2 Recruitment and training
History of recruitment and training
55. Recruiting the right people to the right
jobs is the basis of any successful business, or other organisation.
Training can only go so far. If staff are unable to benefit from
educational programmes then there is little point in putting in
the time, money and effort to instruct them.
56. Until the 1950s prison officers were primarily
recruited from amongst former armed services personnel.[64]
Over the following decades the diversity of recruits increased
mirroring wider changes in British society. Between 1993 and 1998,
the Prison Service introduced local, rather than national, recruitment
exercises. The aim was to end the need for officers to live in
prison accommodation without links to the local community and
thereby encourage people with families, particularly women, to
join the Service. This further contributed to the decline in the
recruitment of ex-servicemen, as well as increasing the numbers
of women applying to join the Prison Service. In January 2008
NOMS introduced "nationally-managed" recruitment.[65]
Current recruitment and training
process
57. Prison officers are not required to have
any qualifications. In the 1990s the Prison Service introduced
a requirement that all applicants have five O-levels or GCSEs,
including English and Maths. The experiment was slowly abandoned,
however, as it became clear the number of recruits in London and
south-east England was drying up and that, with national recruitment,
regional limitations on recruits were unworkable.
58. The current recruitment process for applicants
to work in public sector prisons begins with a one-hour online
numeracy test, completed at the time of application. If the result
is satisfactory, applicants are invited to a Recruitment and Assessment
Day. At the assessment centre prospective recruits complete a
20 minute numeracy test and a 45-minute language testwith
separate elements covering reading comprehension and completing
standard forms and writing skills-[66]
together with four 10-minute role play simulations.[67]
These are not prison-based, but NOMS states that they are intended
"to measure the core behaviours needed to be an effective
prison officer."[68]
The applicants then undergo a reflective interview which augments
"the evidence on core behaviours provided by the assessment
centre, and based on one of the completed simulations." Finally
applicants undertake a medical examination and a fitness test.[69]
The recruitment process currently takes an average of 88 days
from application to offer of employment.[70]
59. The age limit for recruitment was lowered
from 25 years of age to 20 in 1987, under the Fresh Start reforms,
and reduced to 18 in 1999 in an effort to boost recruitment in
London and the south-east of England.[71]
Minimum recruitment age remains 20 in the Scottish Prison Service.
60. The number of applicants to the Prison Service
is high, with 48,000 applicants since January 2008, of whom 1,500
have been allocated to vacancies and 3,000 have passed the assessment
centre and are waiting for places.[72]
Training is carried out at one of nine centres in England and
Wales and the prison at which the trainee officer will be based.
It lasts eight weeks (reduced from 12 weeks). It includes shadowing
a more senior officer, discussion groups and some physical work
in control and restraint techniques.[73]
61. Prison officers who are working directly
with juveniles are required to take an additional week's training
course known as the Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme (JASP).
It consists of the following: Child protection (1 day); Understanding
and working with children and young people in custody (2 days);
Mental health awareness (½ day); Substance misuse (½
day); Vulnerability Assessment (1 day); Training planning and
resettlement (1 day); Managing difficult behaviour (½ day);
and, Safeguards (½ day)[74]
62. From September 2007 all new prison officers
have to take a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in custodial
work during their first year. NOMS told us in written evidence:
The 8week initial training course, [Prison
Officer Entry Level Training (POELT)], forms the first part [of
the NVQ Level 3]. It provides the underpinning knowledge and core
skills needed to complete the NVQ and to work effectively with
prisoners. The course develops skills and knowledge across a range
of specific areas such as mental health, safer custody and security,
and stresses the importance of interpersonal skills and relationships.
The NVQ requires the successful completion of ten
units of National Occupational Standards (NOS)five mandatory
(including promotion of equality and diversity, and maintenance
of security and order) and five selected from the list set out
at Annex E of our written evidence. The level 3 NVQ is equivalent
to A-level; but, rather than adopting an academic approach, it
is, rightly, grounded in the practicalities of the officer's job.[75]
Concerns over recruitment and
training
QUALIFICATIONS
63. The Prison Governors Association told us
that it had concerns over the literacy and numeracy of recruits
to the Prison Service. Paddy Scriven, Prison Governors Association
General Secretary and Governor at HMP Foston Hall, said: "You
will get a report and you will think, "What on earth is that
about?" Bear in mind that our staff write reports that are
about people's freedom and for court."[76]
In Miss Scriven's view, the Prison Service needed to introduce
a requirement for higher standards of literacy at the recruitment
stage.[77] The Howard
League for Penal Reform went further, proposing that being a prison
officer become a graduate role within 20 years and that a requirement
of A-levels be imposed immediately on all new recruits:
As the nursing profession has done in recent years,
the role of the prison officer needs to become a graduate career.
This is a radical suggestion and would take time to implement.
However, we would argue that the prison officer needs to be more
than a uniformed warden, whose first priority is security. In
order to get to grips with prisoners' offending behaviour, prison
officers should require a university degree covering subjects
such as prison law, criminology, psychology, sociology, ethics
and mental health. The Howard League for Penal Reform does not
envisage that simple changes or improvements to the current role
of the prison officer will provide the reform that is needed in
the penal system. Wholesale change in the education and purpose
of the prison officer needs to be undertaken.[78]
64. Frances Crook, Director of the Howard League,
told us that the proposal was inspired by the sheer complexity
of the job prison officers were asked to undertake:
We would not employ a social worker who does
not have educational qualifications and professional training,
it would be unthinkable, and it should be unthinkable to have
a prison officer who does not have the same training and
qualifications as a nurse or social worker. Prison officers
require complex oral skills, negotiating skills; a knowledge
of psychology, a knowledge of history, criminal justice
You,
as Members of Parliament, have made the sentencing structure incredibly
complex, and it requires a high level of skill to be able
to explain it to people. We require prison officers to deliver
complicated courses in offending behaviour; to help with housing,
legislation, social policy legislation; we require them to help
with economics and finance adviceit is a very complicated
job.[79]
65. The value of formal education in producing
high-performing prison officers was queried by Professor Alison
Liebling of the Criminology Institute at Cambridge University.
