Memorandum submitted by NATFHE
INTRODUCTION
NATFHE—The University and College Lecturers'
Union represents prison education lecturers working in adult prisons
and Youth Offender Institutions. Our members in England and Wales
are the principal staff delivering education to prisoners.
Over the last decade NATFHE nationally has monitored
both negative and positive developments in prison education. This
period has seen prison education put out to competitive tendering,
dramatic cuts in provision and staffing in the early to mid 1990s
and since 1997 the gradual increase in provision, resources and
government attention.
In this time NATFHE has published surveys on:
— the effects of competitive tendering
on the provision of education services in prisons;[2]
— the decreasing opportunities for
staff development for prison education staff;[3]
— the perceptions of prison education
amongst principal stakeholders—research commissioned with
the Association of Colleges.[4]
This response will focus on those issues primarily
of concern to our members working in prisons, rather than the
issues that link prison education to the outside world, such as
employer links and education and training and support for those
on probation.
NATFHE evidence is drawn from "Shared Responsibilities"
and from continuing feedback and dialogue with NATFHE members
in prison education.
BACKGROUND
Organisation and funding
1991
Until 1991 prison education was funded by the
Home Office and delivered under contract by LEA adult education
services and FE colleges. Contracts for prison education services
were then put out to tender. Contracts were issued for five years
and went to a variety of providers, largely FE colleges. Some
colleges had multiple contracts geographically spread across the
country. Mostly there was a reasonable proximity to the prison
and the education contractor, but some contractors were anything
up to 150 miles away from the actual prison.
Prison education budgets were placed in the
hands of prison governors who could "vire" money to
other areas of the prisons.
1991-96
Prison education was subject to decisions by
governors often made for non-educational reasons and suffered
large cuts in provision with losses of many full-time prison education
lecturers.
1996
Prison education contracts were retendered.
Contracts went to FE colleges, two LEAs and one private provider.
Some colleges had developed a considerable expertise in prison
education.
2001
Responsibility for prison education was shared
between Prison Services and the DfES. A separate unit was established—the
Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit (PLSU), now the Offenders Prison
Learning and Skills Unit. The PLSU had a network of Area Managers
who had a geographic and lead responsibility for an area of work.
Recently the Prison Service appointed a Head of Learning and Skills
with a responsibility for all learning in prisons. They are directly
employed by Prison service and are part of management of prisons.
With the establishment of the PLSU, the funding
for prison education was transferred from the Home Office and
Prison Service to the DfES and ring fenced for education work.
2002-03
The PLSU commissioned PriceWaterhouseCooper
(PWC) to review the funding of prison education. This review found
little connection between the vocational training that went on
in prisons (in workshops with directly employed instructors) and
other aspects of prison life such as offending behaviour and management
programmes, sentence management and resettlement. The Review took
the broad line that funding should be more closely aligned to
individual prisoners' learning needs and the characteristics of
their sentence and the actual prison.
Numerous options were put forward for the future
of funding and contracting of prison education. The outcome of
the review was that a new retendering process would be undertaken
and a new specification for such contracts would be drawn for
prison education providers. The proposals made it clear that new
providers would be encouraged to participate in the tendering
process. The project was titled Project Rex. It recommended that
prison education should again be retendered as a combined contract
of prison education and vocational training.
2003
Notice to contractors of the retendering process
was given in April and the date for the new contracts to come
into force was April 2004—later changed to September 2004.
Existing providers had their existing contracts extended twice
to meet these timescales.
2004
In January 2004 Project Rex collapsed and the
OLSU announced that current contracts would be automatically extended
for between one and three years from September 2004.
NATFHE welcomed the creation of the Prisoners,
now Offenders Learning and Skills Unit and the active participation
of the DfES in the delivery of prison education. We felt that
linking prison education to reform taking place in post-compulsory
education and training were especially positive.
The union has enjoyed a close and supportive
relationship with the unit. We believe that it has led to a higher
profile for prison education, and its position at the heart of
the Government's policies to combat social exclusion.
NATFHE opposed the contracting out of the prison
education services. The first round of contracting was inappropriate,
as the determining factor in granting contracts seemed to be price.
