Written evidence submitted by Novus (RAR0080)

Novus is a national provider of education, skills and employability programmes which specialises in working with offenders. As part of the LTE Group, a leading further education college group headquartered in Manchester, Novus has over 30 years of experience of pioneering digital innovation, collaboration and new ways of working. We currently hold contracts to deliver education in 50 prisons and YOIs across England and Wales. We are submitting this evidence with the aim of shining a light on the system-wide challenges which we hope our expertise and insight can help overcome.

Section 2: Rehabilitation in prisons 

2. What is the regime offer in different types of prisons? 

The core prison education curriculum available to individuals, commissioned by HMPPS, is broadly similar across the prison estate, including numeracy, literacy, digital skills and employment-focused skills training, as well as creative enrichment and personal and social development. However the methods of delivery, wraparound support and resources all vary across different types of prison, and are dependent on the accommodation available.

a)      How does this differ for the following cohorts: 

Female prisoners

Around 50% of female prisoners have suffered domestic abuse, while a similar proportion were subjected to childhood physical, emotional or sexual abuse. Delivery approaches used with female prisoners are therefore more trauma-informed. Our teaching staff are fully trained in using learning pedagogies which augment wider approaches to overcoming traumatic life experiences.

Women prisoners have a shorter average sentence duration than men. Women’s prison study programmes include a greater volume of shorter learning aims which are achievable within a custodial sentence. This allows credit accumulation and supports transition as individuals move between prisons and into community provision upon release.

Seven in 10 women prisoners have never been employed. This increases the need for interventions challenging preconceptions, preparing individuals for education/work and normalising learning. This requires personal and social development (e.g. confidence building) and integrated mental health support. Conversely, neurodiversity issues (e.g. autism) are often undiagnosed or masked by women prisoners, meaning collaboration with clinical and health services is crucial and individuals’ needs must be continuously assessed to ensure learning programmes are appropriate.

Remand prisoners

Recognising the unique challenges this cohort faces (e.g. stress, reduced time to engage with services, the need for schedule agility around legal meetings), we deliver tailored, stage-appropriate provision including:

• Short, impactful learning: short courses up to 2 weeks in length and taster sessions.
• Emphasising personal development: motivation/confidence-building workshops to recognise the challenges, setbacks and need for resilience for those at this stage of the criminal justice system.
• Preparing for next steps: Ensuring a clear employability focus so those on remand released post-trial have had the support to retain/quickly find work.

Those in the youth custody estate

In response to the needs of this cohort, our provision focuses on:

• Engagement strategies: we provide bitesize sessions contextualised to prison industries/vocational training (e.g. ‘Access to’ Construction) allowing progression into qualifications mapped to the stage of younger learners.
• Expressive arts as a ‘hook in’: adapting our creative enrichment offer to the needs of the younger population, developing critical self-expression/inter-personal skills.
• Tailored skills courses: programmes to reflect population needs, e.g. cooking for one, benefits of exercise; also supporting study towards qualifications such as GSCEs where these have not previously been achieved.

---

b)      Does the regime offer encompass the principles of individual desistence, and to what extent could it? 

Prison education is proven by MoJ research to reduce reoffending rates by 7.5 percentage points, and is a highly effective means of enabling/embedding desistance. However there are a number of structural, practical and cultural obstacles.

Many offenders are required to attend unavoidable legal appointments/hearings which stall educational progress. The frequency of movements between prisons throughout an individual’s sentence also inevitably disrupts their progress and can lead to repetition in initial assessments as data may be imperfectly transferred between institutions/providers. Different prisons may operate different curricula/workshops; a prisoner may not be able to continue a study programme started at a different prison.

Recommendations:

• Investment in technology to increase flexibility: enabling prisoners to watch webinar-style recorded lessons or catch up on learning via in-cell technology.
• Better data sharing: A more coordinated, systematic approach to planning and data sharing would improve the situation.
• Reduced movement between prisons: A culture prioritising rehabilitation through allowing learners to stay in a prison, rather than having to move between prisons in response to short-term capacity issues, to complete their learning should be fostered.

3. What impact does custody have on prisoner health and wellbeing, and how effective is provision for this in prison in promoting rehabilitation? 

Spending time in prison can negatively impact an individual’s physical/mental health, which in turn negatively impacts regime stability. Education can be a key enabler, reducing reoffending and improving individuals’ mental health and raising their aspirations after release.

