What can the development of video visitation in Australian correctional centres tell us about organisational transformation?

ABSTRACT

Correctional services are closed, complex bureaucratic organisations which are historically slow to embrace change. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed a dramatic shift to widespread video visitation across correctional services in Australia. Drawing on qualitative data with corrective services staff (n = 19) from six jurisdictions (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and West Australia), this article charts the large-scale implementation of video visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is argued that video visitation demonstrates uncharacteristic organisational agility in Australian corrective services which may provide optimism for change projects.

KEYWORDS:

• corrections; COVID-19
• digital technology
• family contact; visitation

Introduction

Corrective services are generally acknowledged to be complex, bureaucratic organisations which are slow to change (Stohr & Walsh, 2019). While the longer-term view provides evidence of major shifts in corrective services practices (see, eg, Cohen, 1985; Garland, 2001), this can be juxtaposed with a wealth of evidence that, on a wide scale, positive progress is slow to arrive. In Australia, corrective services have progressed in the last three or four decades by, for example, introducing case work (Coulter, 1999; Feenan, 2000) and adopting frameworks to guide interventions such as the Risk, Needs, Responsivity model (Brown, 2020). There has been increasing attention on rehabilitation, re-entry support and wellbeing (Birgden, 2002, see, eg, the Better Prisons program in NSW, The Queensland Prisoner Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2020–2025), reflecting some departure from ‘lock ‘em up' organisational culture in Corrective Services (Feenan, 2000). This is not to suggest that correctional environments perform well against these measures, or are even appropriate settings in which rehabilitative or wellbeing interventions should be delivered (Drake, 2018), rather that consideration of rehabilitation and wellbeing has increased over time. Meanwhile, progress in other domains has stalled. Most significantly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to be dramatically over-represented in custodial settings despite the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report published more than three decades ago, which made 339 recommendations including that imprisonment be used as a last resort (Anthony et al., 2021). The slow wheels of change have frustrated the decarceration movement more broadly, with custodial populations steadily increasing over the 27 years from 1994–2021, the period that ‘Prisoners in Australia’ has been published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2022). This upward trend in imprisonment has occurred despite decades of evidence that people who spend time in prison return to the community more likely than not to re-offend, and that prison environments are detrimental on most measures (see, eg, Productivity Commission, 2021; Ritchie, 2011). Developing an evidence-based case against imprisonment has demonstrably failed to enable transformation, largely attributable to political imperatives including tough-on-crime approaches which increase punitive justice responses (Garland, 2021).

Against this highly bureaucratic and unyielding organisational backdrop, innovative or radical transformation of corrective services, such as the broad and deep use of digital technology, struggle to gain purchase. That is, until the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020 (World Health Organisation, 2020). What emerged from the public health crisis was the widespread availability of digital technology-facilitated communication between people in prison and the community, in the form of video visitation, representing a rapid modernisation of some prison operations (Hanley et al., forthcoming). Johnston et al.’s (2022) definition of digital technology guides this research: ‘Digital technologies refer to devices such as personal computers and tablets, tools such as cameras, calculators and digital toys, systems such as software and apps, augmented and virtual reality, and less tangible forms of technology such as the Internet'. Video visitation is used to specifically denote audio-visual communication between people in prison and the community using software such as Zoom^TM. The development of video visitation is particularly significant for its potential to catalyse a major transformation in the operation and experience of corrective services across Australia. This article draws on the extant literature to establish some of the ways in which digital technology was used by corrective services pre-pandemic, drawing particular attention to the debates about its benefits and risks and its use to support family contact with people in prison. Following an account of the research design underpinning the data presented here, the rapid and widespread dissemination of video visitation across six Australian jurisdictions (ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA) is described in the findings section. In the discussion, Desouza’s (2006) four attributes of agile organisations: recognising environmental signals, making sense of them, identifying and drawing on appropriate resources to respond to opportunities in the future and pursuing continued learning and development for the benefit of the organisation, are mapped against the large-scale implementation of video visits in the six participating jurisdictions. Finally, the implications for other jurisdictions, and different transformation projects, are explored in relation to incremental versus transformational change.

Literature review

The overarching concern of corrective services across Australia and internationally is to reduce reoffending, protect the public and securely detain people on remand or sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Additional facets to that concern include providing a humane environment, protecting the public and providing opportunities for rehabilitation (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, 2023). Amongst these aims, secure detention remains a high priority in custodial settings. Consequently, security within correctional centres is a complex and serious business. From physical barriers to extreme surveillance, correctional centres are hard and closed environments, particularly those with high-security classifications, and have been characterised as ‘total institutions' (Goffman, 1961). The argument for correctional centres as total institutions is that life is conducted in a residential setting, under a single authority, with many other people who are all treated identically. Daily life is highly structured and imposed according to institutional requirements. More recent literature has questioned the extent to which Goffman’s analysis applies to contemporary prisons, which are not completely separated from the wider community (Farrington, 1992). Regardless, while everyday community life has been completely transformed by the availability and functionality of digital technology, correctional centres overall have enjoyed limited digital uplift, especially for people remanded or sentenced to imprisonment, compared to the closed-network digital capabilities that now support correctional services work performed by staff (McKay, 2018).