This resulted in a drastic cut in provision; the loss of many
committed and experienced prison education staff and the subordination
of prison education to other aspects of prison regimes.
NATFHE feels that the second round of contracting
saw some improvement including the removal of contractors not
drawn from the ranks of those already providing post-16 education
and training. In our response to the PWC review (attached),[5]
NATFHE supported the broad thrust of the OLSU's proposals but
felt that if contracting continued, it should be reissued to contractors
who wished to continue with their prison education work and any
changes envisaged by the OLSU could be accommodated through variations
to these contracts.
With the collapse of Project Rex, it was decided
that LSCs would be the route for contracting. NATFHE considers
that the involvement of LSCs will draw prison education closer
to the rest of post-16 education and training provision. This
means many of the worst aspects of the previous rounds of contracting
may disappear, especially the physical distance that some contractors
have had from the prisons in which they are responsible for the
delivery of education.
CURRICULUM
In the mid 1990s the prison education curriculum
was reviewed. There has always been an emphasis in prison education
on teaching basic skills alongside other curricula, especially
the arts. Many offenders have disrupted schooling and between
60-70% lack basic skills.
The review
— established a core curriculum, consisting
largely of basic skills provision.
— reduced other areas of the curriculum.
— introduced Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) at level two basic skills qualifications.
NATFHE believes that these changes, especially
the introduction of KPIs, distorted the curriculum on offer in
prisons. Prison governors concentrated almost exclusively on programmes
that met the KPI, with little below level 2 and little above level
2.
It has now been recognised that this diet of
purely basic skills learning programmes could be unpalatable to
the recipients. Embedding basic skills in other learning provision
including the delivery of vocational training has now reduced
some distortion. NATFHE feels that this lends weight to the arguments
for bringing prison education, vocational training and instruction
taking place in prison workshops, closer together.
FUTURE DELIVERY
NATFHE would wish to see
— A continuing strong role for the
OLSU in ensuring quality in prison education, initiating, supporting
and disseminating innovation and best practice.
— Training and staff development for
LSC staff dealing with prison education who are unfamiliar with
prison education.
— The LSC consulting with all stakeholders
before establishing structures and new models of practice and
contracting.
— Prison education at the centre of
the organisation of prison regimes. This is essential if rehabilitation
is to be successful. For too long prison education has been a
neglected part of prison organisation with low status and priority.
— Prison education as an integral and
important part of sentence planning dovetailing with other programmes
of rehabilitation and resettlement in prisons (also favoured in
the Social Exclusion Unit Report).
NATFHE supports
— The creation of the new National
Offender Management System (NOMS).
— The move towards the organisation
of offender and prisoner education on a regional basis.
— The involvement of OFSTED and the
Adult Learning Inspectorate in prison education. This will supplement
the existing good work of the Prison Inspectorate in identifying
weak and excellent provision whilst ensuring raising standards
is at the forefront of prison education delivery.
NATFHE recognises that one of the main barriers
to successful and high quality prison education is the continually
rising prison population. Shifting the focus to rehabilitation
and reducing re-offending with new custodial and sentencing policies,
along with stronger partnerships between the Probation and Prison
Services will mean a great deal of offender education will be
community and not prison education-based. This should leave education
workers to concentrate on sustained education and training work
with those still in prisons. Any changes in patterns of provision
will have resource implications and must not mean any diminution
of funding for prison education. Offender education outside prisons
will need additional resources, and staff development and guidelines
for its providers. There will be a need for funding to encompass
time for staff involved to meet and plan and liaise with NOMS
staff. The creation of court orders directing offenders to learning
programmes has administrative implications and this will need
to be resourced.
FUNDING OF
PRISON EDUCATION
In its submission to the Review of prison funding,
NATFHE argued that the funding for prison education must be:
— adequate to provide proper education
and training needed by each prisoner, subject to proper and on-going
assessment of their educational and learning needs.
— sufficient to fulfil an individual
learning plan for each prisoner.
— based on entitlement to a learning
programme that is part of a whole process of sentence planning
and management that leads to rehabilitation and resettlement.
— linked to vocational training and
other prison regime programmes of education, training and behaviour
modification.