Professor Liebling told us:
my understanding is that prison work is almost
uniquely talk and action and I am not convincedyou
would have to show me the evidencethat formal education
is correlated with high performance in interpersonal types of
work. In fact, the opposite might be the case. On the one hand
I think our officers need more training and development,
but I think there are all sorts of questions about what is
training and what is the quality of it, and what I think
officers respond most positively to is experiential, well-informed
opportunity to take [time] out and talk about their decision-making,
to think about the way they are performing their work, and in
order to engage in that kind of training they need experience.[80]
66. Colin Moses, of the POA, agreed with Professor
Liebling that professional qualifications were not necessarily
a guide to the potential of a recruit, nor did he believe that
all prison officers should be graduates. Nonetheless, Mr Moses
did support the introduction of some qualifications at the recruitment
level:
I think you have to have a level of experience, and
it sounds very coy, and I do not wish it to be, it is called life
experience as well. If you have been into a prison, when you first
enter a prison you are put in charge of people who may know the
system a lot better than you, and not just may, will do, so you
have to learn that system very quickly. I am not one to shy away
from academic qualification, I think it is needed, but at what
level? I do not personally think everyone should be a graduate;
I think people should have qualifications.[81]
Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust,
took a similar position:
[the] capacity to behave with humanity and
respect, to treat everyone with decency and respect, which is
the code that the Prison Service works to, is absolutely
essential and is the over-arching principle. I think you
could do that
without necessarily requiring a set
of 'A' levels or university degree. But it is a big
ask, given the complexities of the Service, to expect people who
have very low levels of intelligence, for example, which
is not the same as academic qualifications, to match up to what
could at least be required of a prison officer today.[82]
67. We believe that the complex work demanded
of the prison officer is best informed by "life experience"
rather than formal qualifications. However, low levels of literacy
will impair the work of an otherwise high-performing officer in
today's Prison Service. Prisoners' release may depend upon officers
being able to express themselves clearly in parole reports and
risk assessments. We therefore recommend the introduction of a
more stringent literacy test at the sifting stage of the recruitment
process.
68. We have referred earlier to the sense of
vocation which many prison officers bring to their work. The
recruitment process should give weight to identifying commitment,
an interest in helping people to develop and reform, and an understanding
of 'community.'
69. We have received evidence that the basic
standards of literacy required by the Prison Service in the past
may have led to the recruitment of some officers whose written
communication skills are insufficient for them to fully carry
out their duties. We recognise that there are some highly experienced
officers who have a great deal to give the Prison Service but
who may have difficulties reading and writing. We therefore recommend
that the Ministry of Justice ring-fence resources which will allow
prison governors to identify prison officers who need assistance,
and that this aspect of training be prioritised to ensure all
officers can carry out their duties in full.
AGE OF RECRUITMENT
70. The prison officer is required to work directly
with difficult, damaged and sometimes dangerous men and women
who are likely to regard them with some hostility. An 18 year
old new recruit will be working with prisoners many years older
then him or herself, sometimes with a wide experience of the criminal
justice system and potentially highly manipulative. Dave Hoskins,
of the Prison Governors Association, told us:
I think most of our governor colleagues would prefer
a more mature prison officer, somebody with some life skills
.there
is
the background of the working ethic, the understanding
of difficulties in life that could lead to a prison sentence or
the factors that could lead up to a prison sentence or a crime.
The more mature staff cope more readily with adverse conditions
in face-to-face situations with argumentative prisoners, particularly
with the mentally disturbed prisoners, a vast majority of which
we now have.[83]
71. When asked what the ideal age for recruitment,
Mr Hoskins told us he believed 18 was "far too young"
particularly given that officers working with adult prisoners
can be advising people over twice their own age "how to go
about sorting their life out" when a young officer has "not
actually sorted [his or her] own [life] out at that stage."
When asked the ideal age of recruitment Mr Hoskins told us: "Twenty-six?
It is almost an arbitrary figure to say, but my view is the more
mature the better."[84]
72. Mr Hoskins' comments were reflected by opinions
heard during our visit to the Sheppey cluster in Kent. Younger
recruits, some officers opined, have been found not to have the
life skills needed to avoid vulnerability to manipulation on the
one hand, or over-rigid adherence to the rules on the other. While
not commenting directly on the minimum age for recruits to the
Prison Service, the Chief Inspector of Prisons observed: "It
is evident often that prison staff are picking up the people who
are most challenging outside. So we need that degree of personal
confidence and maturity."[85]
73. The work of the prison officer demands
extensive life skills which allow him or her to build appropriate
and positive relationships with the prisoners in his or her care.
We recognise that excellent work is done by prison officers of
all ages but are concerned that recruiting very young people is
unfair both to the recruit and to prisoners. We recommend, therefore,
that the minimum age for a prison officer should be raised from
18 to at least 21 years of age.
