ACJ Edition #21: Expert Insights on Effecting Change in Corrections
_________________________________________________________
Edition 21 is the first of two volumes on the theme Effecting Change in Corrections. It gathers 20 articles from practitioners, researchers, and community partners in Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Oceania. Their shared conclusion is that durable reform depends less on the next programme, tool, or policy than on the system it lands in: its leadership, routines, culture, and willingness to learn.
Interest in this theme took us by surprise, with submissions outnumbering published articles three to one. Rather than asking authors for yet another report on what changed, we asked how. Who started it? How was it steered, and adapted under pressure? Did it survive, and what did it deliver? Reforms that were carefully planned sit beside those forced by crisis, political mandate, or system pressure.
Readers will meet a prison service reinventing its culture over two decades in Singapore, one governor’s idea becoming Belgian law, a failing prison in Northern Ireland turned around by the people who live and work there, and a national audit in Malawi that turned evidence into action. Lessons from Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Aotearoa New Zealand show what change looks like where resources are thin and cultures differ from the assumptions behind many western models.
Wherever you work, in a prison, a probation office, a ministry, or a university, we want to hear how these accounts compare with your own experience. Share the Edition with your colleagues, then send us your reactions. They will be collated and published in Volume 2, planned for early 2027.
Please consider joining ICPA in order to get access to future Editions of ACJ!
What You Will Find Inside:
Foreword: Effecting Change in Corrections
In the foreword to this 21st Edition, Dr. Frank J. Porporino reflects on an Edition that has clearly struck a chord, with submissions far outnumbering the space available. He explains that the Call for Papers asked authors to look beyond descriptions of change and to explore its dynamics: how it was introduced, supported, adapted, diluted, or abandoned, and what outcomes it delivered. Walking readers through the four sections of the Edition, he highlights lessons ranging from Singapore’s twenty-year systemic transformation and Hydebank Wood’s co-designed turnaround to the importance of institutionalising reforms in resource-constrained prisons and treating culture as a central mechanism of rehabilitation. He closes by thanking Associate Editor Jennifer Galouzis and the Editorial Board, and by inviting readers to respond, so that their views can be published in Volume 2.
Guest Editorial: Effecting Change in Corrections
Associate Editor Jennifer Galouzis, Deputy Commissioner, Strategy and Governance, Corrective Services NSW, draws on more than 20 years in corrections to reflect on the persistent desire across the field to improve the system, much of it happening away from public view. She notes that correctional systems are rarely short of change, yet the volume of change activity should not be confused with lasting change. The articles in this Edition, she suggests, raise a shared question: what allows change to take root, alter everyday practice, and endure once initial attention and resources move elsewhere? Her answer is that sometimes the organisation itself needs to change, including its routines, relationships, culture, and understanding of whose knowledge should inform its decisions.
Article 1: Effecting Change in Singapore’s Approach to Corrections
Lau Kuan Mei and Troy Thevathasan, Singapore Prison Service, examine two decades of systemic change in Singapore’s correctional approach through the Singapore Correctional Model (SCM). Drawing on desistance theory, other correctional theories, and a social-ecological perspective, they show how aligned actions across contexts, supported by suitable system conditions and community partnerships, contribute to low recidivism rates. Beyond describing the model, the authors surface the enablers and transferable lessons that other systems can use when pursuing systemic change and desistance outcomes.
Article 2: From Vision to Reform: Explaining the Rise of Small-Scale Detention in Belgium
Kristel Beyens, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and Liesbeth Naessens, Odisee University of Applied Sciences, Belgium, trace how a vision first put forward by prison governor Hans Claus in 2009 grew from a seemingly utopian idea into an established part of Belgian correctional policy. Using the advocacy-coalition and multiple streams frameworks, they show how coalition-building, advocacy, research, political engagement, legislation, pilot projects, and international networking combined to produce reform. They also reflect critically on risks such as net widening, dilution of the original philosophy, and the persistence of security-oriented logics.
Article 3: Unlocking Potential: Enacting Effective Change Within Hydebank Wood
Keira Flanagan (South East Technological University), Richard Taylor (Governor, Hydebank Wood College, Northern Ireland Prison Service), and Michelle Butler (Queen’s University Belfast) examine how Hydebank Wood moved from a poorly rated prison in 2013 to a highly successful Secure College model by 2024. Drawing on practitioner knowledge and research from the early stages of change, they discuss why the changes were initiated, the obstacles encountered, and what was achieved, including improved wellbeing, reduced stigmatisation, and a stronger potential for those detained there to desist from crime.
