• Titan Prisons Consultation. Prisoners Education Trust Response

Having published its response to Lord Carter of Coles' Review of Prisons, the Government made a commitment to consult on the development of the Titan prison programme recommended by Lord Carter. This is the Prisoners Education Trust response to that consultation.

Introduction

1 The Trust’s expertise and experience

The Prisoners’ Education Trust (PET) works to promote, enable and support educational opportunities for prisoners. We do this through an awards programme which currently makes grants to over 2300 prisoners each year to enable them to take distance learning (DL) courses; and through developing support for distance learners by providing training within prisons and Young Offender Institutions for peer mentors. We also have a project entitled Offender Learning Matters, which aims to raise the profile of offender education and learning, encourage debate and influence policy-makers and the public.

It was in sorrow, rather than in anger, that we obtained a copy of the Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper, and identified 2 facts:

first, that there is no reference throughout the document to the provision of education or offender learning, which, according to our research, plays a significant role in rehabilitation and thus in the reduction of re-offending;
second, that despite the fact that PET are widely recognised as experts in the provision of distance learning for offenders in custody, those responsible for the distribution of the Consultation Paper did not include us in the distribution schedule.

It seems that offender learning and the appropriateness of the way in which education may be provided within a Titan prison (in contrast to a conventional establishment) was simply off the radar of those responsible for this Consultation.

The Trust is a specialist agency, working in the criminal justice system, focussing almost entirely on the educational needs of prisoners and on ensuring that learning opportunities are available to all prisoners. Our core belief is that education has the power to transform people and enable them to make different choices. The feedback received from some of the 15,000 prisoners we have funded since the Trust began deepens our conviction that access to learning, and progression in learning, are crucial elements in the process of change which leads offenders away from further crime. This reflects HMPS’ commitment to education as part of a pathway towards resettlement, but we believe that the potential of education in relation to personal change within offenders goes beyond employment criteria and re-conviction rates; it is about re-shaping lives.

As we hold two statutory funding contracts for education awards to prisoners, from DIUS and the LSC, we see ourselves as a partner organisation to HMPS. We work closely with prison education staff, and leverage in substantial voluntary funds to extend educational opportunities for prisoners. We regard our organisation as a key stakeholder in issues relating to prisoners and to the broader objective of reducing re-offending.

2 General comments on the Titan prisons Consultation Paper

The document provides a useful summary of the concept of Titan prisons, and locates this in the broader estates strategy. We note that the first 5 questions relate to this broader strategy, which does not necessarily relate to the proposed Titans. The questions then move on to address aspects of how Titans could work most effectively. Hence the questions do not address the crucial issue; whether Titans are a suitable or potentially effective way to achieve the Government’s overall stated priority of reducing re-offending as well as protecting the public. The case made for Titans relates entirely to their potential to achieve cost savings through centralised services, economies of scale, the use of new technologies and modernised working practices. Whilst these may all be desirable, they do not, in themselves, explain how any impact may be made on the broader objective of reducing re-offending.

A strategic approach to estates management that genuinely prioritised reducing re-offending, alongside protection of the public, would discuss quite different questions. These might include consideration of what models of provision most assist strategies to reduce re-offending; and meet a wider range of offender needs than present models can. Whilst Titan prisons may provide opportunities to answer both these questions through the new models they adopt, the consultation document does not demonstrate this. It does not have a consistent and determined focus on reducing re-offending.

3 General comments on Titan prisons as a concept

We are fundamentally apprehensive about the concept of Titan prisons. Our overall judgment is that the central objective of reducing re-offending and protecting the public would be better served by a more determined set of strategies to reduce the prison population. We believe that the risks associated with Titans – of more monolithic policies, tighter security constraints more broadly imposed, less local flexibility, more alienating physical surroundings etc – are unlikely to outweigh the potential advantages.

We support the criticism of the Titan prison concept expressed by the Justice Select Committee of the House of Commons; by the House of Lords in the debate introduced by Lord Ramsbotham, calling for a Royal Commission on Prisons before piecemeal and reactive development of the prison estate is introduced; or in the academic and authoritative study of Professor Carol Hedderman, published last month by the Centre for Crime & Justice Studies. We are entitled to assume that Government is well aware of each of them. Whether Government will heed them remains to be seen.