RACISM IN PRISONS
74. In 2008, approximately 27% of prisoners described
themselves as black or minority ethnic (BME), compared to 6% of
staff. In her Annual Report for 2007-08, the Chief Inspector of
Prisons noted that Asian and mixed-race prisoners reported more
negatively across most areas of prison life than white or black
prisoners, particularly in relation to safety and victimization
by other prisoners. A survey carried out by the Prison Reform
Trust in 2004-2005 found that BME staff were more likely to have
experienced direct racial discrimination from their colleagues
than from management or from prisoners. Sixty-one per cent of
black and minority ethnic prison staff had experienced direct
racial discrimination while employed in the service. Most worrying
of all, over half chose not to report it. The Prison Service acknowledged
the problems with racism in prison in its Race Review 2008, which
concluded, at the end of a five year programme to tackle racism
in the Prison Service: "
despite considerable investment
in procedural changes, the experience of BME prisoners and staff
has not been transformed."[86]
75. The Howard League suggested a targeted recruitment
drive to increase the number of BME staff.[87]
Professor Alison Liebling told us:
We did an analysis of 49 prisons trying to test whether
there was discrimination and whether that was related to the number
of minority staff employed in each establishment, and we found
that culture outweighed the colour of staff skin
if a prison
had a really poor culture, minority prisoners who felt discriminated
against were in a prison where most prisoners felt disrespected,
so we concluded that feelings of discrimination were reflecting
general disrespect and that that was a problem for everybody
in that prison, and that it was not correlated with the numbers
of minority staff. In fact, some minority staff could adopt quite
unpleasant cultural attitudes. We found the same thing with gender,
that being a woman does not solve anything. If you are in
a really negative prison, the women are as bad as the men
are, if you see what I mean
I think it is quite
complicated and the needs of minority prisoners are not all going
to be solved by adjusting the figures. There is much more going
on.[88]
76. While we would welcome a recruitment drive
to engage more BME staff, we do not think this is the solution
to racism in prisons. We believe racism is symptomatic of poor
training, negative individual prison cultures and complex underlying
factors. We make recommendations on training and tackling negative
prison cultures which have the potential to assist in the fight
against racism in prisons. The complexity of this area, however,
requires further research into the causes of racism in prison
to allow the National Offender Management Service to develop a
long-lasting solution. The prison service should also look at
'best practice' in other organisations that have had to wrestle
with this issue, such as the police service which offer many examples
of "what works" and "what doesn't" in relation
to racism.
INITIAL TRAINING
77. Initially, all recruits who will work with
young offenders or adults receive identical training. Any specialist
training begins after the officers have joined their establishment.
There is currently no mandatory specialist training for different
types of prison. Professor Andrew Coyle, describing the initial
training as "abysmal"[89],
commented on the universal basic training:
Giving them [prison officers], if they are lucky,
eight weeks' training, sometimes within a prison, not in a prison
college, and then sending them off to a dispersal prison, or to
a local prison, or to a women's prison, or to a young offenders'
prison and expecting them to know what to do and how to do it
is really quite wrong, and the fact that the officers do what
they do is surprising, but that does not absolve us.[90]
Colin Moses, of the Prison Officers Association,
agreed: "you can have prison officers who can work in mother
and baby units and prison officers who work with Islamic terrorists;
they will have received the same training. They will maybe have
had one or two days of assimilation on some areas."[91]
78. The Chief Inspector of Prisons expressed
concerns that specialising very early in an officer's career could
limit future employment and deployment opportunities. Dame Anne
observed: "I think there is a core of skills, which are basic
skills, which you could, and should, equip prison officers in
from the beginning. You have got to be fairly cautious about having
people who are then too specialised and who cannot move to other
things." [92]
79. Professor Liebling expressed concern that
specialising could lead to officers viewing their roles simplistically
and confining themselves to, for example, a security role.[93]
The Prison Governors Association told us that an officer needed
"a couple of years plus
to actually establish yourself
and get the knowledge of how to be an efficient and effective
officer
Working as a prison officer is difficult, it is stressful,
it is sometimes a dirty and nasty job, and you need to be able
to cope with all that and to develop within your role and then
get the specialist training to move on to deliver more complex
work.'[94] However,
the Prison Governors Association thought some establishment specific
training would be desirable and supported the notion of "streamed
instruction", that is additional training following the generic
prison officer training modules which are "establishment
specific", for example, specific training for those going
to female establishments or to work with young offenders or juveniles.[95]
80. Many of the witnesses were also critical
of the content of initial training. The Prison Governors Association
told us that entry-level training continued to be built on a generic
programme based on the male Category C estate. The Prison Governors
Association described much of the course as "'show and tell.'"
For example, there was no training for risk assessment, students
were shown documents relating to compiling risk assessments but
not given exercises in using them. The Association also noted:
"Of 4 hours given over to Violence Reduction, 1½ hours
on it is a DVD and in Race & Diversity only a very small proportion
of time is spent on diversity with little instruction in dealing
with prejudice.[96]
81. When we asked what was missing from the
current initial training content, witnesses agreed that mental
health and substance abuse issues needed to become part of basic
training. The Chief Inspector of Prisons commented that there
was a basic core of skills, core of competences, that any good
prison officer will need. In her view that would include, for
example, an understanding of mental health and the difficulties
of mental health, understanding about substance abuse, understanding
about managing difficult individuals, and training in other relationship
skills, for example, motivational interviewing.[97]
82. A senior officer contributor to the e-consultation
commented:
The training for new entrant prison officers is basic
to say the very least
I remember well my training in the
college and it did not prepare me at all for the "reality"
of working in the prison environment. There is plenty of the politically
correct training and minding your P's and Q's but there is nothing
in there that prepares you for the sight of a prisoner who has
just cut his/her throat, or the mess and smell of a body that
has been hanging for an hour or two. There is nothing in the training
to prepare you for a full on "tooled up" aggressive
prisoner trying to stab you. There is nothing in the training
to equip us to deal with the ever-increasing number of prisoners
with massive mental health problems and withdrawal from poly-use
of all types of drugs.[98]
83. A governor grade contributor noted the following:
Officers do not feel adequately prepared for what
they are about to undertake. The training has been diluted and
diluted and diluted. Under initial training a new PO will use
a radio twice in 6 weeks and then be expected to use the same
to respond to an incident some times on day one of taking up post.
