Previous studies have illustrated the intersection of digital inequities and incarceration in various ways and how the digital divide has worsened the challenges for prisoners and former prisoners (Reisdorf & Julia, 2022; Blomberg et al., 2021; Seo et al., 2020) . Reisdorf and Julia (2022) and Blomberg et al. (2021) have indicated that incarcerated individuals have limited access to technology thus hampering their ability to acquire digital skills and impacting their ability to integrate back into society. Seo et al. (2020) agree that although some correctional facilities offer education and reentry programs, their training on digital literacy and skills is not comprehensive; therefore, leaving former prisoners significantly disadvantaged in the digital world. Zivanai and Mahlangu’s (2022) systematic literature review revealed that a lack of digital skills has made it difficult for exprisoners to cope with the reintegration challenges, thus negatively impacting their lives post-release. Based on these studies it is evident that access to technology, educational opportunities, and reintegration challenges are some of how digital inequalities and incarceration intersect.

Further, employment barriers, digital literacy, access to health and social services, and communication with loved ones are also some of the ways digital inequalities and incarceration intersect. Murphy and Soricone (2021) found that the digital divide among ex-prisoners can lead to underemployment thus encouraging recidivism. Robinson & Smith-Jackson (2023) survey points out that lack of exposure to information technology by ex-prisoners due to digital transformation is a primary blocker for hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. Hwang et al. (2023) used semi-structured interviews, where they found that digital inequalities can impede access to health and social services since most of these services have moved online. As Seo et al. (2020) indicated earlier, some correctional facilities offer digital communication tools with loved ones such as email or video visits, which might not be accessible to all inmates, thus exacerbating the feeling of disconnection from society. These studies implied that addressing digital inequities is critical in addressing the reintegration of former prisoners as they navigate the digital society.

The digital divide is used to describe issues surrounding unequal access to ICTs, as well as impacts and disadvantages to individuals or groups that lack adequate access to technology and the internet (Tewathia et al., 2020; Lythreatis et al., 2022) . The digital divide has numerous forms and has been applied across diverse socio-justice phenomena throughout the years with three primary uses. These forms include the original use of the digital divide as the dichotomies of haves and have-nots (Fang et al., 2022) , another as the approach with expansive considerations between individuals, their households, businesses, geographic areas, as well as socioeconomic factors (Reza, 2021) , and the last form explains how digital inequalities influence the social structure arguing that there is no single simple issue, but an accumulation of social, economic, and technological issues similar to an ecology (Helsper, 2021) . For this body of work, Helsper’s digital divide definition will be applied and used, stating the digital divide and access to ICTs and the internet are not only technical and economically dependent but are also based on other factors such as cultural, social, personal, and political capital. These layers are complex and tend to mirror the social strata but produce different outcomes regarding knowledge and life chances that reinforce the status quo (Helsper, 2021) .

Three levels of the digital divide have been proposed by researchers to better understand various aspects of technology access and how it affects people’s engagement in society (Lythreatis et al., 2022; Tewathia et al., 2020; Aissaoui, 2021) . The first level of the digital divide involves the access divide, which refers to the gap between those who do not have access to physical technology such as the Internet and computers, and those who have (Lythreatis et al., 2022) . Infrastructure development, affordability programs, public access solutions, and education and awareness have been proposed as strategies to bridge the access divide gap (Lythreatis et al., 2022) . The second level of the digital divide is the usage divide, which involves the disparities in utilizing digital technologies for economic, e-government, health services, and education opportunities, despite the access to technology (Tewathia et al., 2020) . Inclusive design, awareness campaigns, digital literacy, and skills training are some of the strategies proposed to address the usage divide (Tewathia et al., 2020) . The third level of the digital divide is the skills divide, which involves the need for skills to evaluate and compose information using digital technology, beyond access and usage (Aissaoui, 2022) . Other strategies include public awareness campaigns, workforce development programs, community education programs, and incorporating digital literacy in education (Aissaoui, 2022) . These studies agree that socioeconomic status, age, geographical location, and education opportunities are some of the factors contributing to the digital divide (Lythreatis et al., 2022; Tewathia et al., 2020; Aissaoui, 2022) . Addressing various levels of the digital divide is very critical in ensuring equitable access to information for formerly incarcerated individuals despite their socio-demographic status.

