EPB0044

Written evidence submitted by LTE Group (trading as Novus)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Novus welcomes the opportunity to submit a response to the Call for Evidence for the Prison Education Inquiry. The inquiry is a critical opportunity to reflect on prison education services following the implementation of the new Prison Education Framework, and the supporting Dynamic Procurement System. We have responded to each of questions requested and have made suggestions to further drive the quality of prison education, drive positive outcomes post-release and ultimately reduce re-offending.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT – LTEGROUP

LTE Group is the first education and skills group of its kind. LTE Group reflects the combined strength of six leading organisations, with the support, expertise and power of a wider group infrastructure, working together for the benefit of learners, employers and wider communities.

The Group includes:

• Novus – with over 28 years’ experience, Novus is recognised for its provision of offender services, including delivery of English, maths and vocational training, employment support and transformation delivery, working hand-in-hand with local stakeholders. Novus currently delivers education in 50 custodial establishments nationally, working with adults and young people.
• The Manchester College – The Manchester College is one of the largest Further Education colleges in the UK. The College is the largest single provider of 16-19, adult and higher education in Greater Manchester, with more than 25% of Greater Manchester’s learning provision undertaken by the College.
• UCEN – UCEN Manchester delivers first-class technical and professional higher level skills to meet the priorities of Greater Manchester and the wider region, with a focus on vocational education.
• Total People – Total People is one of the largest providers of apprenticeships and work-based learning in the North West of England, with all profits re-invested for the benefit of learners and employers.
• MOL – MOL offers best in class learning for ambitious professionals and corporate clients. MOL is an established and experienced training provider of live online, classroom and blended learning.

ABOUT NOVUS

Novus is an established and successful provider of skills, employability and learning support to offenders and other ‘hard to reach’ individuals. With 28 years’ experience of delivering in a custodial setting, we deliver education services from 50 prisons in total - 46 adults prisons (male and female), and four young people institutions. 

Our values

We conduct all of our work to the highest standards, with integrity and professionalism. We are committed to quality and driving outstanding performance. We invest in delivery, as high quality education delivery drives high levels of performance.

In brief

Novus:

• is a charitable, not-for-profit, social enterprise
• employs 1,800 staff, delivering from 50 prison establishments across England and Wales
• currently delivers 56% of all Prison Education Framework delivery in England on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, delivering in seven Lots, including Cumbria and Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire, London, Tees and Wear, West Midlands, Women’s Estate North and Yorkshire (43 prisons in total) .
• currently holds 14 DPS contracts, delivering services nationally including IAG Services in Yorkshire, Women’s Estate North, Tees and Wear and HMP Stafford, a range of wider services including provision of SENCo support, Multi-Skills (Construction), Industrial Cleaning and Peer Led Services
• currently has responsibility for the educational needs of 75% of young people in custody as the provider of Education Provision in YOI’s on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Services (YCS) in three out of four contract package areas, including HMYOIs Cookham Wood, Wetherby and Werrington
• has extensive experience of delivering in a range of settings, including community and custodial delivery and in a range of contracting environments. For example, we have delivered education services in two PFI prisons since their opening on behalf of G4S – HMP Altcourse since 1997, and HMP Ryehill since 2001
• is a key provider of Transforming Rehabilitation services in London, and provides services on behalf of MTC
• has an established national network of employers, including large multinationals and small to medium sized enterprises through our Novus Works offer. In 2019/20, we secured nearly 1,000 employment outcomes for ex-offenders.

SUMMARY OF OUR RESPONSE:

Question 1 - The purpose of education is ultimately to improve the lives and economic success of offenders, their families and local communities. It should contribute effectively to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, moving offenders towards sustained employment, and creating value and purpose for those who may not be released. Education is also a dynamic security tool that enables safe and secure environments. It is essential that education available and accessible to learners is well-utilised. Regime challenges in the last year within the adult estate (such as the ability to safely move learners to education) has meant that less offenders are accessing education and there may be significant variability in the learner experience throughout the country, limiting the true purpose of education.  The impact of educational interventions on reducing reoffending (proven in research as shown in our response to Question 2) are not able to be delivered at the right and agreed volumes to have the desired impact.

Question 2 - To understand the effectiveness of prison education, effectiveness must first be defined to understand the baseline from which progress can and should be measured. There are multiple data systems within prison education, and these data sets should support each other as part of a wider eco-system to understand the offender and their needs. We have included a large sample of research and international comparisons for your review within this question.

Question 3 - In terms of how well prison education meets the needs of learners with LDD, our experience tells us that a consistent way of identifying need, a cohort of high quality staff, individualised support for learners, and a range of specialist partners to continue to develop the approach are essential. We outline the challenge of meeting the demand of all needs, and the resources available to do this.

Question 4 - To ensure that prison education meets the needs of employers, we believe that better, more targeted use of prison facilities and improving these to enable learning to meet employer needs rather than limited by the environment; investments in accessing relevant industry licences; incentivising employers; and investing in technology will progress how far prison education can reflect real work environments and prepare offenders for the modern workplace.

Question 5 – To incentivise offenders to engage in prison education, external factors which affect motivation must be addressed as these are multiple such as prior negative experiences of education.  Rewards and privileges available within prisons must elevate education and specifically prisoner pay must have parity with that available for attendance in other forms of prison work.

Question 6 – For apprenticeships to work in custody, legislative change is required first and foremost. Second, investment is required in providing the infrastructure for prisoners to apply for apprenticeships and address other practical issues such as prisoners being able to attend work based training opportunities on Release on Temporary Licence.

Question 7 – We outline the key challenges to ensure resources effectively meet need, focusing on the importance of high levels of attendance at education, improving digital infrastructure prison-wide conducive to modern learning to create site wide access and how the environment within ageing prisons can adversely impact on the education environment.

Question 8 – If prison education is not assessed as meeting standards, it is important to explore the reasons why, and the often complex and chaotic nature of education delivery within prisons. We outline current contractual mechanisms within prison education contracts and how the Authority and providers can work collaboratively to address underperformance.

Question 9 – It is important for the prison environments to be conducive to learning and engage learners. The environment has a direct (unable to access education) and indirect impact on learning (unable to attract the best teachers), which we explore in our response to this question. 

Question 10 – There are a number of differences between privately operated prisons that are governed by the Prison Education Framework contract and privately operated prisons which commission their education directly. These include infrastructure and funding mechanisms which we outline in our response.

Question 11 – There are a number of ways in which prison education is dynamic, and responds to the differing needs of sentence length and movement of prisoners throughout the estate, predominantly through tailored and sequenced curriculums determined by bespoke annual curriculum plans. Good best practice is outlined in our response.

QUESTION 1

What is the purpose of education in prisons?

Response:

Summary

The purpose of education in prisons is to improve the lives and economic success of offenders and their families. By improving lives and economic success, education has the potential to improve communities. Access to education also has a significant impact on the wellbeing and mental health of offenders. Education offers motivation and hope. It provides an opportunity to engage in positive and productive activity, and to advance their goals and aspirations. The focus of education should be to build the confidence, self-worth and social capital of offenders. Owing to the transformative nature of education, it can change the lives of offenders, their families and local communities contributing towards reducing the reoffending cycle. 

The purpose of education

We believe that the purpose of education is threefold, to:

1. Improve lives, economic success and wellbeing of offenders
2. Contribute to the wider, positive impact of rehabilitation, improving family relationships and the ability for offenders to contribute to their local communities
3. Provide purpose and value for those offenders with long-term sentences/within the high security estate.

Novus is dedicated to transforming the lives and economic potential of offenders by providing them with the pinnacle of offender education. Novus has delivered education within prisons for over 28 years, working with 60,000+ offenders, as part of the Offender Learning & Skills Service, and most recently as part of the Prison Education Framework within the adult estate. We also deliver in three Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) at HMYOIs Cookham Wood, Werrington and Wetherby.

We experience daily the positive impact that education can have on offenders’ lives and future economic success. As such, we believe that the definition of education within a custodial setting is far broader than mainstream education. It commands a ‘whole prison’ approach whereby education supports and is supported by wider departments such as healthcare, psychology and offender management. This wider approach would mean that education delivery is cognisant of and tailored to the individual needs of the offender, their health, wellbeing and background. 

Education offers the opportunity for offenders to ‘reset’ themselves and become assets to their communities. Offenders are able to build their confidence, resilience and self-worth through education. By focusing on their strengths as assets, and by instilling a passion for learning, education equips offenders to take responsibility and ownerships of their journey. Responsibility and ownership are essential for an offender to genuinely engage with education and subsequently with work and family life. Often, offenders (both adult and young people) have limited, or negative, experiences of education. There are often barriers in place which must be broken down in order for offenders to believe in the potential of learning, such as exclusion from school or unaddressed special educational needs. How education providers work closely with HMPPS and wider stakeholders to overcome these barriers is critical. For example, within young people’s provision, education is mandatory. The teacher is, therefore, afforded the time to build trust, rapport and break down negative barriers to learning and assess learning needs, abilities and learning levels. This level of investment from a teacher and support staff is often valued by the learner and they too will invest in their work, take ownership of it and grow in confidence regarding their academic ability. Along with academic progress, young people develop interpersonal skills and life skills that may not have been as available to them in mainstream school, as this is a real focus in prisons, particularly in youth estates.

