adult education in prison - agence-erasmus.fr la prison uk.pdf · adult education in prison ......

Septembre 2008 / Mars 2009

Impact survey of projects co-financed by GRUNDTVIG

and ordered by EUROPE EDUCATION FORMATION FRANCE Agency

Adult Education in Prison A fallow waiting to be grown...

Euro-Compétences et Initiatives pour le Développement de l’Entrepreneuriat Solidaire 26 Bourg Nord 33125 LE TUZAN [France]

Cell. +33 6 11 72 92 54 - Tel. Fax + 33 5 56 65 35 11

www.euro-cides.eu - [email protected]

Siret 433 540 549 00014 - APE 9499 Z - Agrément CF n° 72330569033

Impact survey of projects co-financed by GRUNDTVIG under the them of Adult Education in Prison

September 2008 / March 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu

Prologue

The writing of a « report » is an exercise of style which

cannot reproduce the size of the undertaking of this impact survey.

In order to respect the rules of form and background,

and to share our analysis with you, we have chosen a methodical presentation, in

other words, what was a labyrinth and exploration for us, has been presented as

a commentated visit.

Impact survey of projects co-financed by GRUNDTVIG under the theme of Adult Education in Prison

September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 1

Part 1

Background, Framework and

Semantic


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 2

Perimeter of the Terminology

A Context…

In 1957, the agreements which make up the Treaty of Rome create essentially an

economic type of union in which social protection (including educational and learning

dimensions) did not belong.

It is on the 16th November 1971 that the first meeting of Ministers of Education took place

with the theme of “Development of a cooperation in education”. Thereafter came :

• 1974, the EU’s first attempt at creating an information network for educational

systems (EURYDICE 19761).

• The first programme for study visits in the field of education (ARION 1978)

• The Treaty of Maastricht (1993) a legal base of different community activities

within the domain of education…one of which being the launching of the

SOCRATES (1995) programme.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 3

A Right proclaimed by the supranational authorities…

In 1990, the High Commission of the United Nations for Human Rights publishes the

Principles on which are based the treatment of detainees (Resolution 45/111, 14th

December).

More recently, in 2006, the Ministerial Committee of the Council of Europe introduces a

referential frame for education and training in prisons in the different European

countries: the R (06) 2 which follows the R (89) 12 1 adopted by the Committee of

Ministers on the 13th October 1989 and which recommends :

…>>> each detainee must be given access to an education that includes basic instruction, professional training, creative and cultural activities, physical education and sports, social education and the possibility to use a library…<<<

1 The complete presentation of the R (89) 12 written by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1990 can be consulted on

http://www.epea.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=139. It would be beneficial to periodically bring it to the attention of the decision makers, acting and professional, or at least have it read by the concerned parties and partners of projects developed within this thematic field.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 4

The concept of a life-long education is not European ; it emerges chronologically from

UNESCO, then from the OCDE and, later, from the European Union despite education

not being one of its main areas of expertise.

The member states are fully responsible for the content and the organization of their

own education systems and training and it is not the Union’s role to harmonise

legislations and rules in this area. At the same time, there are however specific strategic

functions, linked to lifelong education and training, which require the intervention of the

Community. The first challenge is to ensure that the member states preserve the

freedom to develop their own coherent strategies and to create and manage their

own systems whilst advancing together in the same Management… in a coherent,

coordinated and economic manner.

It is in this way that the European Union recommends and supports community action

programmes (PAC) and/or community initiative programmes (PIC) without however

legislating in the area of education. In fact, inter-governmental dialogue on the theme

of education really only started after the (first) summit of Lisbon in 2000 (2003/2004 for

the first effects) whilst the strategy of Lisbon (also called the European Strategy for

Employment) allows the Member States take the responsibility for national education

choices ; the establishment of priorities, in this area, is their only concern.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 5

… the Facts

Education, be it basic, specialized, professional, in culture, health, sport, society…using

formal 2, non formal 3 and informal 4 means (ref. European Advisory-Summary 04.2004)

and available to citizens in an environment dedicated to these individual types of

learning, must be accessible to everyone, condemned or remanded, during the time of

their sentence.

The right to attend is individual; there should be no particular advantages for attending

a certain type of course.

2 Formal learning : is dispensed in an organized and structured context ; it is usually rewarded with a

certificate/recognition. 3 Non formal learning : it is integrated into planned activities which are not always identified as learning activities ; it is not

usually rewarded with a certificate. 4 Informal learning : learning through every day activities, it is neither organised, structured in terms of training objectives,

nor formalised in terms of time and/or resources. In the texts translated into English, it is called “experience learning”


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 6

On this subject, on the 21st November 2001, the Commission also published a

communication called “Livre Blanc 2001” 5, a number of definitions, ideas and concepts

which is of particular interest to us.

We refer first to this very synthetic definition which, whilst conserving the ideas of

UNESCO and then the OCDE, reconfirms the central role of the learner.

…>>>each learning activity at any time of life, in the aim of improving knowledge, qualifications and skills, in a perspective that is personal, civil, social and/or linked to employment…<<<

Following are the concepts and titles which make particular sense in the penitentiary

environment, for example, learning community 6, local centre for learning 7, potential

learner 8, learning mediator 9, governorship 10, as many terms as possible, in the following

extract (ref.”White Book 2001”),

…>>>the first component features a partnership. All concerned parties, whether within or outside of the formal systems, must cooperate so the systems are effective “on the field”. The following stage consists in identifying the learner’s needs (or the potential learner), as well as the needs in terms of education and training of the organizations, communities, society in a wider sense and the work market. The next step is to define adequate resources…and the way to ensure efficient and transparent distribution. Following this, education and training propositions must be adapted to the needs and interests of the learners and a means to facilitate access must be found, which means the development of a proposal permitting each individual to learn where he/she wants, when he/she wants. It is important that the formal education and training sector recognizes and valorizes non formal and informal learning. The creation of a learning culture ultimately depends on the expansion of educational and training possibilities, a rise in the level of participation and stimulation of the demand for education and training…<<<

5 Livre Blanc 2001 “Create a European space for lifetime education and training”. 6A community which creates a learning culture through developing an effective cooperation between all the

participants who support and motivate the individuals and the organizations participating in learning actions. 7Territory in which all of the participants collaborate in order to satisfy the specific local needs in terms of learning and

putting in place common solutions to common problems. 8 The term “Potential learner” applies to people who cannot actively learn, for example because access to possibilities of

education and training is difficult or because they are no longer used to learning. 9 All individuals involved in facilitating learning and skills through creating a suitable environment, including people

excercising the role of teacher, trainer or guide. The mediator not only helps the learner in the development of knowledge and skills but also -provides instructions, comments and advice throughout the learning process.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 7

The specific framework of the impact survey on projects financially

aided by the GRUNDTVIG action within the SOCRATES programme

The European lifelong education and training programme uses the Grundtvig

programme for adult education to support cooperation and experience exchange,

therefore improving the quality of offers of adult education throughout Europe.

Education is a process which continues throughout life, at any age, anywhere. Adults

go back to studying for various reasons. Formal, non formal and informal education in

prison fits into the perspective that education is for a lifetime, detainees must, during

their imprisonment, be allowed to experience social, professional or cultural learning.

Education in prison is the initiation or the pursuit of continuous formal and informal

learning.

The general objective of the study is to analyse the impact of projects, co-financed by

the European Union, aimed at a public which is identified by the individual projects and

the systems of education and training, and to establish recommendations of action to

be taken to promote the Grundtvig programme.

10 Means of organization and management involving the interaction of traditional political authorities, the civil society,

players from the private sector, public organizations and citizens.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 8

The study should :

- Identify the participants and the networks of education in prison in France and in

Europe within the framework of lifelong education and training in Europe.

- Analyse the contribution and benefit of an international approach or view

national or regional approaches.

It must also :

- Analyse the manpower impact and potential from the point of view of the

concerned public, the potential users who will benefit directly from the results,

and local and international partners.

- Analyse different strategies of diffusion and transfer of the results of the projects

and if necessary, develop recommendations.

Finally, the study must result in recommendations, propositions of action to promote the

Grundtvig programme in 2009 in order to incite new projects within the field of

education for adults in prison, action which will depend on the concerned parties and

relevant networks.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 9

European Penitentiary Rules 11 (EPR)

Adopted by France and the members of the European Council on the 11th January

2006 (the second revision after 1973 and 1987), the EPRs aim at synchronising

penitentiary politics within the member States and enforcing common norms and

methods ; they define a set of principles which guide the action of the public

penitentiary service.

They follow the transcription of a recommendation emanating from the Committee of

Ministers which states :

…>>> the enforcement of sentences depriving freedom and the retention of prisoners necessitates certain measures of security, safety and discipline and must, at the same time, ensure detention conditions which do not infringe on human dignity and must offer constructive activities as well as a system which ensures preparation for their reintegration into society…<<<


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu 10

Education :

What can be read in the 108 European Penitentiary Rules ?