Formerly incarcerated individuals have been significantly impacted by the digital divide, this has affected how these individuals have access to social services, health care, education, and employment. Several studies (Reisdorf & Julia, 2022; Blomberg et al., 2021; Seo et al., 2022) . Reisdorf and Julia (2022) demonstrated formerly incarcerated persons lack access to ICTs during their period of incarceration thus making it difficult to navigate various aspects of life. Blomberg et al. (2021) used interviews with 45 formerly incarcerated women and found that lack of internet access and digital devices during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced their educational opportunities, job applications, and post-incarceration supervision requirements. Seo et al. (2022) identified skills barriers and technology access facing 75 women as they transition from incarceration and their underlying motivation in navigating digital privacy online. The study identified lack of self-efficacy, mental health issues, concerns about ex-partners, and housing and financial situations pose challenges to the usage and access of technology. Digitalization promotes social skills, self-esteem, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society (Knight & Van de Steene, 2017; McDougall et al., 2017; Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016; Toreld et al., 2018) . Digital technology in correctional centers also increases digital literacy and promotes job-searching skills on re-entry (Ogbonnaya-Ogburu et al., 2019) . According to McDougall et al. (2017) , self-service technology significantly increases interest in technology, reduces disciplinary offenses in prison, and recidivism within the first year of release.

Various studies have proposed strategies for addressing the digital divide for formerly incarcerated individuals. Reisdorf and Julia (2022) and Mohohlwane (2021) both used qualitative research methodology to recommend the importance of implementing digital literacy training as part of reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals back into society as these programs will help them navigate the digital world. Reisdorf and Julia (2022) also recommended the need to provide internet access during incarceration to facilitate full integration into society. This was supported by O’Hanlon and Broome (2022) through their qualitative study on the experiences of nine older formerly incarcerated individuals during their specialized reentry program. Employment support services have also been proposed to facilitate job search strategies, resume building, and application assistance as suggested by Reisdorf and Julia (2022) and Duwe and Henry-Nickie (2021) . Cole (2022) recommended the implementation of Public-Private Partnerships especially with tech companies as this can offer the knowledge and tools required to navigate the digital space. Smith (2020) and Seo et al. (2022) advocated for the implementation of policy initiatives to reduce recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals in the digital age. These initiatives include funding for digital literacy programs. Implementation of strategies addressing the digital divide is critical in ensuring formerly incarcerated individuals have a fair chance and success in integrating into the digital age.

Correctional facilities offering education and training can promote increased employability among incarcerated individuals. Some researchers such as Walk et al. (2021) have reiterated that correctional-based vocational training centers are likely to train prisoners to attain different skills which can attract employers from different settings to give them employment. Similarly, handling different jobs requires experience and skills, and correctional facilities offering education and job training allow prisoners to acquire marketable skills and knowledge, which attracts employers (Fox et al., 2023) . According to Duwe and Henry-Nickie (2021) , correctional centers allowing prisoners to attain certificates can bridge the gap between the prisoners and employers thus allowing them to have successful re-entry and opportunities in employment sectors. These training programs often include classroom instruction and hands-on training. Vocational courses typically include but are not limited to plumbing, HVAC, masonry, auto mechanics, welding, and machine work which typically includes face-to-face and hands-on instructions. The ability to participate in more digital courses is limited due to availability and potential security risks.

Some correctional facilities may not be permitted to offer or undertake some courses due to the potential threat to prison security and internet access issues (Hopkins, 2015) . A national survey conducted in 2003 by state educational administrators (Erisman & Contardo, 2005) reported approximately half of correctional facilities offered educational courses using video or satellite instruction. Web-based technology using the internet was rarely used because of security concerns. Learning management systems (LMS), like those used in schools and universities, such as Blackboard, Canas, or Moodle, can be configured to restrict access beyond the content needed for the courses. Limiting user access is something that can be isolated at the server/domain level with the assistance of a LMS technician. Just as large corporations build and use systems to keep unwanted users out, most systems can be designed to keep students from accessing unapproved sites and content on the internet (Chappell & Shippen, 2013) . Some legitimate challenges and risks are associated with introducing technology into secure settings. Not all technology will require internet access, but those programs that do should be scrutinized diligently with the intent of circumventing security risks with incarcerated students.

While there are valid concerns and potential risks when accessing the Internet within correctional facilities, the lack of opportunities and fundamental rights to learn and maintain digital skills is more detrimental and poses a greater risk to those impacted. Without adequate exposure to digital education, skills, and knowledge, we continue promoting inequities and illiteracy that leave individuals unprepared to return to society and be productive citizens. Universities and corporations have been offering courses and training with limited internet access to learn the needed material. These security-based safeguards and protocols can be adapted and adjusted for correctional facilities. Correctional education programs improve the confidence of prisoners to work in different employment sectors as the skills attained make them competent and attractive in the work environment (McCann et al., 2018; Razali et al., 2021) . Overall correctional facilities offering education programs including career technical education can foster skills development among prisoners which allows them to be more attractive in the employment sectors.