Novus specialises in offering tailored education programmes based on learners’ prior experience of education. Our teachers often extend learning beyond the curriculum and support learners to understand how to be healthy, develop their wellbeing and build confidence/resilience. This can help individuals develop skills and find employment after release, which in turn promotes desistance. However, the national system of prison education is not as effective as it could be in promoting rehabilitation. We will address this issue more fully in our answers below.

a)      What role does trauma-informed practice have on the delivery of purposeful activities in prisons? 

Many offenders have histories of adverse childhood experiences, abuse or neglect. A trauma-informed approach fosters trust, reduces the risk of re-traumatisation, and builds the resilience necessary for desistance. Novus’ teaching staff are fully trained in using learning pedagogies which augment wider approaches to overcoming traumatic life experiences; we ensure our support staff in women’s prisons and Young Offenders Institutions have trauma-informed training and operate trauma-informed methodologies. This could play a greater role.

4. What is the current offer of training and education available in prisons and is it sufficient? 

The core curriculum available to individuals across the prison estate covers numeracy, literacy, digital skills and employment-focused skills training. Novus’ prison education delivery has been frequently praised by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted, e.g. 2024 reports on HMPs Kirkham, Rye Hill and Oakwood. However the 2023-24 annual report by HMIP identified weaknesses in the effectiveness of education, skills and work activities in prisons nationally.

The main reason is there is insufficient resource available to meet need, as identified by HMIP and Ofsted in numerous reports. This chronic underinvestment is compounded by the fact that, by the time they enter prison, many prisoners have already fallen well behind their peers. Some 61% of prisoners are estimated to be below level 1 – the standard expected of an 11-year-old – in maths, with 57% of prisoners operating below level 1 in English.

Even if 100% of prison education resources were utilised for the provision of maths, English and ESOL, there would still be insufficient resources to meet this need for all prisoners. To progress all learners by just 1 level in maths and English would exceed the entire prison education budget. MoJ data demonstrates high levels of SEND and other complex needs among prisoners. However, unlike in mainstream education, there are no incremental budgets to address and support these needs.

Another key barrier is the personal incentives available to prisoners. Working in prisons (e.g. workshops) attracts a small wage – a financial incentive which is often denied to individuals who pursue education. In many prisons individuals are effectively financially penalised if they opt for education over work.

Despite these barriers, prison education providers do a creditable job at preparing those individuals in learning for work and life after release. Provision includes strong basic skills delivery and employer-led vocational initiatives, co-designed with employers and linked to real job vacancies. Novus’ partnership with Greene King is a powerful example of what can be achieved by such partnership working; we are able to supply more detail about this.

Novus is at the forefront of moves to utilise AI to provide the best possible prison education we can, using resources as efficiently as possible. We were early adopters of Teachermatic, software which uses AI to streamline the creation of lesson plans and activities tailored to learners’ needs, freeing up time for teachers to give individual attention to learners in need to support. Novus has also worked closely with awarding bodies on a number of pilots to create the conditions, securely, to be able to offer digital skills qualifications recognised and respected by employers.

a)      What impact does contracting and staffing have on the delivery of purposeful activities in prisons? 

The prison staffing crisis has resulted in major challenges for prisons having sufficient employees to safely move prisoners around, e.g. from wing to classroom. This results in empty places, missed lessons and impaired progress. As a result only around six in 10 education spaces are filled. Shortage of prison staff leads to a stalled regime stopping access to learning, a problem particularly in London prisons.

Relatively short prison education contracts mean that new providers can be brought in every five years or so, resulting in some employees facing TUPE and feeling insecure in their roles.

Recommendation:

Longer Prison Education Service contracts (with appropriate KPIs to ensure high-quality provision) would enable greater regime stability.

7. To what extent do prison buildings and their maintenance facilitate or hinder rehabilitation? 

Delivering education is particularly challenging in the current physical prison estate; in particular, Victorian buildings in poor states of repair are difficult locations in which to implement technological solutions such as in-cell internet connectivity. Technology moves at a fast pace; even six months in prison can result in learners being disadvantaged on release. To ensure prisoners reintegrate into society, they must be given the opportunity to develop digital skills. Novus has a comprehensive, ambitious Digital Strategy, but the restrictions imposed by the physical prison estate limit its impact.

Prison education is also hampered by the absence of dedicated capital funding. Capital funding enables general FE colleges to invest in current, industry-standard equipment to enable training to keep pace with labour market demands and LSIPs. The absence of such funding in prisons is a limiting factor in delivering an agile curriculum to meet the skills needs of the 21st century labour market, and prevents providers from maximising the rehabilitative opportunities for offenders.