Georgia Barnett (KTA Research and Consulting) and Laura Pope (HMPPS, UK) reflect on the rollout of two new models of practice across thirteen prisons: a structured supervision model for frontline officers and a whole-system model bringing prison and probation staff together. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), they identify common barriers and enablers, show how change unfolded in practice, and consider what separated success from failure. They conclude by assessing the usefulness of CFIR in prisons and setting out implications for future implementation and research.
Nicky Herron and Fiona Williams, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, argue that rehabilitation impact emerges not from well-designed interventions alone but from the interaction of intervention design, fidelity infrastructure, and wider system conditions. Drawing on over three decades of experience with Accredited Programmes, they introduce the System-Aware Biopsychosocial Framework for Impact at Scale and illustrate it through Building Choices, the most substantial reform of Accredited Programmes in England and Wales in thirty years. The authors suggest the next stage of rehabilitation lies in strengthening the conditions that let interventions flourish.
Dorien Brosens, Liesbeth De Donder, Sylvie Van Dam, and a large team of co-authors from Belgian universities present the Peer support Innovating Prisons (PIP) project, which uses realist and participatory action research to examine peer support in prison. People with lived or living experience, prison staff, activity providers, and policymakers shape the project through a Societal Advisory Committee, a lived-experience group, and four Living Labs where peer initiatives are co-created, implemented, and evaluated. The paper reflects on how such collaboration can generate knowledge and sustainable change.
Andrew Dye, Senior Director of Project Development at CoreCivic, offers a practice-based account of Project Vista, an environmental design initiative across a portfolio of more than 70 private correctional and reentry facilities in the United States. Guided by four design principles (normalisation, biophilia, carceral geography, and trauma-informed design), the initiative moved from research, to pilots, to integration into routine processes, completing over 55 projects in more than 35 facilities. Early surveys and feedback suggest improvements in calm, safety, dignity, and rehabilitation readiness, which the author presents as indicative rather than conclusive.
Pia Puolakka, CEO and Founder of MindTech, Finland, examines the Finnish Smart Prison reform as a case study in digital transformation. Drawing on institutional evaluations, academic research, and international evidence, she shows how secure digital services became embedded in everyday prison practice through participatory design, organisational adaptation, and continuous evaluation. Her central argument is that digital transformation is primarily an organisational and governance challenge: the hardest task is not introducing technology but sustaining it as part of daily correctional practice.
Robin Timme, Kerra Jones, Leslie Reed, and Kyle Pelletier, Falcon Correctional and Community Services, argue that incident reports, disciplinary records, and use-of-force data offer only a partial picture of violence and harm in prisons. They propose an integrated public health monitoring model that adds clinically documented injuries and measures four domains: observed violence, adjudicated violence, harm to incarcerated individuals, and harm to staff. Comparing these sources can reveal discrepancies, support prevention, and strengthen accountability.
Rosemary Ricciardelli (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Don Head, Nathalie Dufresne-Meek, Gord Robertson, and Jason Godin tell the story of the Canadian Correctional Worker Wellness, Organization, Responsibilities, and Knowledge (CCWORK) study, now in year 9 of 10 of data collection. Bringing together researchers, the Service, and the unions, they explain why the research was initiated, how change was managed, and the role of evidence. Their key message is that a research partnership able to survive a pandemic and changing leadership needs a strong, committed foundation.
Tabea Schleising and Tamara Höfer, Verein Richtungswechsel, Austria, note that while systemic reform across Europe remains constrained, meaningful change happens daily inside individual facilities. Based on expert interviews across several European jurisdictions, they investigate what enables values-driven, small-scale initiatives and how these spread across borders. Their central finding is that foundational values, rather than programmes or institutional models, are what travel between countries, with implications for how change is designed within facilities and what international exchange is for.
Hannah Nario-Lopez, University of the Philippines Diliman, looks beyond simple explanations of staff resistance to ask how correctional reform is adapted, sustained, or diluted. Drawing on 164 interviews with 94 staff from the Scandinavian Prison Project at SCI-Chester, Pennsylvania, she shows how cynicism, risk aversion, and a control-first identity lead staff to see humanistic engagement as a safety hazard, and how hyper-vigilance functions as a survival mechanism. She proposes strategies for supporting change in carceral operations.
Wyatt Brown (Texas State University), Bryce Kushmerick-McCune (Sam Houston State University), Sydney Ingel (George Mason University), and Danielle S. Rudes (Sam Houston State University) analyse interviews with 68 staff and 196 residents across four men’s prisons in one conservative and one progressive US state. Although both systems used similar COVID-era measures, residents in progressive prisons stressed fairness and transparency, while those in conservative prisons more often saw strain and limited capacity. The authors conclude that emergency planning must address communication, staffing, and family contact, and recognise how political context shapes policy.
