Memorandum submitted by the University
and College Union (UCU)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The context of provision of prison education
is set against a background of the task that prison staff face
in the size of the prison population. It looks set to rise for
some time with longer sentences and an inadequacy of provision
for the mentally ill. With this background, offender learning
often gets left behind.
2. Promoting offenders' learning should
be an integral part of all institutions' work and communicated
at all levels to both staff and inmates.
3. The frequent structural changes within
the provision of prison education do not seem to be properly reviewed
and evaluated before other changes are embarked upon.
4. The retendering process for the new contracts
has had a disruptive effect and can cause staff to leave because
of uncertainty over changes to terms and conditions. In particular
the involvement of private companies not part of the FE sector
and more used to provide "training" has caused much
anxiety as there is a different approach and understanding of
the wider concept of both vocational education and education generally.
5. With regard to the loss of offenders'
records through "churn", funding should be explicitly
provided to speed up implementation of a nationwide IT system
[NOMIS] with a clear timetable set, which would allow for full
staff training on the new system.
6. Contracted out prisons should participate
in any national IT system.
7. ILPs should be standardised nationally,
be electronic and included as part of each offender's transfer
information.
8. Where working practices change and new
areas of work are demanded of prison educators, there should be
adequate provision of training and facility time to undertake
it.
9. The issue of access to classes needs
to be addressed and made a priority in that it is adequately resourced.
10. Incentivising offenders to learn would
produce results. There should be as much financial reward for
learning as for other "work" activities within the prison.
11. There should be a clear agreed standard
for minimum provision for prison education. This should not just
reflect the drive for "employability" but should include
life skills and skills for resettlement. Provision of learning
should form a part of management plans and budgets and both prison
educators and prison officers should have continuing professional
development to support this area of work.
12. There is now no forum where UCU can
make any representations on the professional issues affecting
our members.
13. We believe that it is essential that
a proper consultative forum be established involving the relevant
parties so that issues of concern can be brought to the attention
of those with the responsibility and authority to act.
UCU
14. UCU, the University and College Union,
is the main trade union in the UK representing teaching staff
in further education and academic and academic-related staff in
higher education. It also represents prison education lecturers
working in adult prisons and Youth Offender Institutions where
we have approximately 1,100 members.
15. UCU was established on 1 June 2006 following
the merger of the Association of University Teachers and NATFHE
[The University and College Lecturers Union].
16. This submission by UCU follows a submission
by NATFHE to the Education and Skills Select Committee inquiry
into prison education in 2004. We welcomed the publication of
the Committee's report and were heartened to see that the Committee
had taken note of the role and conditions of the staff employed
in the education departments—the "unsung heroes".
17. Whilst many of the Committee's recommendations
have been taken forward under OLASS, and recognising that OLASS
has only gone live nationally since 1 August this year, we still
have a number of concerns and reservations.
CONTEXT
18. The context of provision of prison education
is set against a background of the task that prison staff face
in the size of the prison population. It looks set to rise for
some time with longer sentences and an inadequacy of provision
for the mentally ill. With this background, offender learning
often gets left behind.
19. Provision of prison education has been
through a prolonged period of constant change over the last 20
years. Now our members are adapting to yet another new system
and doing their best to deliver the Offender's Learning Journey
and adapt to the LSC regime. No other group of our membership
has had to change their working patterns, practices and employers
in such radical ways and so frequently. It is to their credit
that they are still prepared to "give it their best shot"
because they realise that in spite of the regular changes, they
remain a constant source of support and assistance to offenders.
20. Of course it is early days for OLASS
and whilst there is overall support for the LSC's involvement,
there are problems and issues which go beyond the "teething"
stage. We believe it is essential to start picking these up at
an early stage and deal with them before bad systems and practices
set in.
21. One of our major concerns is the upheaval
caused by the tendering process, particularly where contracts
have been awarded to private contractors. There is no doubt that
the concern over who the new provider and employer might be and
the subsequent uncertainty during the post-contract award period
has caused serious damage to the morale of staff.
