A Digital Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the

Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Populations in Adopting

and Accessing Technology

Johannes A. Badejo, Joyram Chakraborty and Mia Forbes

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

Keywords: Digital Inclusion, Technology Barriers, Recidivism, Formerly Incarcerated Population, Digital Training.

Abstract: Digital inclusion and technological barriers are two phenomena that directly impact the lives of the formerly

incarcerated population (FIP). Adequate access means reducing the high recidivism rates already being

handled through the digitization of prison education. The digitization programs offer digital skills and

technical skills that can be a handful in helping the ex-offenders secure employment. On the other hand,

inadequate access to digital literacy is common among ex-offenders, as most prisons are yet to offer digital

education entirely. Championed with the desire to improve the lives of the FIP, this study interviews 71

participants to understand the barriers they face in adapting and accessing technology. The findings indicate

that the FIP benefiting from digital inclusion has the upper hand in securing employment and reintegrating

well over those hindered by technological barriers. Limited internet connectivity, inadequate financial

resources to afford technology devices, limited availability of internet access points (APs), and legal

restrictions are majorly reported by the 71 participants. Going by the need to improve the FIP experience, this

study found that the population must undergo digital training as part of the re-entry programs.

1 INTRODUCTION

Locked in and locked out is Reisdorf and DeCook's

(2022) explanation of the challenges facing Formerly

Incarcerated Populations (FIP) regarding technology

adoption and access. Study evidence reveals a

disproportionate impact of digital inequalities among

the vulnerable and marginalized, particularly the FIP,

who grapple with several vulnerabilities (Reisdorf &

DeCook, 2022), including age, income inequalities,

inadequate education access, gender marginalization,

or even disability. Annually, 600,000 individuals are

released from state and federal prisons, while 9

million individuals cycle through local jails (ASPE,

n.d.).

Decomposing the statistics reveals that over two-

thirds of prisoners are re-arrested within three years

after release (ASPE, n.d.), depicting a repeat of

behaviors among FIPs. Further, the recidivism

statistics point out significant flaws in prisoner-

society-integration programs. Currently, correction

education is praised for its effectiveness in combating

recidivism.

Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (n.d.)

demands that all incarcerated individuals utilize

literacy programs, not going for less than 240 hours,

running different programs, including vocational and

occupational training, parenting, and wellness.

However, inadequate digital rehabilitation programs

focus on tackling the digital inequalities facing

inmates beyond prison. As a result, FIPs face multiple

challenges in navigating the digital society post-

incarceration. Either, FIPs lack access to ICTs and the

internet while in prison, depriving them of the

essential skills required for survival in contemporary

society (Reisdorf & DeCook, 2022).

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The technology gap punishes formerly incarcerated

persons as they are primarily out of touch with

modern tech while incarcerated due to security

reasons, putting them in a disadvantageous position.

The incarcerated persons have limited or no access to

computers and the Internet. The limitation prevails

until these individuals are released. Without the initial

464

Badejo, J., Chakraborty, J. and Forbes, M.

A Digital Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Populations in Adopting and Accessing Technology.

DOI: 10.5220/0012360800003660

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

In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2024) - Volume 1: GRAPP, HUCAPP

and IVAPP, pages 464-470

ISBN: 978-989-758-679-8; ISSN: 2184-4321

digital inclusion while in prison, it becomes a gap for

the FIP to survive or adapt to their communities.

According to Järveläinen and Rantanen (2021), FIPs

possess weak digital skills or digital IDs, while the

older or those incarcerated for more prolonged

periods lack motivation to pursue digital skilling,

posing a significant re-entry challenge. Additionally,

digital inequalities pose weak lob prospects due to

digital and social exclusion (Reisdorf & Rikard,

2018).

3 STUDY OBJECTIVES

3.1 General Objectives

To investigate the challenges facing formerly

incarcerated populations in adopting and accessing

technology.

3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To investigate the extent of digital inclusion for

formerly incarcerated populations.

2. To investigate barriers to digital adoption in

prisons affecting formerly incarcerated populations

post-incarceration.

3. To examine the impact of digital exclusion and

technological barriers on the re-

integration of formerly incarcerated populations into

society.

