IMPROVING
ACCESS
TO
PROGRAMMES
22. The Prison Service has no routine mechanism for
forming an overall picture of prisoners' need for programmes,
and therefore has no method for assessing any potential mismatch
between need and programme provision. The Prison Service was addressing
this gap by testing every new prisoner for literacy and numeracy,
and by providing all prisoners with an opportunity to address
their drugs misuse. It believed the implementation of a new system,
OASys, a joint development with the Probation Service, would provide
a more strategic and systematic basis for assessing prisoner risks
and needs.[16]
23. The National Audit Office found that, despite
the expansion of places on offending behaviour programmes, prisoners'
access to the programmes owed much to where they were sent to
serve their sentence. For example, in March 2001 the proportion
of prisoners attending a prison where the Enhanced Thinking Skills
or Reasoning and Rehabilitation programmes were on offer ranged
from 40.6 per cent in Lancashire and Cumbria to 100 per cent in
Manchester, Mersey and Cheshire, Wales and East Midlands (South).
The Prison Service does not have a complete picture of the demand
for offending behaviour programmes. The Prison Service thought
provision probably needed to expand by 3,000 places, from 6,000
to 9,000 to meet demand. The programme had not expanded as quickly
as desired because, for example, of the difficulty of recruiting
and retaining professional staff. Programmes had therefore initially
been rolled out to those prisons best equipped to make them work,
for example because they had psychologists in post. The proportion
of prisons providing accredited programmes had increased from
72 per cent in 2001 to 86 per cent in April 2002.[17]
24. The Prison Service has sought to improve the
availability of drug treatment services across the prison estate.
By March 2002, there was a Counselling, Assessment, Referral,
Advice and Throughcare service (CARAT) available in all prisons.
However, the National Audit Office found that drug treatment programmes
were running in just 50 out of 135 prisons, with marked variations
in provision between different types of prison. Virtually all
prisons holding high security risk prisoners, for example, had
drug treatment programmes, but only one in three closed young
offender institutions had such programmes. The Prison Service
noted that young prisoners tended to serve shorter sentences and
there was therefore often insufficient time to put them through
a programme. Nevertheless, the Service had recognised the need
to expand the number of places on drug treatment programmes in
the juvenile estate, and had made funds available for programmes
in three additional institutions. Unfortunately, delays in recruiting
staff, due to a shortage in the market, had meant that only one
of the three institutions had the programme running by March 2002.[18]
25. The National Audit Office found wide variations
in education provision across the prison estate. In 1999-00 the
annual average expenditure on education per prisoner varied significantly,
even within prisons of the same category, ranging, for example,
from £89 to £1,493 amongst male open prisons. The Service
said that some prisons spent very little on education because
they were concentrating on providing full time work instead. A
review was underway to address some of the differences identified
by the National Audit Office.[19]
26. A National Audit Office survey found that 90
out of 134 prisons were providing other programmes, courses and
activities described as reducing reoffending but which were not
accredited. The Prison Service did not have any central record
of what these programmes involved, their target group, their objectives
and costs, and who was providing them. Voluntary bodies with an
interest in prison matters had expressed concern that the focus
on accredited programmes ran the risk of depriving non-accredited
programmes of the resources they needed to continue. The Prison
Service had issued a Direction in 2002 to encourage the use of
non-accredited programmes for prisoners who were not in custody
long enough to complete accredited programmes. The Service planned
to issue a National Framework in 2002 giving further advice to
prison governors on the kinds of activities most likely to be
effective.[20]
27. A prisoner's attendance on a programme may be
disrupted by transfer to another prison. Prisoner transfers could
occur for a variety of reasons, including changes in their security
risk and medical condition. In 2000-01 there were at least 60,000
transfers amongst the prison population of 65,000. The recent
steep rise in the prison population meant that transfers were
an increasing problem as prisoners were moved around to fill available
space. The Prison Service had tried to avoid moving people on
offending behaviour programmes and drug treatment programmes because
much of the benefit to be derived relied on uninterrupted group
working. The Service estimated therefore that just three (0.4
per cent) out of 851 prisoners had been unable to complete the
sex offender treatment programme because of transfers; just four
(1.7 per cent) out of 235 on CALM, an anger management programme,
and only 84 (1.7 per cent) out of 4,974 on the cognitive skills
programme. The Service admitted however, that it was not possible
to avoid disruption to people on education programmes.[21]
28. The Prison Service has a Key Performance Indicator
which measures the time prisoners spend on "purposeful activity".