Far too little time is spent on the reality of the work, and prisons
and prisoners are not portrayed for what they actually are like
which gives students a false sense of security. I was scared witless
in my initial training. Did this make me a better prison officer?
Yes it did..... I didn't go into an [establishment] thinking it
was going to be a bed of roses, I knew that prisoners would try
to condition me, I knew I had to work shifts. [99]
Another contributor commented: "The old adage
comes to mind: 'If you think training is expensive, try costing
ignorance.'"[100]
84. The Prison Governors Association (PGA) and
Colin Moses, of the Prison Officers Association, agreed that some
training in mental health and substance abuse issues was necessary
for all officers in the current prison system. The PGA observed:
"all too often, those in acute stages of mental illness cannot
be transferred to secure hospitals as pressure of beds makes a
selection process necessary and those in prison are deemed to
be in a safe place."[101]
85. The Prison Governors Association also suggested
that training in the relevant legislative framework would give
officers confidence in their role. It explained that the growth
in the prison population has meant staff at a very junior level,
often directly from training, are required to take high levels
of responsibility at a very early stage. In the view of the PGA
they were "inevitably" ill-prepared for this work:
Human rights legislation, the increasing use of legal
challenge, and health and safety often makes them fearful of making
decisions or putting their signatures on documents. They are often
reluctant to make decisions for which they feel they will be held
responsible when things go wrong or are challenged. There is little
training designed to give prison officers an understanding of
the legislation they work with or the legislative framework they
function within, despite its increasing complexity.[102]
86. Stephen Shaw, who as Prisons and Probation
Service Ombudsman has responsibility for investigating deaths
in custody, felt that first aid training was inadequate and explained
that "
the vast majority of [my] reports [on deaths
in custody]
draw attention to an insufficient number of front-line
staff sufficiently trained in first-aid and, if you like, first-aid
plus."[103]
87. The lack of first aid training contrasts
with the recent introduction of a requirement that all front-line
prison staff carry an instrument designed to swiftly cut down
a prisoner hanging from a ligature.[104]
Despite this, Phil Wheatley, Director-General of NOMS, told us
that suicide prevention training was no longer mandatory because
staff who work in open prisons are very unlikely to deal with
suicidal prisoners.[105]
88. A number of witnesses commented that the
period of initial training for prison officers in England and
Wales appears to be the shortest in Europe.[106]
While approaches to training for prison officers in different
jurisdictions are often not readily nor directly comparable, the
training period required before first contact with a prisoner
appears to be five months in Norway; four months in Finland; more
than two months in Denmark; eleven weeks in Sweden and nine weeks
in Ireland.
89. Phil Wheatley, Director-General of NOMS,
defended the initial training period as producing good results
with limited resources:
The six-week training is good training. We have worked
through it carefully. We have made sure it is kept up to date
and we keep it up-to-date. It gives people the core skills for
doing the job. The test for me on whether it works is, are we
able as a result of that to run good prisons? Having just got
to the end of my financial year with the best escape figures I
have ever seenever in the whole history of the Servicewith
the lowest suicide rate we have seen for some time, with the lowest
abscond rate, and with the latest reducing re-offending figures,
which are the 2006 figures[107]
The six-week training produces people who do the
job well. We are achieving, in difficult circumstancesthe
population is getting longer term, but we are running a good service.
I think you might look at it from Parliament's point of view and
think "Don't we do well to get such good results from what
is good and efficient use of public resources?" Training
costs money. If we are going to do more to training, somebody
has to give substantially more money.[108]
90. The Director-General's defence of the initial
training received by prison officers focuses on four specific
areas, two of which are escapes and absconds. This seems a very
high level and limited basis on which to judge the quality of
training. In this context, we note that the 2007 re-offending
figures showed a decline in the reduction in re-offending from
2006. In addition, it is unclear how much of the reduction in
re-offending is attributable to the work of prison officers. We
also note that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has recorded
a "steady increase" in prisoner complaints about the
accuracy of the information recorded in reports "in particular",
together with a rise in complaints about regimes and security.[109]
91. We asked the Director-General for the number
of prison officers dismissed during their probationary year for
failing to complete the National Vocational Qualification. Mr
Wheatley could not say, but told us:
If somebody does not complete the NVQ
there
may be particular reasons, that they had been sick with a major
illness during the period or something like that, but if there
is no excuse, then that is evidence of not being competent as
a prison officer, and I expect to remove them
[110]
92. As discussed above, while keeping prisoners
securely is a vital part of the prison officer's role, it is overly
simplistic to measure success in these terms. We recommend
that the National Offender Management Service take account of
"local" indicators of performance in assessing the efficacy
of training; for example, the outcome of formal disciplinary procedures,
the subjects of successful prison complaints to the Prisons and
Probation Ombudsman, reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons
and the outcome of staff satisfaction surveys. Greater emphasis
also needs to be placed on the recognising and rewarding the effectiveness
of individual officers and the prison team in motivating prisoners
to make full use of opportunities for education, work, skill-training,
recreation and the development of life skills.