4 THE STUDY SIGNIFICANCE

This study posits immense significance to several

entities and the FIPs. Firstly, digital technology forms

a fundamental aspect of modern living, virtually

impacting all aspects of life, including

communications, information access, and

employability, among other vital facets. Through

investigating the challenges inhibiting digitization

among FIPs, the research is a clarion call for action

among various stakeholders on the plight of FIPs

post-incarceration.

The evidence in the current research addresses

significant issues among FIPs, vulnerable and

marginalized face. Through advising action, the study

recommendation offers a recipe for enhancing social

equity and broader inclusion. Additionally,

successfully implementing the study report and

recommendations helps tackle the high recidivism

rates and improve positive engagement and

production among FIPs. Also, the study findings are

useful for community organizations supporting FIPs

to tailor their programs and services to address the

critical issue of digital exclusion for their clients.

Similarly, the results of this study offer a framework

for formulating modern correctional education, re-

entry programs, and rehabilitation approaches that

promote digital inclusion for inmates beyond prisons,

eliminating the technological divide that FIPs face.

5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the magnitude of digital exclusion

among FIPs?

2. What are the critical barriers to digital inclusion

among FIPs?

3. Is there a significant association between digital

inclusion barriers and FIPs' re-entry behavior?

6 LITERATURE REVIEW

Modern everyday life, comprising economic, social,

personal, and health, is deeply embedded in digital

skills and technologies. Today, digital technologies

are viewed as a mechanism for enhancing access,

quality, and safety of everyday living, boosting the

efficiency of social healthcare, among other critical

public services.

According to Järveläinen and Rantanen (2021),

improving inmates' digitization considerably elevates

their social skills, self-esteem, rehabilitation, and

society re-integration. Additionally, Ogbonnaya-

Ogburu et al. (2019) highlighted that digitization

helps inmates enhance their digital literacy post-

imprisonment, increasing their employability and re-

entry. However, Järveläinen and Rantanen (2021)

annotated that FIPs face slow digitization in prison,

failing to rehabilitate them for the modern digital

society. Prison security employees often objected to

adopting prison technology and digital development

(Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021).

According to Reisdorf and Rikard (2018), existing

prisoner rehabilitation frameworks in correctional

education over-target offline aspects, disregarding the

digital re-entry realms. Annotatively, digital

inaccessibility exacerbates the issue of digital

exclusion among FIPs, creating a digital divide

during re-entry (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021).

Significant barriers to digital inclusion include

inaccessibility, lack of skills, and poor attitudes.

According to Järveläinen and Rantanen (2021), the

A Digital Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Populations in Adopting and

Accessing Technology

465

prison context also raises the issue of trust. Distrust

between prison security employees and inmates

inhibits digital prison adoption (Järveläinen &

Rantanen, 2021).

The impact of the technological divide and digital

exclusion is gross for FIPs. According to (Khaikin,

2023), FIPs' experience of the technological divide is

a significant barrier to re-entry into society, who feel

left behind as they grapple with re-integration.

Additionally, FIPs who spend prolonged periods in

prison report challenges accessing information or lag

regarding basic ICT skills needed for modern

livelihoods. Reisdorf and DeCook (2022) highlighted

that the digital divide is a distinctive pain of current

imprisonment for FIPs who virtually feel excluded

from active citizens. Moreover, digital exclusion

during incarceration restricts FIPs from pursuing

online job listings and remote work opportunities,

limiting FIPs' chances of securing stable employment

opportunities and complicating their economic re-

integration. Similar negative influences of digital

exclusion comprise exclusion from online banking

and financial handling applications (Ozili, 2018),

thwarting FIPs' ability to apply modern bill

management systems and credit building.

Psychologically, digital exclusion significantly

raises FIPs' likelihood of suffering feelings of

isolation and stigma (Seaward et al., 2023),

exacerbating feelings of being left behind. These

negative impacts of digital exclusion increase

recidivism risks (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021) due

to a lack of financial independence and support

services, meditating return to criminal activities.