Rule 6

Each detention is managed in a way which will facilitate the reintegration into free society of people who have been deprived of their freedom.

Quote 12

Rule 6 recognises that detainees, whether or not

condemned, will one day return to live in free society and

that life in prison must be organised in function of this.

Prisoners must be maintained physically and mentally

healthy and be able to work and study. In the case of

long sentences, this aspect of prison life needs to be

carefully planned in order to reduce to a minimum the

negative implications of imprisonment and to enable

prisoners to constructively use their time in prison.

Rule 7

Cooperation with external social services and, as much as possible, the participation of civil society must be encouraged.

Quote

Rule 7 insists on the importance of implicating external

social services within prisons. The European penitentiary

rules must encourage a policy of inclusion rather than

exclusion. To do this it is imperative to promote a direct

collaboration between the penitentiary centre and the

external social services and to involve civil society, for

example, volunteers visiting the prison.

Rule 16

As soon as possible following admission :

… concerning the condemned prisoners, certain measures must be taken to establish programmes as indicated in part VIII of the present rules.

Quote

… It is also necessary to rapidly establish programmes

concerning the handling and training of condemned

prisoners.

11 http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/108_rpe.pdf The EPRs are recommended by the Member States Committee of Ministers 12 The quotes were adopted by the European Council


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 24.10 Detainees must be allowed to inform themselves regularly of public news, by subscribing themselves and reading daily newspapers, magazines and other publications, and by following radio and television programmes, unless it has been forbidden by a judicial authority in an individual case or for a specified length of time.

Rule 24.12

Detainees must be allowed to communicate with journalists, unless there are reasons not to do so for the sake of security and safety, public interest or protection of victims, other detainees or personnel. 13

Quote

The loss of freedom does not necessarily lead to the loss

of contact with the outside world. On the contrary,

each detainee has the right to certain contact and the

penitentiary authorities are obliged to create

conditions which enable them to keep this contact as

much as possible. Traditionally, this contact is in the

form of letters, phone calls and visits, but the

penitentiary authorities need to be aware of new

means of communication such as electronically,

enabled by modern technology. Practically speaking,

restrictions vary according to the type of

communication allowed. Letters and, thanks to

modern technology, telephone conversations are easy

to control. Electronic communication, such as emails, is

a higher security risk and access to this means must be

kept to a reduced number of detainees.

Rule 26.16 Detainees must be allowed to take at least one day of rest per week and sufficient time to learn and participate in other activities.

Rule 27.6 Recreational activities – such as sport, games, cultural activities, hobbies and active pastimes – must be offered to detainees who must, as much as possible, be allowed to organise them.

13 On the 11.01.2006, the Rule 24.12 had not yet been recognised by French law (ref.

http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/l’application_rpe.pdf). In the actual texts, people placed in temporary detention


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 27.7

Detainees must be allowed to gather for group physical exercise and participation in recreational activities.

Quote

Possibilities of physical exercise and recreational activities

must be offered to detainees and not only within the frame

of handling and training programmes for condemned

detainees, but these activities must not be obligatory.

Organisation of sports and recreational activities is an ideal

means for detainees to participate in an important aspect

of prison life and to help them develop their social and

interpersonal skills.

Rule 28.1 All prisons must give detainees access to teaching programmes that are as complete as possible and that are adapted to their individual needs, taking into account their aspirations.

Rule 28.2 Priority must be given to prisoners who cannot read or count and those who have no basic education or professional training.

Rule 28.3 Particular attention must be paid to the education of young detainees and those with special needs.

Rule 28.4 Instruction must, from a point of view of prison routine, be considered along the same lines as work and detainees must not be penalised, either financially or otherwise, for their participation in educational activities.

Rule 28.5 Each establishment must be equipped with a library which can be used by all of the detainees, providing a satisfactory range of various resources, both recreational and educational, in the form of books or other sources.

and detainees in a house of correction are not authorised to telephone. Any possibility of direct communication with the media is not actually foreseen in the texts. The only implicitly recognised possibility is that of correspondence.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 28.6

Wherever possible, the prison library must be organised as a public library.

Quote

Penitentiary authorities must pay particular attention to the

education of young prisoners and those with special learning

requirements, ie., foreign prisoners, handicapped people or

others.

The rule underlines the necessity for penitentiary authorities to

respond to prisoners who have with learning material and to

integrate the instruction of detainees in the public education

system.

When detainees obtain a formal qualification during their

imprisonment, it is important that it is not mentioned on the

qualification where it was obtained.

The library must be considered as a tool to be used by all

detainees and as an important recreational activitity. It plays an

important part in the education of prisoners. It should be suitably

equipped and offer books in the various languages read by

prisoners. The library should also enable prisoners to consult legal

texts and, in particular, the European penitentiary rules and

other similar tools, as well as the diverse regulations which apply

to life in prison.

Other materials could be stored electronically in the library.

Rule 28.7 Where possible, instruction of prisoners :

a) must be integrated in a public education and professional training system, in order to enable the prisoners to easily continue their education and professional training upon leaving prison ; and b) must be dispensed, under the aegis of external educational establishments.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 50

Under the reserve of the necessity of good order, safety and security, detainees must be authorised to ask questions relative to the general conditions of their detention and must be encouraged to talk to the penitentiary authorities about this subject. 14

Quote

…It is down to national penitentiary administrations to decide

upon the type of communication between detainees.

Certain administrations can allow their prisoners to elect

representatives and create councils apt to communicate the

wishes and interests of their fellow prisoners. Once prisoners

are granted the right to an association, in whichever type of

form, the penitentiary personnel and administration must

ensure that representatives of the association are unable to

influence other prisoners…

Rule 72.3 The duties of prison personnel go beyond that of simple guardians and they need to take into account the necessity of facilitating detainees’ reinsertion into society at the end of their sentence, through the use of a positive programme of guidance and help.

Rule 83 Penitentiary authorities promote methods of organisation and their own management systems :

… b. to facilitate good communication between prisons and the different categories of personnel within these prisons and the good coordination of all services – internal and external – which ensure the services necessary for prisoners, particularly concerning care and their reinsertion.

Rule 89.1

Personnel must consist of, where possible, a sufficient number of specialists such as psychiatrists, psychologists, technical instructors, teachers or physical education and sporting monitors.

Quote

If prisons are to fill their functions and facilitate the

reinsertion of prisoners, they need to have an

adequate supply of specialised personnel. The

specialists must work alongside personnel who

guard the prisoners and in a complementary

manner.

14 On the 11.01.2006, Rule 50 is not recognised by French law. In internal law, detainee group expression does not exist.

(ref. http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/l’application_rpe.pdf).


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 89.2

Part time assistants and volunteers must be encouraged to contribute, as much as possible, to activities with the prisoners.

Quote

Given that nearly all prisoners reintegrate

one day into society, it is important that

volunteers from this society participate in

activities proposed to detainees.

Rule 90.2 Penitentiary authorities must encourage members of civil society to volunteer to help in prisons, when this is appropriate.

Rule 99

Unless a legal authority has, in an individual case, pronounced a specific prohibition for a given time, the prisoners :

a. must be able to receive visits and be allowed to communicate with their family and other people in the same conditions as those for condemned prisoners, b. must receive supplementary visits and have easy access to other forms of communication, c. must have access to books, newspapers and other means of information. 15

Quote

This rule underlines that the

restrictions concerning contact

with the outside world must be the

least restraining possible in the

case of prisoners. This rule must

be read in the context of Rule 24.

Rule 103.2 As soon as possible following admission, a complete report must be written on the condemned detainee describing his/her personal situation, the foreseen sentence that has been given and a strategy to prepare for departure from prison.

15 On the 11.01.2006 Rule 99 is not recognised by French law (ref.

http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/l’application_rpe.pdf). The texts state that people placed in provisional detention and detainees in houses of correction are not authorised to telephone. The possibility of direct communication with the media is not presently foreseen by the texts. The only implicitly recognised possibility is that of correspondence.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 103.3

Condemned detainees must be encouraged to participate in the planning of projects for themselves for the duration of their imprisonment.

Quote

…It is necessary to plan their handling and

training sufficiently early to enable them to

participate in the planning of their period

in prison in order to gain a maximum from

the programmes and facilities proposed…

Rule 103.4 The project must, in as far as possible, foresee :

a. a job ; b. training ; c. other activities ; and d. preparation for liberation.

Rule 104.2

Procedures must be developed to establish and regularly revise prisoners’ individual projects by examining their files and consulting with concerned personnel and, whenever possible, with the participation of the individual prisoners.