93. We believe the current content of basic
training to be inadequate to equip new prison officers with the
skills they require. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice
extend basic training to include, at the very least, components
on dealing with mentally ill prisoners and those coming off drink
and drugs, and the legal framework applying to prisoners, particularly
human rights and sentencing legislation. There is also a need
for a specific component on 'people skills' both in terms of dealing
with a community of prisoners and helping to motivate individual
offenders to seize opportunities to aid their rehabilitation and
reduce the likelihood of further offending after release. We recognise
that additional resources are currently scarce but believe that
greater investment in trainee prison officers as soon as practicable
will have long-term benefits both for the Prison Service and the
prisoners in their care.
94. We do not think that the training of
prison officers in the adult estate should be on the basis of
specialist training for a particular type of institution because
of the limitations this may place on their career progression
and their perceptions of their role. Instead, we recommend the
introduction of mandatory training specific to the type of establishment
in which the officer is employed during the probationary year.
Failure to complete the training satisfactorily should lead to
the termination of a prison officer's contract.
95. We recommend that mandatory training in
advanced first aid be part of this new first year training for
all prison officers working in the closed prison estate.
96. There was some debate as the mode of delivery
of initial training. While much of the complex work the Prison
Governors Association called "jail craft" may be best
learnt from more senior prison officers, this increases the danger
that any negative staff culture (identified by witnesses as adversely
impacting on re-offending work) is perpetuated.
97. Although there is currently some additional
basic training for officers working in juvenile establishments,[111]
the Youth Justice Board, the Prison Officers Association, the
Magistrates Association and the Chief Inspector regard it as inadequate.
The Chief Inspector noted that members of no other professional
group are allowed contact with children after such limited training.
She identified issues in relation to the role of residential staff
looking after children and young people in prison, who are often
the most difficult and damaged children in society. The Chief
Inspector commented:
Though there is now a seven-day course (JASP) which
is mandatory for new staff working with children and young people,
that is a much lower level of training than would be required
for anyone working with children outside a custodial setting.
This is particularly relevant to issues of behaviour management,
where prison staff are likely to feel more comfortable with the
control and restraint techniques in which they are regularly refreshed
than with other meditative or restorative approaches.[112]
98. The Youth Justice Board carried out a review
of the introduction of JASP in 2008 which found that staff felt
a need for a greater understanding of issues relating to mental
health awareness and managing difficult behaviour in particular.
This gives some indication of the challenges prison officers face
in working with young people in custody and the training that
is required to prepare them fully.[113]
99. The Youth Justice Board also believed that
juvenile detention work requires a separate approach from the
start, not only in training but also in recruitment. It said that
"Research shows that staff also need to possess particular
characteristics in order to be effective in their work. This highlights
the importance of targeted recruitment and effective screening."
The characteristics identified by the Youth Justice Board were:
being interpersonally warm; being tolerant and flexible; using
firm but fair exhibitions of authority; demonstrating pro-social
attitudes, values and beliefs; and, actively exposing antisocial
attitudes and behaviours and offering alternatives.[114]
100. The Chief Inspector of Prisons agreed that
there would be benefits in a "very specific cadre of prison
officers dealing with young children and young people"[115]
but was concerned that this would limit future employment opportunities
for staff. She said: "The difficulty with separate recruitment
is what happens about the progression opportunities for those
staff, unless you have got a system that integrates them into
the other children's services before prison and after prison."[116]
101. The limited number of juvenile establishments
inevitably limits the opportunities for career progression for
prison officers who specialise in working with children. This
could be overcome by allowing officers access to training allowing
them to transfer to an adult establishment if they are looking
for promotion. We recommend therefore that to work with this highly
vulnerable group officers receive dedicated training in child
welfare.
102. Consideration of the relationship between
juvenile detention and children's services is outside the scope
of this inquiry but does require specific attention.
103. In making these recommendations we note
the failure of the Government to act on the recommendation of
the Education and Skills Committee in 2005 which, in its inquiry
into prisoners' education, concluded:
The initial training period of 8 weeks for prison
officers is totally inadequate. The Government must encourage
the development of prison officers if prison staff are to be expected
to encourage the development of prisoners. The initial training
period must be significantly increased to a level that reflects
an appropriate investment to enable prison officers to play a
key role in the education and training of prisoners. Furthermore,
prison officers should have an equivalent entitlement to training
and development once they are in post.[117]
In response to the report, the Government defended
the length of prison officer training:
The Prison Officer Entry Level Training (POELT) programme
has recently been rewritten. The initial course has reduced in
length to 8 weeks, but there is a greater emphasis on subsequent
work-based learning. Entry level training is just that: the POELT
course is only intended to provide new staff with a foundation
level of training in core skill areas, communicating the underpinning
theory of the job. It is not intended for new members of staff
to cover all areas of their role within an initial period of foundation
training. Prison Officers remain on probation for their first
year in post and during this period their learning is expected
to continue in the workplace. Through the use of reflective journals
and completion of the National Vocational Qualification in Custodial
Care, officers' training continues throughout their probationary
period. Through ongoing and end-of-course assessment, the Prison
Service ensures that well trained and competent officers are returned
to establishments to complete their probation and continue their
training.[118]
104. We believe that the Government's response
to the comments of the Education and Skills Committee on initial
training for prisons officers fails to reflect the reality on
the ground, is over-optimistic and highly aspirational. We recommend
the Government gives further consideration to the valuable recommendations
of that committee's report.
