Scottish Government

ANNEX MATERIAL

Methods: Fieldwork and desk research

• A joint visioning session with participants from all three Workstreams and Advisory group
• A longitudinal study in four prisons, Cornton Vale, Polmont (completed by the youth Offending manager to avoid duplication) Open Estate and Edinburgh. To interview prisoners serving differing sentence lengths to ascertain their attitude, benefits and perceptions of learning whilst in custody. Overview of the prison regime as it works on a day to day basis, what are the priorities and how does learning fit within those priorities
• Face to face and focus groups with SPS Prison Officers who deliver/ facilitate learning activity within the prisons, their views on the effectiveness and what would they like to see happening
• Discussions with SPS Chief Executive, Governors on learning within their prisons, what is on offer, who decides what is on offer and for which prisoners?
• Face to face interviews and focus groups with prisoners at induction and pre-release to establish their views on learning in prison
• Prisoners attended a workstream meeting in Edinburgh Prison and presented their views on LSE in prisons
• A review of Scottish Prison Services and Community Justices Analytical Services data on prisoner demographics, convictions rates and prisoner outputs and KPI's
• Review of present activity and good practice in Scotland highlighted in the Thematic Review by HMIe and HMIp 2008 and an interview with Dr Andrew McLellan, HM Inspector of Prisons
• One to One joint workstream meetings with academics expert their field:

i. Dr Anita Wilson

ii. Professor Bill Whyte

iii. Professor Jackie Tombs

iv. Professor Gill McIvor

v. Dr. Fergus McNeill

• Review of present activity and good practice in England & Wales:

• Offender Learning and Skills Service and Learning Skills Council who have responsibility for the LSE contracts in English Prisons
• Ofsted reports on learning and skills for offenders serving long and short custodial sentences
• A literature review of relevant good practice in the UK, Europe, Australia, Canada, USA, and Scandinavian countries
• Focus Groups and discussions with employers and third sector organisations through representatives on the Workstream Advisory Group and other organisations such as the Scottish Business in the Community, National Grid, Marriott Hotel Group
• Survey of Learning Providers staff in prisons and interviews with their staff in the four case study prisons
• Presentations to the workstream by Motherwell and Carnegie Colleges
• A review of Motherwell Colleges self evaluation and portfolio assessment of their work in prisons

A1. Survey of Prison Learning Centre staff

Figures are drawn from an on-line survey of learning centre staff (all expressed as %). The survey was circulated to staff at all of the SPS prisons covered by the LSE contract. Figures are based on 42 responses received by 29 June 2009.

1. Induction and assessment

2. Support from the prison

3. Resources

4. Motivation and impact

How often do you think these reasons apply for prisoners taking part in learning?

Thinking about how to assess the impact of prison learning, how much importance should be attached to the following measures?

5. Reforms to learning

Looking ahead, to what extent would you support these possible changes?

About the respondents

Type of prisoners currently working with and in the past.

How long taught in current prison?

How many other prisons taught in?

Overall, how would you describe the experience of teaching in your current prison? (Please choose more than one response if appropriate)

A2. Practice in England: the OLASS model

We have reviewed, in brief, some early findings about the Offender Learning and Skills service ( OLASS) in England. Among the key points from the National Audit Office review conducted after almost two years of the new system, we note:

Background

• In 2003 Ministers in England decided that the Learning and Skills Council should take on responsibility for planning, funding and (alongside Regional Offender Managers), commissioning delivery of a new learning and skills service for offenders in all 130 public sector prisons in England and offenders under supervision in the community. One consequence was the transfer of vocational training Officers over to mainstream learning providers.
• Rollout was completed in July 2006: £109m was spent in the first year compared with £93m on equivalent services for offenders in 2004-05 (a 17% increase associated with introduction of the new system).
• A total of 21 providers develop the curriculum in association with prison staff. Ofsted inspects the adequacy of all learning and skills provision in prisons. Employability contracts including engagement with employers are being developed in two 'testbed regions' (East of England and West Midlands).
• Contracts include a dedicated information, advice and guidance ( IAG) service - sometimes the same body as delivers core education, training and employment ( ETE) services.
• The primary objective of OLASS is to increase employability in order to reduce re-offending. It may also help to improve basic skills and life skills for the same purpose.