The barriers to developing digital technology in prison

As Jewkes and Reisdorf note, expanding access to technology to people in prison is a ‘highly sensitive and controversial issue' (2016, p. 535) because it might be construed by the community as undue privilege. Less eligibility is key to understanding this sensitivity. Less eligibility is the principle that in order to act as an effective deterrent, the living conditions in prison must be worse than the living conditions experienced by the lowest members of the working classes (Sieh, 1989). Moreover, as Jewkes and Reisdorf explain, there is a general sentiment that not only should imprisonment come with forfeited opportunities and privileges experienced by free society, it should feel isolating (see also Knight & Van De Steene 2017). Communication with the outside world challenges both the principle of less eligibility and the experience of the total institution. Writing before the COVID-19 pandemic, Jewkes and Reisdorf summarised the tensions surrounding the expansion of digital technology for people in prison: ‘The paradoxes of having to satisfy commitments to the principles of less eligibility and public acceptability, while giving inmates a “normal” experience in custody and preparing them for release and resettlement, are ones that have not yet been fully resolved' (2016, p. 535). The reluctance to develop digital technology on a wide scale was not limited to public acceptability but also connected to the initial outlay for building an appropriate information-technology architecture and concerns about how people in prison, and staff, might adapt to new digitally enhanced ways of doing things in prison (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016).

Fears about how the technology might be used or, perhaps more accurately, misused, has also stymied efforts to develop digital technology. Coalescing around questions of security, the risk of people in prison having uncontrolled and/or unmonitored access to the Internet, or to the people they have victimised, or people who might be convinced to attempt to bring contraband into the prison have been recognised security concerns (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016; McKay, 2022; Van de Steene & Knight, 2017). Prior to the pandemic, this was a strongly held and devastating view, as Jewkes and Reisdorf (2016, p. 248) note: ‘Several prisoners and managers reported that the word “security” simply closed down all conversations about digital technologies in prisons'.

The benefits of digital technology in prisons

Enabling people in prison to access digital technology has recognised wide-ranging benefits. Skills and experience with technology is central to many forms of employment. Social contacts and service engagement (eg, medical appointments) commonly require the ability to navigate online booking processes. Upskilling people in prison, especially those completing long sentences, to navigate digital technology can better prepare people for release and improve their chances of remaining in the community by decreasing the digital divide between prisons and communities and normalising the prison experience (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016; Reisdorf & Rikard, 2018; Van de Steene & Knight, 2017).

The benefits extend beyond individual people in prison and are similarly felt throughout prison communities, including corrective services staff and the wider cohort of prisoners. There are a couple of components to this; access to devices such as tablets to make telephone calls or play games is a privilege which can be revoked and therefore promotes the self-management of behaviour (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016). Additionally, there is the potential for resource savings via reduced staff costs, notwithstanding the disbenefits staff reduction could engender, including the transfer of some workload onto others. Indeed, the use of digital technology to improve the cost and efficiency of criminal justice processes has been in place for some time. Referred to as a ‘matrix of justice’ (McKay, 2018, p. 3) digital technology connects different facets and functions of contemporary criminal justice systems. Audio-visual connections for remote court appearances, for example, have reduced the cost and time involved in transporting people in prison to attend hearings (McKay, 2018) and are widely used. Digital technology has been successfully put to use to find efficiencies in the work of corrective services and connect justice institutions, especially courts (Smith et al., 2021). However, the use of digital technology in routine Australian visitation practices in correctional centres is a recent innovation.

Video visitation in prisons

For community members visiting people in prison, there are benefits to diversifying visit modalities using digital technology. Correctional centres can be intimidating for visitors (and people in prison), especially children. There is a wealth of literature which has demonstrated the emotional impacts of visiting a family member in prison, which can be exacerbated if the visitor is a child contacting a parent in prison (Tasca, 2014). Indeed, correctional centre infrastructure such as play areas, as well as support services, provide assistance to families separated by imprisonment in an effort to reduce the negative effects of visitation on children and caregivers (see, eg, Zoellner, and Faraguna, this volume). Beyond the intimidating environment, going to a correctional centre is difficult for families for several reasons, including travel time and cost (Flynn et al., 2021). Accessing alternative ways to maintain contact between family members separated by imprisonment, including video visitation, has the potential to alleviate some of the negative impacts and challenges associated with face-to-face visitation.