INTRODUCTION OF THE NVQ IN CUSTODIAL
CARE
105. The introduction of the National Vocational
Qualification (NVQ) in custodial care in January 2008 was described
as demonstrating "the way forward" by the Prison Officers
Association.[119] Skills
for Justice, the Sector Skills Council for the justice sector
workforce across the UK, also welcomed the introduction of the
NVQ but had some concerns over the use of retired prison officers
as assessors as there are difficulties in keeping them up to date.[120]
106. The Director-General of NOMS was unable
to tell us how many trainee prison officers had been specifically
dismissed for not passing the NVQ in their probationary year owing
to the tendency for there to be a mix of reasons why probationers
dismissed. He said: "People who fail to do the NVQ normally
are failing to do other things. In the first year we retained
about 92% of people, we removed just under 2% and the rest left
We
have got a high retention rate, which I would expect because we
have selected carefully
"[121]
107. We welcome the introduction of the National
Vocation Qualification in Custodial Care for trainee prison officers.
We are pleased to learn that it is open to officers who joined
the Prison Service before September 2007.
108. We recommend that the Prison Service
introduces a procedure to scrutinise the reasons why a prison
officer fails the National Vocational Qualification in Custodial
Care to ensure that the right support is given to recruits and
they achieve the maximum benefit from the course.
Current training regime
109. Since 2003 the only mandatory on-going training
all prison officers have received is in control and restraint.
In 2003 responsibility for all discretionary training was transferred
from central management to prison governors. Phil Wheatley, Director-General
of NOMS, told us:
The effect of the mandatory approach to training
was that we at the centre decided what training everybody should
do, we did not give governors any discretion, we did not treat
them like they were grown-ups and could think about the problems
of their establishments and culture change they were trying to
create, the particular problems their establishments faced, and
when we added up our mandatory training, which we cheerfully signed
up to at the centre, we knew it was more than the resources that
any individual governor had to do it so we could come here and
say, "We have got really tough mandatory training
"[122]
Allowing governors to use judgment has given us much
improved focus, which is one of the reasons we are producing better
results. I would not want to go back to central mandating. I am
not a centrist where I believe the centre gets it right and good
quality governors do not know how to take decisions.[123]
110. Prison officers currently receive an average
of seven days' training a year, more, the Director-General of
NOMS told us, than when training was run by central management.[124]
The NOMS approach to on-going training was, according to the former
Prisons Minister, the Rt. Hon David Hanson MP, "rigorous."[125]
The Chief Inspector of Prisons disagreed. Dame Anne Owers highlighted
the rapidity with which training becomes out of date, and also
the impact on the culture of prisoners when training is given
a low priority:
if we want prison officers to do the things
that we now want them to do, and, indeed, that we need them to
do, we need to equip them to do so. I think a corollary of what
I have said is that one of the things we are expecting prison
officers to do
is to encourage those people who are in prisons
to be trained. Why would we expect them to do that and to think
that training is a good thing if for themselves training seems
to occupy such a low priority?[126]
111. Stephen Shaw, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman,
observed that a failure to prioritise training was demoralising
for prison staff as there was a value in training quite separate
from whether the prison officer leaves the course with a skill
that he or she did not have in the first place. He explained:
"It is about saying: this is a skilled job, it is a profession,
it is a vocation, and as part of that we, the service, the employer,
the state, are willing to invest time and money in you as an individual."[127]
112. Paddy Scriven, of the Prison Governors Association,
explained that there were difficulties with staffing levels which
have an impact on why governors were not delivering adequate levels
of training. She described a typical scenario as follows: "if
you have somebody
listed for a training course and you are
short of staff because people have gone sick, because you have
a bed watch, so you have a prisoner in hospital and you have to
put staff in, you are required to pull people off training. It
is not ring-fenced in the way it was."[128]
113. Miss Scriven also told us that valuable
on-site training through mentoring was disappearing because of
staff turnover:
One of the important elements is having somebody
within the establishment who can give staff on-the-job training,
who can mentor, who can see how they are coping. To make that
essential you need good main grade officers, senior officers.
You need senior officers who are well developed and well trained.
There are establishments where the turnover of staff is so quick
that a new officer will come out of the training school and will
learn how to translate the very basic training from the training
school into prison practice by somebody who has come out of the
course before. That is almost a necessity. We have lost within
establishments, because we have lost the budget, the training
officer who would oversee that training.[129]
114. The value of in-house training through mentoring
was supported by contributors to the e-consultation. One contributor
described the status held by mentoring during his training and
contrasted it with the position today:
When I joined the Service as a 24 year old in 1984
I had a bit of life experience giving me reasonable life skills.
These were then honed by my training to become a prison officer.
I arrived for 4 weeks training at my allocated prison who had
a training team consisting of a principal officer and senior officer,
both full of knowledge and experience. I then attended Leyhill
Staff College for 8 weeks. Our trainers were all principal officers
led by a chief officer, all, again, full of knowledge and experience.
I arrived at my first posting to be met by the training team [consisting
of] a principal officer and senior officer who allocated me a
prison officer with over 10 years service as a mentor, I was constantly
assessed by the training team for twelve months and then interviewed
by the chief officer before eventually becoming an established
officer.