Quote

Upon the arrival to prison of detainees who

are being transferred, their individual

projects must be modified in order to take

into account any necessary changes.

Rule 105.4 Whilst condemned detainees participate in educational or other programmes during working hours, within the frame of their planned routine, they must be remunerated as if they are working.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Rule 106.1 A systematic educational programme, which includes the upkeep of previously acquired knowledge and the expansion on a global level of prisoner training, as well as their ability to lead a responsible and crime-free life, must constitute an essential part of the condemned prisoners’ programme.

Rule 106.2 All condemned detainees must be encouraged to participate in educational and training programmes.

Rule 106.3

The educational programmes for condemned detainees must be adapted to the length of their prison sentence.

Quote

Rule 106 underlines the central role of

education and vocatios in the detainees’

programmes and insists on the obligation

for penitentiary authorities to establish

adequate educational programmes and

encourage prisoners to participate in

them.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The “Education” act in the N.F.S. 16 GRUNDTVIG sense

The pastor and Danish writer, Grundtvig is considered as the “founder of adult

education” in the Nordic countries. He is at the origin of fundamental pedagogical

ideas which led to the creation of the folkloric school movement : the “folkehojskole”.

For Grundtvig, knowledge is indispensable to personal development and all citizens

must have access to education throughout life, at all ages, in all places.

Education is not just limited to school and the organisation of adult education differs

from one country to another, even within the European Union, and includes a wide

variety of situations. The main players in adult education are formal institutions (schools,

universities), non formal (associations, libraries, museums, parents organisations,…) even

non-formal (prison visitors, for example) because adults choose to take up education for

different and varied reasons (personal development, recognition of success, access to

employment or training, etc).

16 N.F.S. GRUNDTVIG Nikolaj Frederik Severin GRUNDTVIG (08.09.1783 – 02.09.1872)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


At the same time, the Grundtvig action pays particular attention to those who have

particular difficulties in obtaining education : because they live in disadvantaged or

isolated areas, because they are living in difficult social situations or have only limited

basic knowledge.

The intentions of the Grundtvig action are to give the opportunity of a second chance

to adults (younger) excluded from the schooling system, by helping them obtain basic

notions, by giving them self-confidence, or by recognising certain skills or aptitudes

obtained other than in a school environment.

The pillars of the education system, as seen by Grundtvig, were those of school for life

and of school for a passion, two concepts largely inspired by systems developed,

already at that time, in three Scandinavian countries which were Finland, Norway and

Sweden and which believed in a vision of obtaining knowledge from a wide range of

means. At this time, already, educational favoured knowledge, identification and

equality supported by the notions of freedom, cooperation and discovery.

1. To be “Adult” in the GRUNDTVIG sense

Within the specific context of Grundtvig actions, the definition of an “Adult” is described

as being “all persons no longer under the obligation of scolarity” 17.

17 In France, schooling is obligatory until 16 years of age


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


2. “Adult” in the context of the survey of the impact(s) on the theme of the

education of adults in prison

In the context of the survey of the impact(s) of projects co-financed by the UE under the

umbrella of the Grundtvig action on the theme of education for adults in prison, two

parameters are interlaced :

� the definition of the adult as described in point 1 on the previous page,

� the definition placed in the care of justice in penitentiary establishments

• for defendants and detainees of age (MA, CD, CP, MC, CSL, CPA 18)

• for younger (minor) detainees (EPM 19, quarter for minors en CP) in

which minors still obliged to attend school can be found and minors of 16

to 18 years who no longer have this obligation.

As such, and at the date of writing this present report, ie., March 2009, the 16-18 year

olds are considered by the Penitentiary Administration as being minors, whereas within

the Grundtvig action, the 16-18 year olds are adults.

18 depends if they have been sentenced, or not ; depends also of the sentence’s length 19 … a new type of establishment for this specific public (6 were opened between June 2007 and April 2008)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The programmes having financially supported studies, productions

and training,… on the theme of Education for Adults in Prison

1. Community initiative programmes or operational programmes (other than

Grundtvig) can also be the support to studies on the theme of education for

adults in prison.

At this stage, it is important to point out that in France Education and Training are

considered as separate entities, whereas in many other foreign nations the word

Education is often used in a more general sense (in other words it includes Training). The

LEONARDO programme, entirely dedicated to professional training, was therefore not

taken into consideration in this impact(s) survey despite the fact that it co-financed

projects developed in the penitentiary environment.

At this stage, excepting the fact that the majority of modules dispensed in the

penitentiary environment and co-financed by the European Social Fund during the

2000-2006 programme (eg., refresher courses, personalised pedagogic workshops,

reinsertion preparation programmes,…) there are very few projects or project axes on

the theme of Education for adults in prison which have been financially Leadered within

the frame of the FSE Objective 3 or the EQUAL programme.

A programme such as “e-learning” could very well be a project to co-finance but as yet

it is not, at least for the moment; we will return of course to the question of new

technology.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


2. GRUNDTVIG actions

Throughout the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 (currently running) progammes, each of the 4

GRUNDTVIG actions was a frame of individual and group projects on the theme of

Education for Adults in Prison. The action :

- Grundtvig 3 “Individual Grants”. This section essentially enabled professionals,

from non-formal education organised as an association, to participate in training

courses in the domain of theatre, body awareness, verbal expression, role

playing,… A single grant (amongst those included in the survey) enabled an

associative mandate, RLE 20 in a penitentiary establishment, to participate in the

11th international conference for Education in Priso (Ireland, 2007).

- Grundtvig 4 “Educational Partners”. This is the section which, within the frame of

the survey, financially supported a significant number of projects, notably in the

area of theatre, parenting and reinsertion. The reason for the existence of these

partnerships is very often to compare, between one member country of the

European Union and another, the systems, dispositives, know-how, etc.

It is important to know that projects of the type Grundtvig 2 and Grundtvig 3 are

decentralised actions managed directly by the Agency Europe Education Formation

France (as opposed to the Grundtvig 1 and Grundtvig 4 type projects, centralised

actions managed in Brussels). Thus, and without forgetting projects selected on a

European level (Grundtvig 1 and 4), the survey led by the French Agency was aimed

more at GRUNDTVIG, type 2 and 3 projects cofinanced nationally.

20 Local representative for Education (National Education)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


- GRUNDTVIG 1 “Multilatteral Projects”. These projects are typically research-

action based, which require the participation of various partners developing,

beyond what is expected, experiments, the developing of tools, concept

elaboration, procedures…all leading to production. Whilst financed by the

European Commission in Brussels through the EACEA 21, several projects of the

GRUNDTVIG 1 type were included in the survey as the themes can be considered

as secondary education, from the VAE22 procedure (formal education) and

theatre (non formal education) aimed at people detained by the law and

imprisoned.

- GRUNDTVIG 4 “Network”. Projects of a more ambitious nature given that they

involve the constitution of a European network consisting of a partnership of

institutions/organisations working on the same theme. Centralised action

depending directly on the European Commission, the EACEA, a project was

identified which corresponded with the theme of the impact(s) survey and the

international partners were contacted (this project was not on the list of projects

to be studied that was communicated by the EEFF23 Agency, it was not included

in a direct interview).

21 EACEA for Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency 22 VAE for the Validation of Learning through Experience 23 EEFF Agency for Europe Education Formation France


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Part 2

Methodology, Agenda

and Practices


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Reminder of the 3 objectives in the charge of the EEFF Agency

Objective No.1

Outline : at this level, it is a question of identifying the players and the networks of

education of adults in prison, in France and in Europe, but the response shows us that

there are several levels of players and several types of networks, more than just the

documents that were supplied by the Agency to be used as analysis documents.

Objective No.2

In-depth analysis of the projects and their impact by means of in-situ explicatory

interviews, telephone conversations, questionnaires with the beneficiaries of the

projects, those directly affected by the results, local and national partners, but the main

question is how the analysis will have an impact or a potential impact on the public in

mind, the PPSMJ 24.

Objective No.3

Diffusion and putting into place of recommendations : it means inspiring new projects in

the field of education in prison by valorising, through meetings and communication with

the players and networks involved and the ways and means, different Managements of

thought, experimentation and achievement to be promoted in the short term.

24 PPSMJ, person placed in the hands of justice (detainee or condemned)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


To continue each phase of the survey and bring it to completion, the Agency foresaw,

in its agenda, to bring together a Leadership Committee throughout the entire period to

validate :

• the general objectives, work hypotheses and methodology,

• the progress of the work, the investigations carried out and their practical

details,

• the results of the survey.

