Memorandum from the Forum on Prisoner
Education
INTRODUCTION
1. The Forum on Prisoner Education was founded
in 2000 to "increase the quality, availability and consistency
of education and training within the criminal justice system".
We believe that education in prisons should be centred on the
needs of the individual prisoner, for whom it can hold the key
to living without crime by building self-esteem, encouraging self-motivation,
and providing new opportunities after release.
2. The Forum on Prisoner Education is a
membership organisation, with members drawn from a range of backgrounds.
A significant number work in prisoner education; others include
campaigners and members of the voluntary sector, academics, parliamentarians,
and current and former prisoners.
3. We welcome the attention to be given
to this important issue by the Committee. Whilst we have limited
our evidence to the specific issues identified as being of interest
to the Committee, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss
any aspect of prisoner education relevant to the Committee's work.
THE ASSESSMENT
OF PRISONERS'
NEEDS ON
CONVICTION
4. National Standards for Pre-Sentence Reports
have, since 2000, required that each report will "contain
an offender assessment which shall state the offender's status
in relation to literacy and numeracy". We welcome this new
importance being attached to education, and recognition of its
central role in sentencing practice.
5. Soon after reception into prison, the
new prisoner will undergo an educational assessment. The Forum
on Prisoner Education has expressed significant concern over these
assessments (copies of which are available from the Forum)[1],
in that they test ability only up to Basic Skills Level 1. We
believe that the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit at the DfES
should implement a range of assessments to enable prison education
tutors to accurately gauge any learning needs the prisoner may
have.
6. Contractors and education staff and management
have expressed significant concern over the funding of the assessment
process. For example, High Down prison in Surrey can receive as
many as 267 new prisoners each month. Their budget only allows
for 500 hours of education induction, leaving prisoners with a
10 minute induction period. This is clearly unacceptable, especially
in the case of prisoners with complex educational needs.
7. When talking of "needs", we
need to consider motivation. Very many prisoners have had negative
experiences of formal education, and simply shutting them in a
classroom is unlikely to have any positive effect. In assessing
"needs", an assessment should be made of the styles
of learning likely to work for that prisoner. For prisoners with
negative experiences of education, distance and flexible learning
(such as in-cell) can offer an effective means of learning and
we believe that more should be done to explore and encourage non-traditional
learning methods in prisons. A great deal of success has been
achieved by literate prisoners teaching other prisoners to read
and write—through schemes such as Toe by Toe run
by The Shannon Trust. Learning is best achieved through personal
experiences and thus workshops and education should be linked.
Much in the way of communication and mathematics can be achieved
through activities in the workshop.
8. Allied to motivation, we need to recognise
that may prisoners' lives have been chaotic and disruptive. Very
low self-esteem is common, and education must be "sold"
to many of these prisoners. Prisoners need to be encouraged to
learn, and shown that they can learn, and can change and enrich
their lives through learning.
9. Educational needs cannot—and should
not—be separated from a wider needs assessment. A significant
number of prisoners have a history of substance misuse; many have
mental health problems; and few have a job or home to go to on
release. Education must be an integral part of an holistic approach
to assessing and resolving prisoners' needs.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF LOCAL
CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS
10. Since its creation in 2000, the Forum
on Prisoner Education has consistently questioned the value of
the contracting out of prison education services. Whilst we are
opposed to the contracting out of prison education, we are at
the same time practical and therefore seek ways to move forward
with contractors under present arrangements.
11. Our first objection to contracting out
of prison education is that we cannot see any visible benefit
to prisoners from education being contracted out. Whilst we do
not suggest that prison education is worse than it was before
1993 (when contracts were first issued), we do not see any significant
improvement, and believe that local education services could provide
the same services equally as well.
12. Our second objection relates to staffing.
With a five-yearly cycle of competitive tendering, prison education
staff understandably become concerned over their job security.