— able to support its full costs, given
the facts known about the mental, physical health and previous
educational experiences and achievements of prisoners—with
the kind of social and educational disadvantage that most prisoners
have experienced, such support is crucial for successful learning.
Funding methodology/allocation for prison education
must be:
— fit for purpose—flexible enough
to fund the various forms of education/learning programmes that
are suited to the type of establishment, prisoner population within
that establishment, and patterns of movement to and from that
establishment. Local prisons with high prisoner movement and short
prisoner stay should be funded to provide proper and full initial
assessment and short "taster" access courses. Offenders
whose sentences are no longer carried out in prisons should be
able to learn in the community. If prisoners are able to settle
into training it will lead to greater take up of longer learning
programmes.
New partnership with the LSC in delivering offender
education should:
— enable the use, in offender education,
of the long-standing and largely successful system of funding
additional learning needs used for a decade in further education
colleges, and now being expanded to adult and community and work-based
learning.
NATFHE believes that the ring fencing of prison
education funding since 2001 has been wholly beneficial. It has
resulted in more stability and it must continue in any future
organisation delivering of prison education. Similarly if vocational
training is to be included in any new contracting arrangement,
the funding of this should be ring fenced too.
NATFHE would argue for stability in prisoner
and offender education. If there are to be new contracting arrangements
through the LSCs and increased power of governors over prison
education, then there will need to be a continuation of ring fencing
of both education and vocational training resources. Governors
should not be given the power to alter at short notice education
provision made by contractors. There will also need to be discussions
between NOMS, the LSCs and educational contractors about the correct
amount of notice to be given for alterations in programmes.
FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE
NATFHE believes prison education funding should
cover maintaining and improving its infrastructure. Many prisons
are old, some Victorian. Prison education facilities should not
be housed in unsuitable accommodation, with difficult physical
access or poorly equipped, especially in the area of new technology.
Two other elements of the "infrastructure"
are crucial in the successful delivery of prison education:
1. Improved pay for prisoners attending education
programmes. The SEU Report, the NATFHE/AoC "Shared responsibilities"
and the recent Prison Reform Trust report on the perceptions of
prisoners of prison education[6]all
reported that the disparity in the payments prisoners received
when attending education programmes, as compared to the payment
received for other prison activity, was a serious disincentive
to participation in learning in prisons. Total funding for prison
education must encompass an increase in the pay of prisoners for
attending learning programmes. It would also be a public recognition
of how the prison regime values learning and educational achievement.
2. Resources to pay prison regimes for prison
staff undertaking escort and security duties in relation to prisoners'
attendance in prison education. The NATFHE/AoC research and the
Prison Reform trust research on prisoners' perceptions demonstrate
clearly the crucial role that prison staff, especially prison
officers, have in relation to prison education. One of the key
tasks is escorting prisoners from the wing to prison education,
and then being on duty in prison education centres for security
purposes. The NATFHE/AoC survey found that 51% of prison education
managers reported regular difficulties getting students to classes.
The lack of prison officers to supervise security in education
centres can pose a serious safety risk in some prisons. If as
a result of new sentencing policies, those prisoners remaining
inside prisons in the future are more "difficult" and/or
serving sentences for more serious offences, then this security
risk may increase. NATFHE acknowledges that these problems stem
from circumstances that are not always in the control of Prison
Services or prison governors. However, we do suggest that some
of the problems might be overcome and there might be a greater
willingness for prison officers to undertake these duties if prison
education had an allocation of resources for the undertaking of
escort and security duties. Ultimately if prisoners do not arrive
in education, they are not going to learn. At the very least escort
duties, the percentage of prisoners attending learning programmes
and the reasons why they do not, should be part of any new specification
for prison education and be part of key performance indicators
for prisons.
BASIC SKILLS
IN PRISON
EDUCATION
The facts concerning previous educational experiences
and achievements of prisoners and offenders are well known. The
Social Exclusion Unit Report showed that compared with the general
population;
— Prisoners are ten times more likely
to have been a regular truant.
— 60% of prisoners have the writing
skills, 65% the numeracy skills and 50% the reading skills at
or below the level of an 11 year-old child.
— 52% of male and 71% of female adult
prisoners have no qualifications.
