Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning

Management Systems in the USA

Johannes A. Badejo

, Joyram Chakraborty

, Elyshia Aseltine

, Lawrence O. Oyaniyi

and Oluwafemi P. Badejo

Department of Computer and Information Science, Towson University, Towson, MD, U.S.A.

Department of Computer Science, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria

Keywords: Digital Access, Learning Management Systems, Incarcerated Students, Correctional Education, Educational

Resources.

Abstract: This study explores the current digital access and the feasibility of integrating Learning Management Systems

(LMS) in correctional facilities to bridge the educational digital gap among incarcerated students in the USA.

Using a cross-sectional design and quantitative methodology, data were collected through structured

questionnaires from 94 incarcerated students. Results showed low digital access (overall mean = 2.31, SD =

1.337) but high feasibility for LMS integration (overall mean = 3.61, SD = 1.195). Key challenges identified

include funding, staff training, and logistical constraints (overall mean = 3.75, SD = 1.205). Pearson

correlation analysis indicated a strong positive association (r = 0.875, p = 0.001) between digital access and

LMS feasibility, suggesting that improved digital access significantly enhances LMS integration feasibility.

Recommendations include increasing funding, providing comprehensive training, and improving digital

infrastructure to enhance educational outcomes for incarcerated students.

1 INTRODUCTION

Providing incarcerated students with digital and

technological skills may enhance their career

prospects, enable inexpensive higher education via

online programs, and lead to better-paid jobs.

Competitive college education is encouraged to be

provided by the colleges running higher education in

the correctional facilities, This must be accomplished

despite strict limitations and constraints imposed

upon these programs. According to Tanaka and

Cooper (2020), state Departments of Corrections

(DOC) limit computers, books, and internet access for

inmates, and educators must arrange and teach around

DOC security regulations. Davis et al. (2014) found

that while most states permit students limited

computer use in their institutions, less than half

permit offline Internet access, and even fewer permit

restricted Internet access, according to a 2013 survey

of state correctional education directors. Therefore,

incarcerated students in the United States face a

challenge in closing the digital divide due to limited

technological and educational resource availability.

In Maryland State none of the colleges running

college education in the prison is using any form of

LMS the excuse is security concern. Also, insufficient

money and human ability to acquire, deploy,

maintain, and monitor sophisticated technology are

other causes. Technology may transform education.

Technology enhances educator-student relationships,

reinvent education and teamwork, eliminate equity

and accessibility barriers, and personalize learning

experiences for all learners (King & South, 2017).

This work explores the digital gap for incarcerated

students using LMS to address the challenges faced

by incarcerated students in accessing educational

resources and technology in the USA. “The

incarcerated students undergo much stress, a

particular hour set for learning may not be conducive

for learning by the incarcerated students” (Badejo &

Chakraborty, 2022).

2 BACKGROUNDS

The Incarcerated are disadvantage in educational

achievement than the general population. According

to Bender (2018), a substantial portion of the 2.3

518

Badejo, J. A., Chakraborty, J., Aseltine, E., Oyaniyi, L. O. and Badejo, O. P.

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA.

DOI: 10.5220/0013385700003912

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2025) - Volume 1: GRAPP, HUCAPP

and IVAPP, pages 518-530

ISBN: 978-989-758-728-3; ISSN: 2184-4321

million Americans in prison are deprived of crucial

opportunities, with 41% lacking high school

graduation, as opposed to 18% in the general

population, and only 24% of federal prisoners having

tertiary education compared to the 48% in the overall

population. Recent data indicates that only 35% of

state prisons offer college courses, which reaches a

mere 6% of the entire state prison population

nationwide despite the educational needs of

incarcerated individuals being substantial (Delaney et

al., 2016). According to a study by the US

Department of Education in 2016, state and local

prison spending growth rate was three times higher

than that of pre-K-12 public education between 1979

and 2013 (Bender, 2018). To put this into perspective,

Bender (2018) explains that Maryland spends

$12,000 for each pre-K-12 public school student and

$37,000 per incarcerated student.

Despite the stringent prohibition of internet access

in correctional facilities, colleges and universities in

the US that offer prison education programs are

increasingly digitizing to educate incarcerated

individuals. Pokornowski (2023) states that the

reinstatement of federal Pell funding for incarcerated

individuals has heightened the need to comprehend

the significance of technological accessibility within

prison education initiatives. An excellent example of

a university endeavoring to broaden its scope is

Ashland University, located in the northwest region

of Ohio. Sullivan (2019) explains that the institution's

digitized prison education program has reached fifty

correctional facilities in Georgia, Minnesota, West

Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, and Washington, DC.

Additionally, Sullivan (2019) states that Peninsula

College in Washington initiated an educational

program that enables incarcerated students of Clallam

Bay Corrections Center to utilize technology to

complete assignments, but traditional classroom

instruction remains the primary mode of instruction.

Implementing digital literacy in prison education

is difficult due to restricted technology and resources,

prison infrastructure, and safety concerns. According

to Tolbert et al. (2015), the main reason prison

agencies limit access to new technologies for

education programs and students is security. In fact,

most prison agencies limit computer use to

classrooms or computer labs and prohibit

incarcerated individuals from accessing the Internet.

Djeki (2022) explains that colleges need students to

authenticate on both ends of an encrypted connection

for sensitive data transmission to protect

communication and personal data. This additional

security stops inmates from sharing login passwords

to complete schoolwork or communicate with

instructors. Moreover, adopting sophisticated

technologies in correctional education incurs direct

and indirect costs. The United Nations Office on

Drugs and Crime (2018) estimated direct education

expenses per offender ranged from $1,400 to $1,750,

with correctional education reducing re-incarceration

costs by $8,700 to $9,700 per convict. Additional

expenditures include software, annual license

charges, and subscriptions to vendors. A further

obstacle pertains to the perspectives held by

policymakers, prison administrators, and the general

public regarding the suitability and cost-effectiveness

of implementing educational technology as a service

for incarcerated individuals.

Information is increasingly accessible inside the

jail walls using various technologies and platforms.

