ACJ 20th Anniversary Edition: Expert Insights on Transforming Correctional Practice
______________________________________________________________________________
This 20th Anniversary Edition of our Advancing Corrections Journal (ACJ) brings together 28 expert commentaries addressing some of the most pressing issues facing corrections today. The message is clear: we cannot continue doing what we have always done.
Public opinion research confirms that citizens expect correctional systems to help justice involved individuals turn their lives around. This expectation supports both the mandate and the opportunity to pursue evidence-informed reform.
Our hope is that this Edition will serve as an essential reference for anyone committed to improving correctional practice. Whether you work in institutions, community supervision, policy development, or research, these commentaries offer concrete direction for meaningful change.
We are releasing this special Edition of ACJ as Open Access so that all of our corrections colleagues around the world can have access. We invite you to engage with this work. Read it. Share it with your teams. Let it inform your decisions. Most importantly, let us know what resonates with your experience.
Please consider joining ICPA in order to get access to future Editions of ACJ.
What You Will Find Inside:
In this special 20th Anniversary Edition foreword, Dr. Frank J. Porporino reflects on a decade of the Advancing Corrections Journal's mission to ground correctional practice in evidence rather than ideology. The edition brings together leading scholars who challenge us to reimagine prisons not merely as punitive institutions, but as environments designed to support human dignity, staff well-being, and genuine rehabilitation. Contributors explore critical issues ranging from trauma-informed care and the needs of vulnerable populations to the ethical integration of digital technologies and the importance of prison design, including soundscapes and greenspaces. The foreword emphasizes that correctional work must extend beyond risk reduction to embrace a well-being paradigm that supports reintegration, belonging, and hope. Dr. Porporino concludes with encouraging evidence that public support for rehabilitation remains strong, providing a foundation for continued reform. Special thanks are extended to Co-Editors Rosemary Ricciardelli, Danielle S. Rudes, and Kevin Wright for their invaluable contributions to this anniversary edition.
Guest editors Rosemary Ricciardelli, Danielle S. Rudes, and Kevin Wright have curated a collection of evidence-informed articles that address real-world challenges in correctional services worldwide. The issue explores diverse aspects of corrections, from institutional practices to community supervision, while highlighting promising approaches for staff, incarcerated individuals, and their families. Contributors offer practical insights grounded in research that can support positive change in fiscally constrained environments facing universal recruitment and retention challenges. Each article provides actionable takeaways intended to spark conversation and inspire humane, rehabilitative outcomes. The collection represents a meaningful effort to make scholarly work accessible and applicable to those working on the front lines of correctional services.
Article 1: Conceptualising the Use of Authority in Prisons
Ben Crewe, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, presents a conceptual framework for understanding authority in prisons, organized around two axes: heavy-light and absent-present. Crewe examines how authority deployment affects prison quality and legitimacy, expanding the definition of respect in correctional contexts and highlighting the central role of staff professionalism in shaping institutional outcomes.
Article 2: Uncomfortable Honesty and Some Home Truths: Where to Go Now for Prison Rehabilitation?
Andrew Day, University of Melbourne, Swinburne University of Technology, Flinders University, University of Waikato, addresses recent findings that contemporary prisons are poorly equipped for rehabilitation. He examines the absence of conditions necessary for meaningful rehabilitative experiences and the criminogenic impacts of prison conditions, cultures, and regimes. The article advocates for celebrating successes while acknowledging systemic shortcomings, emphasizing the need for better evidence about the conditions required for successful change.
Article 3: Sensing Security, Sensing Safety
Kate Herrity, Kings College, University of Cambridge, applies a sensory perspective to examine how security and safety are experienced in prisons, challenging the common practice of using these terms interchangeably. Drawing primarily from her research in "Sound, Order and Survival," she explores three examples: the experience of locked doors, sensory differences among individuals, and the function of alarms. Her analysis reveals how conflating security and safety obscures understanding and can undermine efforts to achieve either objective.