Video visitation is a relatively new approach, widely disseminated in Australia as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Internationally, too, recourse to video visitation has dramatically increased due to the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions and suspension of in-person visits. Data is emerging on the experiences of the widespread video visitation rollout. In Australia, research suggests that most families with an incarcerated parent had some form of contact, primarily via phone or video conferencing, during lockdown restrictions (Minson & Flynn, 2021). However, qualitative research investigating the quality and accessibility of this contact has been equivocal, suggesting that the potential benefits are not widely or consistently experienced. In an Australian survey of 84 caregivers of children with a parent in prison, 60% of participants reported problems maintaining contact during lockdown restrictions (Minson & Flynn, 2021). The equivocal nature of video visitation in practice was demonstrated by Flynn et al. (2021). While video visits were described positively by caregivers because they supported parenting activities such as bedtime reading to their child, the overall consistency and availability of contact between the parent in prison, caregiver and child was less frequent and secure.

More generally, the challenges with video visits are myriad and include lack of access to video visits in some correctional centres, lack of support to utilise available video visitation options, correctional centre policies and implementation decisions that restrict visiting times, unexpected lockdowns, poor reception or sound quality and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions. These difficulties have resulted in negative assessments of video visitation by some researchers, particularly when it is directly compared to face-to-face visitation (see, eg, Bou-Rhodes, 2019; Fulcher, 2014; Murdoch & King, 2020). Conversely, some research has found benefits for children and families such as improved relationships and reduced visit stress (Horgan and Pohelmann-Tynan, 2020; Minson & Flynn, 2021; Hanley et al., forthcoming). It appears that, over time, experiences of video visitation have improved, as recent research found visits are very popular and positively viewed by family visitors, people in prison and corrective services across Australia (Hanley et al., forthcoming, see also Hart, this volume, for a detailed exposition of the potentiality and risks of digital technology and prison visitation).

Methodology

This article reports on a segment of data from a larger study which uses a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. First, the broader study will be described in brief, next we highlight in greater detail the data from which this article was drawn.

Research design

The data presented in this article are from a project about video visitation between fathers and children in Australian correctional centres, funded by the Australian Institute of Criminology. At the broadest point, the focus of the project was the perceptions, experiences and ongoing feasibility of video visitation between fathers in prison and their children. The data presented here reflect one particular guiding research question: What is the scale and nature of video visitation in Australian prisons? This question focused on both the current use of video visits and the development of video visitation. The COVID-19 pandemic was the catalyst for the development of large-scale video visitation, and therefore this research addresses a gap in knowledge about how video visitation developed, and its impacts. The project commenced in 2021 and was completed in 2023. The project had two stages. In stage one, the following data was collected:

• 19 video or telephone interviews with corrective services staff from five Australian jurisdictions: Australian Capital Territory (ACT), New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD), South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA), and one written response to the interview questions from Victoria (VIC);

• Corrective Services data records about the uptake of video visitation (NSW and WA); and

• Corrective Services policy (ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA) and/or research documents (ACT and NSW) about video visitation.

Stage 2 utilised a case study approach, gathering rich, qualitative data from:

• 27 interviews with fathers in prison from two publicly operated correctional centres in NSW;

• 17 interviews with caregivers of children with fathers in the two correctional centre sites; and,

• 6 interviews with support workers from two NSW community organisations that support children and families who have a family member in prison.

Ethical approval and project oversight

Ethical approval and/or approval to conduct the research was provided by the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC 1898/21¹), ACT Corrective Services, Corrections Victoria (CV), Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW D21/0583102 (stage one) and D2022/0910009 (stage two)), Queensland Corrective Services (QCS), South Australia Department for Correctional Services (SADCS) and Corrective Services, Government of Western Australia (CSWA). In line with AH&MRC key principles 2020 which state: ‘There should be structures developed to ensure that appropriate Aboriginal Community engagement is undertaken throughout the entire project from design to final report, not just at the consultation stage' (2020, p. 7), the research was supported by an Aboriginal Reference Group (ARG). The ARG was of critical importance because of the ongoing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australian correctional centres (Anthony et al., 2021). The ARG comprised Aboriginal cultural advisors with expertise and/or experience of culturally safe research and/or working with Aboriginal people in prison. Members of the ARG provided advice and support in different ways based on their role. Some members of the ARG reviewed research instruments, ethics applications and research outputs and provided guidance on research process. Other members of the ARG provided advice on interview recruitment methods for fathers in prison, appropriate support for participants, and assisted with access to the correctional centre sites.

The focus of this article is on the development and dissemination of video visitation throughout correction centres in these jurisdictions and its implications, as described by corrective services participants. Accordingly, interview data from five participating corrective services and the written response to interview questions provided by Corrections Victoria provides the basis for the findings section. The next section will focus on how these interview data were collected and analysed.