If I was joining now I could join at age 18 straight from school
with no life skills and receive 6 weeks training at PSC Newbold
by senior officers of which some could have less than 4 years
experience. During this time I would start an NVQ L3 in Custodial
Care, I would then return to my establishment be met by the training
team if I am lucky. This team would consist of an executive officer
(EO) and an admin officer (AO) both civilian grades with no prison
officer experience, I would not be allocated a mentor because
it would be too costly. I would then be expected to complete my
NVQ within my first twelve months with no help from within the
establishment as nobody knows how to. At age 19 in adult establishments
having completed my probation I would be expected to deal with
21 year old plus inmates who are both street wise and jail wise
with no help or guidance from a fully knowledgeable training team
or chief officer.[130]
115. The Royal College of Nursing said "
prison
officer development should involve working in other areas in and
outside the prison gates, alongside police and probation officers,
mental health, drug and alcohol workers and custody nurses, for
example."[131]
116. We asked the Chief Inspector of Prisons
whether there was a case for her remit to be extended to include
the inspection of staff training. The Chief Inspector did not
commit herself butdescribing as "very flattering"
the implication that if she inspected officers' training it would
be betteragreed that training needed to be improved. She
highlighted changes "for example, in equalities legislation,
in perceptions about disability and learning disabilities [which]
are hugely different from when many prison officers would have
started their job."[132]
Lord Ramsbotham, former Chief Inspector of Prisons, told us that
he thought extending the remit of the Chief Inspector of Prisons
to look at training would be helpful and would "put a bit
of ginger into the system."[133]
117. We accept that imposing mandatory training
across the Prison Service is too inflexible to respond to the
diverse and changing needs of prison officers. However, we are
concerned that the national management of training has not resolved
problems with training delivery. We believe that extending the
remit of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to scrutinise the relevance
and provision of training would provide valuable independent oversight
of the training regime. While this will require modest additional
resources, it will lead to a more efficient and effective training
regime overall. The Chief Inspector should co-ordinate engagement
from the education and skills sectors to assist her in this work.
118. On-going training requires a variety
of approaches to ensure that prison officers benefit from the
experience of colleagues while learning techniques and approaches
in other relevant professions. Mentoring and shadowing are a crucial
part of learning how to be a good prison officer, particularly
given the complexities and subtleties of "jail craft."
Workforce Modernisation, as currently formulated, will reduce
the number of senior officers in uniform. We believe this will
have a deleterious affect on a very valuable aspect of training
and should be reconsidered immediately.
119. Educational opportunities for both prisoners
and prison officers were a keynote in the evidence we heard from
four men who had spent time in custody. Danny Afzal described
how education had been his route out of crime:
The only way I escaped that was four years ago when
I did basic English and maths in Brixton for six weeks and from
there I went to Goldsmiths College, University of London, for
one day and I met somebody there at a project called Open Book,
Joe Baden, who is a lovely guy, and he said to me, "Have
you ever thought about going to university?" and I said,
"No-one's ever asked me that before, ever. How can I go to
university?" He said, "Have you ever thought of doing
a degree" and I said, "How can I do a degree, my level
of English and maths is quite basic?" For six months he actually
showed me how to do essays, research, how to do stuff in an academic
way, footnotes, bibliographies, reviews, and within six months
they said, "We think you're ready to do a degree". I
am now in the third year. Next month I am finishing my Bachelor's
Degree in history. That is the first qualification I have ever
got.[134]
Mr Afzal told us that prison officers could be envious
of the educational opportunities prisoners received:
There is a bit of resentment there from prison officers
when we get access to Open University courses and things like
that because really they want to do it themselves. I have had
many prison officers say to me, "I would love to do a degree
in this, I would love to do that".[135]
120. We recommend the Ministry of Justice
commission a wide-ranging review of prison officers' recruitment
and training. The best way to encourage prison officers to understand
the value of education, and enable them to pass this on to prisoners
is for greater access to Open University courses for both and
for the concept of prison as a 'learning community' to apply to
staff and prisoners alike.
Promotion and specialisation
121. Promotion to senior officer involves a written
examination and eight 15 minute job simulations.[136]
NOMS did not submit details of the promotion exercise to become
principal officer to our inquiry, presumably because this role
will be abolished under the Workforce Modernisation scheme.
SPECIALISATION
122. The question of how specialist roles should
be undertaken in prisons, and, if carried out by prison officers,
when they should receive specialist training, is a matter of debate.
Currently the prison system operates with some specialist officers
within the service, who may or may not have received additional
training, and with a large number of professionals contracted
from outside. We have referred to persuasive evidence that specialising
too early in an officer's career could limit career prospects
and lead them to 'compartmentalise' their roles to the detriment
of their overall effectiveness.
