Written evidence from the National Union of Students (SEO0031)

Introduction

1. The National Union of Students (NUS) is a voluntary membership organisation which makes a real difference to the lives of students and its member students’ unions. We are a confederation of 600 students’ unions, amounting to more than 95% of all higher and further education unions in the UK. Our mission is to promote, defend and extend the rights of students and to develop and champion strong students’ unions, including those in the prison education system to ensure that all learners’ interests are represented.

Scope

2. The scope of this submission is limited to; ‘Do the employment and education programs available in prisons prepare prisoners for formal employment?’

Do the employment and education programs available in prisons prepare prisoners for formal employment?

3. NUS welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s call for evidence.

4. With over 85 000 people currently in prison in the UK, access to education for persons in prison is an issue that needs urgent review and reform. NUS acknowledges the fact that the provision of education in detention is complex and often the environment it takes place in is hostile to its liberating potential. Although the above conditions make the provision of education in prison a challenge, policy makers must realise that this situation has occurred as a result of state policy and it is with policy that the situation can be remedied.

5. NUS welcomes Government’s recent prison education reforms including the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ agenda which has produced pockets of positive outcomes. Despite this progress, statistics show that improved outcomes and innovations related to education are largely limited to women’s prisons[1]. This is because barriers to accessing education in prison have continued to increase, rates of participation remain variable and numeracy and literacy outcomes continue to fall. As such, the overall educational outcomes for prisoners remain poor with little change in the rates of recidivism.

6. Data from the Office for National Statistics, evidences the importance of education as a pathway to employment. For example, 88% of working age people with a degree are currently in employment, compared to 67% with NVQ1 or below and 47% with no qualifications[2]. With regards to the impact of education on recidivism, existing data shows a positive relationship between education and reduced rates of reoffending. A 2011 collaborative report by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) titled, ‘Review of Offender Learning - Making Prisons Work - Skills for Rehabilitation’ showed that education can prevent reoffending by providing skills needed to enter the labour market.

7. The prison population reflects a disproportionate number of people who represent poor, discriminated and marginalised groups, who often have their right to education violated before, during and after detention. As it stands, just under half of all prisoners report having no qualifications[3]. Although NUS believes prison education can maximise impacts on recidivism, reintegration and employment upon release, we all must remember that education is not a panacea for the social, psychological and physical damage caused by discrimination, poverty, exclusion and detention. NUS believes that the approach to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism must be holistic. Education should be as much about personal development as the development of skills and knowledge which allow individuals to build effective relationships in their communities.

8. The right to education is accepted as the provision of an education that is available, accessible, adaptable and acceptable. There is no text that allows for the forfeiture of this right and the forfeiture is not necessitated by incarceration. This is especially relevant in situations where we see prisoners who are not of working age or serving longer sentences being excluded by education programs that focus solely on education for employment and reduced recidivism. The United Nations noted that current models of prison education systems are estranged from the concept of human dignity of all persons despite the fact that human dignity lies at the core of all human rights obligations and implies respect for the individual in his actuality and also potential[4]. As education is largely concerned with the above realisations, fulfilling potential and personal development should actually be the concern of education in detention and not a utilitarian add-on should resources allow. Prison education must be aimed at the full development of the person.

9. NUS strongly believes that education is a human right, as such, Government should increase funding for prison education to ensure it delivers a broad and balanced curriculum that supports both learning and rehabilitation. NUS’s view is guided by international human rights recommendations, guidance documents and legislation, namely;

1. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
2. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
3. Human Rights and Prisons: A Pocketbook of International Human Rights Standards for Prison Officials
4. Recommendation(2006) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules

10. Although the current prison education system has seen many recent reforms aimed at improving the provision whilst reducing rates of recidivism, NUS believes the current system is still not fit for purpose and current programs do not adequately prepare prisoners for formal employment.  The sections below will analyse the shortcomings of the current prison education system and offer recommendations for improvement.

Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) and Learning Outcomes

11. Recent changes to the prison education system has seen a rise in the quantity of qualifications achieved by students in prison. This reflects the structure of funding for the OLASS 4 contracts where funding is tied to quantity of qualifications and courses completed. Although NUS welcomes this news, the current system prioritises quantity over quality. Detailed analysis of the recent learning outcome trends show very mixed results. Courses that have seen positive outcomes are Level 1 and 2 courses excluding Maths and English and not Level 3 courses which have seen a massive decline with Maths and English outcomes also declining slightly[5].