According to a 2015 study by the US Department of

Education (DoE), educational technology holds

significant potential for enhancing and expanding

correctional education despite limited resources

(Tolbert et al., 2015). The research offered many

technological avenues for corrective education

growth. Due to the limited availability of open

internet connection inside correctional facilities, the

DoE focused on deploying controlled networks, such

as Wide Area Networks (WANs) and Local Area

Networks (LANs) (Tolbert et al., 2015). According to

Raher (2024), jailed individuals and their families pay

significantly more for digital services such as e-

messaging than the general community. Tanaka and

Cooper (2020) emphasize that DOC must prevent

predatory fees for prison higher education

programming as advances in technology become

increasingly common since there is a resource gap in

prison education technology. Besides revenue

generation, digitization of prison education can cut

costs and workload in prisoner education initiatives.

Since the stay of incarcerated students in

correctional institutions is temporary, their conduct

during this time greatly affects their futures.

According to Meyer (2024), adequate educational

interventions increase the chance of repeating

mistakes and recidivism. This emphasizes the

necessity for correctional systems and society to

support digital education programs for inmates

actively. These programs use LMS to bridge the

digital gap and provide educational resources and

skills development. Such projects empower detained

students by helping them stop bad habits and improve

their chances of reintegration (El Ghazali &

Benbrahim, 2024). Digital education in prisons is a

proactive step toward breaking down barriers,

fostering positive change, and contributing to

criminal justice system rehabilitation.

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

519

3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In the US there are challenges of integrating digital

literacy in incarcerated education include technology

and resources, prison architecture and structure, and

inmates’ security. The word is moving with the speed

of light in technology usage and the incarcerated are

not to be left behind. The lack in correctional

educational programs is the integration of modern

technologies such as LMS. Current techniques of

offering education correctional facilities do not foster

digital literacy and talents of the incarcerated

students. The deficiency of LMS usage makes it hard

to acquire the necessary and sufficient digital

competencies and perpetuates the lack of access to

education and thus the challenge of reintegrating

offenders into society upon release from

incarceration. Thus, the current gap in the delivery of

correctional education is indeed significantly large

due to the inexistence of an integrated, particularly a

tech-centered, strategy. This study explores the

practicality of LMS in meeting the educational needs

of incarcerated students and thus improving the

existing education system in penitentiaries all over

the United States.

4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) implies

that perceived utility and ease of use impact whether

prospective consumers would embrace a computer

system (Thompson, 2019). This framework focuses

on the potential user’s expectations. Stamatiou et al.

(2022) revealed that TAM responds to several

concerns related to LMS and its utilizations for

business and the intention of using LMS’s for the

digitized educational courses. It includes the

confidence in the system along with the risks

involved like the privacy concern in the use of the

system. Since the factors that affect perceived

usefulness and easy use affect the user experience,

other variables such as the system characteristics,

user differences, and environment may be

incorporated into the TAM based research.

Within the framework of this research, TAM will

be utilized to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions

of incarcerated individuals regarding LMS. The

analysis is guided by the model's fundamental

constructs, such as perceived utility and perceived

ease of use, to determine whether incarcerated

students perceive the LMS as advantageous. As

outcomes, behavioral intent to use LMS and actual

usage will be investigated. Factors that impact the

adoption of LMS, including inmates' prior

technological experience, the perceived

applicability of digital education, and the influence

of prison personnel, will be determined with the use

of the framework. The utilization of TAM in

correctional facilities will yield valuable insights

regarding the viability and prospective efficacy of

incorporating LMS into prison to close the digital

gap among incarcerated students.

5 RATIONALE BEHIND THE

TOPIC

The study topic has significant implications for

education and society. As the Incarcerated population

are faced with gap in digital skills. Understanding and

tackling this issue is vital because education breaks

the recidivism loop. LMS designed for correctional

settings could change how detained students access

and use educational content. The study examines

whether LMS can offer a comprehensive and

adaptable instructional platform that surpasses

traditional techniques. The research also addresses a

significant social need to minimize recidivism and

help reintegrate offenders into productive community

members. The scientific community must find new

ways to close the digital divide to ensure that no one

is left behind. This project addresses a specific

educational difficulty and promotes social fairness,

breaks down institutional obstacles, and equips

incarcerated students for personal and professional

progress. Its ability to change lives, change

educational paradigms, and make correctional

facilities more inclusive and rehabilitative is the

motivation.

6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the current level of digital access and

educational resources available to incarcerated

students in the United States?

2. What is the feasibility of integrating Learning

Management Systems LMS in correctional

facilities for educational purposes?

3. What are the key challenges and opportunities in

implementing Learning Management Systems

solutions in correctional education programs?

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

520

7 IMPORTANCE TO THE

SCIENCE COMMUNITY

The scientific community values research for various

reasons. First, it addresses an important and

underrepresented education, technology, and criminal

justice area. The study examines LMS in correctional

facilities to improve educational possibilities for

underserved populations. This research may

influence criminal justice, education, and technology

integration policies. A nuanced understanding of the

challenges and opportunities of implementing digital

education solutions in correctional settings can help

the scientific community develop evidence-based

strategies to close the digital gap for incarcerated

students. This research also contributes to discussions

about technology's transformative power in prison

educational settings. The scientific community will

learn how innovative approaches like LMS may be

applied to varied situations, adding to the debate on

education digitization and technology's role in social

inclusion. The scientific community's involvement in

this research is crucial to promoting good change

inclusion and comprehending the complex dynamics

of incorporating technology into criminal justice

education frameworks.

8 LITERATURE REVIEW

The Literature review section describes previous

studies on digital education, focusing on LMS. This

section discusses earlier studies on prisons' digital

education, LMS implementation challenges, and

successful models. It also covers digital access

restrictions, social reintegration, and digital inclusion

and recidivism, providing an entire perspective. The

gaps existing in the previous studies are also

identified to form the basis of the current study.

8.1 Digital Education in Correctional

Facilities

According to Fiorot (2024), numerous digitized

colleges and universities are interested in offering

online learning services to incarcerated students,

indicating that online learning is gaining traction

consistently in the US. The report on technology in

correctional facilities in the US by Tolbert et al.