— Literacy and numeracy skills, and
some form of qualifications are required for 96% of all jobs.
Clearly if re-offending is to be reduced, the
focus of prison education on basic skills is necessary.
In the past progress around basic skills was
hampered by crude use of targets. When the key performance indicator
was literacy skills at level 2, establishments concentrated on
these to the exclusion of qualifications at lower and higher levels.
The consequence was a severe limitation on progression. NATFHE
acknowledges that the worst of these past policies have been remedied
in recent years, both in terms of new and more realistic targets
and embedding basic skills in other provision and throughout prison
life. Targets must be built from the bottom up and be appropriate
for all types of prisoners and establishment.
In the mid-1990s the core curriculum was introduced
into prison education. This was the first initiative that focused
on the delivery of basic skills programmes in prisons. One of
the principal conclusions of the NATFHE/AoC research was that
this had been problematic and there had been high levels of dissatisfaction
among all the respondents to the NATFHE/AoC research over the
narrowing of the curriculum. An education manager spoke about
the impoverishment of the prison education programme as a result
of the imposition of the core curriculum.
"We have no other educational provision
than that required by the core curriculum. This is a major deterioration
in the programme. Our curriculum is narrower now than at any time
in the last 30 years."
Others spoke of how often those with poor previous
learning experiences would only choose practical education options.
With the imposition of the core curriculum, these opportunities
had been lost and thus opportunities for some prisoners to rebuild
their confidence on their ability to learn.
We acknowledge that most of the negative aspects
of the focus on basic skills have been or are being rectified
by the OLSU. Nonetheless NATFHE would argue that basic skills
provision needs to be placed within the context of a wide curriculum
offer. We realise that not every establishment can or will be
able to offer a wide range of subjects, but there must be a balanced
educational programme offering a range of creative, practical
and life skills and personal development programmes which can
be studied in their own right as well as being platforms for delivering
basic skills. The embedding of basic skills delivery across the
educational offer in prisons will mean that there needs to be
support for this and for English for speakers of other languages
(ESOL) in these programmes. Staff delivering these programmes
will need time and opportunities for staff development and training
in this.
The Social Exclusion Unit Report also pointed
out that black prisoners tend to be more highly qualified than
white prisoners and so benefit relatively less from the emphasis
on basic skills. The provision of a wider curriculum with basic
skills and ESOL support at its heart will allow black prisoners
to develop appropriate skills at the relevant level. The wider
curriculum with provision for creative programmes will assist
black prisoners in realising their cultural identity and thus
assist in improving their self-confidence and self-esteem.
VOCATIONAL TRAINING
AND EDUCATION
NATFHE supports moves to bring closer prison
education and vocational training taking place in workshops. We
are not convinced, however, that vocational training needs to
be part of same contract as education provision. We doubt whether
the long tradition of in-house delivery of vocational provision
is worth disturbing. The union considers that the closer integration
between vocational training and education provision can be achieved
without the disturbance that merging the services into one contract
will bring
As we have stated above, if vocational training
and educational provision are brought under one contract then
we would advocate ring fencing the funding of each to allay fears
that provision in one area would be reduced.
ASSESSMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
OF PRISONERS
Initial and on-going assessment and diagnosis
of educational needs of prisoners and offenders lies at the heart
of successful learning provision tailored to actual needs of the
recipients. This has, for a long time, been problematic.
— Assessments are undertaken but often
only initial screening takes place and not diagnosis or on-going
assessment.
— Initial assessment often takes place
shortly after the arrival of prisoners in prison. This is at a
time when the prisoner may be extremely disorientated and may
be suffering from drug withdrawal.
— It is essential that assessment is
supplemented at various points during a prisoner sentence and
that the results of assessments are fed into sentence planning
and management.
— Educational assessments should not
be separated from assessment of other needs. These assessments
should then become the basis for an entitlement to a learning
programme that is part of whole sentence and integrated into other
programmes of education, training and behaviour management. Assessment
is vital at pre-release stage.
— For assessments to be useful in terms
of sentence planning and management, and ensuring prisoners follow
programmes of learning that lead to qualifications, it is essential
that initial and on-going assessments, diagnosis and individual
learning plans follow the prisoner around as they move around
the prison establishments.
