Introduction: From Digital Gap to Digital Necessity
Over the past three decades, digitalisation has transformed nearly every aspect of society. Public services, communication, education and administrative processes have become increasingly digital by default. Correctional systems, however, have historically adapted more slowly to this transformation.
The COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point. As in-person services were disrupted, prisons rapidly implemented video visits, online education, telehealth services and remote communication. What began as crisis-driven adaptation has since evolved into a more structural shift: digitalisation is no longer an innovation in corrections, but an emerging institutional necessity.
This raises a fundamental question for correctional systems worldwide: how can digital technologies be integrated in ways that support rehabilitation, safeguard rights and maintain institutional security?
Finland’s Smart Prison model (2018–2023) offers one example of how this question has been approached in practice.
From Technology to Digital Rehabilitation
Digitalisation in prisons is often discussed in technical terms — devices, networks or software systems. However, a more useful conceptual framework is that of digital rehabilitation.
Digital rehabilitation refers to the use of digital technologies to support crime-free reintegration into society. It includes not only access to information and services, but also the development of skills, autonomy and agency required for participation in contemporary digital societies (Knight & Van De Steene, 2017; UNICRI, 2024).
Closely related is the concept of the smart prison, defined as the systematic integration of digital technologies into prison governance, daily routines and service delivery. Importantly, this integration can be aligned with the Nordic normalisation principle, according to which imprisonment restricts liberty but should not unnecessarily limit access to societal conditions such as communication, education or services (Smith, 2012).
Despite rapid technological development, empirical research on the long-term rehabilitative and rights-related impacts of prison digitalisation remains relatively limited, with most studies emerging only since the 2010s.
The Finnish Smart Prison Model
Between 2021 and 2023, Finland implemented three Smart Prisons based on a new model. The core features of the model include:
- Personal in-cell digital devices (laptops)
- A secure digital platform for communication and services
- Restricted but structured internet access
- Video and email communication
- Access to rehabilitative services, education, legal tools and administrative services
These elements were not introduced as isolated tools, but as an integrated system embedded in daily prison life.
Internationally, the Finnish model has been highlighted as a potential best-practice example of how digitalisation can be aligned with rehabilitation and human rights within a secure institutional framework (UNICRI, 2024).
Evidence Base: A Multi-Level Research Approach
The Finnish experience has been examined through a combination of:
- Institutional surveys conducted by the Prison and Probation Service (2022–2025)
- Academic research (particularly from Laurea University of Applied Sciences)
- International comparative analysis (UNICRI, 2024)
This multi-level approach allows for triangulation across administrative, academic and international perspectives.
Prior to Smart Prison implementation, research already indicated that digital inclusion in prisons depends less on infrastructure alone and more on psychological factors such as self-efficacy and trust (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021; Rantanen et al., 2022). This finding highlights that digitalisation is not merely a technical intervention, but also a behavioural and social one.
Key Findings: Adoption and Everyday Integration
Across national surveys (2022–2024), the system demonstrated high levels of adoption and acceptance:
- 74–88 % of prisoners reported daily use
- 95–100% found the system easy to use
- Approximately 90–96 % supported nationwide expansion
These findings suggest that digital systems can become deeply integrated into daily prison routines when usability is high and access is continuous.
Rather than functioning as an optional add-on, the system appears to operate as a central infrastructure for communication, administration and service access. (Puolakka, 2022; Puolakka & Suomela, 2023; Puolakka, 2024).
Rehabilitative and Social Effects
A majority of users reported that digital services supported:
- Sentence planning
- Access to education and documentation
- Everyday self-management
- Preparation for release
In addition, digital communication tools — particularly video calls — strengthened contact with family and children. This is significant, as the maintenance of social ties is associated with desistance and successful reintegration (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016).
Importantly, digitalisation did not replace face-to-face interaction but complemented it (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2023). This reflects a broader principle in digital rehabilitation: technology should support, not substitute, human relationships.
Rights Dimension: Expanding Access Within Boundaries
The findings also indicate a strong rights dimension.
Digital systems improved access to:
- Information and news
- Legal communication
- Public services and administrative processes
These developments are consistent with the normalisation principle, as they enable prisoners to engage with the same types of services that are central to everyday life outside prison. (Puolakka & Suomela, 2023).
At the same time, the system operates within institutional constraints. Internet access remains restricted, and digital autonomy is structured rather than absolute. In this sense, digitalisation expands access within controlled boundaries rather than fully replicating open societal conditions.
Organisational Effects and Institutional Change
Digitalisation also affects the organisation of prison work.