We note that the Consultation paper does not invite comments on whether or not Titans should go ahead; rather, it assumes that they will be built, and consults on aspects of the model and its design and implementation. We see this as a missed opportunity to seek a genuine and broad consensus about future models and provision of prisons and the implications for policies that impact on prison population issues.

Given this assumption, we seek in the comments below to look for the maximum benefit from the Titans concept and implementation, from our particular perspective. We would also propose an overall principle in relation to the potential of Titans; that the way in which they are implemented should enable measurable improvements in provision to meet offenders’ and prison estate and staff needs. This is not simply a matter of cost and efficiency; if Titans are to be justifiable, they must deliver more than can be delivered by other models of provision.

Response to Questions in Consultation Paper

1. Are the principles set out in this paper sufficient to inform the development of a strategic approach to the prison estate?

Before we offer proposed amendments to the principles in the Consultation Paper, it is worth recapitulating what they are.

Reducing reoffending and protecting the public. We can only agree.

Breaking the cycle of recidivism by treating the root causes of crime. No one believes that mere incarceration achieves this objective. At best incarceration merely achieves incapacitation.

Interventions that will help an offender to change should reflect the seriousness of his/her offence and the risk s/he poses. Fine words, but meaningless. An offender whose offending is attributable to mental illness does not need an intervention, but treatment. An offender whose offending relates to an addiction to substance abuse needs an intervention which tackles the addiction, irrespective of the gravity of the offending, since without it the offending will persist. And so on.

A custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public and reduce re-offending. Again, this is meaningless. The public is protected for the duration of the incapacitation; but no one now believes that a custodial sentence in itself reduces re-offending. The corollary of this proposition, and that means providing sufficient places to meet the volume of sentences handed down by the courts, identifies the logical inconsistency in the thinking. Merely because the Executive is obliged to provide sufficient custodial (and remand) places for those whom the courts require to be remanded in custody and committed to prison does not mean either that the public are being protected (save for the duration of the remand or the sentence), or that re-offending is reduced. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that short custodial sentences make bad people worse; and have no impact on reconviction rates.

These are our observations in relation to the principles expressed on pp15-16 of the Paper; but as we note above, they relate to the prison estate in general, and not to the concept of Titan prisons.

We would propose some specific amendments to the principles, as follows:

The principles should be more ambitious in relation to the core aim of reducing re-offending; under 'Offender Management’, they could speak not just of supporting resettlement and programmes but of maximising the potential of …
In the second point under Offender Management, it should require facilities to be adaptable to current and future need.
Reference should be made to developing closer relationships between prisons and the local communities in which they are situated.
Under ‘Conditions’, the principles should mention specific groups in need of specialised services, including women and older prisoners and prisoners with learning difficulties and disabilities.

2. How should we join up services, including between custody and community, to deliver integrated, end-to-end offender management to each segment?

There is an immense need to ensure services are joined up more coherently and effectively than at present. In regard to education, which is our area or expertise, we would suggest priority needs to be given to addressing the following issues:

Movement policy should be reviewed and amended; higher priority should be given to reducing churn, which has negative impacts on so many issues affecting offenders’ welfare and rehabilitation, and improving continuity. A large proportion of the problems with joining up services arise from movement and churn.
More priority should be given to enabling and supporting ‘through the gate’ work; the potential of voluntary and community organisations to become involved in this still needs more support; whilst many worthy principles have been set out in NOMS documents and elsewhere, there are still huge barriers, especially for smaller organisations.
In relation specifically to education, more attention should be focussed on learning progression after release; and on provision of IAG to support and enable this. Models such as Kensington and Chelsea College’s Transition Centre need replication elsewhere. Too many offenders are not finding their way into ‘Next Steps’ assistance; and such immediate support as is provided on release is still inadequate for many.
The issue of records and transfer of records within and across establishments needs to be addressed; systems still do not seem to work well or effectively. We note particularly with regard to education that records transfer is weak, often delayed or may not happen at all. The integration of education records within OASys also needs further work. Efficient electronic records systems and transfer are a key foundation for greater coherence in services.

3. How should we segment the offender population, particularly the prison population, in order to best protect the public, reduce re-offending, deliver value for money and align supply and demand?