(2015) identified the benefits and drawbacks of

nationwide digitization of education programs. In

addition, the report noted that sophisticated

technologies have already been successfully

implemented in correctional facilities across the US

for data collection, case management, analysis,

security, and communications monitoring.

Consequently, digital education initiatives could

benefit from the application of the same model

(Tolbert et al., 2015). Johnson (2021) found that the

Prison University Project (PUP), Prisoner Re-entry

Institute, Prison-to-College-Pipeline (P2CP) at Saint

Quentin State Prison in California, and Bard Prison

Initiative are among the most significant models.

Hopkins (2015) explored innovative learning

methods offered by the Open University (OU) and the

University of Southern Queensland (USQ), both of

which have a history of delivering higher education

to convicts. Hopkins (2015) discovered that the

Portable Learning Environments for Incarcerated

Adult Distance Education Students (PLEIADES)

project tested an internet-free version of USQ's LMS

on a prison education server and the distribution of

eReaders. Moreover, the technologies were a feasible

substitute for printed literature in prison education.

Sabharwal (2020) evaluated the usability

elements that promote the LMS efficacy and

learnability in a Victorian correctional facility using

the four usability characteristics of effectiveness,

adaptability, learnability, and acceptability.

According to Farley and Seymour (2024), barriers to

LMS deployment in prisons include inadequate

communication, knowledge, technical assistance,

prison system rigidity, and an excess of unnecessary

material. Moreira et al. (2017) examined incarcerated

students, applicants, and rehabilitation technicians'

perceptions of distant learning and LMS in a

Portuguese prison. According to the study, the prison

education system was hampered by limited facilities,

educational and technology resources, and teacher

assistance. Farley (2015) described projects that use

eBook readers, tablet computers, and Stand-Alone

Moodle (SAM), a sustainable and innovative LMS

that can be used by incarcerated students without

internet access. According to Farley (2015), these

technologies allow universities to offer incarcerated

students course materials, activities, and assistance

just like other students, which enhances student

learning.

Moreover, according to Jha (2023), correctional

facilities are implementing cloud technology as a

workaround to enable offenders to download

academic materials, thereby preventing unrestricted

access to the internet. On the contrary, McFarlane and

Pike (2019) assert that the provision of these literacies

and skills to offenders is uncommon in correctional

facilities as a result of resource constraints and the

security vulnerabilities they present for the

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

521

administration of correctional centers. In order to

reconnect Correctional Institution detainees with

society, Stamatiou et al. (2022) advocate for the

inclusion of LMS and restricted Internet access as

essential components within the established

framework of fundamental human rights.

8.2 Challenges of Digital Education in

Prisons

In correctional institutions, there is a prevailing

restriction on digital technology, effectively

excluding a significant proportion of detained people

from engaging in social events (Johnson, 2021).

Barros et al. (2023) explain that inmates' future social

reintegration is influenced by factors such as

educational opportunities, internet access, and the

availability of digital technology, notwithstanding the

limitations or educational and justice policies that

underpin the guidelines for educational services in

correctional facilities. However, prisons typically

impose restrictions on internet access and information

and communication technology systems due to

concerns over safety (Sellers, 2016).

According to Hopkins and Farley (2017), a

strategic approach to the organizational systems and

procedures of prisons' unique and demanding

learning environment should guide customized digital

learning technology. Hopkins (2015) and Sellers

(2016) explain that the allocation of learning areas

and schedules is contingent upon several factors: the

degree of inmate adherence to state-mandated

education policies, the prison staff's perspectives

regarding learning and digital technologies, and the

communities' social perceptions of inmates and their

entitlement to education. Furthermore, it is well

observed that the prison environment tends to hinder

the process of acquiring knowledge, mainly owing to

the presence of disruptive surroundings, limited

availability of educational materials and personnel,

and inadequate systems in place to facilitate

concentrated, independent, and self-directed learning

(Farley & Hopkins, 2017).

8.3 Digital Inclusion of Incarcerated

Students

Meyer (2024) state that digital literacy helps people

navigate the world and improves their lives. Research

indicated that incarcerated people have limited

internet access owing to security concerns that

convicts would use technology to commit crimes and

jeopardize prison security (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016).

Cubias (2023) states that the level of digital inclusion

for inmates is also influenced by the perspectives of

prison officials regarding the advantages of technology

and their professional experience. For example,

Mufarreh et al. (2022) found that seventy prison

officials at institutions with more technology for

prisoners had a more positive view of its impact.

Moreover, Jewkes and Reisdorf (2016) contend that

convicts decline the opportunity to utilize the provided

technology out of concern for their privacy, personal

safety, and the prison staff's exertion of control.

Reisdorf and DeCook (2022) discovered that

digital disparities have a more significant impact on

populations that are vulnerable and marginalized,

such as previously incarcerated individuals. These

individuals face multiple vulnerabilities such as

advanced aging, disability, limited educational

opportunities, low socio-economic status, gender-

based marginalization, as well as racial and ethnic

disparities within the US (Reisdorf and DeCook,

2022). According to Monteiro and Leite (2016),

promoting social inclusion through online

educational facilities is contingent upon factors such

as access, instructional design, student traits, and the

extent of engagement, action, and assessment. King

(2019) emphasizes the need to allocate resources

toward implementing technological advancements

and establishing secure internet connections inside

correctional facilities. According to King (2019),

these efforts aim to provide fair and equal

opportunities for incarcerated students to engage in

educational activities and foster digital skills,

considered essential competencies for jobs today.

8.4 Digital Inclusion and Recidivism

Meyer (2024) describes recidivism as the cycle of

reoffending by an individual who has previously

served time in prison. McDougall et al. (2017) found

that increased engagement in digital inclusion

activities while in prison has a beneficial effect on the

inmate's motivation and aspirations, potentially

leading to tremendous future success. As an

illustration, a study involving 76 inmates revealed

that the implementation of the prisoner self-service

kiosk increased their acquaintance with contemporary

digital technology, which directly influenced

rehabilitation-related tasks (McDougall et al., 2017).