Alison Liebling, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, reflects on three decades of prison research, synthesizing insights from her career into themes explored in her forthcoming book, "Aristotle's Prison: A Search for Humanity in Tragic Places" (Oxford University Press, 2026). She examines what occurs in well-functioning prisons, focusing on moral climates, staff work, human survival, and opportunities for personal growth in correctional environments.
Willem Luyt, University of South Africa, introduces the Exportation Theory, examining how the South African correctional system has become an exporter of crime into society. He identifies contributing factors including staff policies, inmate developments, technology, and Constitutional court decisions. The article centers on gangsterism and the criminal justice system's role, arguing for new approaches and further research into this phenomenon.
Article 6: Greenspace and Wellbeing in Custodial Environments
Dominique Moran, University of Birmingham, examines the relationship between greenspace and wellbeing in correctional facilities, tracing the development of evidence supporting nature exposure in prison design. The article reviews research demonstrating health and psychological benefits, including reduced stress-related illness, anxiety, depression, self-harm, and violence. Moran presents the Design Principles for Prison Landscapes: Security, Biodiversity and Wellbeing, offering actionable guidelines that integrate security-compatible planting, biodiversity enhancement, and microclimate management while aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Nelson Mandela Rules.
Article 7: Is the RNR Model Supposed to "Fix" Prisoners and Prisons?
Devon L. L. Polaschek, Te Whare Wananga o Waikato | The University of Waikato, New Zealand, examines the Risk-Need-Responsivity model 35 years after its introduction, addressing criticisms about its modest impact on recidivism. She argues that RNR implementation has been compromised by prison environments focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and that the model requires a foundation of safe, fair, and decent prison conditions to be effective. The article discusses the importance of positive social climates and providing RNR-based interventions in supportive rather than hostile contexts.
Danielle S. Rudes (Sam Houston State University), Bryce Kushmerick-McCune (Sam Houston State University), and Elisa Toman (Texas State University) examine restricted housing units in carceral institutions. Their analysis challenges the practice of solitary confinement by presenting research evidence that demonstrates both its harm to incarcerated individuals and its failure to produce positive outcomes such as misconduct reduction. The authors argue that restricted housing represents organizational irrationality rather than sound decision making, despite institutional justifications based on control and security. They conclude by addressing decision biases and proposing methods to improve correctional practice.
Article 9: Sens(E)Ible Design: A Call for Participatory Prison Design (PPD)
Jennifer Turner (Professor of Cultural and Political Geography, Universität Trier) proposes a systematic approach to prison design that incorporates experiential knowledge from incarcerated people and staff. Drawing on carceral geography and sensory criminology, Turner argues that sensory experiences in prison cannot be fully anticipated through architectural plans alone. She introduces Participatory Prison Design (PPD) as a method to generate knowledge about how prison spaces are experienced, enabling design choices that address safety, security, and the embodied realities of living and working in these environments.
Esther F. J. C. van Ginneken (Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University) examines how variations in prison conditions affect wellbeing and reintegration prospects. While prisons are recognized as stressful environments that increase reoffending risks compared to non-custodial sanctions, van Ginneken demonstrates that not all prisons produce the same effects. Using the concept of prison climate and attention to ethical architecture, the article shows how institutional practices, social relations, and material conditions create differences in outcomes, offering concrete opportunities to reduce carceral harm.
Article 11: Bureaucratised Risk: Ethical and Moral Blindness in Contemporary Penal Practice
Jason Warr (University of Nottingham) analyzes how risk bureaucracies in contemporary penal practice result in ethical and moral blindness. Examining three risk practices in prisons of England and Wales (forensic psychology, prison security, and the National Research Committee), Warr argues that institutional obsessions with risk lead to harmful, unethical, and immoral practices. These issues arise when risk-related aims and administrative technologies become blind to their impacts on individuals in prison or to the humans central to risk work.