This measure includes not only programmes aimed at reducing reoffending
but also, for example, cleaning work on prison wings, support
to works and maintenance staff and use of library. In the nine
years from 1992-93 to 2000-01, purposeful activity rose by approximately
25 million hours a year. However, because of the 45 per cent increase
in the prison population over that period, the average number
of hours spent on purposeful activity by prisoners had remained
largely unchanged. The amount of purposeful activity varied enormously
between prisons, even of the same category. In 2000-01, in the
case of Category C prisons, for example, it ranged from 54.3 hours
at Kirklevington Prison to just 16.7 hours at Haslar Prison. The
Prison Service said that the performance of some prisons was due
largely to their nature. Kirklevington, for example, was a resettlement
prison where prisoners spent most of their time outside in full-time
work. Nevertheless, it was trying to reduce the range by improving
the performance of the poorer prisons. It believed, however, that
reducing the range appreciably would require considerable time
and investment. The Prison Service had no target for how much
time prisoners spend on activities which contribute directly to
reducing reoffending but the Service thought it was unlikely to
be more than five hours per prisoner per week. [22]
29. Private sector companies running nine of the
135 prisons in England and Wales have been supportive of work
to reduce prisoner reoffending. There had been two cases where
major changes in provision of programmes had resulted in additional
costs to the Service, at Ashfield Young Offenders Institution
and at Parc prison. Changes at other private prisons had been
on a smaller scale and were generally cost neutral. There had
been little opposition from prison officers to the increased emphasis
on rehabilitation. More than half of the tutors on offending behaviour
programmes were prison officers. The Prison Service was trying
to effect a cultural change within the Service, which involved
greater use of the skills of probation officers and psychologists.[23]
SUPPORT
PROVIDED
PRIOR
TO
RELEASE
30. Historically, the support provided to help prisoners
prepare for life after release reflected the priorities of individual
governors. As a result, the extent and nature of the assistance
varied widely across the prison estate. More recently, the Prison
Service had begun to take a more strategic view of resettlement.
In October 2001, it published a Prison Service Order on Resettlement
setting out the policy framework for its resettlement activity.
The Order underpins a Performance Standard on resettlement which
the Service issued in November 2000 to prisons, and which specified
actions to be taken and the measures by which performance would
be monitored.[24]
31. Currently, around 40 per cent of prisoners are
homeless on release. The Prison Service aimed to increase the
number of prisoners with adequate accommodation on release, although
no specific target had been set. Prisoners lacking a place to
stay were two and a half times more likely to reoffend than those
with accommodation. When prisoners leave custody they receive
no benefits for two weeks. To help meet the initial costs of accommodation,
the Service pays a one off discharge grant to prisoners but, in
the Prison Service's view, this amount was inadequate.[25]
32. The Government has set the Prison Service the
target of doubling by 2004 the number of prisoners getting jobs
or training places after release. The Service had increased the
number of released prisoners going into jobs or training from
10 per cent in the mid to the late 1990s to around 29 per cent.