Article 14: The Risk of Staying the Same: Evaluating Competing Futures in Correctional Change
Simon Bonk, Founder of Beyond Inertia Incorporated, argues that proposed change in corrections is often scrutinised more rigorously than the current state. Drawing on practitioner experience and decision-making and implementation literature, he suggests the status quo is acknowledged as an option but rarely analysed as a future with its own costs, risks, and accountability implications. Using examples such as replacing wet signatures and paper approvals, he proposes a decision lens for leaders: the question is not whether change is risky, but compared to what.
Article 15: From Streets to Systems: Community Violence as a Change Model in Community Corrections
Jason M. Williams (Montclair State University), Liza Chowdhury (Reimagining Justice Inc. and the Paterson Healing Collective), and Julie Chowdhury (Newark Community Street Team) examine community violence intervention as a model of change at the intersection of public health and community corrections. Using a cross-site case study of two New Jersey organisations, they explore origins, challenges, and impact, including a 1.5 percent reinjury rate among gunshot survivors served. They argue that corrections should stand alongside, fund, and refer to this community-centred work.
Article 16: Building Reentry-Health Infrastructure in Community Corrections
Benjamin T. Osborne, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, examines the Supportive Reentry Network Collaborative (SRNC), which evolved from an emergency COVID-era release response into a structured cross-sector navigation model. Using programme documentation, administrative records, and quality improvement reviews, he describes how SRNC operationalised change through centralised intake, navigation, referral pathways, and health-related social needs stabilisation. Challenges emerged mostly downstream, in housing, transportation, and provider capacity, leading to the argument that reentry-health reform requires a funded backbone infrastructure.
Antonio Robson Oliveira da Rosa, Correctional Officer, State of Santa Catarina, Brazil, analyses sustainability-oriented infrastructure change as an implementation process. Using Brazil as a case context, he explores the National Penitentiary Fund (FUNPEN) as a possible mechanism for reinvesting operational savings, and shows that facility-level measures, particularly rainwater harvesting in Santa Catarina, produce measurable reductions in water use and costs. He concludes that such transitions are incremental, decentralised, and dependent on governance capacity.
Article 18: From Data to Decarceration: Managing Systemic Change Through the Malawi Prison Audit
Clifford Msiska (Paralegal Advisory Service Institute, Malawi), Mary Murphy (Association of Visitors to Detained Persons, Geneva), and Adam Stapleton (Governance and Justice Group, Portugal) examine the Malawi Prison Audit, conducted in three prisons in 2023 with interviews of more than 3,200 people in custody. Designed to generate actionable evidence and shared ownership across justice institutions, it supported coordinated action on overcrowding and pre-trial detention. The authors conclude its greatest achievement was a sustainable mechanism through which correctional institutions can contribute to justice reform.
Arnaud Roux, independent consultant and former ICRC Detention Delegate, draws on humanitarian detention work in Cambodia (2014–2018) and Afghanistan (2019–2020) to ask why some reforms endure and others fade. His review of visit reports and operational documents identifies four factors shaping sustainability: leadership, infrastructure, institutional procedures, and organisational culture. Lasting improvement came when new practices became part of routine systems and professional practice, with practical implications for leaders in resource-constrained settings.
Armon J. Tamatea (University of Waikato), Mate Webb, David T. Jones, Jim van Rensburg, and Terry Huriwai examine the evolution of Te Piriti Special Treatment Unit, which combined cognitive-behavioural therapy with tikanga Māori but initially treated culture as peripheral. They present Rōpū Upoko, a Māori-facilitated therapeutic group, as an innovation placing tikanga at the therapeutic core. The authors argue culture should be a central mechanism of change, with implications for policy, workforce development, and culturally responsive practice.
Book Review: Aristotle’s Prison: A Search for Humanity in Tragic Places
Frank J. Porporino, International Corrections & Prisons Association and International Association for Correctional & Forensic Psychology, reviews Alison Liebling’s 2026 book (Oxford University Press). He describes it as a career-long reflection on the moral climate of prisons, combining ethnography, person-centred quantitative methods, and moral reflection in an approach Liebling calls ‘moral social scholarship.’ Porporino presents the book as a gift of clarity for all corrections professionals, leaving practitioners, managers, and policymakers an obligation to create morally intelligible, ‘good enough’ prisons.
Call for Papers: Edition 22 – Effecting Change in Corrections, Volume 2
ICPA invites submissions for Edition 22, a second volume on the same theme, again focused on the process of change itself: how it is introduced, sustained, diluted, or abandoned in real-world correctional settings. Papers may be submitted as Featured Research Articles, Views and Reviews, or Practice Innovation in Corrections. The submission deadline is December 15, 2026.
Send a Word document with an abstract, any figures, author details, and a brief theme-alignment summary to [email protected].
Download the Call for Papers here.