Reported benefits include:
- Faster communication between prisoners and staff
- More efficient administrative processes
- Improved coordination and information flow
At the same time, challenges were identified:
- Increased message traffic
- Greater demand on staff responsiveness
- Dependence on staffing levels and institutional practices. (Puolakka, 2022).
These findings highlight that digital systems do not operate independently of human infrastructure. Their effectiveness depends on organisational capacity, staff training and institutional culture.
Cost and Governance Considerations
This Finnish Smart Prison model has been estimated to cost approximately 1,000 € per prisoner per year, which equals approximately 2.74 € per prisoner per day. This figure is based on an assessment of the annual cost of implementing the Smart Prison system in a unit with approximately 100 prisoners and around 100 staff members, which reflects the size of the first Smart Prison in Finland (Hämeenlinna).
In correctional budget terms, this represents a relatively modest investment. An external consultancy has suggested that such systems may generate long-term returns through improved efficiency and reduced recidivism risk, although these projections depend on sustained implementation.
However, digitalisation in prisons is not primarily a financial or technical issue — it is a governance question.
Policy choices often involve trade-offs between short-term budget constraints and long-term social outcomes; control-oriented and autonomy-oriented approaches; efficiency and human-centred rehabilitation.
For example, personal in-cell devices may enhance autonomy and continuity of access, while shared or restricted systems may reinforce institutional control. These choices reflect underlying governance rationalities rather than purely technical considerations.
Structured Digital Autonomy: A Key Insight
One of the central insights from the Finnish experience is that digitalisation in prisons does not necessarily lead to unrestricted autonomy. Instead, it enables what can be described as structured or guided digital autonomy.
In this model:
- Access is expanded
- Use is embedded in daily routines
- Content is curated and regulated
- Security constraints remain in place
This approach allows digital systems to support rehabilitation and rights while maintaining institutional control.
International Convergence
The Finnish model aligns with emerging international evidence on structured digital rehabilitation.
International studies consistently indicate that structured digital access in prisons:
- Is associated with increased autonomy, wellbeing and self-efficacy (Tilt, 2024)
- Supports rehabilitation and desistance when embedded in daily routines (UNICRI, 2024)
- Strengthens normalisation and facilitates smoother reintegration (Smith, 2012)
- Enhances educational participation and the maintenance of social ties (Jewkes & Reisdorf, 2016)
- Has been associated with lower reoffending rates in specific programmatic contexts (McDougall, Pearson, Torgerson & Garcia-Reyes, 2017).
Conclusion: A Question of Penal Philosophy
The Finnish Smart Prison initiative was not conceived as a technology project, but as a broader reform of prison practice. Digitalisation was embedded into rehabilitation, rights and everyday institutional routines.
Its long-term significance lies not only in the technologies used, but in the governance choices it represents.
Ultimately, prison digitalisation reflects a deeper question at the heart of penal policy:
How should modern correctional systems balance control and capability?
As societies become increasingly digital, this question is likely to become more central — not only in Finland, but across correctional systems globally.
Pia Puolakka is an Independent Forensic Psychologist & Corrections Consultant with MindTech, Finland. The surveys presented here were conducted during her employment with the Prison and Probation Service of Finland and while working there as a Project Manager for the Smart Prison project. She is currently presenting the findings in an independent capacity and they do not represent the agency.
References
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.
Järveläinen, E., & Rantanen, T. (2021). Incarcerated people’s challenges for digital inclusion in Finnish prisons. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 21(2), 150–167.
Knight, V., & Van De Steene, S. (2017). The capacity and capability of digital innovation in prisons: Towards smart prisons. Advancing Corrections, 3, 90–103.
McDougall, C., Pearson, D. A. S., Torgerson, D. J., & Garcia-Reyes, M. (2017). The effect of digital technology on prisoner behavior and reoffending. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(4), 455–482.
Puolakka, P. (2022). Implementing a smart prison in Finland. Advancing Corrections, 14, 2–9.
Puolakka, P. (2024). Incarcerated women benefit more from digital rehabilitation than men. Advancing Corrections Journal, 18, 145–158.
Puolakka, P., & Suomela, M. (2023). Digitalization supports human rights in Finnish prisons. Advancing Corrections, 16, 50–61.
Rantanen, T., Järveläinen, E., & Leppälahti, T. (2022). Prisoners as users of digital health care and social welfare services. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5528.
Smith, P. S. (2012). Imprisonment and internet access. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 30(4), 454–482.
Tilt, S. (2024). Exploring prisoners’ use of personal computers (Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University). Nottingham Trent University IRep. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/51348/.
UNICRI. (2024). Digital rehabilitation in prisons. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Author Info:
Pia Puolakka
MindTech (CEO and Founder)
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: pia.puolakka@mindtechfin.com