Once engaged with education, offenders should experience a wide spectrum of support and opportunities that range from acquiring basic skills needed to function in society (e.g. basic digital skills such as sending an email) to more traditional qualifications in English and maths, and professional certifications. Education is about equipping the offender with the right and relevant skills to function in society and work. It should provide skills, training, personal and social development and employability support for offenders to realise their ‘ideal self’ on release.

Education that is able to move offenders towards employment positively impacts recidivism. MoJ data from 2017 showed that ‘prisoners who take any form of learning activity have a significantly lower re-offending rate on release from prison than their peers. The proven one-year re-offending rate is 34% for prisoner learners compared to 43% for prisoner non-learners’.[1]

We know that getting education right (in terms of what is taught, how it is taught and how it relates to the needs of the local labour market) are critical in moving offenders into employment on release. Our experience of this is informed by supporting 912 offenders into work via our Novus Works provision (employability and employment brokerage service) in 2019/20. We know that education targeted at moving offenders into employment reduces reoffending. Data published by the MoJ in March 2013[2] shows that offenders who achieved P45 employment at some points in the year after being released from custody were less likely to re-offend than similar offenders who did not achieve P45 employment. The time from release until first re-offence was longer for offenders who achieved P45 employment than for the matched comparison group.’ 

Offenders in the community are an important resource for employers in the community, and by supporting ex-offenders into work, employers are helping to break the cycle of reoffending that is costly and detrimental to our local communities and economy. 

Education should also be accessible to those that need it. The ability of learners in prison to access education varies considerably throughout the adult estate, with attendance rates in education ranging from 80% to 36%, with an average of 65%. Due to this variability, education is under-utilised.

Furthermore, regime challenges in the last year (such as the ability to safely move learners to education) has meant that the capacity and availability of education has been under-utilised.  A focus on moving learners promptly to educational areas is required so that education providers are able to deliver their services, and to a high standard. 

New contracting arrangements as part of the Prison Education Framework which from 2019 mean that prison education plans and schedules are agreed prior to the new contract year. However, there remains operational issues in arranging for those learners to attend education to deliver our agreed plan.

In turn, this ultimately means that less offenders are accessing education and there may be significant variability in the learner experience throughout the country, limiting the true purpose of education.  The impact of educational interventions on reducing reoffending (proven in research as shown in our response to Question 2) are not able to be delivered at the right and agreed volumes to have the desired impact.

Families

In the landmark review in 2017, Lord Farmer outlined the importance of prisoners’ families in ‘Importance of strengthening prisoners’ family ties to prevent reoffending and reduce intergenerational crime’[3]. Further, the importance of family ties as part of education was stressed in the Coates Review of prison education in 2016. Dame Coates said ‘there is good evidence that strong family relationships can help support prisoners in desisting from crime and thereby reduce reoffending.’[4] It was recommended that there be ‘no barriers to funding family and relationship-strengthening as part of a broad education offer’. In our experience as an education provider, we recognise both the importance of education in bringing families together, and the longer-term benefit of education for families when offenders leave custody and go into work, self-employment or further education, breaking the cycle of offending. Within our provision, we have delivered a wide range of family-based projects. Two recent examples are included below:

• the Tate Art Gallery – Family Learning project (2019): learners created a family-themed body of work that was then showcased to families in 2019
• ‘Making a Change’ project (2019):  we encouraged learners to extend their literacy skills so that they could support their own children to develop their reading and writing skills.

The impact of projects like these is that education extends beyond the individual, and supports them to see the positive impact education can have on their family ties, again, further reinforcing the positive impact on reducing reoffending.

Wellbeing

Access to education and libraries can positively impact the wellbeing of offenders. The offer of education, recreational activities linked to education, and access to reading can be a welcome distraction for offenders during challenging times and crisis, whether this is upon entry into prison or any life event that may affect the offender and their wellbeing. There is also an important social aspect to education. It presents the opportunity for social interaction with peers, prison officers and teachers. We know that when an offender is engaged and settled, this also has a positive impact on the safety and security of the prison, ensuring that a calm environment is maintained. In our experience, we believe it is essential that our teachers and education staff demonstrate investment, time and energy into the individuals we support to increase their self-worth. 

Longer term, the overall impact of education (e.g. increased confidence, self-worth and resilience) will positively affect the mental health and wellbeing of offenders in custody and through the gate.

Legal requirement

The purpose and importance of education is also enshrined in law. Under Section 86 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, the Secretary of State must provide suitable education and training facilities that will be suitable for the training needs of the person subject to adult detention.

Under Rule 32 of the Prison Rules 1999 (with similar provision for young offenders under Rule 38 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 (“YOI Rules”)), the requirements for prison education are outlined. For example, every prisoner must be able to profit from the education facilities, and be encouraged to do so. Reasonable facilities must be afforded to accommodate training, distance learning, private study and recreational classes. Further, special attention shall be paid to prisoners with special education needs, and for those prisoners of compulsory school age, a minimum of 15 hours of education must be offered per week. 

Education delivery in practice

Education delivery within a justice setting is unique. It presents complex challenges that require long-standing expertise and understanding to effectively engage prisoners and incentivise them to proactively participate in education. Scale and breadth in terms of teaching capability, quality and resources are required to meet the many, wide-ranging needs of offenders. These challenges must be addressed to achieve the purpose of education in prisons.

At a practical level, education in prisons should:

• ensure attainment of functional skills (English, maths and digital skills) where required
• be accessible to those with multiple and complex needs
• form part of a ‘whole system’ approach to reducing reoffending, working in partnership closely with HMPPS and the National Probation Service
• be motivational and provide hope for the future
• be of high quality and comparable to that of mainstream education
• ensure work-readiness, whereby ex-offenders have a clear vision for the future and their employment opportunities (supported by real employers in thriving sectors). Learning is coordinated and sequenced to allow learners to acquire, consolidate and apply skills in differing contexts
• be constantly evolving based on new research and evidence regarding education and education in prisons. It should be future-facing and driven by innovation, including new technologies. 

QUESTION 2

What data exist to demonstrate the effectiveness of education and training in prisons and on prisoner attainment, and what international comparisons are available?

Response:

Defining and demonstrating effectiveness

In order to measure effectiveness of prison education, what is meant by effective must first be defined. The effectiveness of education can be measured in a number of ways, including:

1. Does commissioned education meet the level of need represented throughout the prisoner cohorts?
2. Does commissioned education contribute to reducing reoffending? If so, how will this be measured?
3. Does commissioned education lead to further positive outcomes for offenders, e.g. employment/self-employment or further education?

What is meant by ‘effective’ must first be baselined. Data that is collected in relation to prison education can then be used to measure, target and test the effectiveness of prison education and training.  There is a wide range and volume of data that is captured to monitor prison education. Most recently, the Curious system was implemented during the mobilisation of the new Prison Education Framework contracts (PEF). This is a data management system developed by the Ministry of Justice. Further detail is provided below.

Data collection in the adult estate

Education providers in adult establishments have been contractually obliged to complete entries in to Curious since July 2019. The MoJ Curious system has been established by the Authority to act as a single repository for contractual and performance data. Curious is also planned to be piloted in one establishment in the youth estate in March 2021. Fields include data describing each prisoner’s progress and activities such as enrolled courses, success rates, achievement of qualifications, assessment results, and health and disability needs. These data fields are used for quality assurance and improvement of the learner experience and outcomes, and to produce contract delivery reports by course.

The Curious system collects education data, which could be supplemented by integration of data from other systems to produce a more holistic data set that captures information outside of education. This could be key for offenders and their resettlement pathways to clearly identify and respond to their needs, e.g. housing, gaining access to debt advice, improving links with family. All of these are critical factors in reducing reoffending and holistic data would enable us to identify what works and what is needed for the offender. 

Data collection in the Youth Estate

As referenced, Novus holds responsibility to record and analyse data in the youth estate via the Oracle EBS database. All data is collated and reflected in a Quality and Performance Data book that effectively informs annual reports and quality improvement plans. Each child’s attainment is recorded and monitored in the business data & learner progress meetings by the senior management team and scrutinized during the contract review meeting. Data collected includes initial interviews, assessments, diagnostics for Special Educational Needs, time spent in education, tracking of progression and achievements of both accredited and non-accredited learning. This level of scrutiny is welcomed and enables education providers to identify areas for improvement effectively.

However there are still challenges to data collection in the youth estate, such as the lack of data transferred to education providers in custody to describe previous education undertaken in mainstream provision.

Data summary

In summary, there are multiple data systems across both the adult and youth estates.  There are also data systems in the community that hold valuable information to measure the effectiveness of our service, including DWP who will record employment information.  The key challenges are:

• Consistency in data collection – measuring the same thing, in the same way to identify trends
• The the ability to measure the overall impact of education due to siloed systems – integrated data systems would enable education providers to understand what works for the offender through a holistic data set and information about the offender that would be beneficial to many providers and agencies. A joined up approach to data sharing would be of significant benefit, including consistency of data specifications through contract iterations so that providers are able to understand historical performance trends, and also align this to mainstream data to allow for effective benchmarking and alignment. It would also enable providers to understand the impact education has on reducing reoffending rates.
• Understanding the impact of education as part of the wider resettlement pathways - greater visibility is needed to track effectiveness.

Ofsted inspections

One baseline available to monitor the effectiveness of prison education is the Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (EIF), introduced into adult prisons in February 2020 to replace the Ofsted Common Inspection Framework (CIF).

