Transcending the prison walls through transformative learning: the Australian Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program Open Access

The Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (hereon referred to as Inside-Out) is a blended learning program where university (outside) students and prisoners (inside) students come together to undertake a university course (Van Gundy, Bryant and Starks, 2013). This amalgamates the textbook knowledge of university students with the lived experience knowledge of incarcerated people. As equals, both cohorts learn from each other while undertaking a university subject called Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. Inside-Out has been offered through a partnership between RMIT University and Corrections Victoria (Department of Justice and Community Safety) in two prisons since 2015 – the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (DPFC) and Marngoneet Correctional Centre (MCC). DPFC is a maximum security female prison, and MCC is a medium security male prison. Inside-Out was trialled and evaluated over semester one from February to June in 2015 (see Martinovic et al., 2017). The program’s success saw its expansion to four additional prisons, Ravenhall Correctional Centre, HM Prison Tarrengower, Middleton Correctional Centre and Loddon Prison. It is offered to both undergraduate and postgraduate students on a biannual basis.

This paper analyses qualitative data from the focus groups gathered for the Inside-Out evaluation (Martinovic et al., 2017). We first describe the establishment, philosophy and outcomes of Inside-Out in the USA, and discuss how it evolved in Victoria, Australia. We then outline the methodology of the evaluation before presenting the rich data generated from the focus groups. The key finding was that as the student cohorts merged, they developed more complex understandings around the impacts of criminal justice processes and how these influenced their own experiences, perceptions and positionality. This transformational learning experience created an opportunity for both cohorts of students to “transcend the prison walls” and collaborate within an educational setting.

Inside-Out originated nearly 30 years ago in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. In the mid-1990s, an incarcerated person had an idea to bring together incarcerated people and university students for a semester-long discussion about the real and deep issues surrounding the criminal justice system (CJS) (Perry, 2013). Criminologist Lori Pompa of Temple University founded the program and commenced the inaugural semester at Graterford Prison in 1997, subsequently designing a training package with incarcerated men to teach academics from around the world to implement and deliver Inside-Out courses (Pompa, 2002; Pompa, 2013b). The two student cohorts study a course “as equals” within the prison. Pompa (2002:69) explains:

King et al. (2019) suggested that Inside-Out allows both student groups to critically explore their own beliefs and identities to foster social change and overcome social barriers. Although engaging in higher education was the initial purpose for bringing students together for Inside-Out, the overarching aim is more expansive and seeks to challenge the stereotypes embedded in society to begin a dialogue that will ultimately improve CJS praxis.

Adult learning frameworks and processes are referred to as andragogy, and this frames learning as a life-long process that is inherently linked to self-concept (Knowles, 1978). In contrast to pedagogy – which relates to childhood schooling that is linked with chronological age – andragogy recognises that adults are self-directed, and this is reflected in the teaching style of andragogy (Knowles, 1968//2003, p. 229). This differentiates andragogy from pedagogy, as the latter views learning as something that is imparted from a teacher to a student – who is largely depicted as a tabula rasa waiting to receive knowledge from an authority figure (Williams, 2005, 202–203). Pedagogy is usually a didactic approach, whereby the student is given instructions and tasks, and the teacher seeks a response and evaluates whether this response is correct (Austin, 2013).

Inside-Out diverges from this mode of teaching by employing an andragogical framework that is based around dialogue. It is this element that makes the learning “transformative” due to dialogue playing an important role in the process of creating and (re)creating our sense-of-self (Freire, 1970). Dialogue is widely recognised as a teaching process that not only promotes learning, but also self-sufficiency and understanding of one’s own position in society (Dirkx, 1998; Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1984; Wells, 1999). By facilitating an interactive learning environment with agentic participation, both inside and outside students self-reflect, explore and develop understanding by sharing ideas and critiquing course material together, while simultaneously engaging with different perspectives via democratic conversations (Butin, 2013).