Jewkes and Reisdorf (2016) explain that deprivation

of digital inclusion among incarcerated individuals

may have negative consequences. However, the

resources available to instructors specializing in

computer software fundamentals for incarcerated

individuals remain extremely limited (Jewkes &

Reisdorf, 2016). In a nutshell, while detainees receive

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

522

training in some aspects of technology use, the

curriculum only touches a fraction of what can be

covered. By Through advising action, the study

recommendation offers a recipe for enhancing social

equity and broader inclusion, “through advising

action, the study recommendation offers a recipe for

enhancing social equity and broader inclusion”

(Badejo, Chakraborty, and Forbes, 2024).

8.5 Limitations of the Literature

Review

The review provides insight into the prison digital

education situation. However, it has significant

limitations. First, the study focuses on the challenges

and benefits of implementing LMS in correctional

facilities rather than specific LMS platforms, their

functions, and their relative efficacy. The literature

review should also explore socio-economic and

demographic aspects affecting incarcerated students'

digital participation. Review emphasizes reducing the

digital divide, but it should include more policy

suggestions and tangible measures for legislators,

correctional facilities, and educational providers to

address these concerns. A more specific discussion of

policy implications and concrete solutions will

strengthen the US jailed student digital gap roadmap.

While reviewing the literature, a study on the use of

LMS in the USA to close the digital gap among

incarcerated students in the USA is lacking in these

articles.

9 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no association

between current digital access and the feasibility of

integrating Learning Management Systems in

correctional facilities.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is an

association between current digital access and the

feasibility of integrating Learning Management

Systems in correctional facilities

10 RESEACH METHOD

This section explains the methodology used in the

study and begins by describing the research design

and study setting to provide further insight into the

efficacy of the study. The study acknowledges the

overall influence of technology in prison settings by

examining the participants, data sources, and data-

collecting methods. This section will use data

analysis and ethical issues to facilitate understanding

of the study undertaken among incarcerated students

inside prisons in the US.

10.1 Research Design

The study utilized a cross-sectional design and a

quantitative methodology. Cross-sectional studies

choose participants based on the research's inclusion

and exclusion criteria. The preference for quantitative

methodology stems from its capacity to provide

results that show high reliability. The significance of

this research lies in its need to establish global

generalizability. For this study, data were collected

through questionnaires, mainly physical copies, due

to restricted internet access among 94 randomly

sampled incarcerated students.

10.2 Research Context and Intervention

The research context is the US correctional facilities

where the incarnated students are engaging in

physical education. This study examines the

application of LMS in correctional facilities to close

the digital gap with the aim of improving educational

prospects for incarcerated students. The intervention

entails an examination of the potential implications

on social reintegration and recidivism, an assessment

of the viability and advantages of integrating LMS,

and an analysis of the obstacles encountered in prison

education.

10.3 Participants

Recruiting study participants is one of the factors that

define the implementation of any successful research

with people (De Oliveira, 2023). The respondents in

this study encompass 94 freshly released incarcerated

students in the US who engage or possibly can engage

in online prison education employing LMS. As a way

of doing empirical research on the factors that inform

the dynamics, challenges and possibilities of

delivering education digitally in correctional

facilities, the study gathered data from the

incarcerated students and related key-stakeholders.

10.4 Data Sources and Data Collection

Primary data was gathered through structured

questionnaires for incarcerated college students. The

survey questions were distributed to 94 respondents,

and their feedback was stored for further analysis.

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

523

10.5 Data Analysis

The data analysis process involves systematic data

arrangement and manipulation to address a research

inquiry pertaining to closing the digital gap for

incarcerated college students using LMS in the USA.

The most recent version of IBM Statistical Analysis

for Social Science Software (SPSS) version 29 was

utilized to analyze the data.

10.6 Research Ethics

Preservation of anonymity, confidentiality, data

protection, ethical governance, grievance procedure

provision, research methodology appropriateness,

and complete reporting of methods are the major

ethical principles followed in this research. These

fundamental ethical concepts are taken into account

within the scope of this study.

10.7 Informed Consent

Incarcerated students were briefed on their role in

research accomplishment. Additionally, all

incarcerated students received consent from the

correctional institution administration before taking

part in the study. Administration and incarcerated

students were educated on the significance of

research in enhancing the quality of prison education

and society. Participants signed the consent form as a

demonstration of agreement.

10.8 Anonymity Principle

The principle of anonymity examines the

confidentiality and protection afforded to

incarcerated students. The data submitted by the

participants is confidential; therefore, it would be

considered a violation of privacy to reference specific

identities or include their images. The present

research adhered strictly to the principle of anonymity

for participants and guaranteed them a confidential

platform for deliberation.

11 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

11.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics

This study assesses the sociodemographic

characteristics of incarcerated students, including

age, gender, race, education level, and incarceration

duration, detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Variable Frequency Percent

(%)

Age

Unde

25 29 30.9

25-40 33 35.1

Ove

40 32 34.0

Gender

52 55.3 55.3

42 44.7 44.7

Race/Ethnicity

Blac

African American 47 50.0

Hispanic o

Latino 25 26.6

White 11 11.7

Othe

11 11.7

Educational Background

Primar

46 48.9

High school diploma or

GED

37 39.4

Colle

11 11.7

Length of Incarceration

Less than 3

ears 36 38.3

3-10

ears 46 48.9

More than 10

ears 12 12.8

Technology Experience

Prior to Incarceration

None 32 34.0

Basic (e.g., email, browsing

the internet)

45 47.9

Intermediate/Advanced

(e.g., using office software,

pro

rammin

)

17 18.1

Age distribution shows 30.9% (n=29) under 25 years,

35.1% (n=33) between 25 and 40 years, and 34.0%

(n=32) over 40 years, indicating a wide age range in

correctional education. Gender representation is

slightly male-dominant with 55.3% (n=52) males and

44.7% (n=42) females. Racial composition is led by

Black or African American individuals at 50.0%

(n=47), followed by Hispanic or Latino at 26.6%

(n=25), with White and Other each at 11.7% (n=11).

