Why prisons are the hardest place to innovate, and why we must

Prisons are, quite simply, the most difficult environment to introduce new technology. Staff cannot bring in phones or laptops. Security will always be the top priority. And yet, with the criminal justice system under unprecedented pressure, the case for technological change has never been stronger.

A system at breaking point

The prison and probation system is overwhelmed. Overcrowding has necessitated the early release of over 40,000 prisoners, which in turn has placed greater strain on probation services pushing it to the “brink of collapse” according to a recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Report. The result is a criminal justice system stretched to capacity. The PAC report notes that the number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all time high (13,583 as of March 2025 - 15% of the prison population). This high rate of reoffending presents a risk to the public and an estimated economic and social cost of reoffending is approximately £20.9 bn a year. With the government urgently looking for levers to ease this burden, better use of technology presents an obvious opportunity. Deploying it in a prison setting, however, is far from straightforward.

There are limited examples of prisoner-facing technology in use today. Launchpad, for instance, provides secure in-cell laptops with a restricted set of rehabilitation materials. Video visits are another example introduced during COVID to help people stay in touch with friends and family. These innovations provide a glimpse of what is possible, particularly when necessity forces the pace, but they remain the exception, not the rule.

When necessity drives change

COVID demonstrated that urgency accelerates progress. Video visits went from concept to reality because there was no alternative. Today, the pressures facing the system are different in nature but equally urgent. Prisons are full, probation caseloads are rising, and budgets are being cut, including, most recently, the prison education budget.

This creates an interesting tension. On one hand, the need for cost-saving technology becomes more compelling when finances are tight. On the other, new initiatives can feel risky precisely because there is less margin for error. The challenge is to pursue technological change in a way that manages risk, while unlocking real benefits.

The stakeholder challenge

Getting technology into a prison involves navigating a complex web of stakeholders. At Clarasys, we recently supported a pilot project to deliver accredited debt advice to prisoners through a video kiosk. Prisoners could book an appointment and speak to a qualified adviser via an iPad, without the adviser needing to physically enter the prison. Despite the obvious benefits, making it happen was anything but simple. The security team holds effective veto power over any new technology introduced into the estate. Prison governors and heads of reducing reoffending must be engaged individually, because the kiosk might sit in different locations at different sites. Operational staff need to work out how and when prisoners will access it.

Then there is the digital and design side. Central teams responsible for technology and user experience often operate in a very different culture, with agile ways of working, iterative design, and rapid prototyping. Prison operations, by contrast and by necessity of their working environment, tend towards more structured, sequential approaches. These competing priorities and mismatched ways of working can create friction and slow progress. The real challenge to successfully realising a project like this is building cross-functional teams that are aligned around a shared outcome and bring operational knowledge and digital expertise together effectively.

The case for local innovation

Perhaps the most promising path forward is to empower innovation at a local level. The best ideas in prison and probation tend to come from people who understand the specific needs of their population, such as a particular prison's demographics, or a regional probation team's caseload challenges. These ground-up ideas are often more impactful precisely because they are tailored to real, local needs.

The tension, however, is that technology-related changes typically require central sign-off. This can slow progress and disconnect good ideas from the communities they are designed to serve. A more effective model would accelerate the pathway from local idea to central clearance, allowing regions to pilot what works for them, and then scaling successes across the estate.

Imagine a world where regional prison or probation units had greater autonomy to procure services that meet their specific requirements. Rather than starting with a one-size-fits-all policy, which often ends up serving a limited set of people’ needs, you would start with what works locally and build upward. Contracts could then be agreed in ways that create economies of scale, with the evidence of local success making the case for wider adoption.

Moving forward

Technology will not solve every problem facing the criminal justice system. But used thoughtfully, with the right stakeholder engagement, a tolerance for local variation, and a willingness to learn from what works on the ground, it can meaningfully reduce pressure on an overstretched system while improving outcomes for the people within it.

The challenge now is to move from isolated pilots to a more connected approach that fosters innovation, empowers local teams, brings operational and digital colleagues together, and builds confidence in what technology can achieve in even the most constrained environments.

Justice and Emergency Services Programme activities

The techUK Justice and Emergency Services Programme represents tech firms operating in the public safety, criminal justice, and blue light markets. We create strong relationships between members and public sector customers, encouraging industry engagement, and unlocking innovation. Visit the programme page here.