Corrective services participation

In stage one, all Corrective Services in Australia were invited to participate in the research to collate a national picture of the development and impacts of video visitation across the country and to enable information sharing across jurisdictions via project outputs. All of the eligible jurisdictions² agreed to participate in the project: ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, TAS, VIC and WA. There were two ways each of the jurisdictions were able to participate—via interviews with staff and officers and through the provision of documents such as policy papers, statistical data and information publications. Data were collected from six jurisdictions.³

Corrective services interviews

Interviewees were identified by corrective services, or self-identified following a criterion sampling approach (Palinkas et al., 2015). The invitation to participate in the research noted that we were seeking people with experience in the design, development or implementation of video visitation policy and/or practice in correctional centres. Five of the six participating Corrective Services provided access to interview staff in a range of roles related to video visitation, including policy, security and video-visit area supervision (ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, WA). Between three and five staff members participated in each jurisdiction. Potential participants contacted the research team to arrange an interview time.

Participants could choose a telephone or video-conference interview, with most choosing the latter. All interviews were recorded, and most were one hour in duration. Across five of the six participating services, 19 corrective service staff members participated in a semi-structured interview about the design, implementation, policy and practice of family video visitation. The sixth service (Corrections Victoria) chose to provide a written response to the interview questions. Interview questions were designed to elicit experiences and/or perceptions of corrections staff on the following overarching research questions:

1. What is the scale and nature of video visitation in Australian prisons?

2. What is the up-take of video visitation?

3. What factors make a significant difference to the video-visitation experience for fathers, children and carers?

4. How does video visitation compare to in-person visitation?

5. What are the implications of video visitation on fathers’ and families’ preparedness for release from prison?

6. How can Corrective Services and relevant stakeholder groups facilitate positive video-visitation experiences?

7. What are the resourcing and sustainability implications of video visitation?

Interview data analysis

Thematic data analysis was employed for its flexibility and robust process (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Codes were identified deductively via a literature scan. Transcripts were cleaned and reviewed against these deductive codes. Deductive codes included ‘surveillance procedures’ and ‘visit restrictions’. Next, the transcripts were closely examined to identify data related to the research questions which were not captured by the deductive codes. In this way, inductive patterns, relationships and associations within the data (Thorne, 2016) emerged and complemented the deductive coding (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Inductively generated codes included ‘behaviour management’ and ‘resourcing’. Dedoose^TM, a qualitative data-management software, was utilised to categorise and code data which were organised into interconnected and overlapping themes, which responded to, or extended the research questions. Inter-coder reliability was established through the continuous review and refinement of codes and review of model transcripts by the research team (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018).

Limitations

The study was conducted during an active period of the COVID-19 pandemic when public health orders and rates of community and institutional disease transmission were in flux. Therefore, these data reflect conditions at a particular time point, which varied within and between jurisdictions. Six out of seven eligible jurisdictions provided data, and the participating jurisdictions provided different levels of detail, resulting in some gaps.

In the next section, the story of the development of video visitation is presented in aggregate, reflecting strong convergence in the corrective services narratives across the six jurisdictions (ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, WA and VIC). Notable points of distinction and examples are highlighted.

Findings

Video visitation in its current form reflects a rapid shift from the traditionally closed environments that have characterised correctional centres. The infrastructure and, to some extent, the culture of correctional centres, have been developed, challenged and refreshed in order to disseminate the opportunity for regular video visits between people in prison and the community. This section will chart the evolution of video visitation within six Australian correctional services. The challenges that correctional services encountered in the rollout will be explored, and attitudes towards video visitation post-pandemic will be highlighted.

Pre-pandemic video visitation in Australian correctional centres

Prior to the pandemic, there were a small number of digital technology-based programs or opportunities in all of the participating jurisdictions, however, family video visits were the exception rather than the norm and were not systematised or widely available. Generally, video visits were mostly confined to professional contacts, such as legal aid or sentence planning meetings, and court appearances. In addition, there was provision for access to video visits on compassionate grounds or for small-scale projects. The use of digital visits developed differently in each jurisdiction. In WA the difficulty of accessing in-person visits due to the large geographical distances separating some family members had facilitated limited access to video visits, though video visits were not widely available across centres, and up-take was comparatively low. In some jurisdictions, people in prison were occasionally permitted to attend family funerals being held at significant distance, virtually connect with family members in different correctional centres or participate in ad hoc pilot programs including a mother-child visit program (VIC) or a mother-child joint homework club (NSW):

It’s fairly new technology but it had already been used—into-prison visits were already being done by video link, a lot of things were starting to go via video link, anyway, because we didn’t have to actually move the prisoner out of the prison to do it. (WA Staff 1)

Digital technology was a recognised area for potential development in some jurisdictions, particularly NSW where a digital services blueprint was developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Corrective Services NSW, 2021). In this state there was a pilot program running before the pandemic, which provided in-cell tablets to people in some prisons for limited purposes, such as telephone calls and games. However, resourcing and union concerns meant that digital technology was not used on a wide scale prior to the pandemic.