22. In one instance where a private provider
was awarded the contract (A4e), they declared from fairly early
on that they had no intention of dealing with the recognised or
indeed any trade unions, or were prepared to meet the costs necessary
to ensure the protection of those staff in the Teachers' Pension
Scheme. This was in spite of provisions in the tendering documents
requiring them to offer comparable pensions benefits where staff
were in a final salary scheme. On Friday 28 July, after extensive
negotiations with UCU and the LSC, A4e the main private contractor
taking over work in Kent and the East of England areas agreed
to make arrangements to "protect" the pensions for those
in the Teachers' Pension Scheme.
23. This uncertainty did have a knock-on
effect. We are aware that some staff chose to leave the service
to find work elsewhere in the education sector in order to preserve
their pensions benefits. By necessity staff were engaged in campaigning
over the protection of their pensions in this period leading to
the changeover, and morale was at rock bottom. Sadly, we have
to report that several months on there are still major problems
with pensions arrangements.
24. We are concerned that OLASS 2 was implemented
before any evaluation of OLASS 1 and that the Green Paper was
published even before the new contracts for OLASS 2 got under
way. This means that by the time the LSC took over running and
implementing the Offender's Learning Journey, new plans and proposals
were already on the table. Staff now face the possibility of major
changes to what they are expected to deliver. In addition they
face the possible upheaval of a new re-tendering process in three
years time, as the current contracts end in July 2009. These changes
are happening just as responsibility has been shifted to the LSC.
RECOMMENDATIONS
25. Promoting offenders' learning should
be an integral part of all institutions' work and communicated
at all levels to both staff and inmates.
26. We believe that before any major re-thinking
or new initiatives are introduced in prison education provision,
that there should be a full evaluation of the success of the Offender's
Learning Journey; an evaluation of the success of introducing
vocational skills; how either of these is affecting reoffending
rates; and an assessment of the effectiveness of the LSC having
overall responsibility and control. There should also be an assessment
of the impact of these changes on staff in relation to the stress
involved, the impact on their terms and conditions of employment
and their professional development.
SPECIFIC CONCERNS
IT and "churn"
27. The constant movement of offenders between
prisons, "churn" as identified by the select committee
previously, has enormous detrimental effects (and now in a system
which is routinely operating at 25% over "normal" capacity).
Prison education records (along with all other records) do not
follow offenders around the system. Although there has been a
trial of an electronic system in one region, with a nationwide
implementation date of 2007, this looks unlikely to happen. It
is often the case that where offenders are transferred without
their files, staff have to put them through the whole assessment
process again.
28. There are similar concerns for the adequacy
of arrangements when prisoners are released. In some regions staff
are not confident that the systems required to ensure that prisoners
"Learning Journey" will continue, as the arrangements
for follow through work once they have passed the gate have not
been developed.
29. There is also a concern over contracted
out prisons—would they be expected to participate in a national
scheme as they have a different internal structure for delivering
learning and skills for offenders?
RECOMMENDATIONS
30. Funding should be explicitly provided
to speed up implementation of a nationwide IT system [NOMIS] with
a clear timetable set, which would allow for full staff training
on the new system.
31. Prison officers should have an initial
training period that enables them to play a key role in the education
and training of prisoners.
32. Contracted out prisons should participate
in any national IT system.
INDIVIDUAL LEARNING
PLANS AND
INDIVIDUAL LEARNING
RECORDS (ILPS
AND ILRS)
33. ILRs are widely in use, but again the
paperwork involved is perceived as disproportionate to the benefits
that the use of these records is supposed to bring. ILPs, which
are an LSC requirement are proving to be a nightmare for staff.
The amount of form filling, data inputting etc, is extremely time
consuming and staff are aware that there is a danger of duplication
of work, as a lot of the information that goes on the ILP then
goes on the ILR.