12. This difference of outcomes is a result of the current prioritisation of Level 1 and 2 courses over Level 3 by the current OLASS contracts. According to a 2016 report by the Skills Funding Agency, the number of Level 3 outcomes supported by OLASS and achieved in prison halved between 2011/12 and 2013/14 from 1200 courses to 600 and dropped further in 2014/15 from 600 to 200[6]. This comes at a time when the labour market demands higher qualifications including numeracy and literacy skills.

13. Many prison education programmes are not adequately targeted and often have weak frameworks for planning and monitoring student progression. As such, resources are not being effectively and efficiently leveraged to maximise the impact of prison education. For example, the National Careers Service (NCS) designs goals for the student whilst the OLASS provider designs the plan to deliver them. This takes place in a system that shares very little information between agencies.

14. The lack of coordinated and effective planning and monitoring tools in the prison education system disproportionately affects those with disabilities with regards to participating in both the prison education and employment programs. According to information contained in the 2015 Bromley Briefings, the prevalence of disabilities in prison populations is much higher than the national average at twenty to thirty percent of the prison population. The prison education system needs to be sensitive to meet the needs of those with difficulties accessing education and employment. In most cases however, there is insufficient information on how a person’s learning difficulties may affect their learning and ability to get a job.

15. NUS welcomes the latest decision by BIS to share and utilise cross departmental data to help in better understanding links between skills, employment and reoffending. The current infrastructure in place however, does little to support cross organisation information sharing. Current OLASS education contracts in England predate the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda thus current OLASS contracts do not incentivise information sharing and working in partnership.

Recommendations

16. NUS recommends Government set as a priority, a review and reform of the current infrastructure aimed at collecting and sharing data about prisoners and their education and employment outcomes. One of the first steps is to align the Government’s new Transforming Rehabilitation agenda to ensure it addresses shortfalls in OLASS contracts i.e. embedding incentives for information sharing between departments and agencies at various stages of the CJS. The data collection and sharing systems must include an outcome sharing framework to ensure that the differing agencies and stakeholders can coordinate and monitor learning plans to ensure goals are met. The outcomes monitoring and sharing framework must not be limited to monitoring outcomes in custody but also the outcomes of students who are out of custody. The framework must be clear and specific in roles and responsibilities to ensure that all partners and stakeholders are being held to account.

17. ILPs must always put learners at the centre of the process, with their needs and abilities being considered as a way of increasing the sense of ownership and relevance of the education. NUS is aware of pockets of good practice with regards to ILPs in HMPs. The case of HMPYOI Low Newton which was recognised by Ofsted as an example of good practice in the use of ILPs, evidences the ability of prisons to effectively plan and monitor education outcomes in an efficient and cost effective manner.

18. NUS supports the Prisoner Learning Alliance’s recommendations to increase screening and awareness training of learning difficulties. As a result, assessments and ILPs could be better used to support learners who may need more specialised support. Although the new mandatory assessments in literacy and numeracy are expected to screen for disabilities, they largely fail those with learning difficulties as the process is reliant on self-reporting or on staff who may not have appropriate training picking up on issues.

19. The current system lacks a method and means by which the value added by education can be measured and Government needs to adopt a more sophisticated measurement of value added progress. For effective planning and monitoring to take place, there does need to be a greater focus on appropriate induction and assessment. As it stands, except for numeracy and literacy, prisons in England do not have standardised inductions. In many cases, progress assessments and ILPs are not used as a tool for ensuring continuity when students are transferred between institutions. NUS supports recommendations of Centre Forum that each induction should take into account the following;

       An assessment of literacy and numeracy

       Previous education and qualifications, including previous experiences of education and attitudes towards learning

       Previous employment experience and employment preferences

       Criminal background and offending behaviour

       Family and support network

       Accommodation and resettlement needs e.g. finance

       Any health needs including mental health and substance abuse

       Overall priorities for the prisoner

Participation

20. A disproportionate number of people in the CJS have had a negative experience in the mainstream education system and the proportion of prisoners engaging in education is estimated to be much lower than the 50% target set in the founding strategy documentation of OLASS in 2004. Centre Forum’s research found that the figures used to ascertain the number of people in prison accessing education were often unreliable as prisoners were often double counted when they moved between prisons and the community[7]. The Ofsted FE and Skills Annual Report 2013/2014 found that few prisons had effective systems and procedures for engaging people who would benefit most from education in prison.