Decades of underfunding in capital investment mean that prisons also often lack specialist facilities for training in key skill shortage areas, e.g. green skills such as retrofit construction, low-carbon building and EV skills. Such investments cannot be funded from prison education contracts (aside from minor purchases) as these are competitively tendered.

Recommendations:

• A dedicated Education Capital Investment Fund would help overcome existing challenges and enable providers to deliver key skills training to meet the needs of the labour market, support prisoners into work upon release and reduce reoffending.
• Ringfenced funding should be set aside for technological solutions, e.g. using virtual reality headsets to enable specialist training within the prison estate when creating dedicated vocational classrooms may not be possible.

8. What examples of best practice within the prison service are there in promoting rehabilitation? 

• The ‘Yorkshire Model’: Across our eight Yorkshire prisons we developed an enhanced job support function integrating Matrix-accredited Career Information, Advice and Guidance, employment support (e.g. collaboration with Yorkshire-based employers including Siemens and Kier) and personal development support. Education, training and employment outcomes for our Yorkshire learners increased by 65% over a three-year period.
• Prisoner apprenticeships: We are among the first providers to engage in two pilots offering apprenticeships for serving prisoners for the first time: one for individuals in open prisons (working outside prison), and another for prisons in the closed estate (working within the prison walls). We have overcome early challenges as the programme developed, and are keen to expand this provision.
• Novus Works: Through our specialist employment support and job brokerage service, Novus Works, employers are engaged to positively provide vacancies and wraparound support to former prisoners – jobs are shaped around the needs of the offender (e.g. community order compliance). Offenders are coached and mentored to apply for them and there is post-placement support available. Advisers are trained in positive employer engagement, motivational interviewing, and addressing holistic criminogenic needs.

Section 3 – Resettlement Services and Alternatives to Custody

9. To what extent does the Probation Service have the capacity to support effective resettlement pre- and post-release?
The Probation Service plays a critical role but capacity is often stretched due to high caseloads, limited resources and uneven geographical provision. Pre-release support is inconsistent, with variability in probation officer prison/resettlement service engagement. Post-release, the service struggles to maintain offender care continuity due to inadequate staffing/resource pressures.

Post-release, probation support contracts are insufficiently resourced. 68% of Commissioned Rehabilitation Services (CRS) delivery was judged insufficient in addressing needs, and nearly half showed inadequate communication with probation staff (HMIP-2022). Low levels of funding per service user mean there is insufficient staff time to deliver necessary support/behaviour change, impacting performance levels - particularly for ETE services.

Lots of ETE activity is based on the academic year cycle, therefore fails to align with release dates and can leave individuals facing a long wait to commence programmes, inevitably leading many to return to a cycle of reoffending. This approach fails to maximise the return on investment.

The recent push for more use of other government agency services is ineffective; non-specialist providers don’t understand what works with offenders. For employability services (funded on job outcomes), this incentivises providers to prioritise those easier to help (e.g. recent work history) who are an ‘easier sell’ to employers. Similarly, Ofsted regimes can disincentivise mainstream education providers from engaging with harder-to-reach groups, as they assume enrolling offenders will negatively impact attendance/retention/achievement rates. This creates a cliff edge, with those most in need of support all too often losing out.

Recommendations:

• Pre- and post-release, enhanced probation support should be provided around the ETE agenda, rather than just signposting individuals towards mainstream services. Individuals with complex needs require incremental support to facilitate the transition into mainstream, community-based activity.
• Invest in specialist support to address offender work and skills needs. This could be funded on an invest-to-save basis or by ringfencing mainstream funding of other departments. Service unit costs should be benchmarked at least to those levels of mainstream services.

10. How does joint working between services happen so that ex-offenders receive the support they need post-release?
There remains a lack of clear accountability frameworks and inconsistent multi-agency partnership agreements. While multi-agency models, e.g. Integrated Offender Management (IOM), have shown promise, the absence of standardised approaches means outcomes depend on local initiatives via short-term funding allocations – providing insufficient time to establish strong joint working arrangements.

The UK government is demonstrably showing leadership in cross-departmental thinking with examples like DWP’s role in Skills England and MoJ input to Get Britain Working white paper. This cross-agenda thinking must run through the system at all levels.

Recommendations:

• Develop formalised pathways between prisons, probation, LAs, health and third-sector organisations to ensure a seamless handover of support.
• Implement a coordinated case management system, with a single point of contact who ensures individual’s needs are addressed holistically.
• Under Local Get Britain Working Plans set out in the Get Britain Working white paper, the government should consider mandating specialist consideration to working with offenders.