The Survey : Methodology of the process

In the proposal for the survey, the provider’s offer was way higher than required to

better ensure the impacts whilst enlargening the field of investigation. In fact, as soon

as there was a response to the proposal, it seemed that the list of French projects having

obtained financial support from the E.U. under the umbrella of the Grundtvig

programme was insufficient to support the needs, notably for two points :

• the lack of reference to non-involved players directly implied in the

projects and necessary to the survey,

• the other European programmes that might have financed projects of the

same theme that could possibly be involved in the future.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


From these two observations, the proposition was formulated as follows :

1. elaborate a n°1 database consisting of all the penitentiary establishments in

France and overseas and to carry out an electronic questionnaire n°1 in order

to make an inventory of associated partners involved in education missions

(broadly speaking) in the penitentiary environment.

2. compose a n°2 database with the associated partners identified as having

returned the electronic questionnaire n°1 and develop an electronic

questionnaire n°2 to learn about their implication in projects, other than

Grundtvig programmes, having received financial support from the E.U.

3. interview on one hand, each participant, partner, French beneficiary of a

Grundtvig subsidy from the list supplied by the EEFF Agency and meet, on the

other hand, with the players, involved on different levels in the thematic of

education for adults in prison, whether institutional or in the public sector,

partners in the private sector, associated sectors,…”supported” or otherwise.

4. develop a n°3 database with the group of international participants and

partners of projects cofinanced by community funds (including all E.U. and

Grundtvig programmes) and develop an electronic questionnaire n°3 to

measure, amongst international players from different E.U. countries, the impact

of projects on national systems of education for adults in prison and also the

effects upon the different concerned European penitentiary centres.

5. identify, through communication, interviews, questionnaires and resource

documentaries, a group of players and coherent networks which could

highlight pertinent recommendations and Managements of work which would

be susceptible to being supported by European financing and capable of

enriching in the long run, divers and varied practices in the targeted domain.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Working Agenda

To be inserted, the agenda proposed by the impact survey in the market response.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The Practises : Gathering of Details and Programmes

Gap between the method and the practises : breaking, then “unblocking” of the DAP 25

Here we are presenting the major impediment that was apparent very soon after the

beginning of the survey and which almost instantaneously blocked everything, without

an immediate alternative, for three months 26 out of the six months that the survey

lasted.

It was not so much the sending of the electronic questionnaire n°1 to all of the

penitentiary establishments in France and overseas as the relaunching several days later

which put the breaks on the survey that had just begun. In fact, a certain number of

prison directors expressed astonishment to their Interregional Management of

Penitentiary Services 27 for having received, directly in their email boxes, a questionnaire

that they had not been informed about by the DAP or their DISP 28.

At the same time, we had already requested, through the DAP, a meeting which was

set up for the 03/12/2008 in Paris. The DAP accepted to continue with the meeting

whilst informing the people involved coming from penitentiary establishments

(management, teachers, professionals from concerned services) that it was forbidden

to complete our questionnaire. Contact with the penitentiary establishments was

suspended and the 5 responses that had been received were not sufficient for an

analysis, therefore it was necessary to start again and change the methods.

25 Penitentiary Administration at national level 26 from the 13/10 to the 03/12/2008 date of the appointment already set up and from the 03/12/2008 to the 15/01/2009

awaiting authorisation 27 Interregional Management of Penitentiary Services 28 the EEFF Agency, through the person responsible for the Grundtvig unit, was informed of the banning announced by

the DAP, with reference to the article 7.2 in the manual of particular technical clauses (CCTP)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The meeting on the 03/12/2008 in Paris went well despite everything because it was an

opportunity to exchange ideas constructively, the main criticism being that the EEFF

Agency had not taken the precaution to inform the DAP that it was launching an

impact survey when it was inevitable that there would be unavoidable cross-

checking.29

This incident was corrected by a letter sent by the EEFF to the DAP, a letter which

explained the running and details of the impact survey as well as communicating the list

of projects involved. On the 15/01/2009, the DAP sent a reply to the agency’s letter

(ref.copies attached), a letter which authorized the continuation of the work with some

“conditions” which have been respected (such as informing the affected DISP before

any communication with penitentiary establishments).

The impossibility to treat the direct replies from the penitentiary establishments

(electronic questionnaire n°1) brought about two effects that could not have been

envisaged at the launching of the project, in other words this :

• necessitated starting over with the European programmes (community

and structural) susceptible to supporting the theme of adult education in

prison, then to search in the data base for the compendiums and project

catalogues, to call upon the representatives of the PC 30 and the EACEA in

Brussels, to try to identify and then list those involved in national and/or

international movements, promotors and partners of projects and at the

same time those participating in courses and/or conferences.

29 As stipulated in the CCTP in its article 7.2 titled « communication of difficulties » the Grundtvig section of the EEFF

Agencies received, the same evening as the meeting with the DAP, a mail explaining their expectations and the announcement of a phone call with one of their representatives.

30 PC for Programme Cadre


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


• enabled, with the approval of the DAP, direct contact with 11 penitentiary

establishments (under the cover of the DISP) to measure from the inside

the support structures and personnel and supervision of the prisoners, the

impact of locally developed projects that have been financially

supported by the GRUNDTVIG movement.

This reorientation of action necessitated :

• Development of an adapted questionnaire which was sent by mail to the

directors and deputy directors of the 11 affected penitentiary

establishments, following individual phone calls to present the project.

• Cancelation of the phone calls planned following the dispatching of the

electronic questionnaire n°1, in order to receive the responses more

rapidly and not waste time at the beginning of the survey.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Interviews and Discussions 31

It is important to precise here how the interviews and discussions went, what happened

and the points of view of the players.

The appointments were made, more or less, a little over a month ahead of time and on

an individual basis grouped in slots to reduce travelling. For the beneficiaries of the G3

subsidy, and the promotors/partners of the projects, the dates for meetings were

organized unilaterally given the distances to be covered (Bordeaux, Dijon, Marseille,

Montpellier, Nancy, Nantes, Paris (3 times), Verdun).

Each interview or discussion was followed by an introductory email contact (often

repeated due to lack of response), which was then followed by a confirmation letter

sent by standard post.

Interviews with the promotors/partners of projects and the beneficiaries of Grundtvig

subsidies were organized, when they were numerous, in rooms that had been borrowed

or rented from organizations involved in the education or socio-medical fields :

sometimes, due to a local installation or an isolated project, they were carried out in the

structure being investigated.

31 by deliberate choice, justification for the correct us of the words interview and Discussion can be found on the pages 70 and 74


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


We note that it could have been interesting that, on the territories, the meetings be held

in the area’s penitentiary establishment with the support and supervision personnel,

along with the project representatives, but judging by the content of responses

obtained from penitentiary establishments, it is not certain that it would have been a

worthwhile exercise.

The interviews with the institution players and associated partners…were held within the

organization.

The interviews and discussions each began with a presentation of the Euro-CIDES

organization (missions, accomplishments) followed by an outline of the impact survey

and the context of the EEFF Agency’s requirements.

Then :

• for the interviews, we note that it could have been interesting that the

meetings be held in the area’s penitentiary establishment with the support

and supervision personnel, along with the project representatives, but

judging by the content of responses obtained from penitentiary

establishments, it is not certain that it would have been a worthwhile

exercise.

• for the discussions, exchanges were more directed towards the

presentation of missions, roles, means of intervention notably the benefits

for those placed in the hands of the law and in a penitentiary

establishment.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The different grids of interviews and discussions are in annex. It must be known

that they were never communicated to anyone ; they were there to be used as

a check-list for, if necessary and at the end of the discussion, to tidy up any loose

ends.

With the agreement of the interviewees, the interviews were recorded to make

the conversation clearer. Except for one, all the external participants were also

recorded ; in fact, in the context of the meeting with the DAP, it seemed pointless

to make a request. Only one project coordinator asked temporarily, and for a

short time, for the recording to be interrupted.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Programme of the Meetings

Marseille, 27 October 2008

Morning : Beneficiaries of individual subsidies (G3)

□ Blaise Bouayi, technical assistant for Lieux Fictifs

□ Jean-Luc Muratori, socio-cultural coordinator, prison of Baumettes

□ Jean-Gabriel Pelissier, activity coordinator, prison of Baumettes

□ Claire Rommelaere, actor with Alzhar

□ Dominique Secouet, GRETA Aix-Marseille, responsible for the media resource

centre in the prison of Baumettes

1 person was present

2 responded by email that they wouldn’t be present ; they however accepted

the principal of an interview by phone (only 1 person was interviewed by phone)

1 sent by email, on letterhead, a letter neither signed nor stamped saying that he

would not be available

1 left a message saying that he now lives in Paris

Afternoon : Project Promotors / Partners

□ Association Lieux fictifs (Projects « Teatrodentro » and « Audiovisual Education

and creation »)

□ Compagnie Alzhar (Project « Theatre and Education »)

Only one organization was present ; the other made no manifestation one way or

another


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Lisbon, 03-07 November 2008

Contact seminar “Education in prison”

Organized by the Portugese national agency PROALV

□ CNED (Project Euro DESIP - FR)

The other interviewees were all, with the exception of the English partner (ONG),

representatives of public administration or penitentiary services in EU member

states.