Findings from the NAO review

• The key principle in the offender learning journey is that individuals should engage in relevant learning and skills activity which satisfies the personal learning needs identified at the outset of their sentence. This should be informed by an objective assessment of needs. Those who take part in learning are expected to take ownership of a personal learning plan which can continue to be used as a record of progress towards the learning and skills goals that have been set.
• Around one-fifth of prisoners in a sample of cases identified with basic literacy and numeracy needs had enrolled on a related course.
• Around one-third of the courses started in custody are not completed. The estimated cost of uncompleted courses could be as much as £30 million. In practice, offenders who start programmes but do not complete them are still likely to derive some benefit. As an illustration, if 5% of expenditure is wasted through uncompleted courses, the cost would be in the order of £5m.
• Value for money across almost all aspects of delivery is below the level of which the service is capable of in time.
• Tensions between meeting the learning/skills needs of the individual and the Prison Service's need to occupy prisoners in purposeful activity are a brake on better value for money and need to be resolved. For some, a focus on employability is inappropriate and the objective should be to increase life skills to reduce reoffending.
• A core curriculum needs to be in place at each prison, and more consistency brought into the other courses that providers deliver to allow greater continuity when prisoners are transferred. The Prison Service should give regard to the importance of offenders completing courses, all else being equal, when making transfers.
• A key difficulty for continuing with learning on transfer is the incomplete transfer of records and variable quality/consistency of recording. For some prisoners, this destroys motivation and leads to further unnecessary assessments.
• The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recommended (44 ^th Report Session 2005-06) that modular training programmes should be developed to facilitate continuation of learning when a move is unavoidable. The NAO review of OLASS providers highlighted the limited extent to which continuation was possible on transfer between prisons, even where provided by the same contractor.
• Robust evidence is needed to fill the knowledge gap on what mix of learning and skills provision is most likely to increase employability and reduce the risk of re-offending. The Learning and Skills Council has stated its intention to commission independent research on the links between learning, skills and sustainable employment.
• Performance measurement and management need to be improved to ensure there is a shared motivation to facilitate offenders' attendance and take-up of opportunities which increase employability. Measures should cover whether offenders undertake and complete their identified learning, rather than measuring classroom occupation rates or prisoner learning hours. Indicators should include: learning/skills needs assessed; action plans met; quality of learning; progress towards attainment of milestones; and entering sustained employment. Ensuring that classes are full is not the same as ensuring prisoners attend the learning they are assessed as needing. Inappropriate or mis-matched learning/skills activity is an issue.
• The Adult Learning Inspectorate was incorporated into Ofsted in 2007. It reported an improvement in the quality of learning and skills provision in English prisons for the three years prior to roll-out of OLASS had continued. Most provision is found to be 'satisfactory' rather than good/outstanding.
• The key area of concern for NAO is inconsistency in recording needs, plans, milestones, progress and achievements. One-third of the sample of learning plans sampled did not specify the courses to be undertaken and less than half recorded progress made.
• There is limited information on offenders' views of OLASS, but a recent survey of prison learners in 18 prisons reported a generally high level of satisfactione.g. 81% satisfied overall, 85% satisfied with the quality of teaching and four in five believed that their course/training would help them get a job in future.

House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Inquiry

• The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published a critical account of OLASS in 2008, stating: 'In practice, the system has failed in almost every respect.' The UK Government responded that the Committee's report was based mainly on the National Audit Office review covering the earliest period of OLASS, since when a marked improvement had been made. Ministers reported nearly 40% of inmates had taken part in training in 2007-08 compared with less than 30% before 2006.

A3. Prison education in Norway

A report by the Norwegian Education & Research Ministry to the country's Parliament (2004-05) recommended various reforms to prison education and training which may have some relevance to the situation in Scotland. These include:

• More rotation of staff to ensure the supply of fresh ideas and expertise from the college sector, and a proper strategy for development of teaching competence (including some joint training with work instructors). Need to protect the strengths of the 'import' model and prevent the perception that staff are part of the prison (sliding into the 'self-sufficiency' model).
• Need for greater emphasis on short, occupationally-focused courses to lay the groundwork for continuing education/training post-release.
• Need to reduce the wide differences in provision between prisons.
• Learning content should accord with the abilities, aspirations and needs of inmates, not determined primarily by what teaching staff can offer.
• Thus, need for more validation of prior learning and testing work-related competence at an early stage. A national organisation for adult education and lifelong learning ( VOX) is regarded as a natural contributor to the further development of education and training.
• Need for greater cooperation between work and education staff, e.g. combined training in the prison kitchen.
• Bolster adapted education: inmates have widely varying capabilities for learning, including low IQ, mental disorders, learning disabilities and low concentration span. Need for individual and small group learning.
• ICT: the Norwegian Correctional Service has authorised internet and e-mail use in high-security prisons under certain conditions. Digital competence is considered a core skill. A national ICT Forum has been established with prison and educational stakeholders, focusing on technical solutions to minimise risks.
• Strengthen inter-agency cooperation: education providers are often not involved in planning for prisoners or in pre-release activities. Transfers to other prisons and liberations can occur without any information sharing in advance. National guidelines on transferring prisoners are required: account should be taken of whether inmates are undertaking an education or training course that might be hindered as a result of transfer.
• A lack of prison beds results in waiting times to enter prison in Norway. This time could be used more productively to start an education or training course that could be continued in prison and completed after release if appropriate.
• Need for structured plans to extend beyond the end of the sentence: interagency cooperation to provide targeted assistance for completion of courses started in custody. Make use of adult education centres as well as colleges.
• Special needs of foreign prisoners must be addressed following agreement by the European Council of Ministers. They must be offered educational opportunities on a par with other prisoners.
• The Ministry concludes: increasing the scope and quality of education and training may be a god investment over time. If this can help to rehabilitate only a small fraction of inmates, this would still be a good investment in terms of upfront costs and long-term benefits.

Other information on the Norwegian approach:

• Since the 1970s, the import model has been dominant in the prison system.
• Education and training policies are decided and financed nationally. A national coordinating group performs an advisory role, bringing together the Ministries of Justice and Education & Research. Funds for education as a whole are distributed by national government (Education Ministry). County authorities with prisons are allocated an additional sum for inmates. Authorities then delegate funding to education and training providers, usually colleges with a separate prison education department. Thus, it is county authorities which are responsible for supervising and monitoring education and training in prisons in their own counties.
• Training establishments get public subsidies for each apprentice, which can also be spent (via county authorities) on apprentice training in prison.
• Objectives for adult education and training in prison are the same as in the community;
• Average inmate educational levels were assessed as about 20 years behind those of the population as a whole (2000 levels cf 1980).
• A substantial majority of prisoners surveyed say they want to pursue education or training. In 2003, half of new inmates had not completed upper secondary schooling and a further 8% had not finished lower secondary. Just over one-third (37%) received some form of education and training, but closer to two-thirds (65%) expressed at least one educational aspiration. A large minority - almost three in ten - did not take part in such activity.
• Facilities are often poor, cramped, barely adequate and are an obstacle to efficient resource use.
• Library services are used much more in prison than in the public as a whole ( i.e. not simply more than the level of use the same inmates would make before entering prison).
• Follow-up is described as 'inadequate.' Follow-up classes are provided in 10 locations to allow continuation with education and training immediately after release. For example, the county authority in Oslo established an Adult Education Centre serving two prisons as well as offering follow-up classes after release. In 2003, more than 700 liberations interrupted education or training. However, a very high dropout rate is seen on release: only 4% attended follow-up courses and 3% continued in mainstream education).
• Evaluations conducted 2000-03: improving personal coping strategies, self-image and basic skills are considered more realistic educational goals than achieving rehabilitation through education.

• What is on offer is relatively stable and independent of inmate educational/training aspirations and needs. As found consistently in Scotland, the risk of the prison 'school' becoming isolated as contact with education institutions outside of prison may weaken when teachers don't circulate in and out of prison. Current strengths: stability, security and consistency of staff. Current weaknesses: staff miss out on mainstream professional development.

• If there are waiting lists for education, priority goes to young prisoners with the least education and those already involved in education having transferred between prisons. The scope for preventing re-offending is considered greatest among the young - thus, priority should be to adapt the curriculum and work on motivation among young offenders.
• Gender: women are more likely than men to take part in education, but have very few vocational opportunities available. This was the subject of a report to Norway's parliament in 1997-98.

A4. Other Nordic approaches to prison education and training