Prison education is currently assessed against the Ofsted EIF by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) - an independent, statutory organisation which reports on the treatment and conditions of those detained in prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres, immigration detention facilities, police and court custody and military detention. Following an inspection, HMIP award prisons a series of quality grades (either good, reasonably good, not sufficiently good or poor) against standard expectations for Safety, Respect, Purposeful Activity, and Rehabilitation and Release Planning.

In the adult estate, contracted education providers performance against the Ofsted EIF contributes to the overall purposeful activity grade, which also includes time out of cell; access to the open air; provision of activities; participation in education; and access to library resources and physical exercise. The purposeful activity quality grade describes the performance delivered by both Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service and multiple contracted providers for a wide range of activities. It does identify the effectiveness of education delivered by the contracted Prison Education provider.  Novus recognises the rationale behind this approach, to incentivise multiple teams and providers to work collaboratively to achieve the wider HMIP expectation. However, outsourced education providers are unable to understand their specific grade or performance within this methodology. This makes it difficult for education providers to identify improvement / strength areas and associated responsibilities.

In the youth estate, education providers have much more control over the services they deliver within purposeful activity (which doesn’t include e.g. work), so the Ofsted grade is much more reflective of prison education effectiveness.

International comparisons

A summary of international comparisons and academic research is shown below, including:

• Reducing Reoffending: The Role Education plays in the Netherlands and Norway (2018) - Richard Wakelin, Churchill Fellow (Novus Head of Education, Youth Estate)
• Cogent Education Prison education in Norway – The importance for work and life after release (2018) - Christin Tønseth & Ragnhild Bergsland | Sammy King Fai Hui (Reviewing editor)
• Community Justice Coalition: Chalk and Cheese by Irina Dunn Published by Community Justice Coalition 2017 Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons
• Journal of Prison Education and Reentry Prison education in Norway – The importance for work and life after release (2016) - Roth, Beate Buanes; Asbjørnsen, Arve; Manger, Terje
• Offender to Entrepreneur: Reducing Recidivism and Improving Life Chances (USA, 2018) - David Morgan, Churchill Fellow (Novus Employment Advisor at the time of publication)
• UCL Institute of Education. An assessment of the English and maths skills levels of prisoners in England
• Exploring the outcomes of prisoner learners: analysis of linked offender records from the Police National Computer and Individualised Learner Records (2017), MOJ, DFE
• Evaluation of prisoner learning: Initial impacts and delivery (2018) - Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute / Sheffield Hallam University / London Economics (Ministry of Justice Analytical Series)
• A Realist Model of Prison Education, Growth, and Desistance: A New Theory (2018) - Szifris, Fox, & Bradbury, (commissioned by Novus)
• A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism and increasing employment (2017) - Ellison, Szifris, Horan, Fox, (commissioned by Novus)

QUESTION 3

How well are additional learning needs met by the prison education and youth custody systems, including SEND and language and communication needs?

Response

Overview of current approach

Through Novus’ Prison Education Framework (PEF) delivery, we support c.60,000 adult service users annually with varying complexity levels and additional learning needs, including LDD/ALN needs (16%), physical/mental impairment (35%), low educational attainment, and Foreign nationals with language barriers.

Novus has long-standing experience in supporting learners with additional learning needs in the adult prison education estate and youth custody. Our approach to supporting those with additional learning needs through the Prison Education Framework (PEF) delivery is based on the following:

• PEF C16 Schedule requirements – this is a specific contract schedule under the PEF that elevates the importance of supporting LDD needs. It commands that providers should offer tailored learning programmes and resources, including multi-sensory techniques and additional support from on-site including support from a specialist professional role, Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCos)
• Dame Sally Coates’ review of prison education – Unlocking Potential:

A review of education in prison, 2016 (Coates Review) – investing in workforce development, e.g. ‘Hidden Disabilities’ training delivered to c.200 staff (Coates Review, 3.43) to equip staff to address learning support needs; and collaborative whole-prison approach.

• Collaboration in partnership with specialist organisations – we have implemented a ‘Strategic Advisory Board’ to share best practice and gain feedback on delivery approaches, with 7 specialist LDD partner representatives including British Dyslexia Association (BDA), Disability Rights UK, and Mental Health Foundation.

In Youth Custody, we work with 75% of service users in 4 young people’s institutions. c.36% of our learners have additional learning needs, which have often not been addressed effectively in mainstream education due to permanent exclusion or family engagement. Our approach to supporting those with additional learning needs in youth custody is based on therapeutic principles, and upskilling staff to provide bespoke and individualised support to meet needs.

Effective approaches in meeting additional learning needs: Adult Estate

Through our experience of delivering prison education we have found that the following approaches have been effective in supporting learners with additional learning needs.

1. Identification of a consistent way of identifying need

Schedule C16 LDD outlined requirements for use of a specific screening tool in custody – the ‘Do It Profiler’ screening tool. However, this was not possible to use in custody due to operational security and set-up challenges. As a result, Novus has been working in partnership with other PEF providers to develop a screening tool which meets the requirements set out in Schedule C16.

We have successfully developed a two-part process:

• rapid screening tool – which identifies LDD indicators. This can be delivered digitally, on an individual basis or to a group of learners
• in-depth screening tool – this is a structured, discussion based tool which takes 45 minutes to complete.

This tool will enable education providers in custody to effectively screen for LDD indicators and identify appropriate support strategies which can be implemented to enable them work and learn effectively. Specifically, the tool will be effective in:

• screening for indicators of a range of Learning Difficulties and/or Learning Disabilities, not just specific Learning Difficulties;
• being administered and interpreted by non-specialists (e.g. Education staff)
• identifying whether further specialist assessments are required
• identifying practical strategies and reasonable adjustments which can be put in place to support learners in education.

Measuring the effectiveness of the tool: We have already implemented the rapid screening tool through in-cell learning packs. The in-depth screening tool will be rolled-out as covid-19 restrictions are limited. This will enable us to measure its effectiveness, e.g. through participant feedback.

2. High quality staff

Novus employs 186 learning support staff nationally. We understand the importance of high-quality staff in supporting those with additional learning needs, and the importance of awareness training. Staff need to be appropriately trained to identify needs, and barriers, and put in place appropriate and bespoke support strategies.

As outlined by Coates, building the capacity of the workforce (leaders, teachers and prison officers) is important to support prisoners with LDD needs (Coates Review, 3.47).

In support of this, Novus has deployed a workforce model which enables us to effectively meet the needs of prisoners with additional learning needs. Our workforce model comprises:

• Regional SENCos (qualified at Level 5 Learning Support qualification) – responsible for implementation of regional LDD strategies and overseeing LDD support across prisons
• Learning Support Practitioners, deployed in each prison – responsible for undertaking LDD screening, and providing day-to-day support to those with learning needs.

Comprehensive Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and LDD awareness training is crucial for ensuring education effectively supports the needs of prisoners with LDD needs. Through our Strategic Advisory Board, we have access to a wide range of training and expertise from specialist partners. This includes:

• BDA’s ‘Hidden Disabilities’ awareness (train-the-trainer model where Novus staff are trained to deliver training to wider staff). We currently have 40 staff trained who are able to deliver awareness training to multiple staff working in custody. This helps to increase awareness of ‘hidden disabilities’, e.g. current numbers for identified LDD learners in custody are ‘likely to be an under-estimate as many prisoners will have become adept at hiding their disabilities, while the nature and range of learning difficulties and disabilities is unlikely to be fully understood by prison staff’ (Coates Review, 3.45)
• working with the Autism Education Trust to re-design existing training to make it suitable for custody.

To further upskill staff and improve their effectiveness of supporting prisoners with additional learning/LDD needs, education providers need to raise wider awareness, in teaching staff and prison staff. For example, in London, Novus’ SENCo has started to roll out BDA ‘Hidden Difficulties’ training to prison officers; this wider awareness training could be replicated nationally

3. Strategic Advisory Board

Novus has implemented a Strategic Advisory Board, a collaborative working group comprised of specialist organisations, with a shared aim of supporting those with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD). The Strategic Advisory Board meets quarterly. Its purpose is to review delivery methods and provide feedback on how we can better meet the needs of prisoners with additional learning needs. Members of the group have different specialisms in supporting individuals with a wide range of additional learning needs. The Board includes:

• British Dyslexia Association (learning difficulties)
• Mental Health Foundation (mental health)
• Disability Rights UK (disabilities)
• Autism Education Trust (developmental disabilities)
• ADHD Foundation (disabilities)
• Headway (disabilities)

The Strategic Advisory Board helps to ensure that our education delivery in custody is effective in meeting additional learning needs. The Board provides the following benefits:

• enables education to support learners better in classroom
• provides guidance on supporting learners transitioning to another prison, or from custody into the community
• staff can access advice and support from relevant specialists, including access to further diagnostic assessments for learners
• a range of training on offer, including ‘train the trainer’, e.g. training staff to undertake work place assessments.

4. Individualised support

A tailored approach for each individual learner is important to ensure their additional learning needs are met. As specified by Coates, ‘One of the most complex challenges for Governors is to provide a learning offer that meets the needs of the wide range of individuals for whom they are responsible.’ (Coates Review, 3.4).