The transformative-dialogic learning of Inside-Out is reliant upon participants sharing their knowledge and experiences. Burbules (2000) noted that entering into a dialogue requires one to be vulnerable to the scrutiny of others, so within a custodial environment, it is important to set parameters for discussion and dialogue between inside and outside students (Martinovic et al., 2018). When facilitated properly, this dynamic brings about a richer understanding of the complexities inherent in the CJS (Pompa, 2002). Evaluative studies have revealed that Inside-Out students reflect on their own values and biases and become attuned to some of the inaccuracies inherent in the mainstream CJS discourses (Conti, Morrison and Pantaleo, 2013; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer, 2014; O’Brien et al., 2021; Wyant and Lockwood, 2018). Inside-Out aims to promote both self-reflection and societal reflection through respectful conversations that originate from different life experiences.

Establishing an environment where all students are given equal standing is paramount to the successful delivery of Inside-Out. Facilitating a dialogic curriculum requires both inside and outside students to feel comfortable expressing dissenting views. In order for this process to be effective, the inside students need to be able to metaphorically “transcend” the prison walls to feel as if they are inhabiting a university classroom (Santos and McPherson, 1995). Transcendence of the carceral environment is particularly important – yet difficult to achieve – for education delivered in a custodial setting. The constraints of a carceral environment can often dampen the transformative experience of education (Van Gundy et al., 2013). People who are incarcerated have undergone a “labelling” process by being officially “labelled” by the CJS as an “offender” or “criminal” and subsequently, “prisoner” (Farrington, 1977). Once labelled, it can be difficult to disentangle a state-sanctioned label from a subjective identity, and the negative identity-impacts of this experience often endure even after release (Maruna et al., 2004; Quinn-Hogan, 2021).

However, just as labels with negative connotations can impact identity, correspondingly, referring to someone as a “student” rather than a “prisoner” can have a positive impact on self-confidence and perception of self-efficacy (Lerman and Sadin, 2023). Inside-Out creates an environment that allows all students to rise above conceptual barriers and see beyond limited societal discourses (Fouché & Guillermo, 2021; Martinovic et al., 2017). Transcendence of these barriers occurs throughout the program, including when students form and build connections with one another, discover common interests and ultimately, when the class becomes a unified collective.

The dialogic methods inherent to Inside-Out are designed to minimise cohort divisions and foster collaboration between everyone, so that all program participants identify as “students”. The classroom setting is consciously created, with seating arranged in a circle that alternates between “inside” and “outside” students (Heider, 2018). The circle functions to develop a group consciousness that allows the whole class to see itself as a collective absent of hierarchy. In the circle, everyone is equal, including the educator, who serves as more of a facilitator than an instructor (Maclaren, 2015; Heider, 2018; Pompa, 2013b).

The environment of Inside-Out is structured purposefully with the aim of presenting all people – incarcerated or not – as having “innate worth, a story to tell, and experiences to learn from” (Davis and Roswell, 2013, p. 3). When a facilitator effectively manages the emergent dialogue from the two student cohorts, it allows for a variety of perspectives stemming from a variety of experiences to be given equal value. This enables a more critical engagement with the learning materials, which in turn increases the critical thinking skills of the students (Allred et al., 2013; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer, 2014; Hyatt, 2009; Werts, 2013; Long and Barnes, 2016). These are the moments of both transcendence and transformation, as the free discussion confronts both cohorts with personal, internalised biases, allowing all students to critically analyse their own values and beliefs (Conti, Morrison and Pantaleo, 2013; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer, 2014; Werts, 2013). As Inside-Out presents two diverse cohorts with alternate frameworks of experience and knowledge, it generates a richer understanding for students – of both the learning materials and themselves.

The process of establishing and implementing Inside-Out is not simple. It requires a partnership between a correctional facility and an Inside-Out facilitator. This, in turn, requires a broader partnership between the state corrections department and a higher education institution. A successful partnership is dependent upon both organisations reaching agreement around risk assessments, enrolment procedures, curriculum content, graduation ceremonies, etc. which is both difficult to commence and time-consuming to achieve (Martinovic and Liddell, 2020). Although Inside-Out is now run successfully internationally, instituting the program faced challenges in both the USA (Link, 2016) and the UK (King et al., 2019). Australia was no different; with initial discussions for developing Inside-Out in Victoria commencing in 2008, and subsequently stalling due to stakeholder doubts regarding program feasibility. Gaining approval from RMIT University and Corrections Victoria to pioneer Inside-Out in Australia ultimately took eight years (Martinovic and Liddell, 2020).