The aspect of promoting education in correctional facilities is a critical point for increasing employability among prisoners. As an illustration, Denver & Megan (2019) found that correctional education allows incarcerated students to enroll in different college-level courses and degree programs which makes them attain college credits that earn them opportunities in employment sectors. Additionally, Steckley et al., (2021) maintained that despite incarcerated individuals attaining education for different jobs, giving them mentorship programs also improves their skills, a signal to employers indicating their capability for employment. For effective re-entry into society, correctional facilities instill knowledge in incarcerated individuals by allowing them to obtain certificates in masonry or carpentry, which gives them confidence in self-employment (McCann et al., 2018) . Contrary, some scholars have alluded that lack of training and education among incarcerated individuals may fail to get employed due to limited skills (Goger et al., 2021) . Consistency in the results indicates that correctional facilities providing education programs and digital literacy to incarcerated individuals may improve their skills toward employment leading to successful re-entry.

Integrating digital education in correctional facilities opens job opportunities and effective re-entry into the workforce. Correctional centers incorporating technological education may enhance digital skill development among incarcerated individuals which constitutes digital skills leading to workforce entry (Mohohlwane, 2021) . According to Robinson and Smith-Jackson (2023) , integrating technology into the education curriculum of incarcerated individuals allows them to obtain basic computer skills, and teaches them how to use software including Microsoft Office which increases their chances of workforce re-entry. Obtaining basic computer skills including digital design has become a crucial factor in increasing the ability of individuals to remain competent in workforce settings as most employers prefer individuals with new technological skills (Foster, Jordan, & Michelle, 2022) . Analyzing data from Becker-Pestka (2022) participants, integrating online learning platforms in correctional education proportionately allows incarcerated individuals to leverage their digital skills and experiences, especially among those with a desire to use technological equipment in the workforce. Overall, incorporating digital skills development into the correctional education curriculum can enhance the attainment of needed digital skills which allows them to have effective workforce re-entry.

Although there is an increase in research focusing on digital skills development in correctional education promoting workforce reentry among incarcerated individuals, there are inconsistencies in research findings. Long-standing strategies including technological education have been reported to enhance digital skills development among incarcerated individuals bridging the digital divide, some scholars have reported conflicting results as some fail to re-enter the workforce (Reisdorf, Bianca, & DeCook, 2021) . As an illustration, study findings by Duwe and Henry-Nickie (2021) show that certification and credentials obtained from digital training while in correctional facilities have become crucial strategies for incarcerated individuals’ re-entry into the workforce. Similarly, Rantanen et al. (2021) also reinforced that correctional centers with simulated working environments can engage individuals in using Microsoft Office which significantly reflects real tasks in readiness for their expected jobs. Despite correctional facilities offering digital education, limited access to computers and internet connectivity can deter digital skills development among incarcerated individuals (Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2021; Reisdorf et al., 2022) . Contradiction in the findings necessitates a need for study on the topic to provide empirical evidence that can be dependable.

Correctional facilities providing education programs to inmates can influence their awareness. Prior research studies have indicated that correctional facilities imparting inmates with knowledge is a critical factor that allows them to understand the importance of education in their lives as it influences their ability to obtain job opportunities (Behan, 2021; Pendleton, Jennifer, & Rebecca, 2020) . Other researchers including Dewey et al. (2020) have also alluded that higher education courses offered in correctional centers can equip inmates with different skills thus empowering them to be mentors and advocates to their peers. Educating inmates increases awareness of the importance of being educated, consequently allowing them to mentor others by sharing their life experiences. Additionally, the ability of correctional facilities to train inmates how to communicate, write, and read significantly correlates with an increased understanding of information which enlightens them on available job opportunities or programs that can positively impact their lives (Giannoulis, Antonopoulou, & Halkiopoulos, 2022) .

Limited studies have been completed on participation in correctional education and motivation. Schlesinger (2005) conducted a study interviewing 15 incarcerated African American males about participation in correctional education. Schlesinger (2005) found many of the students had negative experiences in school which impacts their desire to learn, and the ability to motivate students depends on what motivation students possess, and what they find motivating. Most of the responses for motivation were non-educational. The most stated reason to participate in correctional education was social interaction—to spend time with family, friends, and affiliates. Another popular non-educational response was to get a break from the restrictive conditions of the correctional facility. Others mentioned they participated in courses to receive payment. There were fewer responses for educational or personal motivations. Some were motivated to learn and gain skills in preparation for release. Others were motivated by self-improvement and becoming role models for their loved ones. Schlesinger (2005) recommends building a connection or relationship with the students due to social interaction being the primary motivation for most students participating in correctional education courses. Building a relationship would help acknowledge the humanity of each learner and establish insights into how they want to learn. Building a relationship with the student is only one strategy of motivation. Learning should also be fun and exciting. That also motivates students.