□ State Prison Renbaek (DK)

□ District Prison of southern Finland (FI)

□ Direcçao Geral dos Serviços Prisionais (PT)

□ HMP Wolds (UK)

□ Ministry of Justice of Rhineland-Palatinate (DE)

Paris, 20 November 2008

□ Observatoire International des Prisons

Paris, 21 November 2008

□ RACINE (intermediate organisation which leads the EQUAL projects)

Nantes, 28 November 2008

□ GRETA Nantes BTP (project « Sharing experiences about prisoners LLL and

Employment after releasing »)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Paris, 03 December 2008

□ GENEPI (Groupement Etudiant National d’Enseignement aux Personnes

Incarcérées)

□ Management de l’Administration Pénitentiaire (Bureau PMJ3)

□ Commission française pour l’UNESCO (Education in prisons in France)


Morning : Beneficiaries of individual subsidies (G3)

□ Delphine Boghos, Genepi teacher

□ Blaise Bouayi, technical assistant with Lieux fictifs

□ Claire Blain-Cramer, scriptwriter with Alzhar

□ Thierry Hanssens, teacher in the maison centrale de Poissy

□ Jules Perez, actor with Alzhar

1 person explained his absence by email and accepted the principal of a

telephone interview ; the other 4 did not turn up, nor excuse themselves.

Afternoon : Project Leaders/partners

□ Eurochips (Project « LEGAMI »)

□ Théatre du Fil (Project « Inside / Out »)

□ Théâtre de l’Opprimé (Project « Teatro e carcere in Europa »)

An organization made contact to explain that it could be present and accepted

a telephone interview ; the two others did not turn up, nor excuse themselves.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________



Meeting (instead of planned programme)

□ AUXILIA


□ ANVP (Association Nationale des Visiteurs de Prison)

Montpellier, 12 January 2009

□ CEMEA Languedoc Roussillon

Dijon, 13 January 2009

□ GRETA 21 (Partner of the project « Little stories, great hopes »)

Vandoeuvre les Nancy, 13 January 2009

□ ALAJI APRELOR (Partner of the project « Social inclusion of persons returned from

emprisonment»)

Verdun, 14 January 2009

□ GRETA Nord Meusien (Partner of the project « RESO »)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Paris, 15 and 16 January 2009

□ GEPSA (Groupe SUEZ – Mixed management of 15 penitentiary establishments,

31/12/2008)

□ BAN PUBLIC (Association of prisoners, ex-prisoners and families of prisoners)

□ Institut MONTAIGNE

□ CLIP (Club Informatique Pénitentiaire)

□ INS HEA (Institut National Supérieur Handicap et Enseignement Adapté)

Bordeaux, 10 February 2009

□ MPS (Partner of the project « le cœur ailleurs »)

Bordeaux, 18 February 2009

□ GIP FCIP Aquitaine (Leader of the project « VAE for people under penitentiary

measures)

Bordeaux, 09 March 2009

□ ACSMA Gradignan32

32 Association for Culture and Sport in prison


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Programming of telephone interviews

□ 05/02/2009 …. psychologist SMPR-UCSA33 en C. P. (anonymous)

□ 26/02/2009 BOGHOS Delphine, beneficiary of a subsidy G3, ex GENEPI

□ 06/03/2009 BAILLARD Denys, vice-director of studies, ENM34

□ 10/03/2009 CUNY Nathalie, pedagocial assistant, Univ. Paris Diderot – (SEE) 35

□ 11/03/2009 FERNANDEZ Hervé, General secretary, ANLCI36

□ 19/03/2009 … psychological aid in the penitentiary environment (anonymous)

□ 21/03/2009 ROMMELAERE Claire, actress, beneficiary of a subsidy G3

□ 22/03/2009 GAY Richard, Chaplain, Correction house of Gradignan

□ 24/03/2009 OLLION Jacques, Director of continuous learning ENAP37

□ 24/03/2009 LARRAYADIEU Sophie, CIP38, M. A. Gradignan

□ 27/03/2009 Meeting with DELANIS Didier, General Secretary CFDT 47

Programming of electronic documents

Electronic questionnaire n°1

For Penitentiary Establishments in France and Overseas

(ref. list in annex)

□ 2008/10/06-08 183 penitentiary establishments receive the survey

□ 2008/10/06-10 5 penitentiary establishments respond

□ 2008/10/13 170 questionnaires are relaunched

33 SMPR for Service Médico-Psychologique Régional et UCSA pour Unité de Consultation et de Soins Ambulatoires 34 ENM for Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature 35 SEE for Service des Etudiants Empêchés 36 ANLCI for Association Nationale de Lutte Contre l’Illettrisme 37 ENAP for Ecole Nationale d’Administration Pénitentiaire 38 CIP for Conseiller d’Insertion et de Probation


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Electronic questionnaire n°2 39

For actors deemed capable of contributing to the survey

□ 29/01/2009

� FNARS

� ARPEL Aquitaine

� GIP FCIP Alsace

� Association « Lire la ville »

� Correspondant ANPE Justice (09)

� DRPJJ (niveau national)

� SPIP Grand-Est

� Atelier Pédagogique Personnalisé (APP) Bayonne

� INSTEP 47

� AFPA 47

� Passerelle Formation (24)

02/03/2009 : having had no response from any organization/party/structure, an

email detailing expectations was again sent to each one with a questionnaire

attached.

On the 06/03/2009, an answer was returned to us but the representative had

confused Education and professional Training, therefore the document was

useless ; the other actors contacted never replied.

39 in the initial work proposition, this questionnaire should have been completed by a large panel of partners involved in

education projects in prison ; the break put on by the Penitentiary Administration prevented the penitentiary establishments from responding and therefore aiding the constitution of a specific database.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Electronic questionnaire n°3

To 145 promotors and partners of transnational projects on the theme of adult

education in prison (ref.list in annex)

From the list of projects co-financed by the EEFF Agency

� GRUNDTVIG 1

• « Teatro e carcere » with the Théâtre de l’Opprimé (2004)

• « Teatrodentro » with the association Lieux Fictifs (2004)

• « Euro DESIP » with the CNED (2005)

• « VAE for the PPSMJ » by the GIP FCIP Aquitaine (2005)

� GRUNDTVIG 2

• « social inclusion of persons returned from emprisonment » avec Alaji

Aprelor (2004 et 2005)

• « RESO » with the GRETA Nord Meusien (2006 et 2007)

• « Théâtre et Education » with the ALZHAR company (2007)

• « le cœur ailleurs » with the MPS (2007 et 2008)

• « Education and audiovisual creation » par Lieux fictifs (2007)

• « Inside / Out » with the Théâtre du fil (2007)

• « Sharing experiences about prisoners » by the GRETA Nantes (2008)

• « Little stories, great hopes » with the GRETA 21 (2008)

• « LEGAMI » with Eurochips (2008)

� GRUNDTVIG 3

• 8 subsidies for individual mobility (training) – 2006 et 2007

• 1 individual subsidy (international conference) - 2007


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


From research documents

� PIPELINE » (2005) – Grundtvig 1 – 9 partners TN 40

� « Model for supporting correctional training » (2003) – Grundtvig 1 – 8 partners TN

� « you also have a chance » (2003) – Grundtvig 1 – 6 partners TN

� « Another way » (2003) – Grundtvig 1 – 7 partners TN

� « MABEL » (2003) – 7 partners TN

� « Réalités, Pratiques et Collaborations pour l'Education dans les Prisons

Européennes » (2002) – Grundtvig 4 – 12 partners TN (dont 1 FR)

� « European reSetlement Training and Education for Prisoners » (2007) - Grundtvig 1 -

4 partners TN

� « Literacy and life skills in prison » (2006) - Grundtvig 2 - 4 partners TN

� « Visiting in prison » (2006) – Grundtvig 2 - 4 partners TN

� « PAN EUROPEAN Network » (2006) – Grundtvig 4

� « Improved Service Delivery in Prisoner Education » (2006) - Grundtvig 2 - 3 partners

TN

� « Arts in Prison » (2006) – Conference - 15 partners TN

� « Law through experience » (2004) – Grundtvig G11 – 4 partners TN

� « Law through experience » (2007) – Course in declination, Grundtvig G11 – NPNC

41 by the organiser GR

� « Law through experience » (2007) – Course in declination, Grundtvig Grundtvig

G11 – NPNC by the organiser SK

� « Changing prison » (2007) – Course - NPNC by the organiser IT

� « Non formal education in European prisons » (2007) – Course – NPNC by the

organiser DE

� « EPPLA : engaging prisoners in LLL activities » (2007) – Course– NPNC by the

organiser IT

� « the different dimensions of education in prison in Europe” (2007) – Course –

NPNC by the organiser RO

40 TN for Transnational 41 NPNC The list of participants has not been communicated by the project’s pilot


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The first dispatch was on the 4th and 5th February 2009 and produced 13 replies

A relaunch, on the 3rd March 2009, generated 2 supplementary responses

If the transnational partners had been more numerous to respond to the electronic

questionnaire n°3, it would have been interesting to observe the effects produced by

the two organized contact seminaries, by the national agencies, on the theme of Adult

education in prison. We remain, at this stage, without any vision of the number of

projects selected in 2006 which were proposed by the participants of the first seminar

(Lancaster, January 2006) ; as for the second seminar (Lisbon, November 2008), the

projects are being examined by the different national agencies (results expected for

the Summer of 2009).