Education in custody is effective in providing Individualised support through:

• Bespoke Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) for each learner – outlining relevant targets, with regular PLP reviews, to ensure learners make progress in education 
• Flexible delivery methods – adapting delivery to meet additional learning needs, e.g. providing outreach on the wings (where face to face delivery is permitted) for learners who may struggle to attend education (e.g. due to severe mental health issues)
• Adapted learning resources – education staff are able to adapt resources to meet learner needs, e.g. use of colour-veil software (where IT access is permitted); tools to support those who struggle with reading, e.g. reading pens. For example, Novus has introduced reading pens to support learners with communication challenges (including Foreign Nationals, and those with dyslexia) in Yorkshire and Womens Estate prisons. These have received positive feedback, with learners requesting to also use the pens on the wings.

The implementation of the new LDD screening tool will help to identify whether learners need additional support. This will enable Learner Support Workers to implement tailored support strategies to meet needs.

Key challenges and areas for improvement: Adult Estate

Despite good practice in prison education, there are ways in which provision could better meet the needs of prisoners with additional learning needs. These are outlined below:

1. SEND/ALN language out of date in custody

Language around SEND/LDD/Additional learning needs in custody needs to reflect language used in the community. For example, there has been a shift away from language around ‘additional learning needs’ to a focus on ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘inclusion’. This has been captured fairly well in youth custody, but is not yet reflected in the language used in adult custody. For example, the Curious system requires staff to input outcomes from screening tools (e.g. if a learner is ‘dyslexic’), which contrasts with the purpose of the screening tool to avoid ‘labelling’ learners with specific needs. 

Ways in which custodial education provision could better reflect priorities in the community include:

• Up to date training for staff – to ensure that staff are aware of current best practice and this is reflected in delivery methods
• reviewing existing practices – e.g. Novus’ Strategic Advisory Board helps to ensure that our practices are effective in supporting those with additional learning needs
• updating national guidance – e.g. C16 schedule is being adapted to reflect changing needs and priorities in custody. The TQMP Quality management tool used in custody still has outdated language (e.g. ‘ALS’).

2. Greater integrated working and partnership between different providers

The Coates Review recommended a ‘whole-prison approach to ensuring the regime is appropriate to their needs.’ Examples in support of a whole prison approach to LDD include:

• Improved information sharing systems and practices are required. There is a lack of join up between different providers in custody, e.g. between education, healthcare, and offender management. There is often no clarity on whether individuals have been clinically assessed, and details of previous assessments are often not passed on to different providers. This could be addressed through a joined-up approach to information sharing, e.g. multi-partner meetings/dedicated IT systems accessible to all providers
• There needs to be a greater focus on identification of need. For example, Healthcare providers have a network group dedicated around LDD, however there needs to be a joined up multi-partner effort that focuses on identification of need.

3. Using assistive technology in prisons

Use of assistive technology in prisons is a challenge, which impacts on the ability to meet additional learning needs in custody. For example, due to challenges in accessing IT, individuals do not have the opportunity to build digital skills and become more independent through access to digital support tools (e.g. ‘read aloud’ functions). The use of predominantly paper-based resources in custody makes it more difficult to provide assistive tools and techniques to meet additional learning needs.

The challenge in using assistive technology in prisons can be addressed through:

• Improved digital infrastructure - The digital refresh being undertaken in PEF will increase accessibility to IT, and enable more assistive technology to be used. This will help providers to more effectively meet learners’ additional learning needs, however use of digital assistive technology will be limited to use within education departments where there is IT/ Virtual Campus (online learning) access
• Alternative assistive resources - Providing adequate support/assistance through paper-based resources is more challenging, however Novus has been able to successfully use a number of resources within custody to support additional learning needs, including reading pens (to make reading more manageable), and fidget aids (for those who struggle with concentration, e.g. ADHD).

4. Teachers require a specific skillset to support those with additional learning needs

Many prison education teachers have not had specific training in supporting prisoners with additional learning needs.

Staff can be upskilled to effectively meet additional learning needs through:

•           providing specialist awareness training to improve understanding of identification of need, and support requirements – e.g. BDA’s Hidden Difficulties training
•           screening tools which can be used by non-specialists, e.g. newly developed screening tool – this ensures that need can be identified at the outset without the need for specialist staff to be involved
•           best practice sharing between staff – e.g. through national LDD forums.

Youth Custody strengths and challenges

Youth Custody has a unique set of challenges in meeting the needs of learners with additional learning needs. A large number of learners have an identified SEND/LDD need (36%) which often have not been addressed previously, due to difficulties in mainstream education. This means that early identification of need at the start of a young person’s sentence is crucial, as many learners do not have a diagnosis on entering custody.

There are also many examples of best practice in the youth estate in meeting additional learning needs.

Effective approaches

Education provision in youth custody is generally effective in meeting needs. Key strengths include:

• Teaching staff qualified in SEND – e.g. teaching staff at HMYOI Werrington have a SEND qualification at Level 4 or other relevant SEN qualifications such as Trauma-Informed Practice. This supports a whole-prion approach to LDD, and ensures that all teaching staff are able to identify need, and provide appropriate support as required
• Effective planning – in youth custody, there is a robust team structure in place which enables a collaborative approach to planning. LDD/SEND staff, including Learner Support Practitioners and Inclusion Managers, work together to agree support plans which meet learners’ bespoke need
• SEN database – in all three YOIs, Novus runs and monitors a SEN database, which contains information from EHCPs and different providers/sources, e.g. Youth Offending Teams

Challenges

The main challenges in the youth estate in effectively meeting learners’ additional support needs are:

• whilst education is effective in meeting needs, a number of prison officers lack understanding of additional learners’ needs which means that appropriate support is not available when learners return to the wings
• lack of support when learners transition from youth custody to adult estate (18+) – there is less funding in the adult estate, meaning learners may often not receive adequate support when transitioning from youth custody
• communication between different providers needs to improve to ensure that transfer of information is accurate and up to date; for example, communication between education providers in youth custody, and Youth Offending Teams is not always timely. Consistent information sharing processes and procedures would support with this, for example SEN databases that Novus operates in HMYOIs Cookham Wood, Wetherby and Werrington.
• Whilst the overall approach to meeting additional learning needs is effective in education, more could be done to meet specific additional learning needs, e.g. ADHD/ODD/Autism. Learners with specific needs require additional support in accessing education and skill development. This could be addressed through specific training for staff in identifying and supporting learners with specific additional learning needs, and with a proactive approach to achieving relevant Quality Marks. For example, HMYOI Werrington achieved the BDA Chartermark for their work with children with dyslexia.

QUESTION 4

Does education in prisons deliver the skills needed by employers, and what more can be done to better align these?

Response:

Education delivery in custody

As part of the Prison Education Framework and Dynamic Purchasing System in the adult estate, Novus currently delivers services including:

• core curriculum: English; maths; IT; and English for speakers of other languages
• wider curriculum and other education services: vocational training including NVQs using the prison itself to enable delivery, e.g. work-based learning within prison kitchens or horticulture in the prison grounds (real work environments); self-employment; employability; self-directed learning; enterprise; engagement; enrichment; personal and social development; and information, advice and guidance.

In the Youth Estate, we deliver a similar curriculum, including functional skills English / maths / IT; vocational qualifications; business enterprise; advanced learning and employability. We also deliver a significant amount of engagement, enrichment and life skills such as art; fitness; healthy living; cadets; Duke of Edinburgh and animal care.

We offer accredited qualifications from entry level 1 to level 3 and facilitate degree level learning, from nationally recognised and industry standard awarding bodies such as City and Guilds, WAMITAB, OCR and Gateway. Our delivery also extends to specialist provision through subcontracting to small and medium sized enterprises, e.g. therapeutic and reflective arts provision.

The focus in the curriculum has changed recently to an increased provision of enrichment skills. For example, employability and life skills are heavily embedded into each area of the curriculum so that children develop the right interpersonal skills and behaviors needed for success during interviews and in the workplace. Novus welcomes this change, recognising the priority for re-focusing children away from crime and towards their career plans.

Curriculum development

Curriculums are developed and implemented on an annual basis in custody, with in-year changes to manage urgent and essential need. This is a collaborative process between the education provider, each local prison’s senior management team and the regional HMPPS team. Ultimately, local prison Governors have control over their budgets and commission education provision.

There are lots of successful examples of developing curriculums to meet local need, for examples construction and catering skills for the growing infrastructure and hospitality industry in London prisons. However, curriculums are often limited by a number of factors:

• Resources – infrastructure, budget for investment and recruitment in to prison education for specialist tradespeople can often determine which provision can be adopted
• Risk – to safety and security of operating within a secure environment, e.g. provision which uses advanced IT can be seen as a risk of uncontrolled communication entering and existing the prison
• Prison requirements – functional provision which contributes to the successful operation of the prison often contributes, e.g. barbering / cleaning

These factors can create issues which are sometimes prioritised above prisoner needs, labour market demand and skills which employers require. 

How Novus ensures skills are aligned

Novus employs a dedicated team of specialists under the brand of ‘Novus Works’ to engage employers with prison education, align skills needs and deliver tailored job brokerage for prisoners. The team undertakes curriculum co-design, developing Career Routeways from custody to employment and further education in the community. We specifically develop ‘Work-Ready Checks’ with employers, who sponsor these documents, outlining the requirements of job roles along with specific pace and quality measures candidates must meet. It is as part of this process where we ascertain the important ‘soft skills’ that are required to work for an employer.