A new technique called gamification: adding game elements to non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011a, 2011b) can help motivate students. It engages users to embrace behaviors through competition and collaboration. Gamification uses the motivational power and competitiveness of a good game, unlike traditional learning, which can pivot, adjust, and deliver information as needed (Gee, 2003) creating a balance between difficulty and one’s ability. Gamification has been tested and used across several industries including healthcare, employee productivity, and ecology, but the benefits to the learning experience when applied to education have limited scope (Barata et al., 2013) . Previous experiments show that gamification can improve learning outcomes, motivation, and diligence. McClean et al. (2001) show students learning biology with a video game performed 30% better in their assessments than those learning without. Moreno (2012) had similar findings in his experiment, where students used a video game to improve their programming skills and performed 12% better on the exam. Gamification can be used to increase motivation, learning, as well as awareness. Consistency in the findings indicates that promoting education in correctional facilities empowers inmates thus creating awareness and motivation for successful reintegration into society.

This non-parametric statistic was conducted to determine the extent to which incarcerated individuals were aware of the opportunity to take educational courses in correctional facilities and how this awareness influenced such courses. Table 2 indicated that class participation can be moderately successfully predicted by class awareness using the logistic regression model as indicated by −2 Log likelihood (71.077), Cox & Snell (0.019) and Nagelkerke R squared (0.026). These values indicated that class awareness has a significant relationship with class participation, though exists confounding factors that could explain class participation.

^aEstimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter estimates changed by less than 0.001.

Table 3 indicated that binary logistic regression was effective in determining whether class awareness can determine whether formerly incarcerated individuals could participate in a class or not. The logistic model correctly classified that 78.8% of the formerly incarcerated could participate in classes, this was possible through comparing actual observed outcomes and those predicted by the binary logistic regression model.

Based on Table 4 , it was evident that binary logistic regression analysis indicated that class awareness among the incarcerated individuals insignificantly predicted class participation (B = [0.511], S.E. = [0.516], Wald = [0.979], p = 0.323). The odds ratio (Exp(B) = [1.667]) indicates that for each one-unit increase in class awareness, the odds of participating in class by those in incarceration could increase by a factor of 66.7%, controlling for other variables not included in the model.

^aVariable(s) entered on step 1: Class Awareness.

This test was used to answer RQ2 and RQ3. The test was used to examine if there is a relationship between formerly incarcerated individuals’ participation in educational courses at correctional facilities and their willingness to learn and apply IT skills. Table 5 indicated that there was no significant difference between formerly incarcerated individuals with no class participation and their willingness to learn and apply (M = 2.45, SD = 0.522) and with class participation (M = 2.76, SD = 0.435); t(50) = −1.958, p = 0.056). The mean difference between those who had participated in class (mean difference = −0.302, 95% CI: −0.611 to 0.008) was not statistically significant, implying that class participation among prisoners does not significantly affect their willingness to learn and apply.

Group Statistics on Class Participation: No 11 (M = 2.45; SD = 0.522); Yes 41 (M = 2.76; SD = 0.435).

On the RQ3, an independent sample t-test was also conducted to determine if there is a relationship between formerly incarcerated individuals’ participation in education courses while in correctional facilities and their level of self-efficacy in learning and applying IT skills. Table 6 indicated that there was no difference between formerly incarcerated individuals with no class participation and their self-efficacy to learn and apply (M = 3.318; SD = 0.84477) and with class participation (M = 3.414; SD = 0.8616); t(44) = −0.324, p = 0.747). The mean difference between those who had participated in class (mean difference = −0.09610, 95% CI: −0.69370 to 0.50149) was not statistically significant, implying that class participation among prisoners does not significantly affect their self-efficacy to learn and apply.

This analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between formerly incarcerated individuals’ perception of IT skills as important for future employment prospects and their willingness to learn IT skills. Table 7 indicated there was a significant and medium relationship between incarcerated individuals who want to learn IT skills and their employment prospects after incarceration (r = 0.576; p = 0.000). This implied that the will to learn IT skills has an effect on employment after incarceration.

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).