However, some individual prisons were achieving much higher figures
as a result of specific local initiatives, for example, Durham
at 34 per cent and Thorn Cross at 44 per cent.[26]
33. An evaluation of prison work and training in
1998 had found that less than half of a sample of 88 former prisoners
obtained work in the months following release, and in only five
cases did the work bear any relation to their jobs in the prison
workshops. The Prison Service said, however, that prison workshops
helped keep good order and control. It was preferable to give
prisoners low quality work to take them out of their cells than
the alternative of keeping them locked up for 23 hours a day.[27]
34. In July 2000, the Prison Service had established
a Custody to Work Unit with funding of £30 million over the
three financial years ending in 2004 to increase the number of
prisoners going into jobs on release. The Unit was trying to realign
vocational training into the four areas where research suggested
that there were jobs available for discharged prisoners: the construction
industry; catering; leisure activities; and industrial cleaning.
The Service was also working with the Employment Service to make
it easier for released prisoners to get jobs. In some prisons,
electronic job kiosks had been installed to help prisoners many
miles from their home to find out about jobs available in local
job centres.[28]
35. The Prison Service's guidance on sentence planning
encouraged staff to seek contributions to the planning process
from families and community based agencies who knew the prisoner,
or who might usefully become involved in resettlement plans. A
National Audit Office survey had found, however, that only 22
per cent out of 134 prisons had involved families in sentence
planning; with just 6 per cent involving community groups; and
5 per cent prisoners' help groups. The Prison Service said that
it was now quite common for the families of the 3,000 or so young
people in custody aged 17 or under to be involved in discussions
with prison staff about their progress.[29]
36. The Prison Service does not have a target for
the proportion of prisoners serving their sentences close to home.
Prisoners are allocated to prisons where space is available. At
31 March 2001, 25,000 prisoners were held over 50 miles from their
home town and 11,000 over 100 miles away, making it difficult
for prisoners to maintain family ties. The Prison Service agreed
that lack of family support could be a factor in reoffending and
that imprisonment could strain family relationships and marriages.
It would like to house more prisoners nearer their homes but population
pressures made this difficult. It was important,
however, to ensure that the visiting facilities were welcoming.[30]
1 C&AG's Report Reducing Prisoner Reoffending
(HC 548, Session 2001-02) para 1.1 Back
2
Qs 9, 13, 62-63, 78-79, 127, 187 Back
3
Qs 9, 62-63 Back
4
Q63 Back
5
A non-accredited programme is one which has not been accredited
by the Joint Accreditation Panel, an advisory non-departmental
public body sponsored jointly by the National Probation Service
and the Prison Service. Back
6
C&AG's Report, para 1.5; Qs 5, 8, 13, 179 Back
7
Q155; Ev 28 (ref. to Q195) Back
8
C&AG's Report, para 3.15; Qs 9, 13 Back
9
Qs 93-97; Ev 25 Back
10
Qs 47, 53-55 Back
11
C&AG's Report, para 1.10; Qs 5, 31, 36, 69 Back
12
C&AG's Report, para 1.1; Qs 2-4 Back
13
Q143 Back
14
Qs 76-78, 148, 187; Ev 27 (ref. to Q187) Back
15
C&AG's Report, para 2.2; Qs 42, 89 Back
16
C&AG's Report, para 3.6; Qs 14, 44, 105-108 Back
17
C&AG's Report, para 3.7, Figures 14 and 15; Qs 5, 101 Back
18
C&AG's Report, paras 3.10-3.11 and Figure 17; Qs 47, 50; Ev
24 (ref. to Q50) Back
19
Q6 Back
20
Qs 29-30, 35-39, 43 Back
21
Qs 7, 163-164; Ev 25 (ref. to Q163) Back
22
C&AG's Report, paras 3.24-3.25 and Figure 20; Qs 8, 122-123,
168-171 Back
23
Qs 58-59, 67-68, 119, 172-174; Ev 25 (ref. to Q59) Back
24
C&AG's Report, paras 4.6-4.7; Q12 Back
25
Qs 129-131, 148 Back
26
Qs 32-33, 111 Back
27
Q11 Back
28
Qs 11, 114, 142 Back
29
C&AG's Report, para 4.8; Q57 Back
30
Qs 132-138 Back