Protracted discussions occurred with university administration to address concerns about risk and duty-of-care to all involved. This culminated in several documents being created for Inside-Out, such as a professional conduct code, an ethics code and a confidentiality agreement. Furthermore, a risk assessment and management strategy was developed to control for any contingencies that arose relating to safety or inappropriate behaviour. Inside-Out has a strict no-contact policy between student cohorts upon completion of the course, and this is a crucial aspect of minimising risk. Both cohorts are told prior to commencing that they cannot maintain contact after the completion of the course, and this keeps the focus on the educational aspect rather than the social aspect of the course. The no-contact policy is explicitly spelt out in the student code of conduct that is signed prior to commencement. This firm structure communicates to all students that they are participating in Inside-Out for academic purposes only. Due to the long-standing success Inside-Out has experienced in the US, it was imperative to mimic those stringent operational guidelines for the Australian implementation to ensure the safety of all participants and program longevity. While the US safety practices were enacted identically, the Inside-Out curriculum itself was amended to meet local needs. The course subject was changed from the US-taught Introduction to Criminal Justice and replaced with Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, a subject run on-campus by RMIT University at the time, which was altered to fit the Inside-Out framework. A program evaluation instrument was also designed, as well as crafting stringent criteria and a detailed selection process for program participation.

The “outside” student selection process commenced with information sessions on campus at RMIT University. Students could submit an expression-of-interest form, and short-listed applicants were interviewed by a panel of RMIT and prison personnel. Students were assessed based on life experiences, completion of relevant RMIT courses to a high standard (e.g. Corrections, Community Corrections, Case Management Practice), and personal suitability to participate in a prison learning environment (Martinovic, 2016). Meanwhile, the “inside” student selection process was developed with Corrections Victoria, ensuring education officers in prisons approached incarcerated people to gauge willingness to participate in the program, rather than allocating “inside” students based purely on good behaviour or educational abilities (Martinovic, 2016). This two-pronged selection process resulted in an inaugural class list of 15 “outside” students and 15 “inside” students at each site.

Negotiations with RMIT University and Corrections Victoria eventually resulted in final program approval being granted in 2015. Since commencing, the Inside-Out stakeholders have been kept informed via several channels of communication. Inside-Out facilitators hold regular information sessions at participating prisons for correctional and program staff as a way to ensure site-specific understanding of the program. This is in addition to meeting with individuals within the correctional hierarchy – such as general managers, managers of prison programs, education officers and liaison staff. Inside-Out is also promoted on a regular basis during presentations at RMIT University, Corrections Victoria, and local and international conferences. From an uncertain inception, the Inside-Out program is now running regularly at six of the 15 prisons in Victoria.

A mixed method approach was used to evaluate the Victorian Inside-Out program (Martinovic et al., 2018), and this paper presents a deep analysis of only the qualitative data that was obtained from that evaluation. Approval for a research evaluation of Inside-Out was sought – and granted – from the Justice Human Research Ethics Committee (#0000019222), and the RMIT Human Research Ethics Committee prior to any data collection. Four one-hour focus group interviews were conducted after Inside-Out was concluded, where questions centred around individual and collective learning experiences.

A total of 25 students volunteered to participate in the focus groups. This number included 12 “inside” students – seven from DPFC, and five from MCC; and 13 “outside” students – seven from DPFC, and six from MCC. Each of these focus groups occurred independently, one at DPFC, one at MCC, and two at RMIT University. The four focus group discussions were transcribed by a confidential, secure transcription service. Focus group participants were de-identified, with the data only indicating whether participants were “inside” or “outside” students and the correctional site where they completed Inside-Out. Data was thematically analysed using the six-step procedure outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). For the purpose of this study, “themes” are defined as patterns of collective meaning that are “underpinned by a central organising concept” (Braun and Clarke, 2019, p. 593). Data collection and analysis was conducted by academics external to the delivery of Inside-Out.

There were four key limitations for this research:

1. There is a dearth of existing qualitative research about Inside-Out worldwide. This impacted to some degree on the analysis of this research study as it limited our ability to draw connections with similar studies.