The pandemic response

When the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020, an urgent need to find alternative modes of contact for people in prison and their families catalysed corrective services across Australia to look for solutions. Concerns about security and safety within correctional centres if visitation ceased altogether changed the risk narrative: ‘They were very, very concerned about staff and also inmates’ safety … it was all about unrest in the centres, and the safety of the inmates, and the safety of staff’ (NSW Staff 3).

Just as employers and families in the community were discovering the ways in which digital technology could facilitate contact, correctional services identified video-conferencing programs as a potential approach to maintaining contact between people in prison and professional services as well as family and friends:

Despite the negativity of COVID-19, the pandemic forced the prison system to move with the times and introduce technology to ensure that the connections between prisoners and their family/friends remained in place, whilst also putting in measures to remotely deliver programs and other services. (VIC written response)

Security was a key concern, indeed it was identified in all six participating jurisdictions as a major challenge to navigate as video visitation was being designed and implemented. As one staff member highlighted: ‘The key thing is security, security, what are the security concerns?’ (QLD Staff 3). What was different because of the pandemic was a new willingness to tackle the challenge of security in online communications. This was underpinned by a different security concern—maintaining order and safety within correctional centres when/if visitation ceased, as it ultimately did in all jurisdictions. Corrective services wanted to ensure that a viable alternative was available quickly to prevent disorder in correctional centres due to extended lockdowns and resultant frustration:

they were very, very concerned that staff and also inmates’ safety, because, if you take someone getting visits, and they are locked up in their cells, basically 24 hours a day. … So it was all about unrest in the centres, and the safety of the inmates, and the safety of staff. So the idea was to say that the visits are stopping now in-person, and tomorrow we’re going to start video visits with your families. (NSW Staff 3)

While video conferencing offered an obvious potential solution to contact, it was not initially perceived to be a positive development by everyone. Some corrective services staff were critical about the perceived change to their job role. First, there was concern about the extension to their job role, including developing a new skill set; and second, there was concern that video visits could compromise the safety of individual staff members who could be seen on video, or safety within the correctional centre might be reduced, as video-visit monitoring processes had not been established:

I think the staff are always sceptical of new things. I think that’s human nature. I think human nature is always like, ‘Oh, something new. How is this gonna work?' especially with technology, people are like, ‘Oh, I don’t know how to use it'. If there’s gonna be loopholes, particularly in prison, if there’s gonna be loopholes for detainees to be able to access internet or do something with it other than what’s intended, I think there was that side of it but there’s been no hiccups with it. It’s been absolutely brilliant. (ACT Staff 2)

[The] first challenge was the officers themselves … when you try to get people who are not computer savvy to try to do this, or this, this is a big, big thing. (QLD Staff 1)

Staff attitudes presented one barrier; demonstrating that a sufficiently secure system could be established presented another. Corrective services staff involved in developing the video-visit architecture had to navigate a series of fundamental security questions, as one participant stated: ‘we had to prove that the sky was not going to fall in' (NSW Staff 2). These questions coalesced around limiting access to approved visitors, monitoring video visits, preventing misuse of devices and addressing staff reservations about the impact on their role.

Intra-departmental consultation and consultation with corrective services in different jurisdictions were deployed to consider options. The solutions were shaped by existing and available resources, which differed across jurisdictions. Several jurisdictions encountered difficulty quickly procuring devices suitable for video visits. However, one consequence of the pandemic was that devices were not being imported into Australia at the same rate as usual, and there was an increased demand for devices:

Procuring and setting up devices was an extremely frantic process due to the extremely short time frames given the rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tablets were in high demand and it was extremely difficult to procure the desired amount needed by the prison locations. (VIC written response)

Each jurisdiction was able to procure devices and/or repurpose existing devices and/or AVL suites (usually used for professional visits) to respond to the video-visit need. The availability of devices shaped the volume of visits offered. Once a suite of devices was established, the next questions focused on functionality, specifically: What video-conferencing platform was most appropriate? What infrastructure was needed in correctional centres? How could devices and networks be secured? And what booking process would best support the video-visit option?

