Key issues in offender education

By Dominic Murphy 19 September 2005

The goals of prison education are longstanding

The purpose and objectives governing prison education are laid out in “Education in Prisons” Prison Service Order (PSO) 4205, 10 April 2000.

Here are some key stipulations:

“The purpose of education within prison is to address the offending behaviour of inmates, by improving employability and thus reduce the likelihood of re-offending upon release”.  [PSO 4205 para 1.1 p3]

"Education provision … must respond to individual needs of prisoners”. [PSO 4205 para 3.1 p4]

“Education will make a clear contribution to throughcare by forming links with the probation service, training and employment organisations to support prisoners’ education, training or employment on release”. [PSO 4205 para 3.2 p4]

The goals of prison education, on employability, individuality and integration of support are longstanding.

The policies to achieve the goals are changing rapidly

However, prison education policy is now changing rapidly through central government action, in response to challenging, not to say threatening, circumstances.  The stark facts are that: “On current forecasts, by 2009 there will be 93,000 offenders in custody and 300,000 under supervision”.  This will exceed achievable capacity to manage that number of offenders (Carter 2003). 

High re-offending rates are a major contributing factor.  Some 60% of those released from prison re-offend within two years (Home Office 2000).   There is an urgent need to reduce the population of offenders under the various levels of supervision, partly by reducing re-offending.

This was given full recognition in the seminal study “Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners” (Social Exclusion Unit 2002).   This report defined the current manifesto for the reduction of reoffending.  It called for a new National Rehabilitation Strategy.   The report championed the use of education to improve the life-chances of ex-offenders to reduce re-offending.

New practical policy proposals arrived soon after.  On 11 December 2003 the Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office published the Carter Report (“Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime – a new approach”).  There were three key proposals. 

The first was to amalgamate the Probation Service and the Prison Service under a single manager accountable directly to ministers; the new conglomerate to be called the National Offenders Management Service.  The second was to introduce more competition from the private and voluntary sectors for provision of the relevant services. The third was to centralise policy-making. 

The objective of the first proposal was to change the focus from managing imprisonment to a sustained emphasis on preparing offenders to avoid re-offending after release.   The objective of the others was to improve “effectiveness and value for money” (Carter 2003).

Just a month later, in January 2004 Mr Blunkett, then Home Secretary, issued “Reducing Crime, Changing Lives – The government’s plans for transforming the management of offenders”.  He wasted no time in implementing Carter’s recommendations from the month before.

“We will from 1st June this year introduce a new National Offender Management Service (NOMS) with responsibility for both punishing offenders and reducing offending. The new service will provide end-to-end management of offenders … ” (Blunkett 2004 p14, para 42). 

“there will be … joined up strategies developed. … this will include working even more closely with complementary services, including health, education, housing and employment.” [Blunkett 2004 p11, para 30]

The current delivery arrangements

These new policies were important news to the existing agencies delivering offender education. Since April 2001 offender education has been managed by the Department for Education and Skills, in collaboration with the Home Office.  The relevant section was originally known as the Prisoners’ Learning and Skills Unit.   

This unit is currently responsible for funding both prison education and the education of offenders on probation in the community.  Its name was changed in May 2003 to the Offenders Learning Support Unit in recognition of this wider role. 

The educational services are delivered on the frontline by Further Education Colleges and other training organisations, through a competitive tendering process previously known as Project Rex.   Government announced the abandonment of this system in January 2004. (NATFHE 2004 p3)

Different policy is now to be introduced as a consequence of the new thinking behind the creation of NOMS.  In the interest of continuity of educational support “through the gate”, offender education is to be integrated wherever possible into mainstream provision of education.   So in August 2006, funding for prison education will pass to the regional Learning and Skills Councils currently charged with mainstream funding.

To complement this change, new requirements for offender education have been specified in the Offender’s Learning Journey.  Education is to be conducted by a new organisation called the Offenders Learning And Skills Service. This is the collective name for a new formation of frontline providers. 

(OLSU 2004; also see Forum on Prisoner Education 2005, Briefing Paper 16)

The rapid change is causing uncertainty for current practitioners

The colleges and other organisations currently delivering offender education must all reapply to the relevant LSCs to compete for new contracts.  Some colleges, who supply education to multiple institutions, may have to negotiate with several LSCs. 

The specification for the new service is still under development in three pilot regions.  There is little provision for consultation and review with the stakeholders before full implementation of the new service.