2. Data collected were from the participants of the inaugural delivery of Inside-Out in Australia. As such, recruitment and implementation were evolving frameworks at the time of the study.

3. The final number of inside students at both prisons was reduced, which impacted on the overall numbers participating in the study. As described above, the inside student attrition at MCC impacted on the learning experience of both groups of students. While student attrition can be considered as a limitation of the research, it did, however, provide outside students at MCC with a greater understanding of the realities of prison life, and therefore enhance their learning experience.

4. Participation in the Inside-Out program is voluntary for inside students and an elective for outside students. As such, the participant pool would be skewed towards representing individuals who are more inclined to engage with the program and reflect its benefits.

“Inside” students at both DPFC and MCC had histories of disadvantage in terms of poverty, abuse and marginalisation. All “outside” students reported to have come from privileged backgrounds, worked part-time while studying and had never been incarcerated. Twenty-seven of the 30 “outside” students who participated in Inside-Out were young women, mostly aged between 19 and 21.

At DPFC, the age of female inside students ranged from 20 to 40 years. They had attained a higher level of education (than the MCC inside students) and were mostly employed at the time of arrest. Their cumulative experience of imprisonment ranged from 4.5 to 66 months with an average of 32.9 months.

At MCC, the age of male inside students ranged from 20 to over 50 years. They had attained a lower level of education (than the DPFC inside students) and were mostly unemployed at the time of arrest. Their cumulative experience of imprisonment ranged from 78 to 132 months with an average of 125.5 months. Many inside students at MCC had been incarcerated on multiple occasions.

The qualitative data obtained from the Inside-Out evaluation is presented thematically. The first theme outlines the merging of the two distinct student cohorts. The second theme explores the “outside” student experiences of Inside-Out as a methodology for higher education, and the reported academic benefits of a combined classroom setting. We then present the results relating to the transformative learning experiences of each student cohort.

Inside-Out is unique in its application of dialogic andragogy in that there are two distinct student cohorts that must first be united. This is essential if organic dialogue is to occur, and this goal can only be accomplished by breaking down the – often invisible – preconceptions that each group holds: “When you’re thinking about offenders, you always have this sort of idea that they’re really disadvantaged, [that] they have a certain look about them” (Outside student, MCC):

The preconceived expectations the “outside” students held regarding the “inside” students were evident in their interactions: “It was incredible to hear them say, like: “Oh my God you”re just like us! […] We’re no different!’” (Inside student, DPFC). However, the “inside” students were surprised by how quickly the walls between the two cohorts crumbled:

“We’re not that different from them even though we are in prison, and this gave them a chance to see that” (Inside student, DPFC).

Once these barriers were broken, a simpler form of socialisation occurred, where “inside” students merely appreciated interaction with non-custodial people: “We got to (re)integrate with people from the outside – which was pretty good for us” (Inside student, MCC). “[We had an] opportunity to meet new people that didn’t, you know, judge us as prisoners all the time” (Inside student, DPFC). “I didn’t have to swear all the time or be strong or be staunch […] I felt like I could drop a mask when I came in here, and just be my true self” (Inside student, DPFC). As a result of the “inside” students feeling as though they could be their “true self”, it enabled them to see each other in a new light: “It was just a chance to be ourselves and to see the girls in a different way than we see them out in the compound with their masks on” (Inside student, DPFC).

By successfully merging the two student cohorts, Inside-Out created a space where all students could learn about themselves and each other, cultivating fertile ground for respectful, emergent dialogue to facilitate the adult learning process.

The outside students attributed the positive learning environment to the mutual exchange of knowledge that occurred between themselves and the inside students: “The things they didn’t know, we knew, and the things that we didn’t know, they knew. So we were learning from each other constantly” (Outside student, MCC). This style of learning appeared to be more impactful for “outside” students than the traditional on-campus didactic teaching method: “It just stays with you […] it’s a bigger and better learning method” (Outside student, DPFC). “I will never forget [inside student] for the rest of my [life] […] I will remember what they’ve said quicker than I will remember a reference that I quoted [in a university essay] (Outside student, MCC). “You’re more definite in what you know and what you expect and what you’ve learnt – rather than all this other stuff which you listened to before because you didn’t know any better” (Outside student, MCC). “It just gave us a different perspective. […] I think it’s given us, well me personally, a lot of extra experience […] I wouldn’t have gotten just in a classroom” (Outside student, MCC).

