Memorandum from the Howard League for
Penal Reform
WORK IN
PRISONS
The Howard League for Penal Reform believes
that the current emphasis on training in prisons is welcome, but
that training alone is not enough. Training, such as that involving
public/private partnerships (such as the partnership with Laing
Construction at Wandsworth prison), can certainly offer skills
required in the labour market. There is, however, a certain failure
of imagination in many of the trades the training leads to—ie
bricklaying, plastering etc. As our Barbed project demonstrates,
there are extremely marketable potential skills that lie mostly
untapped within the prison population. The briefing below discusses
how real work in prisons can be expanded to make prisons more
productive and purposeful.
BARBED
Barbed is the only social enterprise based inside
a prison. It has three purposes:
— to provide high quality and professional
graphic design using a social enterprise business model;
— to feed its profits into the core
penal reform work of the Howard League, a charity that relies
on voluntary funding and a diverse income stream; and
— to be a model for a whole new way
for industry to work with prisons and prisoners.
1. History of work in prisons
The Howard League for Penal Reform has been
conducting research into the area of work in prisons since it
was founded in 1866. In the last decade we have given evidence
to the Home Affairs and Public Accounts select committees, published
research, conducted surveys of prisoners and consulted widely
inside prisons.
We developed the concept of the social enterprise
inside a prison based on fair trade principles after becoming
increasingly concerned that:
— Prisoners who work receive a token
salary, at an average of £8 per week. Current wage levels
provide little incentive to work and help to reinforce a negative
picture of legitimate work—crime appears to pay better.
— Because remuneration is so low, prisoners
do not take part in the full earning experience including paying
tax and NI, or learning about savings or budgeting to support
their family. They have been and continue to be excluded from
citizenship.
— Prisons are effectively reinforcing
the view that "cash in hand" is legitimate. Prisons
pay "cash in hand" avoiding tax and a fair wage for
a fair day's work. The overwhelming majority of prisoners have
never had a real work experience for a real employer, and prison
work legitimises the informal and illegal economy.
— A small number of prisons have embarked
on public/private partnerships where private companies supply
the equipment and materials, and pay enough money to the prison
to cover the prison salaries and overheads. These private companies
are effectively using prisoners as cheap labour, giving them the
most menial tasks that might otherwise be exported.
— A handful of the public/private partnerships
have resulted in higher salaries of £40-£50 per week,
which makes them popular with prisoners regardless of the nature
of the work involved. A positive outcome has been that some of
these companies have interviewed and employed prisoners once they
have left custody.
— There is disagreement even about
the objective of workshops in prison—are they to give prisoners
an opportunity to enhance their employability, or just a way of
keeping them occupied out of cell?
— Because the Prison Service sub-contracts
with outside employers and prisoners are therefore employed by
the service, they have no relationship with the business, no responsibility
or commitment.
— This system of sub-contracting distances
employers from prisoners and means that they do not have the normal
employer/employee relationship.
— The quality of work is rarely competitive
or reflective of the real work experience.
— The work available does little to
reinforce the work ethic or provide the broader aspects of gainful
employment such as social status, social interaction, career progression,
long term financial reward or involvement in workplace development.
It does little to reinforce the lifestyle choice not to commit
further crime.
— Work in prisons is often desultory,
with curtailed hours, with constant interruptions for security
or regime exigencies.
— The nature of prison work is usually
unlike that on the outside—machinery and processes are outdated,
interruptions reduce productivity and prisoners are usually passive
and uninvolved in the development of the products they produce.
— Work in prisons has had little political
or management interest for many years.
2. The case for real work
In March 2008 there were 22,883 men and women
serving four years or longer and a further 10,093 serving life
or indeterminate sentences. Whilst there has been considerable
investment in offending behaviour courses and basic skills education,
little consideration has been given as to how to fill the time
of those people who are going to spend many years in custody.
It will cost the taxpayer more than £120,000
to pay for a four year sentence and the likelihood is that the
ex-prisoner will be unemployed for the rest of his or her life.
We, the taxpayers, will have to support him or her for the rest
of his life, and, because (s)he will not have a pension, through
old age to the grave.
Real work would mean that prisoners would pay
tax and NI and save for a pension. They would be productive members
of the community.
Real work would help the Prison Service as it
would no longer have to find bits of work for people—a task
it has not flourished at.
There would have to be a review of the legislation
guiding work in prisons as currently prisoners may not pay "bed
and board". We suggest the idea of paying for an enhanced
prison experience be explored. Whilst it would be morally reprehensible
to ask prisoners to pay for security, we see no reason why they
could not contribute to improved conditions, education, better
food and better links with families.
Families might be more willing to stick by them
if they are contributing and the forecast for work on release
was improved. A supportive family and a job provide the best hope
for a crime-free life on release.
— the tax-payer would benefit in the
short term from increased revenue;
— the tax-payer would benefit in the
long term if people have contributed to NI and have a pension;
— victims would benefit from charitable
donations;
— prisons would benefit from having
prisoners productive, involved and more contented;
— prisons would benefit from having
additional income;
— prisoners' families would benefit
from better relationships, engagement, contact and financial support;
— prisoners would benefit from proper
work, savings and being treated with respect; and
— prison staff would benefit from improved
relationships and safer prisons.
Whilst training has a place in the prison regime
it is too often delivered at the wrong time—we have seen
prisoners doing a course in railway track laying but seven years
before their earliest release date. It should be part of the pre-release
programme or for short term prisoners. For long term prisoners,
real work offers real opportunities.
3. The world's first social enterprise in
a prison—BARBED
We developed the business model using fair trade
principles. The idea is that the enterprise fulfils the core charitable
objectives of the Howard League. Profits will go into the general
penal reform work creating a diverse stream of income.
Barbed is a graphic design studio that carries
out work for a range of voluntary, statutory and commercial companies.
It can also act as print buyers and so provide an expert, speedy,
high quality and professional design and print service at competitive
prices.
Last year we recruited and invested in a six
month training programme for six prisoner members of staff. They
were appointed on the same contracts as Howard League staff and
receive the same benefits and management. To all purposes, they
are Howard League employees.
The charity gives them the same 10% contribution
to a private pension plan as Howard League staff (we did help
them set up pensions).
The studio is run as proper business, this is
not a "do-gooding" project.
Because prisoners generally may not pay bed
and board, we inserted into the contracts a clause that means
they have to pay 30% of their wages to a fund that will support
special projects, for example they gave £1,000 to the Prison
Education Trust for distance learning programmes. The fund is
managed by a representative from the prison, the prisoners and
the Howard League.
In addition, each of them makes a voluntary
donation to Victim Support.
They have been paying tax and NI. However, because
the Prison Service holds that prisoners may not be employed by
outside businesses, the Revenue has ruled that they may not be
charged tax. The tax they have paid has therefore been returned
to us and we are holding nearly £20,000 in special account
until we have resolved what to do with it. These prisoners want
to pay tax; they want to contribute to society but are being prevented
from so doing.
Three prisoners have already graduated onto
open prisons, one of whom is now employed in the Howard League
office as the marketing officer for Barbed. He is released every
morning and comes to work in our offices to promote the business.
The enterprise should act as a prototype and
model for industry to replicate. The Prison Service would have
to recognise that outside employers working commercially would
have to be treated with respect and that prisoners would be employees
gaining employment rights. This may cause challenges but is not
insurmountable, given the huge benefits.
May 2008
| 