The timetable is very tight:

“ 7.1. The timetable for implementation of the Delivery Framework will be

• January 2005 to May 2005– negotiations and agreement with providers
• January 2005 to July 2005 – prototype activity to test variables
• August 2005 – implementation of integrated service in Development Regions 
• August 2005 – implementation of proven elements of the new service in the remaining six English regions
• August 2006 – implementation of the integrated service across England”

(OLSU 2004 - OLASS Delivery Framework)

The consequence is that the current suppliers of offender education, and their staff, face considerable uncertainty at this time.  There is a heightened need to chart current conditions and plan the best route ahead. 

The comparison of policy and practice

In what follows we review some current statements from authorities, on what constitutes good practise in the field of teaching enterprise skills to offenders.  We compare this with experience “on the ground” as expressed in a recent survey of practitioners.  We seek matches and mismatches to identify the opportunities and the threats.   The analysis focuses on the delivery of enterprise skills but has a wider application across other subject areas.

Good practice in delivering enterprise skills to offenders

The evaluation of offender teaching practice is underpinned by the fundamental need to enable ex-offenders to earn a decent living on release.   The Social Exclusion Unit report recognised the importance of teaching enterprise skills:

“For some prisoners, self-employment on release may present the most practical way of successfully re-entering the labour market.”

(Social Exclusion Unit 2002, para 8.12 p56)

Subsequent contributions to the evaluation of teaching enterprise skills have recognised this factor.  The most comprehensive of these was commissioned by The Department of Trade and Industry Small Business Service: “Reducing Re-offending: The Enterprise Option” (Fletcher, Del Roy 2004).  The survey identified a number of weaknesses of current provision and made recommendations about good practice.

Weaknesses included:

• A lack of a coordinated policy or effort to deliver enterprise skills
•  A focus on achieving qualifications rather than practical skills
•  A lack of integration with other vocational courses
• Poor selection procedures to recruit the most appropriate students
•  A lack of evaluation of outputs and feedback
• A lack of continuity of support “through the gate”.

Good practice was recommended to include:

• Effective selection procedures
• Differentiation of support to cater for individual needs
• Strong links to community based organisations to deliver continuity of support
• Employment of teaching staff with the right mix of skills
• A practical approach delivering realistic expectations
• Some help with start-up finance
• An active Continuous Professional Development programme for teaching staff to help disseminate and embrace new ideas
• Feedback to enable evidence-based ‘continuous improvement’.

The key challenges were identified as:

• Providing seamless support “through the gate”
• Providing start-up finance.

(Fletcher, Del Roy 2004)

Del Roy Fletcher recommended a joint statement of purpose at ministerial level.  This was implemented.  A ministerial statement was published in October 2004 on behalf of the Department for Trade and Industry, Small Business Service, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office Prisons Service.

It states that: “Government departments are joining forces to give offenders a second chance by helping them start their own business.”   The statement endorses:

• “…standards of learning in prisons in line with mainstream education and skills provision.”
• An integrated approach to “meet resettlement needs”.

(Joint Ministerial Statement 2004)

Currently the most authoritative specification for offender education is The Offender Learning Journey.  It addresses the teaching of enterprise skills in section 6 “Work-related learning” (OLSU 2004). 

Drawing on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and the Small Business Service, the Learning Journey stipulates service requirements for aspiring members of OLASS.  These include:

• “All programmes should provide progression routes to employment for further training.”
• “...continuity of training for learners transferring between prisons and from prison to the community”
• “…appropriately qualified and experienced vocational instructors”
• “There should be appropriate strategy for continuing professional development.”
• “Learning providers should ensure that assessment and verification programmes meet the requirements of awarding bodies.”
• “…to work effectively with National Probation Service in dealing with offenders subject to an activity requirement of a court order or licence.”

(OLSU 2004, The Learning Journey-adults p24)

More recently: “On Thursday 31st March, the House of Commons Education & Skills Select Committee published a report based on its year-long inquiry into prison education. The Government's response was published on 9th June.”

 (Forum on Prisoner Education 2005)

Some of the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee relate to the above concerns:

• Items 2 & 3, “Research is needed to establish what type of education and training will have the greatest impact.”
• Item 19, “The continuation of provision and support after release is essential.”
• Item 38, “The separate nature of education, vocational training and work in prisons cannot continue and there must be greater links.”