Novus Works also engages local economic interest groups (e.g. local enterprise partnerships / Chambers of Commerce) to ascertain labour market information. We present this information to local prison teams, along with recognised LMI data from EMSI Analyst to inform curriculum development discussions.

The team have identified some key opportunities for better aligning skills needs of employers to provision of education in custody:

1. Make better use of prison facilities to provide work-based learning through prison industries, embedding education within real work environments, given that employers often require the right behaviors and attitude developed through work experience
2. Continue with the investment into enabling delivery of industry licenses which are often barriers to employment, e.g. CSCS card / Rail Track cards / Fork Lift Truck licenses
3. Incentivise employers to contribute to social impact and specifically to support / employ ex-offenders, e.g. employers in the construction sector have been incentivised in the past through stipulations within section 106 planning agreements
4. Invest in resource to enable delivery of skills required for major growing sectors, e.g. digital / renewable energy / green economy
5. Use up to date technology to prepare prisoners for life in the community, e.g. job searching / CV development tools

Case Studies

Case studies are shown below to demonstrate the existing work being done to align skills delivered in custody to the needs of employers.

1. Novus Works outcome data infographic
2. Example of a Career Routeway in custody designed with employers
3. Novus Works marketing content within prison in the North East
4. Examples of Career Routeway Development with employer partners

1. Data for the 2019/20 Academic Year

2. Example of a Novus Career Routeway in custody designed with employers

3. Novus Works marketing content within prison in the North East

Catering

• Between February 2018 and February 2020, there were 1784 job postings for Catering and Hospitality roles in the North East.
• 662 of these adverts mention the requirement for maths and or English skills in the ideal applicant.
• The top ‘hard skill’, requested by the majority of employers was a ‘Functional Skills qualification’, which featured in 332 of the adverts.
• This came in above Cooking and Food Safety.
• The top ‘hard skill’ required was Mathematics, which was requested in 523 of the job adverts. That’s a whopping 79%!

Construction

•          Between February 2018 and February 2020, there were 936 job postings for Construction occupations in the North East.

•          387 of these adverts mention the requirement for maths and or English skills in the ideal applicant.

•          In the top 10 ‘hard skills’ sought after by employers, ‘Functional Skills qualifications’ came in 2nd place, following ‘Civil Engineering.’

•          ‘Numeracy’ came closely behind in 5th place.

QUESTION 5

How can successful participation in education be incentivised in prisons?

Response:

Influencing factors

Delivery of education within prisons is unique. There are significant external factors which affect each prisoner’s motivation for learning. Long-standing expertise and understanding is required to successfully incentive participation. Prisoners are best supported when there is scale and breadth in terms of teaching capability, quality and resources in place to meet the wide ranging needs of those with complex characteristics.

External factors which affect motivation can be grouped into three primary areas:

1. Regime/system issues – education attendance is prevented due to system issues, for example security issues may prevent movement of prisoners which therefore inhibits attendance to classes
2. Personal experience issues – previous experiences of education may have been negative and will impact upon future engagement education
3. Personal environment issues – pay is a key driver for many prisoners as they need to support themselves / their families.  As such, they will opt for paid work over education. 

Additionally, there are many other factors which can determine engagement with education, outlined on the adjacent page.

Key points

In the sections below, we describe practical suggestions for implementation of successful strategies to incentivise prisoners with participation in education. The suggestions centre around the following primary motivators for offenders:

• Earned early release / Release on Temporary License (ROTL) – the single most motivating factor for a significant amount of prisoners
• Prisoner Pay – specifically, parity of pay across all activities within the prison so as not to disincentivise any one area and introduction of a pay structure aligned to the labour market
• Opportunities for employment - both in custody and on release
• Building on the existing Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme – recognising the value in the ‘enhanced’ status, while introducing further rewards for educational attainment
• Use of professionally trained Peer Mentors – skilled peers are on the most effective tools in hooking prisoners away from learned behaviours and into the benefits of education and work through reflection of shared experiences, pro social behaviours and positive success stories
• Consistency and efficiency – reducing duplication of activities delivered by multiple providers / prison teams, transferring information effectively and most importantly, building trust between prisoners and staff through development of professional relationships
• Recognition – instilling pride and sense of achievement as this is often lacking in the histories of prisoners with complex characteristics, e.g. graduation events with families and senior prison staff in attendance
• Diverse curriculums - provision of wide ranging and innovative learning courses such as art, drama and music may be more attractive to prisoners who have negative experience of traditional subject matters. 

A partnership approach

Offenders should be engaged with education from the outset and throughout their custodial journey. Education should be normalised and embedded into the culture of each prison.  This can be achieved by education staff being present outside of traditional settings (e.g. classrooms / workshops). Engaging with prisoners at the very start of their journey can support this, e.g. being present in receptions and first night centres to induct prisoners into learning and skills provision as soon as they arrive at the establishment. 

More input from the education provider in terms of allocation and sequencing also contributes to successfully motivating prisoners. The education provider, integrated into the regime, should be responsible for informing central allocations regarding an individual’s priorities and needs.  The central allocation team should involve education providers, careers advice and employment specialists to support the Governor and his team to make best use of an individual’s time to help them rehabilitate. 

A holistic approach to resettlement is also required; education attendance and attainment should have real and tangible links to earned early release, (ROTL) and privileges for efforts.  Incentives to progress and achieve these should be fully integrated into the wider rehabilitation pathway for learners and as a regime partner, education providers will be able to effectively support integration. 

We view earned early release / ROTL, linked to education attainment and employment opportunities, as the key mechanism to incentivise prisoners to participate in education and engage in their own personal journey. The effectiveness of earned early release / ROTL as an incentive is reliant upon collective organisations facilitating the completion of sentence plans.  All partners such as Offender Management Teams should support and adhere to the plan.

Employment links and the creation of employment pathways in partnership with probation delivery / Offender Manager teams and employers is another essential area to effectively incentivising participation. Linked education and employment pathways offers prisoners who are ready to address their offending behaviour real opportunities to gain employment and integrate into society. To support this, opportunities to undertake work and work-based learning in custody should be adopted, e.g. investment into development of Career Routeways with employers to make use of workshop space in custody. Linked to this, Novus has strong links with a large base of employers and would be interested to develop work based academies that provide a wage as an incentive to prisoners. 

Integrated and holistic approach to rewards

As referenced, introducing a comprehensive incentive programme, clearly linked to achievement, rehabilitation and release would incentivise participation in learning. Within this structure, there should also be shorter term rewards in place. In particular, feedback from our youth estate delivery teams tells us that rewards for children requires immediate application for success, such as phone credit distributed through a daily points-based system. This should then be followed up with longer term rewards to recognise sustained positive behaviors, e.g. group activities.

More generally, greater use of the Earned Privileges and Reward Scheme would support increased engagement with prison education, particularly for those whom earned early release or ROTL may not be an option. A structured privileges and rewards scheme would provide prisoners with clear goals, linked to their own personal journey of progression.

Proposed privileges and incentives may include (see appendix 1 for further suggestions):

• Fast track to work outs or key workers
• Extra gym sessions in the evenings or weekends
• Pin/phone credit
• Hair and beauty treatments in the prison salon / barbers.
• Increased use of technology for visits over and above existing visit allowances through “Virtual Visits”. 

Another key part of reward, pay structure for learning, should also be implemented to reflect that in the labour market, work pay structures mean that those using higher levels of skill receive more pay. Implementing such a structure would:

• incentivise engagement, behaviour and attitude towards learning programmes
• mirror appraisal systems in the workplace and would support the development of a progressive skill development culture
• encourage learners to take responsibility for their progression, linked to reward (earnings) and their sentence plan targets and release preparation. 

34

                            EPB0044

Appendix 1

Survey to ask prisoners which incentives they would value, Prisoner Policy Network: Prisoner Incentives report 2019

1. Having the means to make own food, such as with a toaster or sandwich maker
2. Access to buying books
3. Free legal advice
4. Quiet accommodation
5. Extra gym sessions
6. Reintroduction of certification 18 cert films (with reference to terrestrial TV showing certificate 18 films / shows)
7. Access to a (monitored) Freeview box
8. Access to new clothes more often than the current 6 monthly cycle
9. Family and friends to be allowed to send in clothes
10. Use of a controlled internet (YCG suggested “a form of restricted intranet should be designed to allow prisoners onto specific, authorised sites and/or IP restricted access”)
11. Film or other social nights
12. Take-away nights
13. Skype calls using PIN only numbers
14. MP3 players (controlled)
15. More diverse range of sports
16. Phone credit discounts
17. Free calls to those with small children
18. One session off per week for distance learners
19. Time outside with green trees and grass not concrete yards
20. Vending machines on the wings / be able to buy cakes
21. Fridges on the wing
22. Opportunity to access non-standard musical instrument like a violin
23. Subscription to specialist magazines
24. More time out of the cell
25. Arts and crafts materials on the wing
26. DVDs in possession
27. Cooking clubs
28. Pets in prison

34

                            EPB0044

QUESTION 6

How might apprenticeships work for those in custody?

Response:

Value of apprenticeships

Apprenticeships are arguably the most effective means of developing vocational skills that directly correspond to employers’ needs, and are a key learning route into employment for those in the community. Feedback from our employer engagement team (Novus Works) tells us that there is demand for apprenticeships from employers, specifically since the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy (2016). However, prisoners currently have no access to start apprenticeships in custody due to the legal restrictions associated with signing contracts of employment while in custody (Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009).