Most jurisdictions selected Zoom^TM as their preferred platform because it was free to access and comparatively simple for community members to navigate. The enterprise version of Zoom^TM contained additional security features, which was particularly important, as general news stories started to emerge about ‘Zoombombing’ (uninvited guests accessing Zoom video meetings, Elmer et al., 2021). Ease and cost of use for community members were major considerations. Video visits were initially trialled on a small scale in some areas. For example, SA tested the devices to ensure they were sufficiently secure; NSW piloted a small number (n = 30) of visits in week 1 of the development of video visits; and QLD piloted video visits in one centre. Despite the piloting efforts, there were ongoing difficulties providing access to video visitation to people in rural or remote areas with poor network reception or access to appropriate devices:

That was a bit of a negative, actually … for families that didn’t have internet reception or mobile phone or an iPad or whatever it was. And again, we’re talking probably a very small [number of families], but it would have affected our Aboriginal cohort and population a lot more than anyone else. (SA Staff 4)

Security was managed similarly across jurisdictions. Visitation devices were generally used exclusively by people in prison for visitation, so they could be set up to function in very limited, approved ways. Devices did not have applications other than the chosen video conferencing platform; features like screen-share were disabled. Corrective services staff in the visit areas would typically start and end video calls to verify the identity of the visitor and to ensure compliance with rules and regulations such as dress code. Visitors were provided with a statement about the visit rules and consequences for breaching them:

We created a warning screen on all the visits that the visitor has to acknowledge prior to the commencement of their visit, and that’s acknowledging the fact that if they do share images or take screenshots, they would be banned or considered to be banned. Any inappropriate behaviour, that would be considered banned as well … and also around the staff and the visit session as well would get a visual of the visit before it commences just to ensure the right people are there. (SA Staff 1)

Monitoring practices varied between and within jurisdictions. In one jurisdiction, all video visits were automatically recorded. In others, there was a capacity to record but recording was not automatic. Staff also use a variety of monitoring strategies, from walking around the visit area during video visits to conduct visual monitoring, to watching a bank of screens containing multiple video-visit instances. In most places, people in prison used headphones to minimise the noise disruption from surrounding visits, with the effect that monitoring was visual and layered with CCTV in the visit areas.

Post-pandemic video visitation

Video visitation was popular in all jurisdictions. Only one staff member thought that video visits should be phased out because in-person visits had resumed and were generally preferred. This position contrasts with data from the other participant groups (fathers in prison, community organisations and children’s caregivers). While many other participants preferred in-person visits overall, for a wide range of reasons, the large majority of all participants wanted continued access to both in-person and video visits. As in-person visits have now resumed, all jurisdictions have continued to offer both visit modalities. There is considerable variation at the correctional-centre level about the split of in-person and video visits, reflecting differences in centre population, visitation area space, number of devices, location of the centre and demand.

One of the most significant benefits from the perspective of correctional services staff was the perceived reduction in contraband entering correctional centres:

Other good benefits that we found, while they stopped physical visits and went to e-visits was drugs and contraband coming in, it essentially stopped. That’s where we get a lot of stuff coming in and that, essentially, went to zero during that time. So it made a huge difference there for the security of the prison, definitely a big benefit. (WA Staff 1)

Participants were asked to reflect on the achievement of which they were most proud. Two key achievements, both related to feeling unified as a staff team, were nominated consistently across the jurisdictions. First, that a variety of groups pulled together quickly and effectively, in difficult circumstances, to come up with a speedy solution. This was particularly notable because custodial environments are typically considered slow to change:

Everyone just came together, got it done, we just had workmen come in and just got things up and going. We had iPads set up, and everyone just pulled together and just had a go and before you knew it, detainees are up having visits. It was just wonderful. (ACT Staff 1)

My team were absolutely amazing saying, ‘Everybody in the correctional centres. Everybody came together', which I think was the biggest thing and the most powerful thing, that people actually came together knowing this had to happen. It wasn’t about want, it was about they just knew, they needed it, so everybody came together, and that’s huge. (NSW Staff 2)

Second, staff took satisfaction from being able to connect people in prison with their families during a time of shared hardship:

I’ve got a prisoner here, so an Aboriginal prisoner … where he’s reconnected with his family, his kids, and he’s got his new partner with babies now that’s growing up. He’s building that rapport with the family. (SA Staff 5)

To enable these people to have this contact … I see enormous benefit there and that made me very happy. (QLD Staff 1)

One participant mentioned that video visits had a positive impact on interactions between people in prison and staff, though this contrasts with some data from fathers in prison that indicated poor staff attitudes remain in some sites and hamper the visit experience:

For me, it is the attitude towards the prisoners. We created an environment straightaway that was no longer military style … with the virtuals, we had to soften it right down … you could offend someone very quickly over the technology. Whereas, when you’re in the presence of someone, you have time to turn it around. So, we had to soften things. We had to show the prisoners that we’re not there to victimise them or anything like that, that we value their visit time. (QLD Staff 4)

Overall, staff were incredibly positive about the introduction of video visits and supported their continuation: ‘They are the best thing we’ve done in any gaol environment’ (ACT Staff 3).