The main issues considered by policy makers and commentators may be categorised as follows:

• Emphasis: The presence of a national policy for teaching enterprise skills and the importance placed on education
• Coordination: The need to integrate support for students within prison and through the gate into the community
• Assessment: The selection of students and the verification of their work, taking account of individual needs
• The standard of teaching: Compliance with mainstream standards, using skilled teachers supported by CPD
• Feedback: The need to monitor outcomes for evidence-based planning and development.

A recent survey of teachers of enterprise skills in prison

A questionnaire was constructed partly to evaluate the aspirations and prescriptions of analysts and legislators presented above, in terms of their practicality.  The method was to compare these plans with the experience of those currently teaching enterprise skills to offenders. 

A list of practitioners was compiled from conference attendees to a recent OCR FirmStart conference, the research of Del Roy Fletcher (2004) and a list supplied by the national awarding body ASET.  List members are all involved in teaching Enterprise Skills to offenders.  The majority do so in prison.

The responses, which are the basis for the following analysis, were gathered between 19^th April 2005 and 6^th May 2005.  There were 33 responses.

Survey results

Here are the questions asked and the resultant answers for those questions relevant to this study.

Notes on the results

How do you link with support outside?

For those respondents able to link students to support after release, the method is referral to the various enterprise agencies that encourage entrepreneurial activity on a local basis.  Agencies specifically cited were:

• BEAT
• British Legion
• Business in Prisons
• Hibiscus
• InBiz
• Jamaica Small Business Trust
•  Job Centre Plus (New Deal)
• Nottingham Business Link
• Prince’s Trust
• Women in Prison

How do you follow up on outcomes?

For those able to follow-up on outcomes after release, the method was feedback from the enterprise agencies to which they referred students.  The list of agencies cited specifically is all within the above list. 

The comments of respondents indicated that obtaining feedback was exceptional rather than being the rule. 

The main findings of the survey

Emphasis

There is little evidence of an effective national policy for teaching enterprise skills.  Only 39% of respondents knew of a focus for teaching enterprise skills outside of their own prison.  All the respondents seem to be operating more or less independently, guided only by their own experience and the verification procedures of the qualifying body administering certification.   However, several respondents noted programmes such as Business in Prisons and New Deal.  So there are indications of national programmes having an effect.

In answer to the question: “What priority is given to teaching enterprise skills by your institution?” respondents gave a mark of 6 out of 10.  Whilst this is not a disastrous performance the system could obviously do better.

The cooperation perceived by respondents in terms of delivery of students by officers seems reasonable.  The standard of delivery got a mark of 8 out of 10.  It has been said that large local prisons are liable to face more delivery   problems than smaller open prisons.  There is no pattern in the responses to support this view.

Coordination

Responses do not indicate good quality of integration in the support of students between practitioners within prison.  Failure to complete courses, through transfer to other institutions or release, was cited as a major difficulty faced by students.  Collaboration with other vocational courses is low, with an average score of 3.5 out of 10.  The score for frequency of collaboration with Probation is even lower at 2.6. 

This is particularly significant because the new approach to sentence planning focuses on preparing the individual inmate for successful resettlement in the community.  Current policy gives responsibility for planning this process to The National Probation Service. The lack of contact with teachers will be a problem when Probation tries to put plans into action.

It is also concerning because teachers of enterprise skills in particular need to know whether the business plans they are encouraging inmates to prepare will violate licence terms on release.  Otherwise they cannot advise their students correctly.

The new specification for teaching enterprise skills specifically requires close collaboration between Probation and teachers (OLSU 2004, The Learning Journey-adults p24).   Implementing this is likely to be difficult because there is no established basis for this integrated approach.

Coordination through the gate with outside organisations able to support ex-offenders during resettlement seems patchy.  Only 64% of respondents reported being able to arrange support for their students on release.   Fewer than 20% had any idea of how well the outside support works.  The major difficulty facing ex-offenders, attempting to resettle as self-employed, was reported to be lack of financial support to get started ‘on the out’.

Assessment

Respondents were quite positive regarding the effectiveness of the selection process in getting the right students for teaching enterprise skills.   They gave a mark of 8 out of 10.  However, on probing this was an expression of satisfaction with their individual scope to decide who goes on their course.  There was no reference to a wider assessment process integrated with overall sentence planning.