7 METHODOLOGIES

7.1 Research Design

The present study investigated FIPs' challenges in

adopting and accessing technology from a

quantitative research instrument due to statistical

arithmetical or numerical data need. Essentially, the

study's design was interested in the facts, that is, the

actual level of the challenges of the FIPs, analysing

the magnitude of the digital inclusion issues and

quantifying the impacts of identified challenges. The

study employed a cross-sectional design to ascertain

and gather evidence regarding FIPs' digital exclusion

claims. An essential assumption under the current

design was that the gathered facts from the FIPs

represented not only the views and experiences of the

FIPs but also reflected the overall situation of the

phenomena. However, this study appreciated that the

diversity of the prison is continually changing and

that FIPs are gradually reconstructing their

perspectives regarding the challenges facing these

populations post-incarceration.

The quantitative cross-sectional study design

considered a descriptive approach to report the facts.

Annotatively, the study investigated the technological

barriers and digital inclusion aspects hindering the

adoption and access of technology among FIPs

conscious of the issue's significance among the

formerly incarcerated populations. In the climax, the

study intended to infer the hypothesis, making

statistically valid conclusions regarding the claims.

7.2 Study Hypothesis

7.2.1 Null Hypothesis (H

)

There is no significant association between FIPs'

digital inclusion barriers and re-entry behavior.

7.2.2 Alternative Hypothesis (H

)

A significant association exists between FIPs' digital

inclusion barriers and re-entry behavior.

7.3 Population

Halcomb and Peters (2016) state that research is only

possible with participants. To gather relevant data for

analysis, the study population comprised formerly

incarcerated individuals in America. These included

individuals who are on probation, cleared/ released.

The study population comprised all populations,

including persons of colour and marginalized

individuals.

The eligibility criteria included both men and

women US citizens who have completed their prison

terms and were re-integrating into society. The

exclusion criteria considered inmates or individuals

currently serving their terms following recidivism.

Additionally, juvenile participants were excluded

from the study since the juvenile might not

experience the challenges of digital inclusion issues

that adult FIPs undergo.

7.4 Sampling Strategy and Sample

The researcher employed a random non-probabilistic

convenience sampling technique to choose study

participants. The sampling strategy was utilized in the

present study because the convenience sampling

method allowed the researcher to gather participants

based on FIPs' accessibility and willingness to

HUCAPP 2024 - 8th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

466

participate in the survey. Also, convenience sampling

is helpful for initial exploratory research (Edgar &

Manz, 2017). The researcher used an online sample

size calculator, arriving at a sample size of 77 FIPs

who met the study eligibility criteria.

7.5 Data Collection

For the purpose of this study, the researcher employed

a study tool (questionnaire) to conduct the survey.

The investigator obtained information on eligible

participants by contacting each FIP that he knew and

also got some contact through some individuals who

know some of them. Due to the digital inequalities

facing the sampled participants, the researcher had to

use different means to serve them the survey: going

to some residents with the paper survey and sending

it electronically. This made it easy to trace the

participants to complete the survey.

The participants, who could read and write, filled

out the study instrument prompts for each

questionnaire item. The participant resides in

different geographical area (cities) around the United

States namely, Maryland (Essex, Towson, Baltimore,

Edgewood, Bowie, Glen Burnie), Virginia

(Alenxandra and Richmond), District of Columbia,

Delaware (Dover and Wilmington), Texas

(Kingsville, Houston, and Corpus Christi), Georgia

(Atlanta, Augusta, Macon and Savannah).

7.6 Data Analysis

The gathered data from the participants were

structurally filled into Ms. Excel file for analysis. The

raw data was pre-processed in Excel and imported to

SPSS version 27.0 software for statistical analysis.

Firstly, the analysis considered the participants'

demographic characteristics, revealing various

frequencies as the study sample depicted. Secondly,

the investigation is conducted using descriptive

statistics or relevant data features. Regarding the

study hypothesis, the research undertook a cross-tab

analysis reporting the Pearson Chi-Square p-value to

evaluate the significance of the null claim.

8 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

8.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics

The study sample comprised 71 formerly incarcerated

populations. The study instrument was distributed to

the participants who showed a response rate of 100%

(n = 71). The sociodemographic analysis results were

demonstrated in Table 1 below.