Megan Comfort (RTI International) and Keeonna Harris (University of Washington) address the health consequences for women who care for incarcerated loved ones. Their review of research establishes that this caregiving adds considerable stress, anxiety, and hardship to women's lives. The authors propose concrete correctional strategies to ease this burden: facilitating communications, providing information about loved ones' safety and wellbeing, making visitation family-friendly and health-promoting, and removing financial barriers to maintaining contact.
Article 13: Trauma-Informed Comprehensive Critical Incident Responses for Officer Suicide Prevention
Natasha A. Frost and Delanie Nahikian (Northeastern University) examine suicide prevention for correction officers, who face higher suicide risk than those in almost any other occupation in high-income countries. The authors propose a two-pronged approach that addresses prevention through attention to critical incident exposures involving serious violence, injury, or death, and comprehensive postvention interventions following suicide exposure. They advocate for routine peer support and crisis intervention services to normalize self-care and reduce stigma surrounding help-seeking in correctional contexts.
Article 14: Optimizing Health in Correctional Work: Evidence-Informed Feasible Upstream Solutions
Rosemary Ricciardelli (Memorial University of Newfoundland) documents the health crisis among correctional workers in Canadian provincial, territorial, and federal services. Her research shows that over 60% of correctional workers screen positive for at least one mental health disorder, with intensive stresses rooted in relationships with colleagues and management. Correctional workers also face physical health risks including compromised hearing, respiratory functioning, and infectious disease exposure, as well as moral harm from witnessing human suffering. Ricciardelli identifies gaps in training and proposes improvements to support a healthier correctional workforce.
Valerie Jenness and Sophia Castillo (University of California, Irvine), Kelsie Chesnut, and Jennifer Peirce (The Vera Institute of Justice) present findings from a national survey of 280 transgender prisoners in 31 states. Their data reveals that 70% of transgender women prefer housing in prisons for women, representing a shift from previous research. More than three quarters of transgender women and transgender men prefer housing with other transgender people. Only about one third of transgender women and half of transgender men reside in facilities aligning with their preferences. The authors examine these findings in the context of evolving legal frameworks including the Prison Rape Elimination Act and California's Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act.
Matt Maycock from Monash University, Australia, examines how contemporary prison systems remain structured around binary gender assumptions. His research across multiple jurisdictions argues for individualised, rights-based approaches to reduce harm and uphold dignity for transgender and gender-nonconforming people in custody. The paper emphasises that moving beyond binary frameworks is essential for safety and human rights.
Article 17: The Gender-Responsive Paradigm and its Role in Promoting Trauma-Informed Practices
Emily J. Salisbury examines how the gender-responsive paradigm has transformed trauma-informed practices in corrections, showing how reforms initially designed for justice-involved women influenced global policy (including the UN Bangkok and Mandela Rules) and reframed trauma as a systemic issue rather than an individual problem. Key developments like the Women's Risk Needs Assessment and specialized treatment curricula embedded trauma awareness into correctional operations, generating insights now applied to men through tools like the Men's Risk Needs Assessment (MRNA). Salisbury argues that corrections' historical focus on risk reduction obscured trauma's central role in offending pathways across genders, and concludes that gender-responsive and trauma-informed frameworks are mutually reinforcing approaches capable of reshaping correctional practice for all justice-involved individuals.
Article 18: Beyond Efficiency: Public Value Maximisation and the Ethics of Digital Rehabilitation
Victoria Knight from De Montfort University, UK, and Stuart Ross from the University of Melbourne, Australia, present findings from their work with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Their report evaluates digital rehabilitation through a rights-focused ethical lens, providing practical guidance for implementation. They propose a public value model to ensure digital technologies enhance rather than harm rehabilitation efforts.
Article 19: Digitalising the Heart of Prison Life
Lorenz Pardon and Kristel Beyens from Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, explore how prison digitization reconfigures proximity between staff and incarcerated persons. Their ethnographic research examines digital infrastructures such as in-cell phones and tablets, revealing how technology alters spatial, relational, and experiential dimensions of detention. They identify a shift from street-level to screen-level bureaucracy and recommend preserving face-to-face contact alongside digital tools.
