In March this year, I was fortunate to be sponsored by the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IACFP) to attend the International Research in Corrections Conference (IRCC) in Auckland, New Zealand. Working within the Department of Corrections New Zealand is often fast-paced, and I valued the opportunity to step back, reflect, and engage with new learning—particularly at my first international conference.
Although I did not travel far geographically, the conference itself felt noticeably global. Delegates and presenters attended from a wide range of jurisdictions, including Singapore, Norway, the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Across these systems, there were both shared challenges and notable differences. A consistent message, however, was the value of collaboration at conferences such as these, and continuing this dialogue when delegates return home. Hearing from such a diverse group reinforced how much can be gained from cross-jurisdictional learning, particularly in working towards rehabilitative and purposeful correctional environments.
A central theme throughout the conference was the importance of culturally responsive practice. Presentations and panel discussions explored how to enhance and evaluate culturally responsive approaches, including the validation of assessment tools. A key reflection for me was the ongoing impact of colonisation within correctional settings. This was not discussed as a historical issue, but as something that continues to shape lived experience, contributing to inequality, trauma, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous populations in the justice system. The implication for practice is clear: culturally responsive work must move beyond awareness and into action, with a focus on addressing underlying structural and systemic factors.
Relational practice was another strong and recurring thread. One insight that stood out was the role of rapport in Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) assessment interviews. Rapport was identified as a significant moderator of treatment readiness, reframing assessment interviews as not only evaluative processes but also opportunities to initiate change. While the importance of therapeutic alliance is well established, it can be deprioritised under operational pressures. This served as a useful reminder that even brief interactions can carry clinical and rehabilitative weight.
The conference opened with a keynote from Alison Liebling, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge. Her work on prison culture and moral climates was referenced repeatedly across the following days. She introduced the concept of “morally gifted” staff; people who contribute to creating environments that are relationally rich, humane, and conducive to rehabilitation. These “oases” within correctional settings were described as spaces where individuals in custody can experience dignity, connection, and growth, alongside improved staff wellbeing and reduced incidents. The idea is compelling, though it also raises practical questions about how such environments can be consistently developed within constrained systems.
One comment from an expert by experience has stayed with me. They noted that conferences and academic discussions often focus on important themes, yet tangible changes in practice can remain limited. This prompted reflection on whether we are sufficiently effective at translating evidence-based knowledge into frontline correctional practice. Since returning, I have shared learning with colleagues and begun informal discussions about how these ideas might be applied locally. However, it is not yet clear how best to move from insight to sustained implementation.
Another observation was the relative absence of frontline operational staff. During the final panel, correctional officers were asked to stand if present; only one individual did. This felt significant. If those most embedded in day-to-day operational realities are underrepresented, there is a risk that discussions—however well intentioned—remain somewhat abstract. This reflects a broader and persistent implementation gap between research, policy, and frontline delivery. Generating and sharing evidence is necessary, but insufficient on its own; it must also be accessible, relevant, and embedded in everyday interactions between staff and those in custody.
The challenge, as I currently see it, is twofold. First, how do we ensure that learning from these spaces is disseminated in a way that reaches all staff, not just those who attend? Second, how do we avoid key messages dissipating once we return to operational environments that are often resource-constrained and resistant to change? Related to this is the question of representation. If we are serious about improving practice, future conferences should involve a broader and more diverse range of staff, particularly those working directly with individuals in custody. Their perspectives are critical in shaping approaches that are both realistic and sustainable. At an individual level, I am beginning to consider what this means for my own role. I am particularly interested in how I can contribute to developing relational, practical, and morally grounded environments within correctional settings. At this stage in my career, I do not yet have clear answers, but I am increasingly aware that bridging the gap between knowledge and practice is likely to be a central part of that responsibility.
Attendance at my first international conference was a highly valuable experience, and I am grateful to the IACFP for the opportunity. Working in corrections is both rewarding and demanding, and having space to reflect felt important. I would encourage colleagues to consider engaging with or attending future conferences where possible. They offer not only exposure to international perspectives, but also a useful opportunity to step back and reconsider the purpose and impact of our work.
Laura Lyons
Registered Psychologist
Department of Corrections New Zealand