The gender composition of the study participants

comprised more males, 57.7% (n=41) than females,

42.3% (n=30). The age group descriptives revealed

that most of the FIPs included in the study included

those aged between 31 – 45, comprising 47.9%

(n=34). Those aged between 18 – 30 comprised

35.2% (n=25), while 46 – 50 and 50> age groups were

in equal proportions of 8.5% (n = 6) per age group.

Interestingly, most of the study FIP participants were

African Americans, who comprised 56.3% (n = 40).

The Hispanic participants comprised 29.6% (n = 21),

and the least participant sample was drawn from the

Whites 14.1% (n = 10).

The study also reported that the education levels

of the participants who attended primary, secondary,

and vocational training in equal proportions of 28.2%

(n = 20) for each educational level. Minority 15.5%

(n = 11) of the FIP study participants attended

attained tertiary education. The socio-demographic

features also reported the durations of participants’

incarceration. The study found that 45.1% (n = 32)

were incarcerated for 2 – 5 years, while 23.9% (n =

17) were incarcerated for 6 – 10 years. On the other

hand, 22.5% (n = 16) faced.

Most respondents revealed low digital inclusion

among 67.6% (n = 48) FIPs. On the other hand,

32.4% (n = 23) reported a moderate level of inclusion,

while none depicted high levels of digital inclusion,

revealing high levels of digital exclusion among

formerly incarcerated populations. Regarding the

barriers FIPs face to technological access and

adoption, 93% (n = 66) of FIPs overwhelmingly

reported numerous barriers to digital adoption. On the

contrary, no FIP reported any barriers to digital

adoption.

The analysis also considered the impacts of digital

inclusion FIPs. The descriptives revealed that 69%

(n=49) of the FIPs faced rearresting challenges, while

71.8% (n = 51) had problems receiving a job offer.

Additionally, 76.1 (n = 54) expressed challenges

accessing vital digitized services, with a similar

proportion experiencing mental health issues due to

feelings of being left behind by the rest of the

Population.

A Digital Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Populations in Adopting and

Accessing Technology

467

Table 1: Socio-Demographic Frequency Statistics.

Variable Frequency Percent

(%)

Gender

Male 41 57.7

Female 30 42.3

Participants’ Age

18 - 30 25 35.2

31 - 45 34 47.9

–

50 6 8.5

50> 6 8.5

Race

White/Caucasian 10 14.1

Black/African

American

40 56.3

His

anic/Latino 21 29.6

Educational Level

Primar

20 28.2

Secondar

20 28.2

Vocational 20 28.2

Tertiar

11 15.5

Duration of

Incarceration

Less than 1 Yea

16 22.5

–

5 32 45.1

–

10 17 23.9

More than 10 6 8.5

8.2 Descriptive Statistics

Section B of the study instrument investigated the

extent of digital inclusion, reporting statistics on the

magnitude of the challenges facing FIPs relating to

technological inclusion. The scale comprised 1 =

Never to 4 = always scale to examine the extent of

digital inclusion. The third section investigated the

barriers to digital adoption among FIPs employing a

5-Likert Scale (1 = strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly

Agree).

On the other hand, section four was interested in

the impacts of digital inclusion challenges on FIP re-

integration. The respondents revealed their

experiences with Yes or No responses, showing how

digital inclusion barriers impact them. The

descriptive statistics results are shown in Table 2.

Most respondents revealed low digital inclusion

among 67.6% (n = 48) FIPs. On the other hand,

32.4% (n = 23) reported a moderate level of inclusion,

while none depicted high levels of digital inclusion,

revealing high levels of digital exclusion among

formerly incarcerated populations. Regarding the

barriers FIPs face to technological access and

adoption, 93% (n = 66) of FIPs overwhelmingly

reported numerous barriers to digital adoption. On the

contrary, no FIP reported any barriers to digital

adoption.

The analysis also considered the impacts of digital

inclusion FIPs. The descriptives revealed that 69%

(n=49) of the FIPs faced rearresting challenges, while

71.8% (n = 51) had problems receiving a job offer.