Novus Prisoner Apprenticeship Pathway Pilot – North West

Novus ran a pilot to test the viability of supporting prisoners into apprenticeships on release in 2017. The pilot engaged 257 prisoners during 15 Apprenticeship engagement events managed by the Novus Works Team. The model consisted of the following six critical steps:

1. Awareness raising and engagement of Prisoners
2. Engagement of Employers
3. Applications for Apprenticeship vacancies
4. Interview/selection process
5. Apprenticeship employment start
6. In-apprenticeship support

The challenges the team experienced during this model include:

• attractiveness of prisoners on release to apprenticeship providers in the community due to their discounted income potential (having completed training in custody)
• limitations of technology and specifically ease of correspondence with apprenticeship providers via personal email addresses
• an ineffective Learner Loans system (where learners need to secure loans for accessing qualifications at Level 3 or above) due to operational challenges in approving and processing loans
• linked to the point above, many offenders already have significant debts (some with offences linked to their personal financial situation) and are therefore are unwilling or unable to make such investments
• restrictions of payment to offenders and wage requirements of Apprenticeships
• limited opportunities for work placements in custody to match with the full range of apprenticeship requirements (e.g. engineering) and the restrictions on Release on Temporary License to allow prisoners to attend work in the community due to security and resource to manage
• the level of learning which Apprenticeships start at (Level 2) are prohibitive for many prisoners still working towards this on release
• relatively low salaries offered in the first year of many apprenticeships
• lack of join up between MOJ and DWP in financially supporting prisoners in the first few months of employment
• the negative perception of apprenticeships held from prisoners regarding age requirements and sustained low salaries.

How apprenticeships in custody could work

The priority to enable prisoners to start apprenticeships in custody would be legislative change (e.g. allowing prisoners to sign contracts of employment) or through development of a new process which circumvents this issue. Linked to this, regulations need reviewing around drawing down funding for learners by education providers in custody, followed by apprenticeship providers in the community. We would advise joint working between MOJ, DfE and DWP to agree a funding mechanism. For example, the government might encourage mobilisation of Apprenticeship and Training Partnerships to allow employers and apprenticeship providers to come together to offer training through this vehicle.

A second priority should be to invest in the infrastructure to support prisoners in applying for apprenticeships. Key for success would be supporting the flow of information between prisoners and apprenticeship providers, e.g. via the facilitation of emails. Reviewing the operation of the learner loans system would also contribute to a fit for purpose infrastructure for operating apprenticeships.

Other practical requirements include allowing prisoners to attend work (and training) on Release on Temporary License; investing in the development of work based learning opportunities in custody in partnership with employers (e.g. prison industry workshops); and encouraging employers to hire prisoners through financial incentives or otherwise upon release.

Novus recognise this will take time to implement and would advocate introducing pre apprenticeship training in custody in the interim through traineeships, specifically in the youth estate.

QUESTION 7

Are current resources for prison learning meeting need?

Response:

As part of the current Prison Education Framework (PEF) contracts, the level of educational need throughout the adult prison estate is determined at prison level, by the local commissioner (e.g. the Governing Governor of the prison). Educational services are then commissioned accordingly. HMPPS is able to use its data management system, Curious, to ascertain the volume of need within each Establishment.

In Ofsted’s Annual Report 2019/20, it states that ‘(i)n the first year of governors’ autonomy in commissioning this provision, only a third of prisons inspected were found to deliver an appropriate curriculum to meet the needs of their prisoners’.[5] 

Novus’ experience in delivering education in prisons is extensive and long-standing, currently delivering education in 50 establishments. Consistently we see that funding, and in turn resources available to deliver education, are not enough to support the complexity of need that is presented by the prisoner cohort. Based on Authority data across 103 prisons as part of the PEF contract (from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020), approximately 24% of those assessed with a need for English and maths commence a qualification. In addition, approximately 70% of LDD screenings took place in 19/20 as access arrangements continue to be challenging in terms of movement of prisoners to the right place at the right time.

Further, we understand the impact that the environment can also have on the ability to meet need. For example, in smaller establishments with limited facilities for education it can be challenging to provide variety and choice. There is also often a smaller staffing resources which means a narrower curriculum.

In summary, it is unlikely that the level of funding available for prison education will ever fully meet the complexity and scale of need within the prison estate, however, we can be more targeted, and making sure that education is accessible to those who are furthest away from being able to improve their lives and economic success. Prison education is also underfunded compared to mainstream community provision. For example, a comparison of the current Adult Education Budget funding compared to the Prison Education Framework (PEF) shows that only one third of the funding available under AEB is available per learner in PEF. This also has a wider impact on attracting, recruiting and retaining good teachers.

How education is delivered within prisons, the majority on a roll-on/roll-off basis also means that learner groups can continually change, with often differing sentence lengths and individual needs that often results in a high churn of learners not experienced in mainstream education. Prison population pressures often also result in prisoners being moved part way through their programme.

Areas of concern further identified by the Ofsted Annual report were:

1. Attendance – there was found to be ‘poor attendance and punctuality at education, skills and work-related activities’
2. Recording – ‘around half of prisoners did not have their newly gained skills and knowledge adequately recorded by teaching staff, and therefore these went unrecognised’
3. Information, advice and guidance – ‘too many prisons did not offer appropriate information, advice and guidance to prisoners to support their resettlement’. 

Specifically on attendance, learner attendance is too variable in our experience. Many opportunities for learning are lost due to regime challenges, such as late movement of prisons, interruptions to learner and prison transfers. We would like to see an increase in attendance within our provision to ensure we effectively respond to the level of need as much as possible. This could be achieved through effective collaboration between the Governor and education provider, such as shared targets for education attendance and allocation. 

Education-specific resources

1. Digital infrastructure:

As the largest provider of education within prisons, we recognise our responsibility to drive forward improved ICT capacity and the potential to transform the delivery of education through a range of innovations, including interactive resources, tablet-based learning and online assessments to support accreditation. Substantial investment to complete upgrades and bring prison technology in line with digital advancements that are present within mainstream education and modern life is essential.

As part of the Prison Education Framework, Novus has invested circa £13m and is currently modernising 43 PEF prisons to enable access to the latest hardware and software that will provide a comparable learning experience to that of mainstream education (e.g. access to Windows10).

We are also working closely with technology organisation MegaNexus who is leading on the development of Virtual Campus 2.0. Virtual Campus is a digital learning platform that can be accessed by offenders. It is currently under development and will provide a Moodle-based Virtual Learning Environment. This will provide teachers with the ability to develop interactive learning content, and will provide offenders with a digital Personal Learning Plan so significant developments are in progress. However, there still remains a number of challenges that are outlined below.

Challenges

The current prison estate, ranging from Victorian buildings to modern, purpose-built facilities, inhibits increased use of technology in a number of ways. The age of prison buildings varies and some are listed sites, which means that it is often challenging to implement the required IT infrastructure to support the latest IT solutions. 

In addition to the restrictions posed by the physical prison estate, the introduction of new technologies is often met with caution, making it difficult to implement new IT solutions. Establishments can be risk averse to ICT dependent on the population of the establishment and its security category. Risk assessment for some prisoners in certain establishment can also result in a blanket policy for IT usage, which makes it easier for the establishment to monitor usage and security. 

Further, the emerging digital skills sector often commands skills of future employees that are not necessarily supported by traditional qualifications, coding for example. We must, therefore, look to address the restrictions around being able to teach in these types of areas, from both a funding and security perspective. 

There is limited understanding around the potential of ICT in education within the prison environment outside of education, which will require further development to realise the benefits and to ensure offenders are able to function digitally in society and at work. The requirement for connectivity, in particular, access to the internet for prisoners, is a pressing need particularly within open prisons. For those prisoners on ROTL, they are able to access the internet on a daily basis, however, when they return to prison this access is restricted. This ‘all or nothing’ approach could be tempered with the introduction of controlled access to the internet in the majority of prisons. We also recommend that increased use of internet is used to support the holistic needs of learners, including family links, casework, continuing education and employment. Controlled communication with families and employers will ensure that resettlement is fully supported. 

Integration with IT infrastructure outside of education

Novus recognises that there are IT infrastructure developments in progress outside of prison education and we feel that that it is essential that the IT infrastructure in place should be fit for all purposes, especially education. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is an increased urgency regarding access to in-cell learning. In-cell systems allow prisoners to quickly and easily carry out daily tasks, such as ordering food or making phone calls through in-cell telephony. The development of this infrastructure could also be used to support learning, and tablets provided for use in cells would allow them to manage their timetables and access learning services.

We also see the potential in increased use of technology to support family links through video conferencing, facilitating a virtual visit. 

Facilitating regular family visits has significant positive outcomes both for the offender and their families. However, facilitating family visits continues to be challenging for HMPPS. We recommend the use of technology to help solve this, through “Virtual Visits”. We have explored this in some detail and have a clear vision on how it could be used securely to encourage family links, e.g. a virtual parents evening for the young people population and to facilitate transition and resettlement needs.

The technology for this already exists and is entirely fit for purpose and tested. While we recognise the initial set-up costs, virtual visits would lead to longer-term cost efficiencies by significantly reducing travel costs for families and external agencies.

