3. First supplementary memorandum
submitted by HM Prison Service, Home Office
WHAT ARE
THE DIFFERENT
COSTS OF
PRISONERS BY
CATEGORY AND
HOW MUCH
IS BEING
SPENT ON
OBPS, EDUCATION,
TRAINING, ETC?
Table 1 below includes information extracted
from the latest Prison Service Annual Report & Accounts 2002-03
(HC885) as corrected on 13 November 2003. This sets out the average
costs per prison place and per prisoner for each category and
also the number of offending behaviour and sex offender treatment
programmes available in each category in that year.
In 2003-04 forecast expenditure on the areas
specified is as follows (prisons education and vocational training
are now administered and funded through budget transfer by the
Department for Education and Skills):
| Accredited Behaviour Programmes (OBPs & SOTPs)
| £20.5 million |
| Prisoners education | £84.0 million
|
| Vocational training | £12 million
|
| |
Table 1
STATISTICS BY TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT
(from Correction to Prison Service Annual Report &
Accounts 2002-03 HCC 885)
|
| Function Name | CNA
| Average Population |
Current Expenditure |
OBP | SOTP
| Cost Per Place |
Cost Per Prisoner |
|
| Category B | 847
| 5,724 | £139,571,959
| 715 | 116
| £23,869 | £24,385
|
| Category C | 17,441
| 17,628 | £349,948,136
| 2,322 | 367
| £20,065 | £19,852
|
| Dispersal | 3,101
| 2,669 | £116,330,329
| 426 | 152
| £37,517 | £43,586
|
| Female closed | 1,421
| 1,207 | £38,302,789
| 190 | 0
| £26,955 | £31,732
|
| Female local | 1,963
| 1,989 | £70,984,971
| 195 | 0
| £36,165 | £35,693
|
| Female open | 235
| 219 | £5,673,186
| 0 | 0
| £24,141 | £25,944
|
| Male closed YOI | 6,527
| 6,154 | £182,908,470
| 725 | 48
| £28,024 | £29,721
|
| Male juvenile | 1,261
| 1,085 | £37,929,361
| 39 | 0
| £30,081 | £34,950
|
| Male local | 23,599
| 29,930 | £679,272,201
| 2,276 | 156
| £28,784 | £22,695
|
| Male open | 3,497
| 3,174 | £66,518,684
| 209 | 40
| £19,023 | £20,961
|
| Male open YOI | 316
| 208 | £7,370,209
| 161 | 0
| £23,323 | £35,505
|
| Male remand centre | 153
| 201 | £5,273,815
| 0 | 0
| £34,469 | £26,249
|
| Semi open | 1,553
| 1,311 | £33,110,613
| 45 | 0
| £21,316 | £25,256
|
| Grand Total | 66,914
| 71,498 | £1,733,194,722
| 7,303 | 879
| £25,902 | £24,241
|
|
Notes:
CNA = Certified Normal Accommodation.
OBP = Offending Behaviour Programme (places).
SOTP = Sex Offender Treatment Programme (places).
WHY IS
THERE A
DISPARITY BETWEEN
WHAT SOME
ESTABLISHMENTS SPEND
ON OBPS
AND EDUCATION
COMPARED TO
OTHERS?
Offending Behaviour Programmes (OBPs)
The specialised nature of the Offending Behaviour Programmes
(OBPs) and the differing needs of the prisoners for which they
are designed, means that they are not available universally at
all establishments.
A key objective of both the OBP strategy, and the overarching
What Works strategy is to ensure that programmes are distributed
on the basis of the needs of the prisoner population and the priorities
of the Service. In the longer term OASys will provide information
on the risk/needs profile of prisoners to inform such resource
planning and allocation. In the meantime, a sub group of the What
Works in Prisons Steering Board, in conjunction with Area Psychologists
has developed an alternative approach to developing an information
base for the strategic allocation of programmes.
In Summer 2001, a basic needs analysis was carried out in
relation to each establishment. This gathered information on offence
type, sentence length and length of time in the establishment.
Area Psychologists collated the data and, using guidance provided
by the central OBP Unit converted it into an estimated need for
programmes. This data was then put alongside centrally held data
about the provision of programmes and completions, and analysed
on an area basis, nationally, and by type of establishment. Information
about other factors affecting the distribution of programmes (logistics,
resource constraints, training capacity etc) was also incorporated.
The needs analysis was necessarily simple and based on a number
of assumptions; however, it provided some broad indications of
need, provision, gaps and inconsistencies.
The resulting analysis provided for the first time an evidence
base for a strategic approach to the allocation of funding which
is being used to inform allocation of the SR2000 funding from
April 2002. On the basis of the widespread need for cognitive
skills programmes, they have been the focus of the greatest expansion.
Education
The first table set out below (Table 2) shows the current
average funding per place for education. These figures are based
on funds allocated to establishments for contracted teaching hours
only. They exclude funding for materials, library provision, ring-fenced
vocational training and curriculum development projects—many
of which involve the voluntary sector. Appendix A attached provides
more detail and shows funding per head per establishment.
Prisoners also benefit from investment in infrastructure
from the Capital Modernisation Fund, investment in computer training
from the Invest to Save Budget, and by funding for distance learning
via the Open University and Prisoners' Education Trust. Table
3 illustrates the overall level of investment in prisons education
including the baseline funding transferred from the Prison Service
to DfES for education and vocational training; the extra funding
obtained directly by DfES in the outcome of SR2002 and the additional
funding obtained from both the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF)
and the Invest to Save Budget (ISB).
