Technology in U.S. Prisons

To gain a better understanding of the direction that the use of technology is heading with regards to inmate usage it seems valuable to explore how it came to become present in the correctional system to begin with. The most likely reason being education and training as most employers expect anyone, they higher to have some basic understanding for using computers and mobile devices. There are also federal regulations in place that put standards on what States are to provide. Through understanding these aspects, it is easier to attempt to predict how the use of technology by inmates may continue to evolve correctional facilities in the near future.

A journal article published in May of 2013 gave many answers as to how technology became introduced into the prison system which may have led to its current level of acceptability for personal use. It was stated more than nine years ago when the article was written that “Using computers and other technology is becoming increasing important in the field of correctional education” (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). This line was not retrieved from the conclusion or deep withing the article but rather the first line of the abstract. That shows that for at least a decade now the use of technologies in prisons has been viewed as a vital tool for inmate education and rehabilitation.

The statistical analysis of the demographics of those who were incarcerated when the article was written gives perspective as to why technology would have been considered such an asset. Within a 20-year span from 1985 to 2004 the number of people imprisoned or jailed had increased by 186% (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). There was an estimated 725,000 people released from jail annually and they returned to their communities (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). With most of the inmates being aged 18 to 34 and many cycling back through the prison system, the U.S. Department of Justice was attempting to ensure inmates possessed the skills needed to find employment (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). Because technology was growing at such a rapid rate and there were many changes occurring outside prisons and jails it was pertinent to give prisoners access to technology so they would be able to assimilate and adapt after being released (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). While sending text messages and using a tablet may seem to be a common and non-educational action to those of us who have access to phones, tablets, computers and other technologies, there is a probability that this could be viewed as a way to keep inmates current in using technology. Although that is the most obvious and logical reasoning for the introduction of technology in prisons and jails it is not the only answer.

One of the biggest issues with prisoners and learning is the level of literacy many have, or the amount of them who are illiterate. Literacy is part of the federal mandates that have been put into place in order to improve inmate academic and career skills (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). There is a specific act which has guidelines calling for states to provide inmates with educational programs and the third program type listed is English literacy (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). Technology was found to be an effective way to improve literacy as well as meet many of the other programs required such as secondary school credit programs (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). This information is pertinent because it sheds light on what paved the way for allowing technology into prisons and jails. It can be hypothesized that currently part of the reason inmates are allowed personal time using technology is because it assists with literacy even when that technology is being used for non-educational purposes. For example, when investigating inmate usage of tablets that are distributed to their cells it was stated that they are allowed to send text messages to family members. Although text messaging in no way promotes correct grammar or spelling it could be construed as meeting the obligation of the state for improving literacy levels. Even in an instance where an inmate is playing a game or using an app such as YouTube, there is an element of reading and comprehension involved. That element may be minor in comparison to taking an English lesson or reading a book but it is likely that there is some consideration being given to the concept that this assists in improving literacy.

There is another act that is in place regarding education that specifically covers technical use and developing or maintaining technical skills. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 provides the right to technical training (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). The budgetary requirements of the law state that 1% of state funds should be allocated and used to provide technical training that builds on technical skills in order to succeed when they are released (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). When the act was written it would have been aimed at specific training to keep inmates up to date with technologies that were emerging and becoming more prevalent in the workplace (Chappell & Shippen, 2013). Again as with the literacy informa8tion given, it can be hypothesized that the use of tablets to perform personal tasks could be viewed as a way to keep current with recent technologies. That would not have been the intention when the act was passed but over time and with the use of technology spreading so quickly the rules could have easily been adapted and tablets in cells could be viewed as part of the State fulfilling their educational obligations.

While there are more than likely political factors at play with the use of technology in correctional facilities, there is also support from private the private sector that is worth mentioning. While researching the popular, scholarly library of JSTOR for information there was a result for an initiative they have in support of offline learning in prisons (Humphreys, 2022). When the private sector creates initiatives to assist with these types of programs it is similar to the general public condoning the actions. Knowing this information, it is understandable that the use of technology would be less restrictive as it may be viewed that the general population agrees with inmates having access to technologies. While this information does not explain the degree of personal use those incarcerated are given with technology it does provide an understanding as to how that concept became acceptable.