Educational backgrounds reveal 48.9% (n=46) with

only primary education, 39.4% (n=37) holding a high

school diploma or GED, and 11.7% (n=11) having a

college degree or higher, showing significant

educational disparities. Length of incarceration data

shows 38.3% (n=36) incarcerated for less than 3

years, 48.9% (n=46) for 3-10 years, and 12.8%

(n=12) for more than 10 years. Technology

experience prior to incarceration varies, with 34.0%

(n=32) having no experience, 47.9% (n=45) with

basic skills, and 18.1% (n=17) possessing

intermediate or advanced skills, highlighting the need

for education programs tailored to diverse

technological backgrounds.

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

524

Table 2: Current digital access.

Variable Mean Std. Deviation

I have re

ula

access to a compute

in m

facilit

. 2.14 1.197

The technolo

available to me is up-to-date and well-maintained. 2.26 1.269

I have access to the interne

educational

urposes. 2.43 1.340

The digital tools provided are adequate for completing my coursework or

educational

rams.

2.33 1.323

I feel confiden

in m

abilit

to use the technolo

available to me. 2.36 1.502

I receive sufficien

suppor

from the facilit

staff fo

usin

ital tools. 2.18 1.336

The restrictions

laced on di

ital access in m

facilit

are reasonable. 2.41 1.331

I have been provided with enough training to effectively use the digital tools

available.

2.21 1.208

Access to di

ital tools has improve

learnin

experience. 2.28 1.282

I a

allowed enou

h time to use di

ital tools fo

educational needs. 2.54 1.584

Overall 2.31 1.337

Table 3: Feasibility of integrating LMS.

Variable Mean Std. Deviation

Inte

ratin

LMS into educational pro

rams enhances learnin

outcomes. 3.67 1.213

Adequate infrastructure (e.g., hardware, software) is available in the facility to

suppor

an LMS.

3.38 1.174

The facility’s security measures are sufficient to safely implement an LMS without

compromisin

securit

3.38 1.069

Access to technical suppor

troubleshootin

LMS-relate

issues is available. 3.35 1.189

The integration of an LMS provides more diverse learning opportunities (e.g.,

courses, skills trainin

3.35 1.161

Educators and staff within the facility are prepared and willing to adopt an LMS for

teachin

3.77 1.274

udge

is allocate

maintaining an

updating the LMS software an

hardware. 3.84 1.194

An LMS can effectivel

suppor

individual learnin

les an

needs. 3.86 1.197

An LMS facilitates better tracking and reporting of student progress in educational

pro

rams.

3.85 1.244

Sufficient resources (e.g., training materials, instructional guides) are available to

help students an

staff effectivel

use the LMS.

3.61 1.238

Overall 3.61 1.195

11.2 To Evaluate the Current Digital

Access to Incarcerated Students in

the United States

In order evaluate the current digital access to

incarcerated students in the United States, this analysis

uses a scoring system where mean scores range from

1.00 to 5.00 (Table 2). The scores are divided into three

categories: low access (1.00-2.33), medium access

(2.34-3.66), and high access (3.67-5.00).

Regular access to a computer has a mean (M) of

2.14 with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.197, while the

technology's upkeep scores slightly higher at M = 2.26,

SD = 1.269. Internet access scores a M = 2.43, SD =

1.340, slightly breaching medium access. The

adequacy of digital tools (M = 2.33, SD = 1.323),

confidence in using technology (M = 2.36, SD =

1.502), and reasonable restrictions on digital access (M

= 2.41, SD = 1.331) also hover just above the low

access threshold. Support from staff (M = 2.18, SD =

1.336), effectiveness of training (M = 2.21, SD =

1.208), and the impact of digital tools on learning (M

= 2.28, SD = 1.282) all indicate significant room for

improvement. The highest score, time allowed for

digital tool usage, remains moderately low (M = 2.54,

SD = 1.584). Collectively, these findings underscore a

prevalent deficiency in digital access, with an overall

mean of 2.31 and a standard deviation of 1.337,

signaling a critical need for systemic enhancements to

digital resources within these educational settings.

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

525

Table 4: Key challenges in implementing LMS.

Variable Mean Std. Deviation

Hardware an

software limitations hinde

LMS implementation. 3.63 1.200

Securit

olicies restrict LMS im

lementation. 3.50 1.242

Lac

of technical support fo

LMS setup is a majo

issue. 3.61 1.175

Fundin

LMS

urchase an

maintenance is challen

. 3.69 1.192

Staff struggle with LMS training. 3.94 1.208

Inte

ratin

LMS with existin

rams is difficult. 4.17 1.113

Ris

of inmates misusing LMS features is significant. 3.71 1.151

Customizin

LMS fo

incarcerate

learners is tou

h. 3.55 1.258

Cooperation from external organizations is har

to get. 3.53 1.309

istical constraints, like limite

internet access, are ma

or. 4.17 1.206

Overall 3.75 1.205

11.3 To Assess the Feasibility of

Integrating Learning Management

Systems (LMS) in Correctional

Facilities for Educational Purposes

The results presented in Table 3 highlight key areas

of infrastructure, security, support, and educational

diversity that are crucial for the successful adoption

and implementation of LMS in these unique

educational environments.

The overall mean (M) is 3.61 with a standard

deviation (SD) of 1.195, high level of readiness and

support for LMS. Specific findings include: the

enhancement of learning outcomes by integrating LMS

(M = 3.67, SD = 1.213) and the preparedness of

educators and staff to adopt LMS (M = 3.77, SD =

1.274), both scoring in the high access category.

Additionally, the budget for maintaining and updating

LMS software and hardware is robust (M = 3.84, SD =

1.194), as is the support for individual learning styles

and needs (M = 3.86, SD = 1.197), and the ability of

LMS to facilitate better tracking and reporting of

student progress (M = 3.85, SD = 1.244). Infrastructure

support (M = 3.38, SD = 1.174), security measures (M

= 3.38, SD = 1.069), technical support availability (M

= 3.35, SD = 1.189), and the provision of diverse

learning opportunities (M= 3.35, SD = 1.161) are

slightly lower but still within the medium range.