The dialogic methodology of Inside-Out challenged outside students both academically and personally as they were confronted by their preconceived views about the operation of the CJS and its impact on incarcerated people: “[I learnt] that not everything you read and not everything you think you know is the truth” (Outside student, MCC). “For some of them, prison was really a safe place, because the conditions they had on the outside were much worse” (Outside student, DPFC). “Treating them as an ‘outsider’ of society is what makes them become antisocial and attached to groups that feel the same way; that’s their little community because they feel like we’re pushing them out [of the community]” (Outside student, MCC). “One of the [inside students] said that she’d been out in the past, but because she was homeless, she pretty much wanted to go back in because at least she had a bed and food” (Outside student, DPFC).

This multifaceted understanding of the people entangled in the CJS is what facilitated a more nuanced understanding of the CJS itself:

The “outside” students felt the insight gained from “inside” students’ knowledge had been so beneficial that correctional policy makers “need their [the inside students’] advice” (Outside student, MCC):

The “outside” students also believed the insights they gained had assisted in their careers: “You’re not really going to get far if you can feel the barrier between you and [the person] who you’re trying to help get through the [corrections] order” (Outside student, MCC). “Because I’d been going to Inside-Out, [working in the sector] was nothing. Whereas, I think, if I hadn’t been in the program, it would have been a very different thing for me” (Outside student, MCC).

The more nuanced understanding of the CJS that “outside” students developed over the course of the semester did not go unnoticed by the “inside” students: “They really got to understand it better during those group discussions, “cause that’s when it was processed, it was when it was discussed – it’s when their beliefs about it were challenged” (Inside student, MCC). “Inside” students found they could “challenge” the beliefs of “outside” students, and that their views and experiences were respected:

These shared experiences with the “outside” students also softened perceptions of future correctional personnel: “If a lot of the outside students were going to end up working in corrections, well it’s a positive that they saw us for who we are” (Inside student, MCC):

The “inside” students were able to witness how their experiences enhanced the previously-attained academic education of the “outside” students: “Normally, we’re the subject of discussions, but we never get to be a participant of these kind of discussions” (Inside student, MCC). “The experience of another person is very important for us to draw conclusions and learn wisdoms from in life” (Inside student, DPFC):

By witnessing their own contributions to the “outside” students’ academic education, the “inside” students became empowered and developed a greater sense of self-esteem, self-worth and self-value: “You could be like, proud of even yourself, and thinking that: ‘Alright, we’re contributing to something very, you know, something that we value’” (Inside student, DPFC):

“It was our experiences that will actually shape the future changes that would bring about the positive changes that the CJS desperately needs” (Inside student, MCC). “To have that much knowledge basically gives you confidence” (Inside student, DPFC). “This program gave me the opportunity to feel normal, to feel like I can achieve something, to feel intelligent” (Inside student, DPFC):

“After having forgotten what it feels like, I now have self-worth and have been empowered, and I imagine a better future for myself” (Inside student, DPFC).