Understanding what kinds of tablets and technologies inmates are given to use also puts perspective on the scenario. In 2015, CNN Money published an article showing an image of a tablet used by inmates and explaining what its functions are (Bhattacharya, 2015). To state they have a tablet leaves a lot to the imagination. For many the first thing that comes to mind is an Apple iPad or the latest version of a Samsung tablet with access to an app store and a variety of games, social media platforms and online shopping. For inmates this is not the case, although they are given access to technology there are limitations on what the tablets can do. The company that makes the tablet, JPay, has built a device that allows inmates to send e-mail and other media correspondences to family and friends (Bhattacharya, 2015). JPay also states that the tablets give inmates the chance to educate and entertain themselves while maintaining communication with loved ones (Bhattacharya, 2015). The tablets are available for purchase from facility kiosks and those who are outside the correctional institution require the JPay app or web platform in order to send and receive communications (Bhattacharya, 2015). Additionally, JPay charges a fee for sending e-mail and video messages by selling stamps (Bhattacharya, 2015). It would seem that JPay has found a way to monetize and profit from inmates having access to this technology.

From the perspective of the correctional officers the use of tablets has been positive and made their jobs a little bit easier. When the Deputy Warden of North Dakota State Penitentiary was asked how the use of tablets affected the workload in the prison he stated that the JPay message service had dramatically cut back on the amount of mailroom staff time being used (Bhattacharya, 2015). The Deputy Warden was quoted saying “There’s less material for staff to search through now” (Bhattacharya, 2015). This is a positive step for correctional officers and institutions. Additionally, JPay allows individual facilities to stipulate filtering on messages to catch specific words or phrases as well as putting in place and guidelines and restrictions that they see fit (Bhattacharya, 2015). This gives facilities control over how the device is used and the ability to monitor any communications that are flagged by the filter system.

By understanding how technology first entered the correctional system for use by inmates and how it has evolved it gives room for predictions about how it will continue to grow in the future. These predictions are easily based on hypotheses about the full reality of why the technology is present.

In terms of education the personal use of tablets and access to them allows for inmates to self-educate. They are able to access books and media as well as compose messages and all of which contribute to literacy. Because illiteracy is considered one of the biggest issues within inmate populations and the federal government has mandates in place to try to combat the issue, it is likely having technology such as inmate tablets assists in the State meeting their requirements. With the libraries and companies in the public sector such as JSTOR endorsing the concept and contributing free learning materials for inmates this will continue to foster the use of these technologies and develop new ones over time.

The company who developed the technology, JPay has found a way to profit off inmates being given access to these technologies. In doing so they are also providing security and reducing the labor requirements put on correctional officers who would otherwise spend significantly more time in the mailroom. For these reasons JPay has incentive to continue to develop new technology and ensure that safety and security are maintained. The correctional facilities have the incentive of reducing labor time by correctional officers in the mailroom which allows them to perform other duties and tasks.

It is from these reasons that the conclusion can be made about what the future will hold for the use of technology in correctional facilities by inmates. It would seem apparent that technologies such as tablets will become more common and used in more facilities as the technologies develop and JPay has had enough time to add a point of sale in each prison across the United States. Within the next several years it could very well be possible to find out prisoners are using VR technology or other devices to get to visit family events such as funerals or spend a day at an amusement park as a reward for good behavior. As long as the technology is beneficial to the right people and profitable while providing security it will continue to spread as technology tends to do.

References

Bhattacharya, A. (2015, July 23). This is the tablet prisoners use. CNNMoney. https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/technology/jpay-prison-tablet/

Chappell, C., & Shippen, M. (2013). Use of Technology in Correctional Education. Journal of Correctional Education (1974-), 64(2), 22–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26508098

Humphreys, A. (2022, June 2). JSTOR Access in Prison Initiative. JSTOR Labs. http://labs.jstor.org/projects/jstor-access-in-prison/