Article 20: Belonging, Desistance and Corrections
Fergus McNeill and Marguerite Schinkel from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, develop the concept of tertiary desistance, which addresses securing acceptance and belonging in communities after punishment. Their paper synthesises empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of relational desistance and provides implications for correctional policy focused on reintegration.
Article 21: From Surveillance to Support: Enabling Hope in Probation
Jake Phillips from the University of Cambridge, along with co-authors Adam Ali, Anita Dockley, Sarah Lewis, Kam Stevens from Penal Reform Solutions, and Stephen Farrall from the University of Nottingham, investigate the role of hope in probation practice. Their qualitative research distinguishes between psychological and social forms of hope, arguing that probation services should focus on moral and political forms of hope to enhance legitimacy for both practitioners and people on probation.
Jason M. Williams from Montclair State University, US, applies Black feminist theory to examine how race and gender intersect in reentry experiences. His research identifies barriers in employment, housing, health, and family life for Black men, Black women, and other marginalised groups. Williams highlights innovations including trauma-informed care and peer mentorship, offering recommendations for equity-centered policy reform.
Article 23: Life Skills, Purpose, and Hope: Making Re-Entry Successful
Edward Ahimbisibwe and James Kisambu from Uganda Prisons Service, along with Rosemary Ricciardelli from Memorial University of Newfoundland, describe how Uganda Prisons Service achieves a recidivism rate of 13.4% through diverse programming. Their article demonstrates how investing in human resources, including incarcerated individuals, can produce effective outcomes despite limited budgets, emphasising the provision of value, purpose, and hope.
Article 24: Is Rehabilitation a Habit of the Heart? Public Opinion as Correctional Cultural Capital
Francis T. Cullen from the University of Cincinnati and Cheryl Lero Jonson from Xavier University, US, present longitudinal survey data from 1979 to present demonstrating that rehabilitation remains a core American cultural orientation. Their research shows consistent public support for treatment programs, early intervention, and community inclusion policies. They argue that public opinion constitutes significant cultural capital for practitioners and reformers.
Article 25: Punishment That Still Works? Norway’s Challenging and Changing Correctional Landscape
John Todd-Kvan from University College, Norwegian Correctional Service, provides an overview of Norway's evolving correctional landscape. Using a recent policy document, he examines challenges related to resourcing, staffing, mental health, and gender. Todd-Kvan offers specific lessons regarding electronic monitoring and correctional salaries, noting that practical issues connect closely with cultural aspects such as empathic leadership and knowledge-based practice.
Jeffrey Ian Ross from the School of Criminal Justice, University of Baltimore, US, advocates for integrating formerly incarcerated individuals into correctional policy and program design. His paper addresses challenges including the conflation of practitioner and lived experience, presenting evidence-based frameworks and practical guidelines for mentorship programs. Ross contributes to establishing more humane and effective correctional practice through the inclusion of convict perspectives.
Article 27: “What Works” Creates Constructive (Rehabilitation) Cultures!
Faye Taxman from George Mason University, US, explains how evidence-based practices advance outcomes for correctional systems, staff, and individuals. Her article emphasises implementing specific treatments, using incentives over sanctions, fostering procedural justice, and creating supportive cultures. Taxman argues that focusing on correctional leaders and staff is imperative for effective implementation of what works principles.
Article 28: Better Than Arrival Corrections: The University as a Partner in Systemic Well-Being
Kevin Wright from Arizona State University, US, proposes reorienting corrections from reducing recidivism to enhancing holistic well-being. His concept of Better Than Arrival Corrections broadens the definition of correctional success and identifies universities as uniquely positioned partners due to their breadth of expertise and capacity to integrate diverse knowledge forms. Wright offers practical steps for agencies and universities to adopt well-being-centered approaches.