The use of virtual visits can also be expanded to include:

• tutorials as part of Higher Education programmes
• work placements for employment
• court visits
• pre-transfer Q&A with the education department of the receiving prison
• interviews with employers.

2. Facilities and environment:

Novus has experience of working in a large number of prisons and has a significant understanding of the overall standard in prison education facilities. A significant proportion of the prison estate has physical infrastructure that is not fit for purpose and this extends to education facilities. Novus recommends that improvement and updating of education facilities becomes a core priority of the renewal of the national prison estate and that learning delivery needs should be a key factor in the design requirements under the new Prison Estates Transformation Programme. 

The prison population is diverse and has a diverse range of learning needs, which in turn need to be met through a wide range of delivery techniques. Some learners will always require a classroom-based learning environment where a dedicated learning environment is required, for example, functional skills delivery or basic ICT training. However, many offenders have learning needs that do not require classroom-based delivery.

Maximising the potential of the full prison estate for education and increasing access to technology will drive improvement in prison education. Underpinning this is the ongoing necessity to deliver learning that is relevant to the modern world and critically the modern labour market and needs of employers. By utilising the facilities available within the prison for education, this will offer valuable opportunities in vocational training and real work environments.

We also advocate for better use of libraries. Libraries offer valuable resources for learning, but in most instances continue to be run with local authority resources and offer dated or insufficient resources. Consequently, libraries do not always directly support learning delivered by Prison Education. The current reach and use of libraries could easily be extended. For example, libraries should be used as venues for drop-in sessions for learning support. They should offer resources so offenders can work independently (especially for Higher Level Learning and OU provision), and offer controlled use of ICT equipment.

3. People:

Teachers are the most important resource within prison education.  Novus is the largest and most experienced employer of teachers within a prison education setting in the UK, employing approximately 1,400 teachers and trainers nationally.

Within the current PEF contract, Novus recognises and responds to the critical importance of teachers and their ability to teach to a high standard. We prioritise frontline delivery resources and ensure that contact time with learners sufficiently meets the needs of the learner and awarding organisations.

We have invested significantly (2% of overall payroll costs) in specialist Continuous Professional Development for teachers as part of the new PEF contract. Key successes to date include:

• Implementation of a new TED Team, led by a Head of Teaching, Learning and Assessment
• 34 CPD events have been delivered since October 2020 alone
• Over 1,600 attendees have attended to date from both HMPPS and Novus
• Future investment in Leaders and Managers.

For future improvements to further drive the standard of teaching within prisons, we recommend:

• ensuring providers are able to invest in specialist Continuous Professional Development
• increasing the profile of education within the overall regime so that education is well-attended and prioritised
• improving facilities and the quality of teaching environments, including modernised IT access, so that providers within the prison education sector are able to attract the brightest and best quality teachers. 

QUESTION 8

What should happen when prison education is assessed as not meeting standards?

Response:

If education provision is assessed as not meeting standards, it is first most important to explore why it is not meeting standards. Prison education is delivered in a complex and often chaotic environment. It is essential to understand the environment and the challenging factors that can affect the standards of education delivered.

For example, there are currently no targets around attendance in education, nor targets for allocating offenders to learning. If offenders are unable to attend education, there is wider impact on the quality of education that is delivered. This impact extends beyond the individual in terms of learning missed, but on their class peers and maintaining good class dynamics.  Good attendance is linked to better achievement and progress.

There are a wide range of environmental factors that can impact education. Some examples are included below:

• Non-attendance in education and low allocation – resulting in low class numbers, not fully utilising provision
• Disruption to learning – e.g. the offender may have competing priorities and appointments at the same time. Some appointments may be prioritised over education
• Conditions within the environment – provision may need to be closed due to environmental factors, such as an unsafe or unfit environment, which is a common occurrence due to ageing infrastructure
• Disruption to prisoner movement –prisons being unable to move prisoners from the wing to education, for security reasons or because of the resource levels of prison officers.

Given the complex nature of prison education delivery, dynamic measures and mechanisms are required to ensure that environmental challenges, such as non-attendance and low allocation are a key consideration in how we monitor the quality of education on a day-to-day basis. Within current prison education contracts, we would welcome the introduction of additional measures to support participation through shared targets for Governors and providers to drive participation and attendance. 

Contractual mechanisms

Under the Prison Education Framework (PEF) and Dynamic Procurement System (DPS) (for outsourced education delivery), there are a number of contractual mechanisms which seek to monitor and improve standards where required. 

Ofsted grades

The contractual mechanisms require that education provision is at least an Ofsted Grade 2 (Good) when inspected as part of the HMIP Inspection process. In previous contracts, such as the Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS), Ofsted awarded a grade for the Learning and Skills provider within the establishment. Now, under the new contract there is one single grade awarded to the establishment for the overall effectiveness of purposeful activity. It is no longer possible for the outsourced education provider to understand their grade or performance. This means that it is now more difficult for the provider to identify clear areas for improvement and where responsibility lies. It can also be demotivating for the provider and their teachers, as the opportunity to understand strengths and improvements is no longer there explicitly. 

As a result of this, Novus has developed its own internal quality metrics to protect and support the quality of education delivery. This includes completing an Annual Support Review to support colleagues within each establishment to continue to maintain and improve Ofsted good quality standards. 

Within the young people’s estate, Novus delivers within three out of four of the YOIs at HMYOIs Cookham Wood, Wetherby and Werrington. Within these establishments, Novus is responsible for delivering all aspects of education and receives an Ofsted grade, which is attributable to us as an organisation and reflects our performance.

Performance management

Within the PEF and DPS contracts, there are also more traditional contractual mechanisms, such as Service Levels (which drive a quality performance payment each quarter), and Key Performance Indicators linked to learner attainment and completion. 

There is also a formal improvement process, which is triggered by the Ministry of Justice issuing a Notice to Improve to the provider where under performance has been identified. An action plan is then required to drive improvement in a timely manner to return the service to the acceptable standard. Progress against the action plan must be accepted by the Ministry of Justice.

Improving standards

Where quality standards are identified as not meeting education standards, we recommend the immediate course of action could be to respond in a multi-disciplinary manner, bringing together all interested parties, such as HMPPS and education providers. The purpose would be to assess areas of concern and support. Continuity and consistency are key to rapid improvement. Enhanced support teams could be identified and deployed (from both HMPPS and the education provider) to assist with improvement plans. 

This joined-up collaborative approach may be more effective than more typical contractual measures. For example, within the current PEF contract, the Ministry of Justice is able to withhold up to 5% of the contract value if Service Levels are not met. This may be counter-intuitive to improving quality, whereby more resources may be needed to make the required improvement and, therefore, funding is required more than ever to bring about important change.

Good education cultures that exist within schools, colleges and universities are underpinned by collaboration and partnership, which could also be reflected as part of the structures which support prison education. 

QUESTION 9

How does the variability in the prison estate and infrastructure impact on learning?

Response

Context – varying infrastructure

We understand the need for improvements in the prison estate and infrastructure, in line with the Government’s Prison Estate Transformation agenda to improve and modernise and improve the prison estate, to ensure prisons are fit for purpose, provide value for money, and meet the needs of prisoners.

Novus is the largest Prison Education Framework (PEF) provider, delivering across 43 prisons in 7 PEF regions; 3 Youth Offending Institutions, 1 Secure Training Centre and HMP Berwyn in Wales. The prisons we deliver in vary significantly in terms of size and infrastructure, including a large number of older establishments (e.g. HMP Pentonville), and new, purpose-built prisons (e.g. HMP Berwyn).

Delivering education in a wide range of prison environments has provided an understanding of how the variability impacts on learning. We outline our key thinking below.

Impact on learning

Prison infrastructure has a significant impact on learning, both directly and indirectly.

Direct impact

Environments need to be conducive to learning, to keep prisoners engaged in education. Older establishments with outdated education departments are less welcoming and engaging, therefore this is likely to have a negative impact on learners’ motivations to learn.

Infrastructure also has a significant impact on accessibility to education. Larger prisons (e.g. HMP Lindholme) often have education departments situated separately from accommodation blocks, with considerable distance between. This can have a negative impact on ability to access education, e.g. if movement is restricted due to prison officer shortage. Having to travel between education and the wings can be distracting and have a negative impact on learners’ motivation.  As highlighted by Dame Sally Coates in the 2016 Prison Education Review, the ‘design’ of the prison needs to be addressed ‘in terms of the way its lay-out facilitates learning, and the way in which time is allocated for lessons’ (Coates Review, 3.11).

Establishment location also has an impact on learning. Education curriculums are informed by local labour market information, and may vary across the estate in terms of wider courses offered. For example, HMP Northumberland has an Engineering focused curriculum, which reflects job growth in resettlement areas.

Indirect impact

An indirect consequence of outdated infrastructure is staff recruitment and retention. If the infrastructure is particularly outdated (e.g. HMP Pentonville), the prison is likely to struggle to recruit and retain high calibre teaching staff.

“Although evidence indicates that education can constitute a distinct space in the context of a prison, how positive this space is depends on the tutor and the atmosphere they cultivate; a different space does not automatically imply a positive, pro-social space for all prisoners.” (A Realist Model of Prison Education, Growth, and Desistance: A New Theory – by Kirstine Szifris, Chris Fox, Andrew Bradbury, Manchester Metropolitan University, June 2018). 