Professor Alison Liebling told us that:
Specialisation has all sorts of risks, because if
you specialise there will always be a role that is just security
and it tends to mean not care and welfare, so my feeling is that
the risk of specialisation often outweighs the benefit. If you
do not specialise, staff tend to find their way into the sorts
of jobs they want to do anyway; if they are very therapeutically
inclined they will try and end up in a therapeutic community
or a drug unit or something like that; so I think a certain
amount of specialisation happens by itself, and I prefer
the model of the officer who sees the job as combining security
with treatment, rehabilitation and care, on the whole.[137]
123. The Chief Inspector commented on that prison
officers' specialisms are made more difficult through the reluctance
of some professionals to share information or for departments
to "operate in silos". The Prisons Inspectorate look
for clear information-sharing protocols between healthcare and
residential staff, in recognition of the fact that the latter
are in effect primary carers. Dame Anne Owers also told us that
there was usually little dedicated time for residential staff
to perform the role effectively and ensure that they are proactive
in engaging with and supporting prisoners. Together with a lack
of training, these factors can reduce the opportunities for prison
officers to specialise. The lack of training, the Chief Inspector
considered, could exacerbate the effects of difficult experiences
with prisoners:
While staff gain a great deal of experience in managing
very challenging individuals, experience can also reinforce poor
practice or misunderstanding. Staff who have been able to participate
in mental health awareness training, who have undergone pro-social
modelling training, or who are themselves trainers on offending
behaviour or drug treatment programmes, have more confidence,
and improved skills, in managing prisoners and understanding the
background to their behaviour and motivation.[138]
The use of outside agencies may also be detrimental
to the overall role of the officer. The Chief Inspector of Prisons
told us:
there is a concern that this [the use of outside
agencies] can deskill and undermine the role of residential staff,
who are the people in daily contact with prisoners, and who need
to be able to reinforce positive behaviour, and challenge and
support the prisoners in their care.[139]
124. Nacro was generally in favour of prison
officers developing specialisms. In Nacro's view, trained officers,
if given time, resources and opportunities to work across the
prison and through the prison gate, are able to build up a level
of expertise that is equal to that of staff from outside agencies,
while their continued presence in the prison is less dependent
on budgets and funding. Even when officers do move to another
job it is likely to be within the service so that the resources
invested in them are not lost.[140]
Nacro also observed that there were some risks in specialisation,
as other officers may see no need to develop understanding of
the specialist area and that may impact on their ability to work
effectively with prisoners. Time allocated to day to day and specialist
parts of the role may be unclear. Nacro noted that they had heard
such complaints from voluntary and community sector co-ordinators,
race relation liaison officers and resettlement staff. The impact
of over-crowding and general regime demands may divert officers
from the specialist service, creating frustrations and resentment.
Despite all these potential problems, Nacro concluded: "The
potential for specialism
create[s] staff development opportunities
and affirms that the role of the prison officer is more complex
and interesting than the basic security role."[141]
125. The Prisoners' Education Trust works with
prison staff in making educational grants to prisoners and directing
voluntary finance into prison education projects. It commented
on specialism in education as follows:
Whilst there is scope for offender learning support
to be a 'specialisation' among prison staff, and we would support
a case for developing that, we also think it should be part of
the general responsibilities of all prison staff. Prison staff
specialising in education could play crucial roles supporting
offender learning in many small but significant ways; ensuring
access to classes and facilities; ensuring learning resources
reach prisoners (many course materials languish in property reception
procedures for weeks, slowing down learning and causing immense
frustration); encouraging prisoners who are struggling with learning
and linking them with peers or mentors etc.[142]
126. We recognise the difficulties in developing
prison officers so as to take advantage of their skills and experience
while ensuring officers are aware of the complexity of their day-to-day
role. The prison system is able to function because prisoners,
on the whole, yield to the system while the system, on the whole,
treats them fairly and decently. This can only work if prison
officers remain confident that they are not 'turnkeys' but professionals
carrying out an important and difficult role.
64 Ev 142 Back
65
Ev 125 Back
66
Numeracy and literacy tests known as Prison Officer Selection
Tests (POST) Back
67
Job simulations known as JSAC Back
68
Ev 135 Back
69
Ev 135. It is unclear whether all candidates undergo the reflective
interview as NOMS original evidence to the Committee at RPO19
states that 'The purpose of the reflective interview is to provide
additional evidence for those candidates who have met the standard
in all elements on the assessment day other than certain simulation
exercises, which they have marginally failed.' A reflective interview
involves the interviewer asking the interviewee toelaborate on
his or her responses to the assessment exercises. Back
70
Ev 125 Back
71
HC Deb ,21 Feb 2000, col 822W Back
72
Ev 134 Back
73
Ev 114 Back
74
Ev 134 Back
75
Ev 135 Back
76
Q 138 Back
77
Q 139 Back
78
Ev 74 Back
79
Q 56 Back
80
Q 18 Back
81
Q 102 Back
82
Q 55 Back
83
Q 132 Back
84
Q 133 Back
85
Q 161 Back
86
Race Review 2008, Implementing race equality in prisons- Five
years on, NOMS (December 2008) p9 Back
87
Ev 75 Back
88
Q 21 Back
89
Q 226 Back
90
Q 229 Back
91
Q 93 Back
92
Q 167 Back
93
Q 49 Back
94
Q 151 Back
95
Ev 144 Back
96
Ev 145 Back
97
Q 167 Back
98
25 March 2009 Back
99
25 March 2009 Back
100
26 March 2009 Back
101
Ev 143 Back
102
Ev 143 Back
103
Q 167 Back
104
Q 173 Back
105
Q 294 Back
106
E.g Ev 72 Back
107
Q 264 Back
108
Q 266 Back
109
Prison and Probation Ombudsman, Annual Report, 2008-09 Back
110
Q 264 Back
111
Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme (JASP) Back
112
Ev 72 Back
113
Ev 167 Back
114
Ev 166 Back
115
Q 178 Back
116
Q 179 Back
117
Education and Skills Select Committee, Seventh Report of Session
2004-05, Prison Education, HC114-I Back
118
Cm 6562 Back
119
Ev 147 Back
120
Ev 161 Back
121
Q 280 Back
122
Q 293 Back
123
Q 294 Back
124
Q 294 Back
125
Q 267 Back
126
Q 166 Back
127
Q 166 Back
128
Q 130 Back
129
Q 131 Back
130
27 March 2009 Back
131
Ev 155 and see annex to this report, P 76 Back
132
Q 166 Back
133
Q 258 Back
134
Q 194 Back
135
Q 203 and this resentment was reflected in contributions to the
e-consultation (see annex to this report). Back
136
Annex L to Ministry of Justice submission (not printed; information
available from Parliamentary archive) Back
137
Q 49 Back
138
Ev 72 Back
139
Ev 72 Back
140
Ev 136 Back
141
Ev 136 Back
142
Ev 139 Back
|