Survey n°4 by electronic mail

� 6 letters were sent (as requested by the DAP and for information) to the

Interregional Management of Penitentiary Services (DISP) on the 27th January

2009 by standard post (ref.model in annex).

� 11 penitentiary establishments named in the projects on the list supplied by the

EEFF agency received the survey in three stages due to the school holidays which

differ by zone (09, 20 and 26/02/2009 – 8 were relaunched on the 02/03/2009).


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


These were :

� Prison of Ecrouves42 (54) – 1 projet 2004/2005

� Prison of Mauzac (24) – 2 projets 2007 et 2008

� Prison of Montmédy (55) – 2 projets 2004/2005 et 2006/2007

� Prison of Saint Mihiel (55) – 1 projet 2006/2007

� Penitentiary centre of43 Fresnes (94) – 1 projet 2007/2008

� Penitentiary centre of Marseille (13) – 2 projets 2007

� Penitentiary centre of Nantes (44) – 1 projet 2008

� Prison 44 of Digne les bains (04) – 1 projet 2008

� Prison of Epinal (88) – 1 projet 2004/2005

� Prison of Gradignan (33) – 2 projets 2005/2007 et 2008

� Prison of Dijon (21) – 1 projet 2008

At the end of the survey, and despite 2 reminders, ie., one by phone, only 3 penitentiary

establishments returned their questionnaire completed.

42 These prisons are for long period’ sentences 43 A penitentiary centre is an establishment which groups two penitentiary structure under the same roof 44 This is a penitentiary establishment for defendants and condemned prisoners for short sentences.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Other unaccomplished external solicitations

Legal and penitentiary environment

• two enforcement judges working with a House of Correction and a

Detention Centre

• a local representative for teaching in a Detention Centre

• a prison ward (qualified trainer) in a House of Correction

• a director of the SPIP 45

• an office representative PMJ2 (DAP)

• a general controller’s delegate in an establishment which deprives

freedom

Institutional and community environment

• a representative from the Information System service (management of

details FSE and EQUAL) from the Employment, Work and Industry Ministry

• the general director of a national association that accompanies released

detainees (social and professional insertion)

• a member of the “Prison” commission of the Human Rights League

• a representative from an association registered with the Local

Concertation Prison Group in Aquitaine

• the director of a service which provides support for prison at their release.

45 SPIP for Penitentiary Service for Insertion and Probation


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Scientific follow-up of the survey

In the workbook of particular technical clauses, the EEFF Agency was responsible for

organizing a piloting, throughout the survey, to validate the three phases. At the end, 4

times of output were organized.

Two follow-on meetings :

• the 13/10/2008 in the presence of Sandrine Dickel 46,

• the 12/11/2008 with Sandrine Dickel and Maude Sire 47.

A steering committee, the 20/01/2009 in the presence of :

* Christian Roger; deputy director, EEFF Agency

* Dominique Richard, specialized journalist, South West newspaper

* Sandrine Dickel and Maude Sire.

We note that these three periodic working sessions were contracted in the agenda

transmitted supporting the proposition of intervention for responses to the Agency’s

request.

46 Sandrine Dickel is the GRUNDTVIG service leader in the EEFF Agency 47 Maude Sire is a GRUNDTVIG technician in the EEFF Agency


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Upon the request of the Agency, a supplementary pilot committee was created on the

10/04/2009 and which included :

� Christian Roger, deputy director, EEFF Agency

� Catherine Girardat 48, Leonardo Unit, EEFF Agency

� Marie-Pierre CHALIMBAUD, Europass Unit, EEFF Agency

� Dominique Richard, specialized journalist, South West newspaper

� Sandrine Dickel and Maude Sire, Grundtvig Unit, EEFF Agency.

A letter from the DAP 49, on the 15/01/09, authorized the survey whilst expressing the wish

to be informed of the conclusions and recommendations. In response to this request

the EEFF Agency undertook a specific trip to Paris to meet the DAP 50 representatives.

48 Catherine Girardat and Marie-Pierre Chalimbaud are responsible for LEONARDO and EUROPASS units at EEFF Agency 49 in a letter dated the 15/01/2009 addressed to the EEFF Agency (already preceded by a verbal request during the

meeting of the 03/12/2008 in Paris and reiterated during a telephone conversation with the recipient in mid-February 2009)

50 the meeting was on the 07/05/2009 in Paris


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Part 3

A fallow...


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


What came out from the collected details?

The texts

From the texts and documentary sources (ref.list in annex), it is important to remember

certain details, including statistics, in order to clarify problems ; whilst they are not the

direct results of the survey, it is impossible to ignore them.

Firstly, in the European rating of treatment of prisoners, rating that goes beyond the

boarders of the EU, France holds the position of being one of the (very) worst.

“Dilapidated establishments, degrading conditions of imprisonment,..”

French prisons (on the date of 01/01/09) : 194 penitentiary establishments (all types), the

most recent being under mixed management or delegated (public / private), 62,744

prisoners committed with 16,471 preventatively (including the 2,120 committed female

detainees with 769 preventatively), 24,300 guards, 2,200 health personnel (for 6,000

detention interventions daily), 103 services of insertion and probation, 9 interregional

managements and 1 overseas mission for penitentiary services, an administration greatly

centralized and of which depends the ENAP, for the penitentiary section, 10 UPR 51, 641

ETP 52 prison teachers (2007 figures) put in place by the National Ministry of Education of

which the most important mission is the fight against illiteracy.

51 UPR for Regional Pedagogic Unit 52 ETP for full-time equivalent


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


In 2007, 166 penitentiary establishments practiced a search for illiteracy and the figure

of 47,3% tested newcomers is advanced (compared to 53,9% in 2004). Other outcomes

from the assessment were :

- 12% of the new arrivals are illiterate

- 14% have difficulties reading

- 3% do not speak French and 4.6% only speak basic French

- 40% are not in possession of any diplomas

- 9% possess a certificate of type CEP 53 or CFG 54

- 8% possess a Brevet type diploma from college

- 16% have a CAP 55 and 7% a BEP 56

- 5% have a diploma for completing secondary school (eg., Baccalaureat) or a

DAEU 57

In addition, and more globally, it appears from this report that 34% of people who are

identified as illiterate, or with reading problems, were not schooled during their

detention It is in this way that, out of 11,071 “detected” arrivals, only 7,305 prisoners

benefited from teaching in prison in 2007 and out of these 7,305 learners, 41% received

a booklet certifying general education.

It might be important here to remind ourselves that just over 19% of imprisoned 58 people

are not of French nationality which represents a global diversity of origins of around 140

nationalities with all of the linguistic problems that implies.

53 CEP for Certificate of Primary Education 54 CFG for Certificate of General Education 55 CAP for Certificate of Professional Aptitude 56 BEP for Diploma of Professional Studies 57 DAEU for Diploma of Access to University Studies 58 Ref. OIP figures 2007


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


On the 01/01/2008, the unique report of reinsertion actions published by the A.P. states,

concerning the general education of adults, the following figures :

- 28,239 prisoners followed a basic alphabetic type course, FLE 59, illiteracy,

refresher type course, preparation for a CFG…

- 13,233 followed a preparation course for a diploma, CAP or BEP

- 3,659 prepared to take the Baccalaureat or the DAEU

- 805 followed university level courses.

Attention : these figures must be moduled as a detainee might follow a course for a

short period of time in one particular establishment then be transferred to another

establishment in the middle of the school year : he would then be counted twice.

Some annual activity reports produced by the RLE detail two difficulties that occur

whilst running teaching missions ; the high number of detainees waiting for a place

“in school” and the unavoidable absences due to court appearances, transfers and

releases…, these two points justify clearly the difficulties they have to fight against to

organize exams (inscription around 18% and presentation 12 to 13% by national

means).

