153 Experienced outcomes of MCD ‘It became apparent the team had not made sufficiently clear agreements on how to deal with and care for this prisoner since everyone had different ideas on what the agreements meant exactly. Moreover, the conversation indicated differences of opinion on how this prisoner should be treated. This revealed new dilemmas.’ Sometimes clarity on the course of action resulted in strong motivation, e.g., ‘the two members of the management team who will work on it were noticeably eager and enthusiastic to move forward based on the new insights’. However, the opposite also happened, as one MCD facilitator observed that when ‘the case presenter said he heard nothing new, this was a letdown since it did not do justice to the collective moral inquiry.’ DISCUSSION Almost all data about MCD and its outcomes were positive. We found an average overall score per single MCD session of 7.4 out of 10. Similar to studies in health care, our data shows MCD fosters awareness of moral dilemmas and helps participants learn from different perspectives, resulting in improved insight into case content and a better understanding of colleagues’ perspectives (De Snoo-Trimp et al., 2020; Haan et al., 2018; Hem et al., 2015). We will relate our data to literature about moral learning, hence, reflect and gain insights on how MCD helped prison staff in the development of their moral and reflective professionalism. Based on our data, we will add reflections on how MCD creates a deeper understanding of (the role of) emotions, which is an important part of moral learning. Furthermore, we will reflect on the value of MCD and its outcomes for prison work in general. We will conclude with implications for DCIA specifically. Moral learning process of prison staff by means of MCD As stated in the Introduction, moral learning includes developing a more profound understanding of a concrete situation and its moral aspects, and awareness of values and their validities when making moral judgments (Paterson, 1979, p. 128). An essential element is having a realistic view of responsibilities and defining the scope of your moral agency (Brookfield, 1998; Walker, 2007). Morality refers to a ‘shared understanding of who gets to do what for whom and who is supposed to do what for whom’ (Walker, 2007, p. 17). In our data, MCD participants show an improved understanding of their roles and responsibilities, as reflected in, e.g., the qualitative data in the category scope of influence. In some cases, prison staff gained a better understanding of the complexity 6