Additionally, 76.1 (n = 54) expressed challenges

accessing vital digitized services, with a similar

proportion experiencing mental health issues due to

feelings of being left behind by the rest of the

Population.

Table 2: Frequencies for the extent of Digital Inclusion and

Barriers to adoption among FIPs.

Descriptives Frequency Percent (%)

Digital Inclusion

Low Inclusion 48 67.6

Moderate Inclusion 23 32.4

High Inclusion 0 0.0

Digital Adoption

Barriers

Low Barriers 0 0.0

Intermediate

Barriers

5 7.0

High Barriers 66 93.0

Impacts of Digital

Exclusion

D1. Rearrests

Yes 49 69.0

No 22 31.0

D2. Challenges in

Job Searching

Yes 51 71.8

No 20 28.2

D3. Difficulty In

Accessing Services

Yes 54 76.1

No 17 23.9

D4. Feelings of

Anxiety and

ression

Yes 54 76.1

No 17 23.9

8.3 Association Between Digital

Barriers and Reintegration

Behaviour

The analysis conducted a chi-square association test

to investigate the relationship between digital

inclusion barriers and FIPs’ re-integration

behaviours.

Chi-square is computed using:

HUCAPP 2024 - 8th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

468

𝑋



∑













, where

∑ = 𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛

O = Observation frequencies and

E = Expected frequencies

The re-integration behaviors considered the reported

impacts of the low digital inclusion among FIPs. The

chi-square test is computed and reported in Table 3

using SPSS software.

Table 3 displayed a Pearson Chi-Square p-value

of 0.387, greater than the significance level of 0.05.

The Chi-square result, therefore, rejected the null

hypothesis, supporting the null hypothesis that there

was a significant association between technological

barriers and re-integration behaviors among FIPs.

Table 3: Chi-Square Tests.

Value df Assymp Sig

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

Likelihood Ratio

Linear-by-Linear

Association

N of Valid Cases

19.072

20.991

.070

.000

.280

.792

a. 24 cells (85.7%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is .14.

9 DISCUSSIONS

The participant composition comprised more males

than females. This trend aligns with the evidence that

historically, male incarceration rates have been higher

than female incarcerations in America (Spjeldnes et

al., 2014). Similarly, the participants comprised more

Blacks, 56.5%, than Hispanics and Whites.

According to the National Institute of Justice (n.d.),

incarceration rates vary among races. These

differences explain the witnessed separations in the

study participant population.

The analysis found low digital inclusion rates

among FIPs regarding descriptive statistics.

According to Zivanai and Mahlangu (2022), the FIPs

experience an increasing digital divide resulting from

the continued digital evolutions of society. According

to the study, FIPs undergo digital inequalities,

including digital barriers such as little access to ICT,

exacerbating the distinctive pain of modern

imprisonment. Similarly, Järveläinen and Rantanen

(2021) revealed a high prevalence of digital exclusion

among FIPs, predisposing the individuals to multiple

societal inequalities.

Concerning the barriers to digital access and

adoption, the research identified multiple barriers to

digital adoption. 93% of the study respondents

overwhelmingly reported experiencing various

challenges in accessing and adopting technology.

Zivanai and Mahlangu (2022) consistently

highlighted that FIPs have poor access to

technologies. The current study established that a

high frequency of FIPs faced inadequate financial

resources to stay up to date with the evolving

technologies. Annotatively, FIPs mainly comprise

individuals facing different vulnerabilities, including

ethnic minorities and poor income backgrounds

(Reisdorf & DeCook, 2022). Financial constraints

limit FIPs' ability to acquire modern digital

equipment or seek digital training, which might not

comprise their priority needs—another significant

barrier is the lack of digital support for adoption.

According to Purcell (2023), prisons are slow to adopt

digital technologies for multiple reasons, including

security concerns and inadequate gadgets.

Correctional education during incarceration does not

equip detained individuals with digital skills to ease

their reintegration. Similarly, other FIPs, including

those on parole, are restricted from accessing digital

gadgets.

The impacts of the low access and slow adoption

are gross among FIPs, contributing to immense

challenges regarding reintegration into society.