An example, in 2007, for an average of 60,709 people :

- 92,068 arrivals were registered,

- 13,876 detainees were schooled by the National Education, which represents a

rate of scholarity of 23,1%

59 FLE for French Foreign Language


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


We need to remember that around 83,5% of people detained spend a year or less in

detention, this is an important dimension on which to base certain assumptions in the

future.

Apart from teachers of National Education teaching in a penitentiary environment,

we must note the role played by certain volunteer associations (GENEPI, AUXILIA,…)

and profitable organizations (CNED, GRETA,…) who also run teaching projects,

notably in general knowledge.

The convention relative to teaching in a penitentiary environment (JUSE0240076C du

29/03/2002 promotes, within its contents, two essential articles which are a

contribution to this survey :

1. “Teaching in a penitentiary environment is a perspective of permanent

education and lifelong training”.

2. “…apart from the projects backed by the UPR, with financing coming from

National Education, the pedagogic project is made possible with, on one hand,

distance teaching and training projects, especially those which fall into the

category of conventions with the penitentiary administration (CNED, Auxilia,

AFPA)…and on the other hand, with associations of educational volunteers…)”.

In France, as the use of Internet in prison is disapproved of by as much the law as by

security, only two cyberbases remain, financed by the Caisse des Depots et

Consignations, and are in the process of being experimented with since December

2008, on in the Penitentiary Centre of Marseille-Baumettes and the other in the House of

Correction in Bordeaux-Gradignan.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


In other EU member states, the question has been posed, possibly even considered, but

it is still on-going. By state, and in France, information technology teaching as relevant

training is given by an association (CLIP 60), present in 50 penitentiary establishments with

a total of 185 volunteers and 2,688 trainees (activity 2007) for a total of 13,897 hours of

training.

For people in prison, whose lives are often stained by failure in school, information

technology is an attractive means of learning which enables them to quickly obtain

valorizing results and at the same time know-how in line with evolution in the outside

world. As numeric illiteracy begins to become apparent, through certain writings, it is

possible to imagine that the courses given in prison are also an opportunity to prepare

the detainees who are to be released into a society where there was no numeric

knowledge necessary at the time of their imprisonment (for the PPSMJ with long

sentences). The numeric part is essentially technical, or economical, there is no need to

add a social and/or educational dimension.

60 CLIP for Club Informatique Penitentiaire (Penitentiary Information Technology Club)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The 3 electronic questionnaires

(ref.annexes)

0

50

100

150

200

Questionnaire1

Questionnaire2

Questionnaire3

The questionnaire n°1 destined for each penitentiary establishment in France

and overseas areas

Without repeating previous explanations (ref.pages 27 to 29), this questionnaire failed.

The database composed of 183 penitentiary centres was created in conformity with the

specifications of the project ; this enabled the questionnaire to be sent electronically.

13 negative responses were returned : the establishments were not partners in projects

co-financed by the EU on the theme of education for adults in prison.

The questionnaire n°2 destined :

1. to partners identified thanks to responses to questionnaire n°1

2. to participants named during interviews

In view of the 13 negative responses to the questionnaire n°1, none of the partners

could be identified and questioned from the database n°1.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


However, the meetings and gathering of details (notably the examining of targeted

projects having received financial support from the FSE 61) enabled the inventory of 11

national or regional participants who, without having participated in a project co-

financed by funds destined for the Grundtvig project, can be put to good use.

A questionnaire n°2 was therefore created and sent : one contact responded but the

response was of no use due to the amalgam between Education / Professional Training.

To extract several responses would have been subjective interpretation ; we decided to

not take them into account for the analysis.

The questionnaire n°3 dedicated to transnational partners from :

1. the list of projects to study obtained from the EEFF Agency

2. projects listed in the groups

From the identification of different networks supported by the list supplied by the

Agency and the documented inventories belonging to the programmes (Grundtvig,

FSE, PIC 62, EQUAL), the following two documents were composed :

• a listing which gathers information but which indicates that the information

supplied is not always up-to-date, or even incorrect (ref.annex),

• a table of national origins and partnerships which help clarify the question

of the benefit of the transnational dimension to a view on national or

territorial approaches.

61 FSE for Fonds Social Europeen (European Social Funds) 62 PIC for Programme d’Initiative Communautaire (Community Initiative Programme)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Table on the following page.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


This table shows several observations which could be useful to consider to orientate

ulterior choices notably in terms of :

- plans of communication for national agencies,

- a transnational thematic database for the EC.

Therefore the new implications are :

� more than 10 projects : DE (13) – ES (14) – FR (17) – IT (18)

� 4 to 10 projects : BE (7) – BG (4) – CZ (4) – DK (4) – GR (6) – LT (5) – MT 63 (4) - NO (5)

– PL(5) – PT (6) – RO (6) - SE (6) – SK(4) - UK (10)

� 1 to 3 projects : AT (1) – FI (1) – IE (3) – LV (2) – NL (3) – SI (1) – TR (1)

� 0 project : CY – EE - HU – IS – LI – LU

The remark, made with a regard to the Maltese participants at the bottom of the page,

is undoubtedly valid for other countries ; which motivates the necessity to organize

thematic information with regard to projects supported by European financing.

149 electronic questionnaires were sent to transnational promotors/partners ; 15

responses were registered (10,06%) and treated 64.

Amongst the 149 contacts identified (some of whom were by telephone), 24 (2 projects

running) were transnational promoters of projects and, amongst these 24, only 5

promoters responded. There is therefore a large lack of information once the projects

are completed and the advice given would be to put in place, in a contractual

manner, a follow-up of the projects (and therefore the impacts) at 12, 24 and 36 months

and at the same time an update of details and legal information relative to the

promoters and partners.

63 University of Malta (Education Department) declares in n°3 questionnaire that they have taken part in more than 12 projects. 64 Note to the reader : even if the author is conscious of the fact that the sample of responses does not constitute a panel sufficiently representative to enable the interpretation of the details, it remains that the details are sufficiently enlightening given the size of the project and exhaustivity would have not been of any extra benefit.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� Projects which led to a response

� Teatro e Carcere 2

� Teatrodentro 1

� Social inclusion of persons returned from emprisonment 1

� EuroDesip 2

� Skills’ validation for adults under penitentiary measures 1

� RESO 2

� Le coeur ailleurs 1

� Inside / Out 1

� You also have a chance 1

� Another way 2

� Mabel 1

� Typology of organizations that responded

� Regional public authority 2

� Local public authority 3

� Private theatre company 4

� Penitentiary establishment 2

� University 2

� Private teaching establishment 1

� Public teaching establishment 1

� 3 out of 15 declared having experience in projects co-financed by the EU., one

of them precised having had 12 previous experiences, mainly in the position of

partner.

� 4 out of 15 declare having already had an institutional partner emanating from

the penitentiary world.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� 13 out of 15 declare to regularly intervene in prison

� 10 give the name of the establishment

� The others remain vague or do not respond at all

� 11 out of 15 declare having organised a transnational seminar

� A 12th wrote that they never organized one because the Leader of the

project did it and there was no point repeating

� Another declared a preference for a national meeting

� The others gave no justification

� 11 out of 15 declare having organised a visit to a penitentiary establishment

during transnational seminars

� A 12th declared having been unable to do so because the seminar

programme was too full

� The other 3 gave no reason

� 11 out of 15 declare having organised a public symposium, (none of the 4 who

didn’t do so did not justify why)

� The number of invitations to the public symposiums vary from 12 (is the word

“symposium” suitable ?) to 250 passing by 15 – 25 – 50 – 70 – 80 – 100


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� Institutions that have participated in public symposiums (by descending

numbers)

� Public and private teaching establishments

� Penitentiary establishments and related services

� PME

� Local and national government agencies

� Governmental representations

� Local public authorities

� Municipal theatre

� Local volunteer associations

� Theatre companies

� Services relative to teaching in prison

� Public employment service

� Social services relevant to the law

� Minister of Justice

� Probation counsellors

� They state that the organisation of the public symposium gave them the

opportunity to meet with colleagues with whom they did not always have the

opportunity to have discussions. As such, the following were named :

� Teachers outside of their own network

� University researchers

� Students of theatre training

� Decision makers

� Representatives of community services

� Lawyers

� Magistrates

� Local, regional and national actors in the penitentiary environment

� Prison volunteers


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� To the question « were the objectives of the project clear ? » we obtain :

� 11 yes

� 2 a little confused

� 1 no answer

� To the question « which conclusions were reached ? » we obtain 11 responses

concentrated on 6 axes :

� A better distribution of results

� Good recommendations

� The consolidation of a European network

� An improvement in the implication of penitentiary administration

� Good collaboration between partners

� Progress in the cooperation between the private and public sectors

� To the question on the difficulties that arose, there were 10 replies :

� 4 mention the linguistic barrier

� 2 speak of financial problems

� 2 find it difficult to engage with decision makers

� 2 criticise the non-participation of the prisoners

� To the question « was the project the object of a preparatory visit ? » the answers

are :

� 8 yes

� 5 no

� 2 Don’t know


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� To the question of the opinion of national penitential authorities towards « access

to Internet in prison » we obtain :

� 0 yes (total freedom of access)

� 4 yes but filtered (IT – LT)

� 8 no

� 3 Don’t know

4 out of 15 precise their response by mentioning the possibility of limited access

being granted to :

� Several particular cases, for their own prisoners,

� Several identified socio-professional categories such as teachers, and

sometimes supervisors of the targetted computers.