The future of video visitation

The immediate outlay for devices and infrastructure, technical support and data to establish video visitation on a large scale was significant, however, some participants noted that there was a potential for savings to be realised now and into the future:

The infrastructure that had to be put in place, and the changes that had to happen. Now, while it is a benefit in the long run, there’s a huge cost to that. And when there’s no money, you put together what you can where you can. And I think, like I said, COVID allowed us to ask for forgiveness sometimes rather than ask for permission, so I think we’ve used all that up, and now we have to professionalise some of this, but with professionalising some of this, it costs money. (NSW Staff 2)

Successfully navigating the concerns about expanding online activities in correctional centres has opened up possibilities for the future both in relation to, and beyond, video visits. Video visitation has paved the way for new developments:

COVID really was positive for the organisation in this sort of way, a number of initiatives that had been perhaps waiting in the wings, waiting for the right time, waiting for the right funding, all the planets to align, COVID did give the opportunity for some of those to come to the fore quite quickly. (QLD Staff 3)

Participants in all six areas anticipated that video visits would continue and be refined and expanded over time.

Discussion

This section reflects on the evolution of video visitation by first considering the inhibitors and enablers of video visits before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, and then examining the ways in which they morphed and were reconstituted in light of the unfolding public health crisis. Finally, the section concludes by considering the implications of this shift for our understanding of correctional services as closed, unyielding institutions.

Prior to the pandemic, with the exception of court appearances, there were strong inhibitors limiting the broad use of AVL technology in Australian correctional centres despite the recognised benefits set out in the literature review (see, eg, Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016; Knight & Van de Steene and 2017). There were examples of digital technology-facilitated work in all jurisdictions, and there were differences in the scale and diversity of these developments. In most jurisdictions, only a small number of AVL programs existed. Across Australia there was broad concern about the resource and security implications of developing or expanding AVL communication for people in correctional centres, reflecting one of the primary purposes of correctional services to maintain a secure environment (Productivity Commission, 2021). This concern was enshrined in legislation in some jurisdictions which prohibited hand-held devices from being taken into correctional centres (see, eg, Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)). AVL contacts for family visits were the exception rather than the norm.

The pre-pandemic enablers of video visits included finding efficiencies and conserving resources (such as court transport costs) within the criminal justice system. Accordingly, video visits were mostly confined to visits with professionals, such as legal aid or sentence planning meetings, and some court appearances. While the uses of video visits were comparatively narrow, they were not small scale. In 2015–2016, for instance, almost two-thirds of court appearances for people in custody in NSW were conducted via the use of digital technology (Smith et al., 2021). Compassion for important family events or discrete opportunities for contained connections (eg, homework clubs) acted as another enabler albeit on a small scale. In what now seems a prescient remark, Jewkes and Reisdorf stated in 2016:

Put simply, cables are hidden and sockets are covered until such time as, in the words of one prison service manager interviewed in April 2015, ‘there is sufficient public appetite to allow prisoners access to Skype and things like tele-health’. Given recent positive changes in political policy and rhetoric, that time may be nearer than could have been anticipated even a year ago. (2016, p. 539)

In Australian corrective services, that time was provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, during the development and dissemination of video visitation, new inhibitors emerged including procurement of devices, staff attitudes towards perceived role extension and poor or inequitable access to networks and devices in some regions. A range of strategies were deployed to navigate these inhibitors, including repurposing existing devices or facilities, reassuring staff about the limited role change via training and instruction resources and piloting devices and systems to identify and trouble-shoot issues. During this period, strong cross-departmental teamwork was an enabler of change. Post video-visitation rollout, the general success of the initiative has been a powerful motivator to continue to offer video visits and to identify new ways to harness digital technology in correctional centres (see, eg, Corrective Services NSW Research and Evaluation Strategy for the Transformation of Prisoner Rehabilitation through Digital Technology 2021). However, reflecting the uneven foundation of digital technology use in correctional centres across Australia, there remains the potential for cost to be an inhibitor to further developments in video visitation specifically or digital technology uplift generally in some jurisdictions.

There is no doubt that the large-scale rollout of video visitation across correctional centres in the six jurisdictions involved in this research was a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This unique public health emergency reconstituted the ways in which risk and security were constructed in the correctional environment. Rather than digital technology presenting a virtual risk by enabling modes of communication that are comparatively difficult to monitor, it was recast as the solution to the risk of unrest within correctional centres. Moreover, the shift to widespread video visitation may have impacted on the culture of corrections. In an historical context, reflecting specifically on the culture of NSW Corrective Services, Feenan stated: ‘Part of the culture appears to be a resistance to trying new things, especially if that means doing something for inmates' (2000, p. 2). While this reluctance was certainly an inhibitor of video visitation in the early stages of the pandemic, the post-pandemic reflections by corrective services staff indicate that witnessing family members connect over video, sometimes for the first time in years, has softened some staff attitudes towards people in prison. Moreover, pulling together to rapidly facilitate that important family connection has engendered pride in the work. The extent to which this represents a long-term or entrenched cultural shift, or is applicable across correctional services and centres, could be fruitfully researched in the future.

