we do not claim that being able to use ICTs is the magic wand to fix recidivism, we argue that ICTs are an important and currently overlooked component of prisoner reentry.

Suggested Citation

Reisdorf, Bianca and DeCook, Julia and Foster, Megan and Cobbina, Jennifer and LaCourse, Ashleigh, Digital Reentry: Uses of and Barriers to ICTs in the Prisoner Reentry Process (July 26, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3427342

Bianca Reisdorf (Contact Author)

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Charlotte - College of Arts & Sciences ( email )

Charlotte, NC
United States

Michigan State University - Quello Center ( email )

406 Communication Arts Building
404 Wilson Road
East Lansing, MI 48824-1212
United States

Julia DeCook

Michigan State University - Department of Telecommunication ( email )

409 Communication Arts & Sciences Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1212
United States

Megan Foster

University of North Carolina at Charlotte ( email )

9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223
United States
28233 (Fax)

Jennifer Cobbina

Michigan State University - School of Criminal Justice ( email )

East Lansing, MI 48824
United States

Ashleigh LaCourse

Michigan State University - School of Criminal Justice ( email )

East Lansing, MI 48824
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
22
Abstract Views
106
PlumX Metrics