We are particularly opposed to the proposal to use Titans for remand prisoners. There are only two locations (London, and Liverpool/Manchester) where a large number of remand prisoners could be held in sufficient proximity to crown courts to make a difference. Given that both city regions are highly developed already, it seems unlikely that sites can be found that facilitate both travel to court and family contact. If new court facilities are constructed on out of town sites, they in turn make access for witnesses, families and legal representatives much more difficult.

Segmentation needs to take into account various issues and needs, including security issues, health issues, gender and age specific needs, vulnerability etc. We would argue for ensuring that among the segmenting criteria, the differing educational needs of prisoners should be named and included. Segmenting practice should ensure that appropriate educational and training provision can be made alongside other needs and considerations. This includes, for example, ensuring that vulnerable prisoners and those in maximum security have access to the same standards of education and training as prisoners in different categories; that levels of IT access are varied according to categories; that access to support such as that provided by mentors is achievable; and other considerations.

4. Where should different segments be located when they are in custody and what should happen to them when they are there?

If Titan prisons are to be justified, they should deliver some measurable gains in relation to offender management. One such target could be to ensure that a significant proportion of offenders can stay in particular locations for longer, or that completion rates for offending behaviour programmes and educational courses are higher, because movement is reduced. At present, re-location and ‘churn’ are a major barrier to course completion and thus work against the potential of education in rehabilitation.

In regard to location, it is unclear whether this means within each establishment or across the estate; clearly location should be governed by a similar range of issues, and we would argue for including as a location priority factor, the potential for access to specific educational provision, whether inside prison or at external facilities.

If Titans work as multi-functional clusters, there could be potential to develop far more effective practice in meeting varied needs on one site. If, as implied, Titan prisons achieve cost and efficiency savings, the savings made should be used to ensure that broader provision for a wider range of needs is available and managed flexibly.

5. How do we efficiently commission these services, so that they are both integrated and cost effective?

We are not experts in this area; and we note that OLASS provision indicates that geographical proximity is not necessarily a crucial factor for externally commissioned services; what matters more is the range, depth and quality of what is provided.

However, we would argue strongly that commissioning policy should ensure that smaller voluntary organisations (VCOs) are not excluded from getting involved. NOMS has made good progress in developing principles and frameworks for enabling closer partnership between VCOs and criminal justice provision, but systems for making this happen in practice still tend to assume larger organisations. In relation to OLASS provision for example, the LSC E-tendering system is almost impossible for smaller organisations to use effectively. We recommend that in relevant commissioning areas, specifically including education, those tendering for major contracts should be required to include a specific proportion of VCOs as partners and sub-contractors in their bids.

Whilst cost-effectiveness is desirable, and centralised provision may make sense, care should be taken to retain space for small and local initiatives which may not fit into larger or centralised models but which may make crucial contributions in areas such as education, training and resettlement.

6. Which model for the integration of Titans into a wider strategy might be the most appropriate? Multi-functional ‘clusters’ linked to local and regional need or more national specialisation?

From an educational point of view, multi-functional clusters are clearly preferable, as they allow for a range of diverse needs to be met by varied provision; and provide the largest opportunity to avoid the disadvantages of large scale institutions, whilst capitalising on some potential benefits.

PET would be willing to assist further in the development of the design specification, principally in relation to educational provision.

7. Would there be advantage in describing the proposed prisons as 'cluster prisons' as this would better capture the Government’s intent?

Yes; but only if this is indeed an accurate description of what is intended and provided. We note that the Titan prison concept has already had a bad press and gained negative reactions; any further development of terminology must reflect accurately a set of serious commitments to a model, based on arguments which take account of issues raised in this consultation.

8 & 9. What services might best be shared? & Whether Titans present particular integration issues or opportunities for other service providers?

Under these two questions, we outline our proposal for how education and learning should operate in Titan prisons.