The Forum on Prisoner Education joins with NATFHE (the National
Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education) in expressing
these concerns. Successful prison education can only take place
when those responsible for delivery are contented in their work
and feel a sense of security. We pay tribute to the incredibly
hard work undertaken by prison educators, in what can often be
challenging and even hostile environments.
13. Our third, and final, objection is a
fundamental moral opposition to contracting out on the basis that
it leads to a profit/loss, business-led approach to prisoner education.
We do not believe that private contracting should feature in any
aspect of imprisonment or punishment, as profit from punishment
is, we believe, immoral.
14. In January 2004, after the latest round
of tendering (under "Project REX") was due to start,
the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit at the DfES announced
that contracts were being automatically extended. This is believed
to be due to uncertainty over the shape of offender education
within the framework of the National Offender Management Service
(NOMS). The government minister responsible for prison education,
Mr Ivan Lewis MP, told a Forum on Prisoner Education evening reception
in May 2004 that the decision to abandon the tendering process
was a "courageous step", taken because his department
was "unhappy with the general direction of travel".
The cost of the abandoned exercise was £346,000. Whatever
the reason behind the abandoning of "Project REX", this
further illustrates the problems and uncertainty faced by prison
education staff, and we urge the government to clarify the future
position urgently.
15. Our understanding is that, under NOMS,
offender education (both community-based and in custody) will
be organised on a regional basis with one contractor serving each
region. The thinking behind this is that it will allow an offender
to complete an educational course in the community after release
from custody. This is an excellent idea, but we fear that it is
destined to fail. A significant proportion of prisoners are held
in prisons more than 50 miles from home, and are likely to return
to a different region to that in which they are imprisoned. Unless
there is to be a consistent educational programme throughout England
and Wales, a large number of prisoners will not benefit from this
"flow-through".
16. Information on contractual arrangements
for the delivery of prisoner and offender education is often unavailable,
on the basis that the information is "commercially confidential".
We believe that this is a significant barrier to allowing greater
transparency in terms of budgets, cost and performance. Contractors
should be encouraged to share information to make their provision
truly competitive.
17. Targets are set by the Offenders' Learning
and Skills Unit at the DfES on the number of basic skills awards
gained by prisoners each year. However, no targets are set beyond
Level 2, and information on the number of awards and qualifications
is difficult to obtain. The OLSU and prison service should begin
recording achievement in these higher-level qualifications and
awards as a matter of urgency. It is equally important that the
targets set reflect the complexities of the prison environment,
and do not merely reflect targets set in educational institutions
in the community.
THE PROVISION
OF APPROPRIATE
TRAINING FACILITIES
WITHIN PRISONS
18. The Forum on Prisoner Education acknowledges
that a majority of prisoners have basic skills needs, and we welcome
the government's attention in this area. We do have concerns over
the quality of basic skills provision, with deficiencies
frequently highlighted by the various inspection agencies.
19. Basic skills education is undeniably
the focus of all prison education departments, largely due to
these departments having targets set by the DfES and prison service.
However, this unremitting diet of basic skills is to the detriment
of prisoners capable of higher levels of study and we would like
to see a greater emphasis on GCSE, A-Level, HND, undergraduate
and postgraduate study as an expansion of the curriculum.
20. We have welcomed significant capital
investment in prison education buildings in recent years, but
argue that the government needs to go much further. At North Sea
Camp prison in Lincolnshire, some classes take place in temporary
buildings such as "Portakabins", although having been
in place for decades they are far from "temporary".
In the summer they are stiflingly hot; in the winter bitterly
cold. These are far from ideal learning conditions. In her most
recent Annual Report, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons told of one
prison holding school-age children, but which only had space for
20% of the prisoners held there. It is clear that further significant
investment is required as a matter of some urgency.
21. The wider prison regime can sometimes
work against effective education. In many prisons, for example,
two sessions run each day, in the morning from 9.00 am to 11.30
am and in the afternoon from 1.45 pm to 4.15 pm. We would not
expect schoolchildren to spent 2½ hours in one lesson, and
progress must be made in breaking up these sessions to avoid boredom.