Respondents expressed broad satisfaction with the assessment and verification arrangements for teaching enterprise skills, with a mark of 8 out of 10.    Given the lack of contact with Probation reported above, this should be interpreted as satisfaction with certification for a qualification, rather than delivery of broader practical skills for resettlement.

The standard of teaching

There has been concern that teaching is too focused on getting qualifications rather than equipping offenders with the practical skills and attitudes necessary for successful self-employment.  It was encouraging to find that 70% of respondents had personal experience of running a business.

Improved Continuous Professional Development of teaching staff in prisons is a policy objective that is broadly endorsed.  However, responses indicated current deficiencies.  One respondent put it: "Teaching in prison is a lonely business." 

The average score out of ten given by respondents for the quality of their own Continuous Professional Development is an unimpressive 5.8.  The majority of respondent tutors (two thirds of them) know of no focus outside of the prison where they can collaborate with other teachers of enterprise skills.

Prison education is contracted out to FE colleges and other providers on a competitive basis.  This further inhibits a collegial atmosphere between teachers in different organisations.

Feedback

Only 18% of respondents have any way of monitoring outcomes.    The comments of respondents indicate that, even for those who can monitor outcomes, the practice is infrequent.   There is little scope for evidence-based action to improve and develop courses.

There are strong forces at work to create this state of affaires.  The security regime in the Prison Service does not encourage inside teachers to communicate with ex-offenders once released. 

For their part, ex-offenders do not usually welcome contact with the prisons. They prefer to put the experience behind them, for fear of public exposure and the resultant damage to their standing in the community.

Conclusions

Respondents describe a real teaching world in prison with significant deficiencies regarding the aspirations of policy makers:

• Teachers of enterprise skills do not perceive an overarching supportive policy context
• They doubt that their subject is valued within offender education
• There is poor coordination between teachers and others inside the estate
• A lack of contact between teachers and Probation was particularly marked and concerning
• There is poor coordination between teachers in prison and agencies outside that can help deliver continuity of support for resettlement
• Provision of CPD to teachers of enterprise skills is inadequate
• There is no feedback of outcomes to inform planning and development.

References

• HM Prison Service (10 April 2000), Education in Prisons, Prison Service Order (PSO) 4205, see WWW site at URL: http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/resourcecentre/psispsos/listpsos/  (accessed 26 July 2005)
• Carter, P. (11 December 2003), The Carter Report -“Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime – a new approach”, Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office, see WWW site at URL: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/org/dob/direct/noms.html (accessed 26 July 2005)
• Home Office (2000), Re-conviction rates, see WWW site URL: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/digest4/chapter7.pdf (accessed 26 July 2005)
• Social Exclusion Unit (July 2002), Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, HMG Cabinet Office, see WWW site at URL: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/documents/publications_1997_to_2006/reducing_report.pdf(accessed 29 Sept 2007)
• Blunkett, D. (January 2004), Reducing Crime, Changing Lives – The government’s plans for transforming the management of offenders, The Home Office, see WWW site at URL: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/org/dob/direct/noms.html (accessed 26 July 2005)
• NATFHE (June 2004), NATFHE submission to the Education and Skills Select Committee inquiry into prison education, see WWW site URL: http://www.natfhe.org.uk/down/prisedsub04.doc (accessed 29 Jully 2005)
• Forum on Prisoner Education (July 2005), Briefing Paper No. 16 Offenders Learning & Skills Service, see www site URL: http://www.fpe.org.uk/filestore/bp15.pdf (accessed 19 July 2006)
• OLSU (2004) A New Delivery Service for Learning and Skills.- Offender Learning Journey & OLASS Delivery Framework, see WWW site URL: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/offenderlearning/init_p.cfm?ID=27 (accessed 26 July 2005)
• Fletcher, Del Roy (January 2004), Reducing Re-offending: The Enterprise Option, DTI Small Business Service, see WWW site URL: http://www.sbs.gov.uk/content/analytical/ex-offenders.pdf (accessed 28 July 2005)
• Joint Ministerial Statement (Oct 2004), Reducing Re-Offending Through Employment And Enterprise, see WWW site URL: http://www.sbs.gov.uk/SBS_Gov_files/phoenix/final-prisons-statement.pdf (accessed 19 September 2005)
• Forum on Prisoner Education (2005), House of Commons Education & Skills Committee Prison Education Report, see WWW site URL: http://www.fpe.org.uk/select/ (accessed 29 July 2005)