In their insightful work on the ethics of digital transformation in corrective services, Knight and Van de Steene (2020, p. 58, emphases in original) state:

Digitising organisations is a process driven by complex mechanisms and is emotive. It is a symbiosis between the internal dynamics of pulling new ideas and technologies into an organisation based on a belief they can help to do things better, such as efficiency and transparency, and the outside world of pushing new technologies into organisations: when partners, customers and governments move to digital ways of communication such as e-banking and e-government. It then becomes difficult not to follow and adapt. However, the thickness and limited porosity of prison walls makes this push-pull dynamic weak.

What has changed since Knight and Van de Steene’s chapter was published in 2020 is the global pandemic. In the organisational literature, crises are a recognised facilitator of organisational change and innovation, although this is not always positive in nature or results (Solheim et al., 2023), nor is transformation necessarily secured. In their work on correctional design, Lulham et al. (2016) highlight the distinction between incremental and transformative innovation. Incremental innovation can be understood as improving on existing practices, while transformative innovation changes both practice and purpose. Certainly, in light of that public health emergency, corrective services have demonstrated uncharacteristic organisational agility. No agreed definition of organisational agility exists, but Walter (2021, p. 379) settles on:

Organizational Agility is a learned, permanently-available dynamic capability that can be performed to a necessary degree in a quick and efficient fashion, and whenever needed in order to increase business performance in a volatile market environment.

This is a dramatic contrast from the traditional conceptualisations of corrective services as slow, unresponsive organisations with tightly held practices. Yet, in regard to video visitation at least, corrective services across Australia have demonstrated Desouza’s (2006) four attributes of agile organisations by: recognising environmental signals (public health restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic), making sense of them (identifying safety risks to people in prison and staff), identifying and drawing on appropriate resources to respond to opportunities in the future (procuring devices, establishing video-visit infrastructure) and pursuing continued learning and development for the benefit of the organisation (review of video visitation and research and development initiatives). The shift to video visits represented a more significant practice change in jurisdictions that did not have strategic plans for digital uplift, or diverse use of digital technologies in place prior to the pandemic. In all jurisdictions, corrective services recognised and quickly responded to an opportunity to use a digital solution to an emerging and unprecedented challenge. What unfolds in the medium to long term will determine whether digital technology can be characterised as an incremental or truly transformational shift.

Conclusion

Corrective services’ demonstrated ability to shift to operational practices on a wide scale that were unthinkable a decade ago offers renewed optimism for other change projects. There are both specific and general implications arising from the unanticipated wide implementation of video visitation. Specifically, people in prison have expanded access to family and friends. Visitors have greater flexibility and can exercise some choice about how to best maintain vital contact during imprisonment. Correctional centres in most Australian jurisdictions now have access to both digital architecture and devices that can be used for different purposes, including digital access to a range of services. Key services that support rehabilitation, health, education, community re-entry and more can potentially be accessed more readily while increasing the autonomy of people in prison.

Generally, video visitation provides a case study example for advocates working towards other change projects. This example demonstrates that correctional environments can be virtually opened up while security concerns are effectively managed. Bringing together teams from different areas (eg, policy, operations and security) and piloting projects have proven to be effective ways to identify and mitigate security and other concerns. Organisational cultural shifts can be rapid, unite staff, promote work satisfaction and achieve positive outcomes for corrective services, people in prison and communities.

The uncharacteristic organisational agility set out above leaves us with at least three outstanding questions which warrant future research as practices bed down: Is video visitation most accurately understood as a significant change in family contact options or the beginning of a whole-of-sector transformation? Can organisational agility keep momentum in the absence of crisis? And can organisational agility be harnessed to mobilise transformation to other aspects of corrective services principles and practices? It is the latter question, in conjunction with consideration of the inhibitors and enablers of change mapped out here, which may provide transformation projects some cause for optimism.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation and assistance of the Australian Capital Territory Corrective Services, Corrective Services New South Wales, Queensland Corrective Services, South Australia Department for Correctional Services, Corrections Victoria, Department of Justice and the Government of Western Australia in this research. We extend our appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable comments.

The opinions, comments and/or analysis expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ACT (or other) correctional services and cannot be taken in any way as expressions of government policy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by a Criminology Research Grant awarded by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Notes

1 Application reference numbers provided for the lead Human Research Ethics Committees.

2 Northern Territory did not use video visitation and was therefore not eligible to participate.

3 Tasmania Prison Service agreed to participate but did not provide data within the project data collection cycle.