Firstly, the study highlighted that digital exclusion

impacts recidivism rates. The high reported

recidivism frequencies are attributed to the digital gap

that FIPs experience, pushing them to crimes leading

to re-arrest (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021).

Additionally, the study reported that formerly

incarcerated have problems accessing vital digital

services, including banking, telemedicine services,

and online training. Their incompetence to utilize the

internet and digital technologies limits their scope of

potential employers, increasing unemployment rates

among FIPs (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021).

From Table 3 above, the Person Chi-squre X

19.072, degree of freedom df = 18 and Asymptotic

sig. value p = 0.000. Therefore, the Null hypothesis

is rejected and we accept the alternative hypothesis.

A Digital Inclusion and Technological Barriers: Investigating the Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Populations in Adopting and

Accessing Technology

469

10 RECOMMENDATIONS AND

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FIPs face multiple barriers to

digital inclusion hindering technological access and

adoption. However, the study found an insignificant

association between the barriers to inclusion and the

challenges FIPs face at integration. However, the

analysis annotated that the finding might result from

the study limitation of small sample size.

Nonetheless, the study recommended digital

education inside and outside prisons for FIPs. The

individuals should be allowed to attend a compulsory

digital training services because education delivery

can be cumbersome without the technology (Badejo

& Chakraborty, 2022), courtesy of the reentry

programs once their release date is close to a year.

Also, stakeholders should increase access to

technology devices and ensure affordability for

formerly incarcerated individuals by collaborating

with government agencies, community organizations,

and technology companies.

Additional recommendations include promoting

partnerships between educational institutions and

correctional facilities to provide digital skills training

to incarcerated individuals.

REFERENCES

ASPE. (n.d.). Incarceration & reentry. ASPE. Retrieved

October 14, 2023, from https://aspe.hhs.gov/ topics

/human-services/ incarceration-reentry-0

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/s42454-022-

00044-8

Edgar, T. W., & Manz, D. O. (2017). Exploratory Study:

Convenience Sampling. In Research Methods for Cyber

Security. https://www.science direct.com/ topics/

computer-science/ convenience-sampling

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Custody and Care:

Education Programs. Retrieved October 14, 2023, from

https://www.bop.gov/inmates/ custody_ and_care/

education.jsp

Halcomb, E., & Peters, K. (2016). Research would not be

possible without participants: Maintaining appropriate

relationships with participants requires a degree of

reflexivity from the researcher. Nurse Researcher,

24(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.24.1.6.s2

Järveläinen, E., & Rantanen, T. (2021). Incarcerated

people’s challenges for digital inclusion in Finnish

prisons. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 22(2), 240–

259. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578 983X.2020.1819092

Khaikin, V. (2023, February 21). Re-entry barriers for

formerly incarcerated individuals in a digitally world.

MHS Assessments. https://mhs.com/re-entry-barriers-

for-formerly-incarcerated-individuals -in-a-digitally-

driven-world/

National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Figure 2. U. S.

Incarceration rates by race and sex. National Institute of

Justice. Retrieved October 16, 2023, from

https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/19511

Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, I. F., Toyama, K., & Dillahunt, T. R.

(2019). Towards an effective digital literacy

intervention to assist returning citizens with job search.

Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300315

Ozili, P. K. (2018). Impact of digital finance on financial

inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4),

329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .bir.2017.12.003

Purcell, T. (2023, April 26). Why are prisons slow to adopt

new digital technologies? The challenges and solutions-

justice trends magazine. https://justice-

trends.press/why-are-prisons-slow-to-adopt-new-

digital-technologies-the-challenges-and-solutions/

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

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital

rehabilitation: A model of reentry into the digital age.

American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1273–1290.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00027 64218773817

Seaward, H., Dieffenbacher, S., Gaab, J., Graf, M., Elger,

B., & Wangmo, T. (2023). Stigma management during

reintegration of older incarcerated adults with mental

health issues: A qualitative analysis. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 89,

101905.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2023. 101905

Spjeldnes, S., Jung, H., & Yamatani, H. (2014). Gender

differences in jail populations: Factors to consider in

reentry strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,

53(2), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.

868387

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.

2022.2116809

HUCAPP 2024 - 8th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

470