21. NUS does not support Government’s decision to introduce 24+ loans in further education. The introduction of 24+ and higher education loans by the UK government in 2003 for learners studying at Level 3 has led to the withdrawal of many higher level, high quality courses which, in some cases had been running in prisons for years. In addition to the above, the administration skills and time needed for potential students in prison to apply for loans are not covered by OLASS contracts. This means that potential students have to learn how to apply for these loans in their own time, creating a further barrier to access.

22. Learner voice has been listed by stakeholders as an area of weakness. Students in prison are given little access to voice and representation both within the prisons and also externally with regards to lobbying for change and improvement with policy and decision makers. Stakeholders including students in prison told NUS that the lack of learner voice and ownership negatively impacted participation with regards to prison education.

Recommendations

23. NUS recommends Government reverse the requirement for students in prison to take up 24+ Advanced Learning Loans

24. Incentivising and promoting learning in prison should be a vital part of each institution’s work and should be communicated to all levels of staff and inmates. It is essential that the education offered is accessible, relevant and appealing. NUS strongly believes the positive effects of education could be undermined by any regime that is seen to be forcing individuals to participate as such, ownership and student voice should be at the centre of all education and employment interventions in prison.

25. Both Government and relevant agencies should require providers of education in prison to have a learner voice strategy to facilitate student councils/learner forums and to have learner representatives attend quality improvement meetings where appropriate.

26. Government must ensure appropriate consultations and voices are included in the MoJ program of reform of education in prisons, for example there must be representation for the profession of prison educators on the MoJ programme of reform. There must be a formalised method of representation for prisoners to communicate their feedback on education in prison to both local and national duty bearers.

Private Sector Contracts

27. With the OLASS phase 4 contracts coming to an end in July 2016, NUS is concerned about the disruptions caused by the retendering process. The retendering process affects staff retention with many prison educators leaving to find more favourable and secure employment. Stakeholders confirmed that it was difficult for prison education staff to attend training and development courses due to staff shortages. Furthermore, prison educators do not receive the same remuneration as educators performing the same functions outside prison settings. A survey targeted at prison educators conducted by UCU showed that 85% of respondents worked between five to over eleven unpaid hours per week. All of these factors discourage more people entering the profession, leading to a shortage of qualified prison educators.

28. The utilisation of private companies that do not form part of the FE sector in the England has led to inconsistencies with regards to the education content and quality. Stakeholders have raised concerns about how each of these companies have differing interpretations of vocational education and approaches to teaching. 

29. The current framework used to fund courses within the prison system is restrictive and lacks the flexibility to allow providers to fund personal and social development (PSD) courses. These are courses that many prisoners believe create a pathway to higher level courses, provide soft skills and also have therapeutic value.

Recommendations

30. NUS recommends Government reviews the funding methodology to ensure it includes PSD and informal adult learning (IAL) courses to the full extent of the need. PSD and IAL courses need to be better recognised as having the ability to both rehabilitate and encourage students to participate in further learning.

31. NUS acknowledges the financial constraints within the prison education system, however in order for the prison education system to produce results, Government will need to ensure that both the pay and conditions of service for prison educators is aligned with those outside the prison education system. The current system and contracts limit the ability of employers of prison educators to attract and retain high quality staff

Limited Accessibility

32. We welcome Government’s decision to introduce the ‘core day’. The core day consists of 10.25 hours outside of the cell with 6.25 hours to be spent on ‘purposeful activity’ which includes education and training.  There is more that could be done under the core day system as stakeholders continue to list limited amount of time spent outside of the cell as a barrier to accessing education. According to research conducted by Centre Forum, in 2014/15, 21% of prisoners spent less than two hours out of their cells compared to 14% who were unlocked for over 10 hours. There is no data gathered on exactly how much time is spent on purposeful activities let alone how much is spent on education.

Recommendations

33. There needs to be clearer guidance on what constitutes purposeful activities to avoid prisons and contracted agencies warehousing prisoners in mundane and repetitive tasks in order to hit the targeted number of core day hours. There is also a risk with targets based on hours that prisons will place an emphasis on quantity and not quality. This issue could be mitigated by specifying the minimum proportions of the weekly core day hours to be spent on educational skills with the remaining time being adjusted to individual learning needs.

April 2016