---

a)      Is there sufficient data sharing between services?
No. Services often cite GDPR and regulatory obstacles to information exchange. The lack of data flow hinders tailored interventions, delays support provision and increases the risk of reoffending. The inability of community-based provision to understand prior achievements/assessment outcomes means former prisoners repeat already-completed activity. This is disengaging, not to mention wasteful of an already-stretched funding envelope. The Novus ‘Yorkshire ‘Model’ (see question 8) offers a useful example of how results can be transformed when genuinely joined-up, end-to-end support is available.

Recommendations:

• Introduce a national, secure data-sharing platform connecting criminal justice, housing, health and employment services, ensuring compliance with privacy laws while enabling effective collaboration.
• Ensure systemic learning around an offender’s learning, health, family and work-based experience is transferred to community organisations.

b)      What role does trauma-informed practice play in the delivery of these services?
Trauma-informed practice is essential but underutilised.

Recommendations:

• Mandate trauma-informed training for all professionals involved in resettlement, including probation officers and CRS providers.
• Embed psychological support/trauma-informed principles into all resettlement planning aspects.

11. How effective is support provided to ex-offenders on release, such as homelessness prevention, employment opportunities, and health and wellbeing services?
Support is patchy. Homelessness remains a critical resettlement barrier, and employment programmes fail to provide meaningful opportunities aligned with labour market demands. Where the MoJ has invested in dedicated support (e.g. ETE on CRS) the per-person investment is a fraction of mainstream employability services (e.g. DWP Restart, Work and Health Programme), so it is unable to deliver comparable levels of specialist staff time.

Recommendations:

• Enhance partnerships with housing associations and incentivise landlords to provide accommodation to ex-offenders.
• Connect prison education better to through-the-gate initiatives so offenders gain industry-recognised qualifications, enabling smooth transition to employment.
• Expand access to mental health and substance misuse services post-release to improve long-term wellbeing.
• Consider future CRS provision to prioritise employment and learning support for offenders at comparable levels of unit cost to mainstream services to enable specialist organisations to deliver outcome parity.
• Ensure local Get Britain Working Plans/LSIPs directly address how localities will provide specialist offender support.

a)      Do these services encompass the principles of individual desistance, and to what extent could they?
Greater emphasis on strengths-based and future-focused interventions is needed.

Recommendations:

• Introduce a desistance framework across all resettlement services, centred on identity transformation, self-efficacy, and positive social connections. Embed this within future CRS provision/Probation Support to ensure a common framework.
• Provide continuous mentoring to sustain motivation and reinforce pro-social behaviours. This should utilise peer programmes leveraging those with lived experience.

13. What role should non-custodial sentences have in promoting rehabilitation?
Non-custodial sentences offer a more constructive approach to rehabilitation, reducing the destabilising effects of prison while enabling individuals to remain connected to their communities, employment and support networks.

Recommendation:

• Link non-custodial sentences more closely to skills. Community sentences could be reshaped as a means to enable offenders to acquire skills to support their transition into employment. This would be a social-led, positive economic contributor to society, enabling sentences to be executed while securing a positive impact for the community and reducing reoffending by supporting individuals into sustainable employment.

---

a)      What impact would an increase in the use of non-custodial sentences have on resettlement services?
It would shift the demand toward community-based services, requiring additional investment in probation, housing and employment support. It would alleviate prison system pressures and increase sustainable resettlement outcomes. Reoffending rates for those not receiving a custodial sentence are generally lower. However, more complex cases (e.g. individuals with more barriers) currently receive greater support in prison . Diverting these individuals to community sentences will therefore increase case complexity for those on community sentences.

Recommendations:

• Scale up funding and resources for community-based interventions, ensuring they are prepared to manage increased/more complex caseloads.
• Foster partnerships with specialist providers to expand service capacity.

b)      What, if any, changes to community sentencing should be introduced if the Sentencing Review recommends a move away from short custodial sentences?
Community sentencing should include rehabilitative/restorative elements, focusing on addressing the underlying causes of offending.

Recommendations:

• Introduce intensive rehabilitation orders (IROs) that combine mandatory therapy, skills training, and mentoring.
• Expand the use of problem-solving courts to design bespoke community sentencing plans.
• Ensure specialist employment support in the community is available and built holistically to tackle the needs of offenders – not place them on unsuitable general programmes.

Contact:

Stephen Exley

Head of Policy, PR and Public Affairs

LTE Group

sexley@ltegroup.co.uk

07734 777706

January 2025