22. The Forum on Prisoner Education encourages
the provision and support for prisoners wishing to undertake distance
learning courses. Currently, prisoners studying for such a course
are expected to undertake their study in-cell, with some spending
a little time in the education department. We would like to see
prison education departments, and prisons as a whole, offer space
for quiet study for prisoners on distance learning and other courses.
23. In-cell study is often not easy. With
the spiralling prison population, many prisoners are now expected
to share a cell with another prisoner, who might not appreciate
his cell-mate's need for quiet study. We would encourage prison
education managers, the Heads of Learning and Skills, and others
on the prison's Senior Management Team to consider prioritising
single-cell requests for prisoners who wish to study.
24. However, prison wings are also very
noisy places, with steel doors banging, loud music and televisions,
and heavy footsteps on metal walkways. We urge caution in viewing
in-cell study as a panacea to the problems of space in education
departments. Ideally, we would like to see a trial of a prison
wing being devoted entirely to student-prisoners who wish to study
in-cell. In the meantime, we would welcome prisons offering a
quiet area for evening study, perhaps in the library or in a wing
classroom.
25. Many distance learning courses now require
internet access, either for research, examinations, or liaison
with course tutors. This presents a major problem in prisons,
where internet access is not available due to "security considerations".
The Forum on Prisoner Education believes that this shows a lack
of determination and imagination on the part of HM Prison Service.
Secure internet access could be provided with relative ease, by
using existing software similar to that used by parents to block
websites they deem unsuitable for their children. This would open
up a whole new resource, not only for education, but also in terms
of resettlement. Exeter University conducted an evaluation of
a pilot of the Learndirect programme in five prisons, and
concluded "that the benefits to [prisoners] of the presence
of Learndirect facilities are significant". The continuing
denial of access to the internet also further excludes prisoners
from the labour market, where knowledge and experience of using
the internet is often now required. The Forum on Prisoner Education
is currently planning to set up a Working Group to examine this
area in more detail, with a view to publishing a policy paper
in due course.
26. Prison libraries are often a haven for
the student prisoner. Operated by local authorities, prison libraries
usually offer the full range of services (such as book ordering)
available in community libraries. Sadly, however, prison libraries
often stand unused for large parts of the day, and in some cases
prisoners have access only once every two weeks. We would like
to see prison libraries further integrated with educational provision,
with more titles being made available with relevance to the educational
curriculum. We would also like to see prison libraries offer books
which allow prisoners to take control of their own learning, without
necessarily coming into contact with the education department—an
example might be a self-teach foreign language course.
27. Under the Prison Rules (a statutory
instrument), prisoners are entitled to make telephone calls to
legal advisors at public expense. We believe that, for prisoners
on distance learning courses, a similar provision should be made
available for contact with tutors and educational institutions.
Without email, prisoners often have no means of making urgent
contact with these people and agencies.
28. Finally, and also in relation to distance
learning courses, we are concerned about the effects that "volumetric
control" (where the amount of personal belongings a prisoner
may hold in his or her cell is controlled—all personal belongings
should fit inside one box) may have on prisoners undertaking distance
learning—particularly higher education—who might have
several books and other learning material which would ordinarily
exceed the limits set by volumetric control. Prisons should make
allowances for prisoners in this respect.
THE ROLE
OF PRISON
STAFF IN
SUPPORTING EDUCATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
29. Prison staff—from governors through
to officers and operational support grade staff—have a pivotal
role in supporting educational activities. Whilst the Forum on
Prisoner Education acknowledges that attitudes towards prisoner
education have improved over recent years, we are still aware
of some staff who are unsupportive and sometimes even downright
dismissive of prisoner education. Furthermore, many prison officers
have allowed a culture of dismissiveness to grow amongst the prisoner
population. This is counterproductive to positive achievement.
30. Research by NATFHE and the Association
of Colleges found that 45% of governors and 43% of education managers
said that "conflict with other regime areas hindered education
in their establishment". In addition 34% of both groups reported
uniformed staff lacked commitment to prison education.