Resources available for effective LMS use also score

well (M = 3.61, SD = 1.238). These metrics

collectively indicate a conducive environment for

effectively integrating LMS into correctional

education programs.

11.4 To Identify Key Challenges in

Implementing LMS Solutions in

Correctional Education Programs

Table 4 presents the key challenges in implementing

LMS in correctional education programs. The various

factors are evaluated to understand the barriers and

difficulties that might impede effective

implementation.

The overall mean score of 3.75 (SD = 1.205)

indicates that the challenges in implementing LMS

solutions are generally high. Specific high challenges

include securing funding for LMS (M = 3.69, SD =

1.192), providing adequate staff training (M = 3.94,

SD = 1.208), integrating LMS with existing

educational programs (M = 4.17, SD = 1.113),

managing the risk of inmates misusing LMS features

(M = 3.71, SD = 1.151), and addressing logistical

constraints such as limited internet access (M = 4.17,

SD = 1.206). Medium challenges involve overcoming

hardware and software limitations (M = 3.63, SD =

1.200), navigating restrictive security policies (M =

3.50, SD = 1.242), dealing with the lack of technical

support (M = 3.61, SD = 1.175), customizing LMS

for incarcerated learners (M = 3.55, SD = 1.258), and

securing cooperation from external organizations (M

= 3.53, SD = 1.309).

12 PEARSON'S CORRELATION

(HYPOTHESIS TEST)

Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no association

between current digital access and the feasibility of

integrating LMS in correctional facilities.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is an

association between current digital access and the

feasibility of integrating LMS in correctional

facilities.

The Pearson correlation analysis between current

digital access and the feasibility of integrating LMS

in correctional facilities yielded a correlation

coefficient of 0.875. This indicates a very strong

positive relationship. As digital access improves, the.

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

526

Table 5: Hypothesis.

Correlations

REGR factor score

1fo

anal

sis 1

REGR factor score 1

anal

sis 2

REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1

Pearson Correlation

1 0.875

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

94 94

REGR factor score 1 for analysis 2

Pearson Correlation

0.875 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

94 94

feasibility of LMS integration also increases

significantly. The p-value of 0.001 is well below the

alpha level of 0.05 and confirms that this association

is statistically significant. Therefore, the study rejects

the null hypothesis and accept the alternative

hypothesis.

13 DISCUSSIONS

13.1 Demographic Profile

The age distribution of the incarcerated students was

diverse with 30.9% falling below 25 years, 35.1%

falling between 25 and 40 years of age and 34%.0%

over 40 years. As for the gender distribution of

participants, it was slightly more male-dominated

with 55. 3% of male participants. The race

distribution was primarily 50% of African American

participants. On the other hand, 26. 6% was occupied

by Hispanic or Latino whereas 11.7% was shared by

both White and Others. Education level indicated that

a significant number (48.9%) had only primary

education, 39. 4% had a high school diploma or GED,

11%. 7% had some college or higher level of

education.

Duration of imprisonment also differed where the

largest percentage (48. 9%) were imprisoned for 3-10

years. Regarding technology experience before the

prison mandate, the results varied from having no

experience (34. 0%), having a basic experience (47.

9%), to an intermediate/advanced level of experience

(18. 1%).

13.2 Current Digital Access

This study established that the level of digital access

was generally low with an average mean of 2. 31

(SD=1. 337). Access to computers was not very

frequent (M = 2.14, SD = 1.197), and the technology

available to the participants was old and in poor

working condition (M = 2.26, SD = 1.269). Internet

connection for academic related use was a little better,

but still unsatisfactory (M = 2.43, SD = 1.340).

Coursework supports in terms of using technology

were limited (M = 2.33, SD = 1.324), while the

subjects’ confidence concerning technology

integration was relatively low (M = 2.36, SD =

1.502). As for staff support and training effectiveness,

both mean scores were found to be low, at 2. 18 (SD

= 1:336) and 2. 21 (SD = 1.208). Such results are

indicative of an urgent requirement for improved

digital assets within correctional education spheres.

Research supports the need for technology for

prisoners who are students. This study falls in tandem

with Barros et al. (2023) and Farley and Seymour

(2024) who also stress the low access of digital

technology among incarcerated students. Addae

(2020) study indicated that restriction to internet

usage diminishes constructive learning engagements

in correction facilities. Bradley and Davies (2021)

posit that enhancing digital access significantly

boosts learners’ enrollment, as well as the continuity

of education inside correctional facilities.

13.3 Feasibility of LMS Integration

While digital access was low among the respondents,

the rating of LMS integration was high with a mean

score of 3.61 (SD = 1.195). The proposed concept of

LMS integration was considered helpful in increasing

learning accomplishment (M = 3.67, SD = 1.213) and

received the backing of educators’ preparedness (M =

3.77, SD = 1. 274). Infrastructure was moderately

available, with a mean rating of 3. 38 (SD = 1.174);

security measures were sufficient, with a mean rating

of 3. 38 (SD = 1. 069). Moderate mean ratings were

given to technical support, which was given a mean

rating of 3.35, (SD = 1.189), and diverse learning

opportunities Mean = 3. 35, SD = 1. 161. The

response towards allocating substantial budget for

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

527

LMS maintenance (M = 3. 84, SD = 1. 194) also

spoke in favour of LMS integration feasibility. As for

the utility of LMS in learning the effectiveness was

revealed in the ability to accommodate individual

learning styles (M= 3. 86, SD = 1. 197) and patrons’

progress (M = 3. 85, SD = 1. 244). These findings lay

a good footing for the adoption of LMS in

correctional facilities though this depends on the

improvement in digital access as noted by Stamatiou

et al. (2022). Recent research substantiates LMS

advantages. In their study Ayouni et al. (2021)

established that LMS use in correctional education

enhances learner participation. Dennis and Halbert

(2022) identified that LMS enables the organizations

to accommodate the various kinds of learning

requirements in a more adaptable manner.