Whilst the environment in which learning takes place is important, i.e. a positive environment will engage and motivate prisoners, the quality of the teacher, and the learner/Teacher relationship is one of the most important aspects in motivating prisoners. A good teacher can engage learners even if the environment is outdated, or not conducive to learning. Therefore, outdated infrastructure may have an indirect impact on learning due to the challenges with recruiting good teachers to work in such environments.

The infrastructure of a prison, particularly within the older estate (e.g. HMP Hindley), can make it challenging to set up IT facilities for staff and learners. As a result, this impacts on quality of education and learning. Access to IT (both for staff and learners) has an impact on education delivery. For learners, access to IT is important to support education delivery (e.g. access to online courses, and opportunities to build digital skills for the workplace). For staff, IT access is important to support training & development opportunities (e.g. e-learning modules), and to access prison/HMPPS data systems, e.g. to input learner data. Limited IT access may impact on effective information sharing about learners, e.g. support requirements/additional needs, which impacts on quality of learning.

45

                            EPB0044

HMP Hindley transformation

45

                            EPB0044

QUESTION 10

How does provision compare in public sector and privately run prisons?

Response

Delivery in public and privately run prisons

Novus is an experienced provider across public sector and privately run prisons. We deliver education across the different types of custodial establishments, including:

• 39 public prisons in England, operated by HMPPS, through Prison Education Framework (PEF) delivery
• 4 privately operated prisons, with PEF education contracts commissioned publically by HMPPS (Group 1) – HMP Doncaster (Serco), HMP Thameside (Serco), HMP Northumberland (Sodexo), HMP Oakwood (G4S)
• 2 privately operated prisons with education commissioned directly by the private contractor (Group 2) – HMP Altcourse (G4S) and HMP Rye Hill (G4S).

Similarities and common challenges

Public sector prisons and both Group 1 and Group 2 private prisons have a number of similarities and shared challenges.

IT

• IT challenges – IT and digital innovation is a common challenge within all types of establishments, e.g. outdated infrastructure, security restrictions and limited budgets. As such, there are no significant/comparable differences in digital innovation between public and private sector differences
• Shared digital strategy – HMPPS is driving a digital innovation strategy across PEF prisons, for example increasing the use of, and access to Virtual Campus. Previously, private prisons (Group 2) have not had the same IT and data systems; there are now plans to introduce Virtual Campus, and Curious data system in all private prisons in 2021. This will help to align provision between all types of establishments, and support seamless prisoner transfer between the private and public estate (through shared data systems, i.e. Curious).

Local autonomy and ownership

Across both public and private prisons, prison Governors (public sector), and Directors (private sector) have ownership and are able to make decisions on how education is run in their prisons, and what courses are delivered (outside of core education, e.g. literacy and numeracy).

In public sector prisons (and private prisons with PEF contracts), Governors can choose which education courses to commission (e.g. vocational, art, and personal/social development courses) via the PEDPS Framework. This enables Governors to design a needs-led curriculum (e.g. introducing new courses which fit with LMI, or in response to a changing population) and engage smaller, local providers to deliver education.

Private prisons with privately operated education contracts also have control over what courses are delivered, and work closely with the education provider to request and implement new courses, and adapt delivery methods (e.g. roll-on, roll-off delivery).

Differences between public sector and Group 1 private prisons

There are no significant differences in education provision in public sector prisons, and private prisons with PEF contracts.

The curriculum and delivery processes are similar, as Common Awarding Bodies (CAB) are in place for core education subjects; and additional courses are commissioned via the PEDPS. Therefore, differences in education curriculums at different prisons are due to differing needs (e.g. prison category/function), or local labour market drives. Prison workshops/industries may also be different in private prisons as these are separate to PEF delivery.

Quality assurance processes for education are also very similar, with PEF KPIs set and monitored with HMPPS.

One of the key differences in private prisons is that the relationship between the education provider and the onsite HMPPS Controller is key – as they have ownership of education. As there is not a direct equivalent role in public sector prisons, education providers will liaise directly with the Head of Learning and Skills in public sector prisons.

Differences between public sector and Group 2 private prisons

Staff and relationships

The key relationship for the education provider in Group 2 private prisons, is with the private contractor’s Head of Learning and Skills. Novus liaises directly with the contractor on a day-to-day basis rather than with HMPPS as is the case in the public sector and Group 1 private prisons. 

The wider staff structure is also different between public and private prisons. For example, Hub Managers are in place in the public sector, whereas Senior Team Leaders are in place in private prisons. In public prisons, there is a central HMPPS team responsible for national management and oversight, whereas prisons are managed locally in the private estate.

Contracts and funding

Whilst PEF (previously OLASS) education contracts are re-commissioned by HMPPS every 4-7 years, education contracts in the private estate run for much longer. Both Altcourse and Rye Hill education contracts have been in place for 20+ years, which helps to create a positive sense of partnership between Novus and G4S.

KPIs and targets are set differently in Group 2 private prisons. Targets in each prison for qualifications and attendance efficiency are negotiated for between the HMPPS Controller, G4S and the education provider (Novus). Private education contracts also have 12 service delivery ‘mandations’ set by G4S that apply to all establishments.

Funding

Funding in Group 2 private prisons is agreed between G4S and education provider at the beginning of each contract year, with a set amount of ‘hours’ purchased for education delivery.

Whilst overall funding in the private estate may be higher (budget is set by the contractor), there can be disparities between funding and delivery requirements/expectations where private prisons are required to align with PEF requirements (e.g. introduction of Curious system) as changes need to be incorporated in previously determined budgets.

QUESTION 11

How effective and flexible is prison education and training in dealing with different lengths of sentences and the movement of prisoners across the estate?

Response

Provision effectiveness in managing different sentence lengths

The prison estate and Prison Education Framework contract is structured to support movement of prisoners across the estate, and provide a tailored curriculum which reflects length of sentence. For example:

• High Security Estate, with a focus on keeping prisoners engaged longer term
• Cat B Locals designed to support those on remand, e.g. short courses, and roll-on roll-off model
• Cat C Training to provide skills development for those on longer sentences, e.g. full vocational qualifications (Level 2)
• Cat D Open prisons to support resettlement before reintegration into the community. 

This structure is largely effective at managing different sentence lengths for a number of learners. However, tailored curriculums based on establishment function are not a fit-for-all solution. Short courses delivered at Cat B Local establishments often have poorer outcomes than other establishments, e.g. Womens Estate, or Category C prisons due to increased withdrawal rates.

Furthermore, where learners’ are not in the appropriate establishment based on sentence length, their education will be affected.

Case study: HMP Durham designed a specific curriculum to meet the needs of the high-churn remand population, e.g. introduction of short, non-accredited roll-on/roll-off courses. However, in practice the population changed significantly over time, which meant the curriculum did not meet the needs of the changing population, e.g. a high number of longer stay prisoners.

Annual delivery plans: Each prison is able to design a bespoke curriculum which meets the needs of the learner population. Curriculums are set out in Annual Delivery Plans (PEF C4 Schedule) and can be adapted to reflect changing need. For example, the PEDPS enables Governors to commission additional education courses, e.g. in response to LMI or a change in the population. This enables curriculums to be tailored to fit sentence length, as Governors can specify course length and delivery style, e.g. 3 month art course commissioned at HMP Moorland in January 2020.

Provision effectiveness in managing prisoner movement

Curriculum

Continuation of learning can be disrupted from prisoners moving/transferring between different prisons. The use of Common Awarding Bodies (CAB) – designated examining bodies for specific subjects – supports a seamless transfer as it ensures that learners can easily continue qualifications at another prison. This is particularly important when prisoners transfer to prisons in a different PEF Lot (region), as there may be a different education provider in place. However, although the CAB framework provides consistency, the curriculums vary between different establishments. This impacts on continuation of learning, and may disadvantage learners moving to a smaller establishment with less courses on offer.

Digital information sharing

Effective digital information sharing is important to ensure that staff at a transferring prison are aware of a learners’ background and can allocate them to an appropriate education pathway. Digital Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) are in place in a small number of establishments, however these are not used widely.

The Curious data system is now in place nationally (at all prisons with PEF education contracts), which provides a consistent information sharing process and enables all staff to access the same data systems at every establishment. However, challenges at site level can often impact on the quality and accuracy of data, e.g. reduced staff impacting on data input.

Performance data

Movement between different prisons also impacts on accurate data capture. For example, in PEF education delivery, success rates are impacted by withdrawal/drop-out rates, which are often high (averaging c.30%). This means success rates at specific establishments may be negatively impacted if there is a particularly high churn, e.g. success rates at Category B Local establishments are often lower.  

Youth Custody

Learners in the youth estate are disproportionately impacted by movement between prisons, when transferring from a Youth Offending Institution (15 – 18 years) to the adult estate (18+). Adult estate has less budget and resources, which mean learners often do not receive the same level of support (e.g. less one-to-one support due to less staffing) when they transfer to the adult estate; and often cannot continue the same courses as the curriculum is different.

In summary, all prisons, across adult and youth estate, need to ensure curriculums are tailored to reflect the prisoner population. This includes tailored curriculums which meet the needs of learners with varying sentence lengths, and flexible delivery methods which are suitable for prisoners moving between establishments (e.g. roll-on/roll-off delivery).

January 2021

50