31. The Forum on Prisoner Education believes
that education should be at the heart of the prison regime, with
prisons embracing the role of a learning institution. We believe
that the purpose of prison as a learning institution is to encourage
education amongst all who spend time there. Prison staff, including
officers, civilian staff and governors should all take the learning
ethic on board, and educational courses should be available to
all. An investment in staff education and development would, we
feel, pay dividends to a prison service with chronic staffing
problems, particularly in terms of retention.
32. Education, as the central focus of the
prison regime, should be designed to feed into other regime areas
such as work and the delivery of offending behaviour programmes.
Vocational education in prison rarely offers the skills needed
in today's labour market, and incorporating education with work
could overcome some of these problems.
LINKS WITH
EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYER-LED
INITIATIVES
33. The stated aim of the prison service
is to assist prisoners in leading a "law-abiding life after
release". This means equipping prisoners with the skills
and abilities to be able to meet that aim. Education can—and
very often does—meet the needs of more than half of prisoners
who are, through poor skills, ineligible for the vast majority
of jobs. However, we believe that in preparing prisoners for release
and employment, much more needs to be done.
34. Vocational education in prison is often
centred either on kitchens, cleaning, gardening or maintenance
(including painting and decorating). These can be valuable and
transferable skills which may enable an ex-prisoner to move on
from crime, but in many of these cases into only low-skilled and
therefore low-paid jobs. Prisoners need to be equipped for a much
wider spectrum of employment.
35. Some prison work can be menial, and
largely useless in the outside world. Prisoners at Swaleside prison
in Kent have spent time counting and weighing nails and screws
for a major DIY store. In aiming to increase ex-prisoner's employability
and skills, such work is useless.
36. We admire and pay tribute to the work
of companies such as Transco, who have recognised the potential
of the prison population as future employees and spend time running
workshops and training prisoners, before employing them after
release. At another level, companies such as Toyota have funded
mechanics' workshops in prisons. In the voluntary sector, the
Howard League for Penal Reform is currently setting up a printshop
within The Mount prison, to be managed and run by the charity
as a "normal" company, seeking business from outside.
Such projects and initiatives are undoubtedly the way forward
in vocational education in prisons.
37. The Forum on Prisoner Education would
encourage private sector employers to come into prisons and explore
ways in which they can work with the prison and prisoners to their
mutual advantage, although prisons must be mindful that they should
not be used as a source of potential cheap labour. We would urge
the government to explore ways in which this private sector involvement
could be encouraged, with private sector employers making positive
statements about the employment of ex-offenders.
CONTINUING SUPPORT
AND GUIDANCE
ON RELEASE,
INCLUDING CO
-ORDINATION WITH
LOCAL PROVIDERS
38. Prisoners serving short sentences often
face one of two problems: the education department might not offer
a course which can be completed within the timescale of the sentence;
or if they do begin a course, they might not be able to complete
it after release. Only 6% of prisoners continue with some form
of education and training upon release. Flow-through, from custody
to community, is one of the biggest challenges in prisoner education
today—but we do not believe it is insurmountable.
39. Prison education departments are encouraged
to explore avenues for prisoners nearing release to continue their
education in the community. Due to workloads, and other priorities
within the prison, education staff often do not have the time
or resources to be able to do this. Education currently has a
place in the sentence planning process, and we would like to see
the resettlement element tied in with the educational aspects
to ensure that community education can be explored as part of
pre-release resettlement work.
40. The creation of the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) will significantly change the landscape
of provision for offenders in almost all areas. At the time of
writing, with the planned June launch having been postponed until
September, it is unclear how the creation of NOMS will impact
upon offender education.
41. It is clear that the length of sentence
ought not to be a barrier to learning. Prisoners should be able
to begin courses that they will be able to continue and complete
after release. The problem currently experienced by many ex-prisoners
is that the course they were taking in prison is either not available
in the community, or is available but that they are coming in
at a different time of year and therefore place in the course
schedule. Understandably, many prisoners then lose interest and
do not pursue their education.
