Supplementary memorandum from the Association
of Colleges
PRISON EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
1. AoC is pleased to submit this supplementary
memorandum to amplify points which emerged during the oral evidence
session on 20 October. It focuses on two aspects:
— The role of the Learning and
skills Council in contracting for prisoner education.
— Prisoner learning data management
and transfer.
CONTRACTING OF
PRISONER EDUCATION—POTENTIAL
ROLE OF
THE LEARNING
AND SKILLS
COUNCIL
2. It is understood that current plans are
for responsibility for contracting for and measuring the performance
of prison education delivery to be transferred to LSC. AoC has
no objection in principle to such a transfer, rather it recognises
that there can be benefits in terms of integrating the planning
of prison education provision within a comprehensive framework.
3. However, LSC is as yet inexperienced
in the delivery of education to offenders, with little or no expertise
in the specialist requirements of delivering learning within a
secure environment. Prison education is a specialist area and
differs substantially from mainstream education. If LSC is to
manage its new responsibilities successfully, it will be important
that it builds capacity in this field very quickly.
4. In establishing a new approach LSC will
need to face a number of important policy questions, especially
in relation to
— Operational management.
Funding
5. The current LSC funding model for further
education does not fit easily into the prison setting. Under that
model funding is essentially output based, whereas currently prison
education providers are funded for input hours. For the latter,
education is delivered to as many offenders as the prison can
provide to the ordered classes on a 50.2 week year basis. If the
LSC decided to mirror mainstream funding mechanisms, and in doing
so introduced a three year planning model of provision, that would
represent a major shift in approach and could have a considerable
impact on the prison regime.
6. For example, under the FE funding model
there is no requirement for a fixed activity period, as performance
and funding are based on accredited outcomes. Once these outcomes
have been achieved provision ceases and a new class begun. There
are also standard prices for defined qualifications, based on
average delivery requirements. Applied without modification, in
a prison setting, this could result in erratic provision, programmes
unsuited to the actual learning needs of offenders, and loss of
learning continuity as learners became ready to move on. In addition,
it could involve staff disruption with serious inherent recruitment
and selection problems. Unless the needs of prisoners likely to
pass through the education department are identified prior to
the funding period, there would be no possibility of matching
the provision to the offenders' profiles, and benefits of the
more sustained learning regime in prisons possible under an input
model would be lost.
Management
7. Transfer of responsibility for the provision
of offender learning raises questions about the division of responsibilities
between OLSU and LSC for overall strategic management of the service,
which do not yet appear to have been addressed.
8. A shift to LSC control also raises questions
about the management and ownership of prison education programmes
within prisons themselves—in particular, about the respective
responsibilities of LSC and prison governors, and how these can
interface to optimise learning outcomes.
9. Within the mainstream FE system, colleges
are free to recruit students for the programmes agreed within
their delivery plan, and to ensure that programmes are matched
to student learning needs and offer realistic prospect of achievement
of the defined learning goals. In contrast, an education provider
inside a prison has no control of the student input, of numbers
of students, of type of student, needs/wants of students.
10. Equally, access to learning must be
managed within the exigencies of the prison operating regime.
For example, the "churn effect" (movement of prisoners
for population management), and the operational requirements of
prison management (for example, the need for court visits, the
availability of staff to escort prisoners to classes, and so on)
must be taken into account by making the on-going, roll on/roll
off education programmes as flexible as possible.
Data management
11. Colleges have an effective Management
Information System with a high staffing profile both to support
their own internal management, and to return essential data to
LSC. The infrastructure of current prison contracts does not allow
for this, and it will be necessary to extend current data management
systems to prison education to ensure comparability of information.
While this could produce a considerable improvement in the quality
of the performance data available, it is likely to require investment.
Maintaining expertise
12. The approach to contracting built up
over the last few years has enabled some colleges to build a substantial
body of expertise in prison education. If a transfer of responsibility
were to result in local LSCs seeking to procure education only
from local providers (as has been evident in some other areas
of provision) this could result in a substantial loss of current
provider expertise, to the detriment of service quality.
13. For example if contracting was based
on locality rather than expertise City College Manchester (currently
holding 21 contracts) would provide education to only one prison
and Dudley College (with 12 contracts) would be unable to provide
education to any prisons. It also worth noting that in present
circumstances there is often no relationship between an offender's
prison, the local LSC, his work or his home.
14. There are also noticeable differences
in the way in which local LSCs augment mainstream funding. Some
LSCs provide discretionary funds for projects/outcomes to colleges
which enhance the mainstream offer. If extended to prison education
this could lead to a fragmented provision, with little national
parity and result in uneven levels of support as prisoners move
from prison to prison, with consequent adverse effects on equality
of opportunity.
15. The current LSC model does not encompass
these complexities, and if the transfer of responsibility is to
result in improved outcomes for prison learners, it will be important
that LSC and OLSU give full consideration—in conjunction
with providers—to the design of an approach to funding,
management and data collection which takes full account of the
realities of delivery within a prison framework.
Suggestions for the future
16. Until the National Offender Management
Service is fully established and there is stability within the
prison/probation service, current contract arrangements to have
been permitted to continue (subject to the provider being willing
to do so, the Governor being satisfied with the provision and
the Prison Service's Contracts and Procurement Unit (CPU) agreeing
the funding arrangements).
17. If responsibility for prison education
is transferred to LSC, AoC believes that this should be managed
within a clear national framework which takes account of all of
the considerations set out above. The establishment of such a
framework would, it believes, ensure consistency of provision
and quality across the secure estate which purely local or regional
management may not be able to provide.
Prisoner learning data management and transfer
18. The earlier AoC submission drew attention
to the need for a more effective approach to the management of
prisoner learner data.
19. Unfortunately many systems have failed
dramatically during the last 20 years and we are still left with
the aged Green Card 2055 A(c) system which is totally ineffective.
This results in re-assessment, re-testing and student frustration
and disengagement.
20. One full initial assessment should inform
an effective individual learning plan/sentence plan. Progression
and accreditation, together with appropriate soft outcomes, can
then be accurately monitored and evaluated.
21. An effective electronic transfer of
prisoner records as prisoners move between prisons and subsequently
into the community is essential if provision is to be tailored
to individual offender need, and the cost-effectiveness of current
investment maximised.
22. Currently OLSU collate all data pertinent
to the screening and accreditation of offenders. At local level
prison education providers are only required to record accredited
outcomes therefore colleges can demonstrate individual progression
but have no national statistics. But national aggregations do
not distinguish the extent to which offenders may be repeating
learning programmes, nor do they provide secure baselines against
which the needs of offenders can be assessed or the progress made
accurately measured.
23. There is in consequence a pressing need
to develop data management systems which can track individual
learners, and ensure that the national aggregations provide an
accurate picture of actual learner development.
November 2004
| 