— In the NATFHE/AoC research 72% of
respondents declared that there was an adequate system of transferring
records on prisoners' learning progress within their establishment.
61% reported that they always sent on such records. Yet 67% of
respondents reported they received such reports only irregularly.
Whatever such figures may mean, something is wrong and a proper
electronic mode of transferring records could resolve many of
these problems.
EFFECTIVENESS OF
LOCAL CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENTS
NATFHE has always opposed the contracting process
as it leads to a profit-led approach to prison education. The
first round of contracting indicated that price was the overriding
determinant of successful tendering rather than quality of provision.
We agree with the Forum for Prison Education that profit from
punishment is immoral. The Union can discern no advantage to prisoners
and can only assume that it is part of more general successive
Government policies to outsource provision.
The periodic contracting of education provision
puts an increasing strain on prison education staff in terms of
their security, with posts remaining unfilled longer and staff
having temporary positions and upgrades.
Successful prison education can happen only
if staff feel valued and respected and are contented in their
work and feel a sense of security.
NATFHE understands it is unlikely that the contracting
out of prison education will end in the near future. If contracting
out is to continue NATFHE would urge that:
— Contracting processes must be open
and transparent. Although the specification for contracting is
known, the details of contracts are subject to commercial confidentiality.
This makes it difficult for organisations representing prison
education staff, such as NATFHE, to know necessary details of
what is contained in the contract and make defence of prison education
staff difficult.
— Quality of provision and the welfare
of prisoners and prison education staff, not price must be the
main determinants in the award of contracts.
— Contracts for prison education must
be written in a form that allows some flexibility so as to allow
contractors to pay nationally agreed pay rates and appropriate
increases.
— Contracts must have the flexibility
to encompass changes from legislation such as those on working
time and part-time staff directives, on health and safety and
discrimination.
— Contracts must also be priced to
include the resources to ensure proper representation of staff
through their representative organisations. This would include
time off and facilities for trade union duties remission for union
officers and for health and safety representatives.
— Contracts should include time and
resources for staff development and training. This should include
development and training in educational developments, including
that required to teach in prisons. It also should include training
and staff development in "prison craft".
— As the system of prison education
moves to new structures that encompass offender learning that
takes place outside prisons, it will be essential that the time
needed for proper liaison with other agencies is included.
The contract price must include:
— Resources for infrastructure, for
administrative support, for initial and on-going assessment.
— Resources to enable contractors to
pay salaries at least equivalent to those for post-16 teachers,
lecturers and trainers in mainstream education in order to attract
the highest quality staff to prison education. Prison education
lecturers are the only staff within prisons who do not receive
either an element of pay or a special environmental allowance
to compensate them for the particularly difficult circumstances
and situations in which they teach. NATFHE considers it scandalous
that some contractors pay their prison education lecturers less
than they pay lecturers on their mainstream sites. Prison and
offender education is extremely demanding. It requires committed
and properly qualified staff.
NATFHE was pleased with much of the detail of
the specifications for the contracting of prison education published
in December 2003. We hope that much of this will survive and underpin
future contracting. There is an overwhelming need for contracts
for prison education to maintain national standards and this should
be part of contracting specification. Thus the price that is paid
for the delivery of prison education must be more than merely
that which is paid for the taught hour.
The intention of the last round of contracting
was to attract new providers into prison education. NATFHE does
not deny that some of the "private" providers have produced
innovative and successful programmes of learning in prisons. However,
this is provision that is supported by the use of public funds.
We would wish to see contracts largely going to public sector
institutions.
We would remind the Committee that a number
of "private" providers received contracts for prison
education in the first round of contracting in the early 1990s.
By the time of the second round, only one such provider remained.
NATFHE sees no need for new providers.
We see a danger of fragmentation and loss of
expertise if too many new providers are brought into the delivery
of prison education. If new providers do receive contracts in
any new round, then it is imperative that they are subject to
the same quality assurance procedures and requirements that FE
colleges and LEA Adult Education Service contractors are subject.
NATFHE supports the possibility of moving towards
regional contracting. This will eradicate some of the problems
associated with having contractors physically distant from the
prisons for which they are responsible. It will also help ensure
closer co-operation between learning that takes place within prisons
and that outside prisons.