42. A framework and system of records transfer
should be created and instituted as a matter of urgency to allow
educational records to come into prison with the prisoner, and
then leave with him/her upon release. No such system currently
exists on a statutory basis. Each prisoner should have the facility
to keep a record of his/her achievements as well as a copy of
the courses being followed. Far too many records are "lost
in transit".
43. If NOMS is to have an impact upon education,
then it should work to ensure that, as far as possible, prisoners
leaving custody can continue their course in the community at
any time of the year. Prison education courses should mirror those
available in the community, leading to nationally recognised and
accredited qualifications.
44. In an increasingly budget-driven and
business-minded further education sector, local providers such
as colleges should be encouraged to see ex-prisoners as an important
group of potential students. Colleges' inclusion policies and
widening participation units should be encouraged to examine how
they might best work to attract more ex-prisoners to enrol.
45. A number of colleges and universities
discriminate against ex-prisoners. We have recently become aware
of a "new" university withdrawing an unconditional offer
from an ex-prisoner who was due to begin a law degree, for the
reason that he was an ex-prisoner. In another example, an ex-prisoner
sentenced for shoplifting was told by her college that she could
enrol only if she agreed (and signed an agreement to that effect)
not to walk down the corridor in her college on which the shop
was located. The Forum on Prisoner Education is currently planning
a research project to determine the extent of this discrimination
and work towards a model policy for adoption by colleges and universities.
EDUCATION, TRAINING
AND SUPPORT
FOR THOSE
ON PROBATION
46. Whilst we are the Forum on Prisoner
Education, our charitable aim is to "improve the quality,
availability and consistency of education and training within
the criminal justice system". This therefore includes probation
and community penalties.
47. Whereas prisoners who do not take part
in education are three times more likely to be reconvicted as
those that do, for offenders under probation supervision, the
effects of education can be just as important.
48. The current government has largely rebuilt
the penal system, and since 1997 has introduced a wide range of
community-based penalties, some of which (such as the Drug Treatment
and Testing Order, and the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance
Programme) have been shown to have positive effects. We welcome
and applaud the government for their sustained attention to non-custodial
sentences.
49. However, within the framework of most
community penalties, as presently constituted, the maximum time
an offender may spend on education as part of a community penalty
is 10% of the total sentence (excluding the Community Punishment
Order). And whilst prison education has a budget of some £122
million in 2004-05, the budget for community offender education
is just £10 million. We believe that this shows a lack of
foresight in the design of community penalties.
50. We are concerned also at the growing
tendency to "sentence" an offender to education. Making
education a compulsory and integral part of punishment and supervision
regimes can reinforce the negative feelings that many offenders
will have of education. We are fundamentally opposed to compulsion
in offender education, and believe that it must remain an option.
51. The Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit
(OLSU) at the DfES has overseen the creation of the role of "Head
of Learning and Skills" in all prisons in England and Wales,
the intention being to firmly root education within prison management.
We believe that the OLSU needs to work with the Regional Offender
Managers (yet to be appointed) within NOMS to create a similar
post within NOMS regions.
52. Probation officers—or "offender
managers" as they are to become—should be made fully
aware of the educational facilities available to their clients,
and undertake a scoping exercise with each client to determine
whether an educational programme is appropriate. An educational
record from the prison (see paragraph 42, above) would assist
greatly in this process.
53. Effort should be made in ensuring that
when an offender completes his community-based order, he can complete
any ongoing educational programme and is encouraged to do so.
NOMS Regional Offender Managers should consider appointing an
education professional to offer continued guidance to those offenders
who have completed their community programme, to bypass the rigidity
of sentence length by which probation officers are currently constrained.
Forum on Prisoner Education
PO Box 42039
London E5 0YZ
www.fpe.org.uk
June 2004
1 Contact details are at the end of this memorandum. Back
| 