13.4 Key Challenges in Implementing

LMS

The average score of challenges was high at mean of

3.61. The hurdles faced in the process of LMS were

the compatibility of LMS with other ongoing

programmes (Mean = 4. 17, S.D = 1. 113) and

restricted internet connectivity (Mean = 4.17, S.D =

1. 206). Lack of funding for LMS and staff training

was difficult (M = 3. 69, SD = 1. 192; M = 3.94, SD

= 1. 208). Restricted physical and system capabilities

(M = 3. 63, SD = 1. 200), prescriptive security polices

(M = 3.50, SD = 1. 242), and the possibility of abuse

(M = 3.71, SD = 1.151) . Other challenges included

LMS customization for the incarcerated learners (M

= 3.55, SD = 1. 258) and seeking external

collaboration (M = 3. 53, SD = 1. 309). Meeting these

hurdles is important for the proper implementation of

LMS. Johnson (2021) pointed that strategies are

needed that are specific to security and logistics

needs. Stamatiou et al. (2022) and Johnson (2021)

established that funding and staff training comprise

the main challenges to implementation.

13.5 Hypothesis

The Pearson correlation analysis on digital access to

LMS feasibility also revealed a strong positive

correlation between the two variables (r = 0.875; p=

0.001). This statistically significant correlation

indicates that as digital access enhances, the

possibility of LMS integration enhances. Hence, to

address the integration of LMS in correctional

facilities, it is crucial to attend to the digital access

concerns (Ross et al., 2023).

14 CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study signifies the importance of enhancing

information and technology literacy within

correctional facilities to address the existing gap in

the education of inmates. Although there is currently

limited access to digital resources, the high feasibility

of LMS integration suggests the possibility of

improving education outcomes through the use of

technology in learning. Factors like funding, staff

training, and organization logistics have to be

carefully managed to enhance the effectiveness of

LMS (Johnson, 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to

upgrade the digital infrastructure in the prison and

develop effective training programs for the staff and

learners that will greatly improve the education of

prisoners. In this way, correctional facilities will be

able to provide an environment conducive to learning,

thus helping incarcerated learners to improve as

individuals and as professionals and, finally,

reintegrate into society after their release (Stamatiou

et al., 2022). Increased and improved universal access

and LMS compatibility will ensure that incarcerated

students have the skills and knowledge they need to

succeed in the digital environment leading to

improvements in overall educational attainment as

well as a decrease in recidivism.

REFERENCES

Addae, D. (2020). Learning behind bars: Motivations and

challenges of learners in a correctional facility in

Ghana. International Journal of Educational Research,

104, 101650. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/S0883035520317560.

Ayouni, S., Hajjej, F., Maddeh, M., & Al-Otaibi, S. (2021).

A new ML-based approach to enhance student

engagement in online environment. Plos one, 16(11),

e0258788. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/

file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258788&type=printable

Badejo, J.A., Chakraborty, J. The effects of technology on

incarcerated student motivation and engagement in

classroom-based learning. Hum.-Intell. Syst. Integr. 4,

71–80 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-0220004

4-8

Badejo, J.A., Chakraborty, J., Forbes, M. (2024). A Digital

Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the

Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated

Populations in Adopting and Accessing Technology.

VISIGRAPP (1): GRAPP, HUCAPP, IVAPP, 464-470.

Barros, R., Monteiro, A., & Leite, C. (2023). Learning with

digital technologies in prison: a scoping review. Digital

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

528

Education Review, (43), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1344/

der.2023.43.1-17

Bender, Kathleen (2018). Education Opportunities in

Prison Are Key to Reducing Crime.

https://www.american progress.org/article/education-

opportunities-prison-key-reducing-crime/

Bradley, A., & Davies, B. (2021). Devastation and

innovation: Examining prison education during a

national pandemic. Journal of Criminal Psychology,

11(3), 173-187. https://www.emerald.com/insight/

content/doi/10.1108/JCP-12-2020-0051/full/html.

Cubias, E. (2023). Examining The Relationship Between

Technological Skills and Success In Higher Education

Among Formerly Incarcerated Individuals.

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1691

Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V.,

Turner, S., Miles, J., & Steinberg, P. S. (2014). How

effective is correctional education, and where do we go

from here? The results of a comprehensive evaluation.

Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/resear

ch_reports/RR564. html.

Delaney, R., Subramanian, R., & Patrick, F. (2016).

Making the grade Developing quality postsecondary

education programs in prison. https://www.vera.org/

downloads/publications/making-the-grade-postsecond

ary-education-programs-in-prison.pdf

Dennis, M., & Halbert, J. D. (2022). Effective online course

delivery in correctional settings: A Pilot. Journal of

Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22(8).

https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JHETP/article/dow

nload/5202/5163.

Farley, H. (2015, January). Closing the digital divide: using

digital technologies for incarcerated students. In

Proceedings of the 2015 Digital Literacy Forum, State

Library of Queensland. University of Southern

Queensland. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/2114978

36.pdf

Farley, H., & Seymour, S. (2024). Reimagining Our

Futures: The Beginning, Middle, and End of the Digital

Higher Education Journey for Incarcerated Learners. In

Higher Education and the Carceral State (pp. 198-

206). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/

chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003394426-24/reimagining

g-futures-helen-farley-stephen-seymour.

Hopkins, S. (2015). Digital Learning for Prison Students:

the State of Play.

Hopkins, S., & Farley, H. (2017). The prison is another

country: incarcerated students and

Jewkes, Y., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2016). A brave new world:

The problems and opportunities presented by new

media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal

Justice, 16(5), 534-551. https://doi.org/10.1177/174889

5816654953

Johnson, L. R. (2021). Online Teaching and Learning in

Correctional Facilities: Opportunities and Tensions.

Progressio, 42, 21-pages. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-

3129-2088

Johnson, L. R. (2021). Online teaching and learning in

correctional facilities: Opportunities and tensions.

Progressio, 42, 21-pages. https://unisapressjournals.co.

za/index.php/Progressio/article/download/10556/6111.