Teaching staff numbers, classrooms, libraries and education budgets should be sufficient for the maximum numbers of offenders that the particular Titan might accommodate, and should take into account their diverse educational needs and abilities. The aim should be to achieve a higher proportion of prisoners engaged in education than is presently the case. At present, around 25% of prisoners attend some education; we would suggest a target of 40% engaged in education; with at least 10% engaged in distance learning.
The range of subjects, levels and courses available within each cluster/Titan should be broader than available in a current medium/large prison; the cost and efficiency savings should be used to fund this and other expansions of educational facilities set out below.
Built–in IT access as required for education should be provided in some designated cells, which should be available within the IEP regime to enhanced prisoners, with suitable contracts governing the use of IT.
IT - specifically intranet provision and/or safe web access – should be built into some education rooms.
There must be provision so that vulnerable prisoners may learn in a safe environment.
IT and other mechanisms should be used to find better ways to enable movement between cell blocks and education facilities.
The location of education facilities within the perimeter, and the level of the attendant security, require careful thinking through. A key determinant of where physical education resources – e.g. classrooms and equipment – are located should be ease and certainty of access for their intended users. There might be some attractions, such as economies of scale, in centralising all or some of the education provision for a Titan as a whole. But if it were necessary to subject all of that provision to a high-security regime, because of a minority of high-security prisoners, and if that regime would therefore restrict the learning opportunities of others, then it would seem better to locate education provision with or within the accommodation blocks, differentiated by security classification. We observe there that substantial professional and other staff human resources, and substantial infrastructural resources, would be needed in order to deliver proper educational services for a custodial population of c. 2,500.
The roles of the Education Manager and the Head of Learning and Skills will need review, given the scale of both posts in a Titan prison environment. The HOLS should already be a member of the prison SMT and thought should be given to whether the Education Manager post needs also to be an SMT level post.
New ways of working and new technology should ensure more effective keeping and sharing of educational records.
Security regimes should facilitate access for local, regional and national voluntary projects that can contribute to, and enhance, educational provision and support more successful outcomes to learning. Access, via restricted email in a supervised IT environment as well as face-to-face, should also be facilitated for distance learning tutors, including, but not restricted to, OU tutors.
Proven support mechanisms such as peer mentoring should be part of the educational offer for all offenders.

10. Whether our operating principles are right?

The Consultation Paper states that a Titan development should provide at least 2,100 uncrowded places, with the capacity to hold up to 2,500 prisoners through planned overcrowding. It would be vital in all relevant planning to work with the lower of these two figures, and appalling to make the operational planning assumption that the higher occupancy figure was not a rare exception but the expected norm. If a prison is planned to hold 2,500 offenders, it should be built to accommodate that number. Planned overcrowding is one of the major causes of operational failure within prisons. We oppose the concept of planned overcrowding.

We would also propose adding a further core principle specific to Titans/cluster prisons; that the size of site, and operational systems used, in a Titan/cluster establishment should generate measurable and demonstrable service improvements in comparison with a smaller/single establishment.

11. What are the design issues for operating within our proposed core principles?

We comment in relation to educational and training provision; the design issues include the following:

Ensuring adequate classroom provision for an increased proportion of prisoners to engage in education.
Ensuring that workshops or industries, and other parts of the prison used for work which includes training, have adequate facilities for that training.
Ensuring that IT access for learning, as well as for resettlement purposes, is built into appropriate parts of the prison.
Ensuring that movement systems and other internal processes enable maximum access to learning facilities and support, including libraries, IT, peer mentoring etc.

The major challenge which would need to be resolved if a cluster model is developed is how to co-ordinate access to any centralised services for different security regimes; it is imperative that Cat D and C offenders should not be restricted in access because they share a cluster site with Cat A or B prisoners.

12. What are the implications of our operating principles for the types of regime that should operate?

The operating model and associated principles set out on page 27 of the consultation paper make no explicit mention of education or rehabilitation. Both are crucial dimensions of an effective regime that aims at what principle 5 covers; maximising opportunities to reduce re-offending. The design brief, when formulated, should be explicit about education in the principles, as it is about health.

13. How can the deployment, development and management of staff support our operating principles?

The staffing systems should aim to achieve the closest possible integration of the education and other specialists (e.g. health) with the custodial staff, to deliver a regime which facilitates the rehabilitation of prisoners and recognises the importance and potential of education in this regard. As education is provided via OLASS, with education staff externally employed, there is a significant risk of gaps in understanding and communication between them and other prison staff.

In relation to education staff, both those contracted via an OLASS provider, and those supplying training in other parts of the prison, we would argue for more attention to ensuring that the salaries available are competitive and attract high quality applicants; and that workforce development and continuing professional development are given budgeted resources and time.

GW/PH/PJ/CM/JS
Prisoners Education Trust
August 2008