ROLE OF
PRISON STAFF
Prison staff can make or break successful provision.
Attitudes to education and learning have improved over recent
years. The recent appointment of Heads of Learning and Skills
responsible for all learning in prison establishments and part
of the prison service staffing should help prison education be
recognised as a key part of regimes and resettlement. However,
for too long prison education and its staff have been seen as
outsiders who are at the bottom of the hierarchy of prison staff.
The NATFHE/AoC research found that 45% of governors, 43% of education
managers reported that conflict with other regime areas hindered
education in their establishments; 34% of both groups reported
uniformed prison staff lack commitment to prison education.
Prison education staff are committed and hard
working. Many of them are on hourly part-time and fixed term contracts.
Staff are often paid only to teach, and not for many of the other
tasks and roles necessary for successful learning to take place,
for example for the time that it takes to get from the prison
gates to their teaching accommodation. In a maximum-security establishment,
this can take over an hour.
Prison education needs to recruit and retain
the highest quality staff. This response has already referred
to the need for prison education staff to be paid the same rates
as mainstream post-16 education and training staff and for prison
education staff to be paid an environmental allowance similar
to other prison staff. The gap between post-16 education and training
pay and schoolteachers' pay has been widening in recent years
and is now a significant barrier to the sector meeting the challenges
set for it by government. Colleges are increasingly losing qualified
staff to schools. Adult education, work-based learning and prison
education services are losing staff to mainstream work in colleges,
especially basic skills teachers.
Providers that have not been subject to LSC
and legislative requirements for new providers can obtain contracts
for prison education. To avoid any unfair advantage, it is imperative
that all potential providers are subject to the same requirements.
We recommend that increasing the payment for
escort and supervision duties in relation to prison education
could ease some of the current difficulties. We would go further
and would wish to see prison education departments becoming learning
centres that could be used by all in prisons, staff and inmates
alike. This could transform attitudes to prison education and
learning and also help in terms of retention and recruitment of
prison staff.
As new forms of sentencing are developed an
emphasis on community sentencing linked to learning programmes,
prison education staff will need to strengthen and expand their
links to NOMS staff, especially those responsible for such community
sentencing.
Finally, prison education, needs to be seen
not as an optional extra or add on to other activities in prison,
but as a central and key part of rehabilitation and resettlement.
It should be integrated into the full range of regime activities
such as work and the delivery of offending behaviour programmes.
CONTINUING SUPPORT
AND GUIDANCE
ON RELEASE
INCLUDING CO
-ORDINATION WITH
LOCAL PARTNERS
At heart of new proposals bringing in and linking
with NOMS is education work that will take place outside prisons
and in the community. This brings a new focus on working with
education and training providers in the community. Such partnership
work must also encompass prisoners prior to and on release from
custodial sentences.
NATFHE fully supports the provision of proper,
independent and impartial education advice, information and guidance
prior to release and continuing whilst prisoners resettle in the
community.
The current proposals to involve local LSCS
in contracting for prisoner and offender education and for a robust
partnership between LSCs, NOMS and education and learning providers
should make links between provision inside and outside prisons.
This should minimise some of the dislocation and disruption in
learning that can take place for many prisoners when released.
It needs to be recognised that these links may
be difficult to maintain for some prisoners on release. Not all
prisoners are in custody near their homes. This is particularly
true for women prisoners. Because of the relatively smaller numbers
of women prisoners and consequently establishments for prisoners,
many women prisoners are not housed near their homes. The same
is true for prisoners from London. This will need to link prison
learning activities with outside provision on release for these
categories of prisoners will need careful investigation.
October 2004
2 "Prison Education after competitive tendering":
NATFHE, 1994. Back
3
"A `soft target' for cuts"; NATFHE, 1996. Back
4
"Shared responsibilities: Education for prisoners at a time
for change" Julia Braggins: NATFHE and the Association of
Colleges, November 2001. Back
5
NATFHE Submission to the Review of Prison Education July 2003. Back
6
"Time to Learn" Julia Braggins and Jenny Talbot, Prison
Reform Trust 2004. Back
| 