King, J. (2019). Review of European Prison Education

Policy and Council of Europe Recommendation (89) 12

on Education in Prison. https://www.europris.org/file/

report-review-of-european-prison-education-policyan

d-council-of-europe-recommendation-89-12-on-educat

ion-in-prison/

King, J., & South, J. (2017). Reimagining the role of

technology in higher education: A supplement to the

national education technology plan. US Department of

Education, Office of Educational Technology.

McDougall, C., Pearson, D. A., Torgerson, D. J., & Garcia-

Reyes, M. (2017). The effect of digital technology on

prisoner behavior and reoffending: a natural stepped-

wedge design. Journal of Experimental Criminology,

13(4), 455-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-

9303-5

McFarlane, R., & Pike, A. (2019). From prisoner to student.

In Degrees of Freedom (pp. 11-32). Policy Press.

https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447353096.ch002.

Monteiro, A., & Leite, C. (2016). Inclusive digital online

environments as a device for pedagogic differentiation:

a taxonomy proposal. Journal of e-learning and

knowledge society, 12(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.20368/

1971-8829/1115

Moreira, J. A., Reis-Monteiro, A., & Machado, A. (2017).

Higher education distance learning and e-learning in

prisons in Portugal. Comunicar: Revista Científica de

Comunicacíon y Educacíon, 25(51), 39-49.

https://repositorioaberto.uab.pt/bitstream/10400.2/133

42/1/3.comunicar-english.pdf

Mufarreh, A., Waitkus, J., & Booker, T. A. (2022). Prison

official perceptions of technology in prison.

Punishment & Society, 24(3), 410-432.

https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1462474521990777

Pokornowski, E. (2023). Technology in Higher Education

in Prison Programs: A Report on Survey Findings.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.319583

Reisdorf, B. C., & DeCook, J. R. (2022). Locked up and left

out: Formerly incarcerated people in the context of

digital inclusion. New Media & Society, 24(2), 478-495.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063178

Ross, S., Wood, M. A., Baird, R., & Lundberg, K. (2023).

Digital service delivery applicafions in correcfions: A

scoping review. Report to the Criminology Research

Advisory Council. Canberra: Australian Institute of

Criminology. https://www. aic. gov. au/crg/reports/crg-

0820-21. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20

23-09/crg_08_20_21digital_service_delivery_applicat

io ns_in_corrections_v5_2.pdf.

Sabharwal, R. (2020). An Exploration of the Usability of a

Learning Management System: A Case Study of a

Victorian Prison (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria

University).

Sellers, M. P. (2016). Online learning and recidivism rates.

International Journal of Leadership in Education,

19(5), 632-636. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.20

15.10284 62

Closing the Digital Gap for Incarcerated Students Using Learning Management Systems in the USA

529

Stamatiou, Y. C., Halkiopoulos, C., Giannoulis, A., &

Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Utilizing a restrictedaAccess

e-learning platform for reform, equity, and self-

development in correctional facilities. Emerging

Science Journal, 6, 241-252. https://www.researchgate.

net/profile/Constantinos-Halkiopoulos/publication/

367016351_Utilizing_a_Restricted_Access_e-

Learning_Platform_for_Reform_Equity_and_Self-

development_in_Correctional_Facilities/links/63c1ac4

9d7e5841e0bc65bbb/Utilizing-a-Restricted-Access-e-

Learning-Platform-for-Reform-Equity-and-Self-

development-in-Correctional-Facilities.pdf

Stamatiou, Y. C., Halkiopoulos, C.,Giannoulis, A., &

Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Utilizing a restricted access

e-learning platform for reform, equity, and self-

development in correctional facilities. Emerging

Science Journal, 6, 241-252. https://www.research

gate.net/profile/Constantinos-Halkiopoulos/publicatio

n/367016351_Utilizing_a_Restricted_Access_e-

Learning_Platform_for_Reform_Equity_and_Self-

development_in_Correctional_Facilities/links/63c1ac4

9d7e5841e0bc65bbb/Utilizing-a-Restricted-Access-e-

Learning-Platform-for-Reform-Equity-and-Self-

development-in-Correctional-Facilities.pdf.

Stamatiou, Y. C., Halkiopoulos, C., Giannoulis, A., &

Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Utilizing a restricted access

e-learning platform for reform, equity, and self-

development in correctional facilities. Emerging

Science Journal, 6, 241-252. https://www.research

gate.net/profile/Constantinos-Halkiopoulos/publicatio

n/367016351_Utilizing_a_Restricted_Access_e-Learn

ing_Platform_for_Reform_Equity_and_Self-developm

ent_in_Correctional_Facilities/links/63c1ac49d7e5841

e0bc65bbb/Utilizing-a-Restricted-Access-e-Learning-

Platform-for-Reform-Equity-and-Self-development-in-

Correctional-Facilities.pdf.

Sullivan, E. T. (2019). Technology is helping prison

education programs scale. What's the catch? - Edsurge

news. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-

06-06-technology-is-helping-prison-education-

programs-scale-what-s-the-catch

Tanaka, K., & Cooper, D. (2020). Advancing

Technological Equity for Incarcerated College

Students. Examining the Opportunities and Risks.

ITHAKAS+ R. https://doi.org/ 10.18665/sr.313202

Thompson, P. (2019). 10. 1 technology acceptance model.

https://open.library.okstate.edu/foundationsofeducatio

naltechnology/chapter/2-technology-acceptance-

model/

Tolbert, M., Hudson, J., & Erwin, H. C. (2015). Educational

technology in corrections 2015. Office of Career,

Technical, and Adult Education, US Department of

Education, Washington, DC. https://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/policybriefedtech.p

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2018).

Roadmap for the Development of Prison-Based

Rehabilitation Programmes. UN. https://www.unodc.

org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica/2018/Roadm

ap_for_the_Development_of_Prison-based_Rehabilita

tion_Programmes_ENG.pdf

Zivanai, E., & Mahlangu, G. (2022). Digital prison

rehabilitation and successful re-entry into a digital

society: A systematic literature review on the new

reality on prison rehabilitation. Cogent Social Sciences,

8(1), 2116809. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.20

22.21168 09

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

530