34. In addition, as the vast majority of
staff are part-time hourly paid, there is increasing frustration
and anger among this group as they see their workload rocketing
but not their contracted hours of paid work to allow for the additional
workload. Where new areas of work are being demanded of prison
educators, there is an issue re training. We understand that in
some areas prison educators are paying for training themselves,
in their own time.
RECOMMENDATIONS
35. ILPs should be standardised nationally,
be electronic and included as part of each offender's transfer
information.
36. Where working practices change and new
areas of work are demanded of prison educators, there should be
adequate provision of training and facility time to undertake
it.
GENERAL EDUCATION
PROVISION
37. The question of access to classes is
still an issue and needs to be carefully monitored and resolved.
There are still too many times when offenders/students are not
brought to the classes or education block because of overcrowding
and staff shortages, transfer of prisoners, or the general attitude
of the prison where education is still regarded as a "soft"
option and is not properly supported.
38. The issue of lower pay for attending
education needs to be addressed across all prisons as there are
still problems- for example we recently visited one prison where
the prisoners were paid more to attend workshops where they spend
all day smashing up unsold CDs and DVDs rather than to attend
education classes.
39. We are beginning to receive positive
reports that the involvement of the LSC is having a very positive
impact on the overall offer and delivery of education and skills
across the prison service. There are clearly improved levels of
planning with Heads of Learning and Skills at local prison level.
There are still instances though, where circumstances have not
improved and where intervention by Heads of Learning has had a
detrimental effect on the work of prison education staff.
40. However, we are concerned to hear that
in some prisons, staff in the education departments are having
to do the final assessments and marking for some of the work carried
out by prison staff where the latter do not feel confident or
are not properly qualified to see through this work.
41. Although significant progress has been
made, the constant uprooting and change in governance and funding
provision for prison education means that there is no nationally
agreed minimum level of provision. With rising numbers and increased
issues with regard to security, prison education can easily "fall
off" the agenda locally.
RECOMMENDATIONS
42. The issue of access to classes needs
to be addressed and made a priority in that it is adequately resourced.
43. Incentivising offenders to learn would
produce results. There should be as much financial reward for
learning as for other "work" activities within the prison.
44. There should be a clear agreed standard
for minimum provision for prison education. This should not just
reflect the drive for "employability" but should include
life skills and skills for resettlement. Provision of learning
should form a part of management plans and budgets and both prison
educators and prison officers should have continuing professional
development to support this area of work.
PLANNING FOR
PRISON EDUCATION
45. The last 20 years have seen enormous
changes in both the way the prison service is run and how prison
education is provided. This has not always produced the best results.
There are a significant number of players in the system who could
bring their considerable levels of expertise to contribute to
development of provision of education. Where there previously
was a provision for stakeholder meetings with OLSU, this is no
longer the case.
46. There is now no forum where UCU can
make any representations on the professional issues affecting
our members. We represent approximately 1,100 staff in the education
departments. It seems now that our only recourse to policy formation
is informally, either by making submissions to select committees,
all party parliamentary groups, or networking with other unions
and organisations involved with the welfare of offenders eg Howard
League for Prison Reform, Prison Reform Trust and others.
47. We believe that it is essential that
a proper consultative forum be established involving the relevant
parties so that issues such as those raised here can be brought
to the attention of those with the responsibility and authority
to act. We are not looking for a talking shop for the great and
the good, but something which would allow us to participate properly
in the implementation of OLASS as our members feed through their
experiences and concerns about what's working or what's not working.
Until recently OLSU had such a forum but since the LSC took over
there has been a void. We would strongly urge the Committee to
recommend that such an arrangement be set up as a matter of priority.
RECOMMENDATION
48. That the DfES should convene with the
LSC, regular national meetings for senior managers in the prison
service, national probabtion service, learning providers, unions
and other key stakeholders.
December 2006
| 
