Barriers to the Adoption of Technological Innovations in Corrections: A Review and Case Study

• Date: 01 February 2021
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20952396
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20952396

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(2-3) 262 –281

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20952396

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Barriers to the Adoption of

Technological Innovations in

Corrections: A Review and

Case Study

Tanja C. Link1 and Beverly Reece1

Abstract

Over 600,000 criminal justice involved individuals are released from state and federal

prisons each year, and close to 5,000,000 former offenders are placed under some

form of community-based supervision. Access to services that may facilitate the

reentry process is complicated and more often than not, returning citizens have

significant and wide-ranging needs left unaddressed that require a comprehensive

approach. In the current paper, we discuss the adoption and implementation processes

of technological innovations noted in the criminal justice and correctional literature,

as well as other disciplines, while using examples and lessons learned from a pilot

project evaluating a new technology known as Pokket, which is a cloud-based service

aimed at improving the re-entry process for returning citizens, service providers, and

criminal justice agencies.

Keywords

reentry, returning citizens, technological innovations, community supervision,

corrections, case study, reentry services

Introduction

Over 600,000 criminal justice involved individuals are released from state and federal

prisons each year (Bronson & Carson, 2019), and close to 5,000,000 former offenders

are placed under some form of community-based supervision (Kaeble, 2018). While

1Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

Both authors contributed equally.

Corresponding Author:

Tanja C. Link, Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice, Kennesaw State University, 420 Bartow Ave

NW, MD 2204, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, USA.

Email: tlink1@kennesaw.edu

952396IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20952396International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLink and Reece

research-article2020

Link and Reece 263

approximately 95% of all state prisoners will be released at some point, close to 80%

will be released under parole supervision (Hughes & Wilson, 2019), and access to

services that may facilitate the reentry process are relatively low (Belenko & Peugh,

1999, 2005; White et al., 2012). More often than not, returning citizens have signifi-

cant and wide-ranging needs left unaddressed that require a comprehensive approach.

For the present study, we adopt a conceptualization that defines three reentry

stages: (1) the institutional phase, (2) the structured re-entry phase, and (3) the com-

munity reintegration phase (Byrne & Pattavina, 2013). Typically, neither the state

agencies nor the community service providers who create reentry programming

focus limited resources on the final stage of the process and instead emphasize sur-

veillance and control over reintegration and community. Byrne and Pattavina (2013)

note in their review a serious concern “about the continued utilization of control-

based reentry technologies” and suggest that “reentry program developers consider

an alternative—the design, implementation and evaluation of technologies focused

on the need to change—rather than coercively control both offenders and their com-

munities” (p. 110).

In support of the plea for a focus on change versus control, Fogg (2003) discusses

persuasive technology or captology that assist in changing motivations and behaviors,

which can be used through a variety of platforms, such as websites or mobile applica-

tions. These tools may encourage users through positive feedback, social support, or

by modeling target behavior (Fogg, 2003). A desirable technology may also allow

people to explore cause-and-effect relationships and assist with providing experiences

to rehearse behaviors. Gable and Gable (2005) provide guidelines on how to use cog-

nitive behavioral theory and technology, such as through emphasizing the use of

incentives to promote change (e.g., rewarding small steps, especially at the begin-

ning). They further note the benefits of mobile communications, which can provide

real time feedback, incentives, and reinforcement, also known as “active intervention”

(Byrne & Pattavina, 2013, 2017). In the context of reentry, real time, or near real-time

feedback is essential for success because when there is a lapse in time between an

action and the response to that action (i.e., penalty), the relationship between the two

is not processed well-enough to learn from the response Walters et al., 2007). In the

Pokket setting, the ability for an officer and case manager to intervene the same or next

day, is a huge improvement over the next probation meeting, which could be weeks

later, invalidating the learning effect of the punishment.

A number of technological reentry innovations have been introduced to community

corrections since Fogg and Gable’s research was published. As noted by Byrne and

Pattavina (2013), a distinction can be made between information-based technologies

(also referred to as soft technologies), and material-based technologies (referred to as

hard technologies). Hard technology, or hardware, refers to innovations such as GPS

monitoring, language translators, breathalyzers, polygraphs, and kiosks for low-risk

offenders. Soft technology, or software, refers to innovations such as COMPSTAT for

reentry, social network software, SMART case management technology, and software

to monitor sex-offenders’ internet activities, as well as apps supporting individuals

with mental health or alcohol or drug-related needs.