Table 2
EDUCATION FUNDING PER HEAD BY CATEGORY
|
| Type of Establishment | Average CNA12/02
| Average Funding 02-03 (£)
| Average Finding Per Place (£)
|
|
| Category B | 5,104
| 3,233,849 | 634
|
| Category C | 15,305
| 12,383,410 | 809
|
| Category D | 3,371
| 1,761,702 | 523
|
| Female | 3,310
| 3,958,569 | 1,196
|
| YOI | 9,499
| 13,893,114 | 1,463
|
| High Security | 4,335
| 3,116,962 | 719
|
| Local | 19,262
| 13,638,258 | 70
|
|
Table 3
INVESTMENT IN LEARNING AND SKILLS
|
| 01-02
| 02-03 | 03-04
| 04-05 | 05-06
|
|
| £m
| £m | £m
| £m | £m
|
| Prison education contracts | 57
| 66.5 | 69.8
| 69.8 | 125
|
| SR2002 Increase | |
| 15 | 40
| 55 |
| Vocational training* | 0
| 0 | 12
| 12 | 12
|
| TOTAL | 57 |
72 | 97
| 122 | 137
|
| Capital Modernisation Fund |
| 4.4 | 15.6
| | |
| Invest to Save Budget | |
1 | 1.4
| | |
|
The variation in funding per prisoner illustrated by the
difference between Category and by Establishment derives at least
in part from two historical features. In the past there has not
been any centrally directed allocation methodology. The levels
of expenditure at individual prisons have largely reflected different
levels of commitment to education by prison governors; and the
other local circumstances and budget pressures they have faced.
Stark choices often meant that governors had to cut education
budgets during an era of efficiency savings on the grounds that
it was an area of comparative budgetary flexibility and not necessarily
seen as part of core business. This was facilitated by the contractual
arrangements under which education hours to be provided were not
fixed and could be reduced year on year, and in-year.
Expenditure on education in prisons is now derived from the
Department of Education and Skills, is ring-fenced and cannot
therefore be reduced by the Prison Service.
The new learning and skills contracts to be introduced in
September 2004 will, by putting a greater focus on the needs of
the individual learner, provide a fairer model for allocating
funding. In the meantime, the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit
has built in some flexibility at area level to ensure that funds
for learning and skills are targeted effectively and where there
is need.
WHAT WILL
BE THE
IMPACT OF
BUDGET CUTS
ON THE
SERVICE'S
ABILITY TO
DELIVER RESETTLEMENT
PROGRAMMES?
On a broadly comparative cash basis, and excluding the fluctuations
in capital investment, the Prison Service baseline has risen from
£1,697 million in 1999-2000 to £2,375 million in 2003-04.
A rise of nearly 40%. This included additional investment for
prisoner regimes in both the Comprehensive Spending Review of
1998 and the Spending Review of 2000. The investment is detailed
in Table 4 below:
Table 4
PRISON SERVICE REGIMES INVESTMENT FROM CSR98 AND SR2000
Prison Service Regimes Investment
|
| 1999-2000
| 2000-01 | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
|
|
| £m
| £m | £m
| £m | £m
|
| CSR98 | | |
| | |
| Current | 18.88
| 22.68 | 33.99
| | |
| Capital | 3.57
| 0.00 | 0.00
| | |
| SR2000 | | |
| | |
| Current | | |
| 19.00 | 50.00
|
| Capital | | |
| 5.00 | 0.00
|
| TOTAL | 22.45
| 22.68 | 33.99
| 24.00 | 50.00
|
|
Over the same period, the Prison Service has delivered efficiency
savings equivalent to 1% of baseline in every year, a saving of
£104 million in total. At a local level robust management
of prison establishments alongside a comprehensive range of operational
standards and performance targets has ensured that the Prison
Service has been able deliver high quality performance in its
key activities.
The Home Secretary is still considering his overall baseline
for 2004-05 and so the Prison Service is planning on the basis
of indicative figures. These will include further efficiency savings,
some £57 million at present. These are challenging, but the
Prison Service is planning to manage them whilst protecting regimes.
Note: It is difficult to compare the expenditure on prisons
between 1999-2000 and 2003-04 precisely due to the change in accounting
practice from cash to accruals.
WHAT FREEDOM
DO GOVERNORS
HAVE TO
ALTER BUDGETS?
Prisons education and vocational training is now administered
and funded by the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit (OLSU) which
is a part of DfES. OLSU will agree the level of education and
training to be provided and the appropriate funding is passed
to the Prison Service and individual establishments by a transfer
in the Estimates. Governors have no authority to reduce the budgets
although it is possible that they could, with the agreement of
OLSU, increase provision from elsewhere within their establishment
budget.
With regard to funding for OBPs, each Area has a Service
Level Agreement (SLA) agreed with the Director of Operations based
on advice from Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit, and the allocation
of funding is dependent on Key Performance Indicator (KPI) delivery
targets. Although this is then broken down to an establishment
level, Area Managers are increasingly managing their KPI delivery
on an area basis to meet targets, which may mean that they move
resources within their area. Any changes to the Area SLA would
have to be agreed by the Area Manager and the Director of Operations.
On more general regime issues (such as work, evening association
etc) there is more discretion. But the expectation would be that
significant changes to the level of regime would only be after
discussion with the operational Director.
28 November 2003
|