All students who participated in the study stated that Inside-Out had a profound impact on them, yet this impact varied according to student cohort. Both inside and outside students found the experience transformative in different ways, however, all students first noted a transformative experience when the two cohorts became one class. The purposeful structure of the first combined class – based almost entirely around “ice-breaker” activities – is identical to the US program (Mishne et al., 2012), and the process yielded the same results cross-culturally in the local implementation. This intentional process revealed the outside students’ preconceptions to themselves – as it was only by having those preconceptions broken that they became visible to the beholder. The inside students – all too familiar with experiencing such pre/misconceptions from others in the wake of receiving the social label of “criminal” – were not surprised by such assumptions being made about their personhood and character. However, they were surprised to hear the fracturing of these assumptions explicitly verbalised by the outside students during their initial interactions as co-learners. The open dialogue fostered by the Inside-Out facilitator allowed a safe place for the outside students to openly express amazement as their expectations became simultaneously visible and discredited, and to discuss the ways implicit assumptions had become built into personal worldviews via broader social narratives. Whereas the inside students – possessing a greater understanding than the outside students of how people can fall prey to conjecture – displayed more surprise at how quickly the barriers between them disappeared. This challenged the inside students’ presumption that it is impossible to overcome such social narratives once they are part of the public discourse (Link, 2016). By witnessing the outside students ability to “identify with them as people”, the inside students felt safe to remove their “masks”. This, in turn, transformed the way they saw one another and even themselves, to the point of not having “to swear all the time or be strong or be staunch”. For the inside students, by witnessing themselves reflected through the outside students’ interactions as not fulfilling “prisoner” stereotypes, it undermined the totality of their identity as a “prisoner”, and allowed space to construct a selfhood that also incorporated the label of “student”. For both cohorts, Inside-Out transformed their belief systems – outside students spoke about coming to see the influence of the media in shaping their perceptions and expectations, whereas inside students reported seeing themselves in a different light; as capable students with valuable contributions to make. These transformations in student worldviews facilitated a subsequent transformation in their actions and ways of relating to one another (Fouché & Guillermo, 2021; Link, 2016).

The experiences outlined above are at the heart of what makes Inside-Out a transformational learning experience, both in the USA and Australia. Fleming (2022, p. 8) states that “transformative learning and recognition rely on each other”, arguing “disorienting dilemmas” which are “infused with and grounded in struggles for recognition” create the uncomfortable process that produces transformative learning in students. This reflects the data collected, as both student cohorts underwent a shattering of current belief systems around each other, and by reconstructing the “other” they necessarily had to reconstruct themselves. Such outcomes would be impossible to achieve without taking a dialogical approach to curriculum delivery, as it was only through open and respectful conversation between the dual-cohort classroom that misconceptions were eroded and self-transformation occurred. The students’ knowledge deepened through critique and debate that embraced the diversity of each other’s viewpoints and experiences – findings that replicate results derived from evaluations of the US delivery of Inside-Out (Hyatt, 2009; Pompa, 2013a).

However more than this, the outside students gained an appreciation of experiential knowledge as a necessary supplement to academic knowledge, and became aware of how on-campus didactic education had not challenged the simplicity of their views nor revealed the wider social context around offending. This finding also mirrors the US Inside-Out program (Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer, 2014; Perez, and Leon, 2020), indicating it is the original concept of bringing together university students and incarcerated students combined with the dialogic delivery that makes Inside-Out transformative, rather than the specific curriculum or facilitator. In the USA, Wyant and Lockwood (2018), found “evidence of transformative learning” demonstrated by statistically significant changes to outside student perceptions of criminal justice issues (p. 63), and the Australian evaluation revealed similar findings. The critical discussions – which are often raw and sobering – allow outside students to understand the content in tangible ways that theoretical underpinnings alone cannot replicate (Martinovic et al., 2017; O’Brien et al., 2021; Werts, 2013). By evaluating a cross-cultural delivery with an adapted curriculum, it appears that the Inside-Out practice of merging two diverse cohorts of students within a dialogic classroom setting produces a unique and transformative learning environment in both the USA and Australia.

Inside-Out is a unique program in Australia based on a US framework that has successfully partnered universities and correctional systems for nearly three decades. The legacy and reputation of Inside-Out is renowned internationally, and this article has shown that the Australian implementation correspondingly provides a transformative educational experience for both university students and incarcerated people. The equitable sharing of knowledge allowed inside students to be someone other than a label, and facilitated the outside students’ growth and understanding of the social contributors to the crime rate and the far-reaching impact of media representations. We propose more extensive evaluations to ascertain the longitudinal impacts – if any – on both cohorts. A study with follow-up interviews at 1 and 5 years would improve understanding of whether this transformative experience is temporary or lasting, and what kind of influence this has on students’ lives post-graduation. However, presently, we recommend offering Inside-Out to all criminal justice students and current practising professionals, as we believe this would facilitate opportunities for co-production of policies and procedures, and provide thoughtful and innovative solutions to the multiplex problems faced by corrections.