� To the question « would there be axes of reflection that could make you enter into

a new partnership ? » we evidently receive numerous responses which we

choose not to reveal here because their propositions were plentiful during the

interviews and discussions at the end of the survey (ref.page 91, the scheme of

the project).

� To the question « what action should we take ? » we obtain propositions that the

conclusion of the work is very naturally to interogate further and it is obvious that

the forms of response are still to be developed.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� « according to the law in our country, are condemned prisoners allowed to

gather in groups ? » the answers were the following :

� 3 yes (ES – DE)

� 7 no

� 5 Don’t know

� « as a group, can it be imagined that they could initiate a project of their own ? »

the answers are the following

� 1 yes (ES)

� 5 no

� 9 Don’t know

� To the question on the composition of a partnership, they all responded that they

were satisfied and the partnership helped them with problems ; 2 expressed the

opinion that it might have been interesting to have supplementary partners and

their suggestions led to the question on the justification of the transnational

partnership (why ? how ? for whom ? with whom ?) according to whether they

were a Leader or a partner.

� To the question “in the future, would you be a Leader or a partner for a project

under the same theme ? » the answers were :

� 12 yes

� 2 no

� 1 Don’t know


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� « with a partner from the same project ? » the answers were :

� 5 yes

� 9 no

� 1 Don’t know

Here, we note the preeminence of « no » and at the same time a relatively high number

of projects relaunched with the same partners and with the theme of education in

prison 65.

Within the structures having set up a new project, and therefore a transnational

partnership, we find :

� BG

o Educational partnerships / Project BERNIE « Building Education

Ressources and Networks in Europe »

� IT

o Educational partnerships / Project ESPRIT (in the position of Leader)

o Multilateral projects / Project « Everybody has something to teach » (in

the position of partner)

� DE

o Educational partnerships / Project « Theater and prison in Europe : a

lifelong learning model for suporting creativity and innovation »

o Multilateral projects / Project « European prison arts education Network

2 »

65 With hindsight we realise it would have been useful to ask them to justify their replies of YES or NO


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� MT

o Project PAN EUROPEAN Network « sharing experiences »

o Project “will to dream”

o Project MARCINTEG

o Projet “Training Qualified teachers to teach in prison”

o The impact survey has shown us that the same Maltese partner is

currently also subscribed in the projec « sharing experiences… » led by

the GRETA BTP Nantes since 2008.

Other projects were mentioned throughout the responses ; without directly referring to

the theme of education of adults in prison, they are nonetheless a way of recognising

alternative ways of thinking in regards to a typologie of “beneficiaries” absent in the

survey (the 16-18 years) adult in the “Grundtvig” sense and minors in the eyes of the

French penitentiary organisation) yet very present by the particularity of the care they

require :

� LT :education of young adultes « a mind to undertake »

� ES : the alternative to depriving minors’ of their freedom

� CZ : general interest measures for minors

� To the question «are you still in contact with your partners of completed

projects ? » the response is :

� 4 yes (with all)

� 9 yes (with certain)

� 1 no

� 1 Don’t know (the absence of a response is surprising because it is a

theatre company which organises training sessions for professionals

who, on the other hand, apply for individual subsides).


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


A space was left open for free comments. 3 out of 15 took advantage : one pointed

out a fact, the two others expectations.

Over the past 10 years there has been a

considerable number of projects on the

theme of education in prison Leadered

by European funds that had very little

effect on the level of decision makers.

The projects require a fantastic

amount of time and excessive

work.

We are looking for informations about

projects based on electronic literacy for

adults in prison


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


At the completion of the series of questions which are based specifically on the impact

of transnationality, it is best to recognize that the analysis remains mixed. Some

organized “groups” that they do not leave because it is mostly a reassuring situation

(“we know who we can rely on”, “we wish to continue working together”, “we know

eachother”…) ; others criticize the lack of implication of decision makers but do nothing

to involve them in the projects, nor ask for their assistance with the creation of projects,

for example with work meetings (ref.the responses of penitentiary establishments to

particular investigations). And because the responses were not very convincing, the

moment has without doubt arrived to insist on :

• the importance of public symposiums organized during transnational

seminars. These formal moments allow players from professional horizons,

who are not always collaborators, to meet each other, to exchange, or at

least to establish a first contact to nurture afterwards. This is why it is

important to strongly consider the origins and professional compatability of

the guests and the participants ; the public symposium is a key moment for

work as well as an opportunity in the duration of a project ; the organizers

must be aware of this and work seriously (programme, advertising, press

communications,…).

• The opportunity that transnational seminars present for organizing a prison

visit (organizing it a long time in advance taking into consideration security

measures) because, apart from being the only visit to a prison (as is the

case for most of them), it is an opportunity to meet the different

professionals in a very particular context and discuss different occurring

problems, and even to speak (with authorization) to the people who are

detained and learn about their experiences.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Finally, and to come back to the partnership dimension, it is important to remember that

it must be the nature of the needs that the project is exposing that guides the thoughts

around transnational development according to the responses that are being sought

after, whether one is a Leader or a partner. The “partnership” composant, at whatever

level (national, territorial or transnational), cannot and must not be frozen because of

the risk of weakening the strength of the thoughts and experiences, and therefore the

recommendations and direct results.

For this reason, the “laboratory” which initiated EQUAL should be cited because the

uncertainties that occurred throughout the project emerged from territorial situations. In

effect, the work was split into 3 parts and the most important part was left to the PDD 66

which was, most of the time, a territorial setting of additional local players each with

their own responses to the first question. The transnational partnership was just an axe of

work which approached and dealt with the situation, stage 3 (not systematic) dealt

with the distribution and transfer of information and recommendations resulting from the

project.

66 PDD Partnership for Development


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The meetings and interviews

As stated on page 32, it is now time to use semantics to assist the reader in better

understanding the difference between these two words.

The word « interview »

� The HACHETTE Encyclopedia states that it is a meeting with a person for the

gathering of information by writing or by recording.

� The Petit LAROUSSE gives, in a different context, a definition which is better

adapted : it’s a meeting with a person to question him on his acts, his ideas, his

projects, with the purpose of publishing or distributing the content, or to use it for

analysis purposes.

The interviews refer here to people identified as being contacts for each of the projects

on the list established by the EEFF Agency.

It is maybe encouraging to begin by writing that, in most cases, the requests for

meetings did not come up against major obstacles except the individual projects

having requested training subsidies (Grundtvig 3) for whom the total silence of most of

the beneficiaries led to the proposition of a new formula and a rearranging of

committments .


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The developers of the initiatives (as much the promotors as the partners) know

practically everything about the penitentiary world and its limitations because they are

at the same time animators of training financed within the frame of the PRF 67 which are

managed by the Regional Counsels, they are dispensers of cultural activities financed

by the SPIP under the supervision, very often, of the ASC. Also, these training modules

are most of the time co-financed along the line (signposted or not) of the FSE. It

becomes very quickly difficult to differentiate and in this vagueness it is not surprising to

notice that the non-experienced participants quickly mix things up which becomes

confusing.

Thus, a cultural activity co-supported by the Grundtvig within the frame of a project

listed by the EEFF Agency is “identified” by a director of a penitentiary establishment as

being an activity financed by the SPIP (which is not totally false if the SPIP also

contributes…but the Grundtvig participation is forgotten in the conversation). It is also

possible that these two aids do not know about each other and work in a parallel, it is

thus that it is difficult to recognize and therefore “publicity” is made.

The image of the European project as a laboratory is often brought up during interviews

which makes us think that the institutionals do not know any more than us. With this in

mind, what should we make of the legitimacy of a project of the Grundtvig 2 type

which, at the beginning recruited 9 partners and, after a selection by different national

agencies, “lost” 5 of them, some of which being the coordinator but also two university

partners in charge of the validation of a means of research. Of course, the

coordination was taken over (and the project continues as was instructed by the French

partner) but what is going to become of the results? How will they be recognized? By

whom? For whom ?

67 PRF for Programme Régional de Formation (Regional Training Programme)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Concerning the question of the distribution and use of the results, it is not rare to read in

the applications phrases such as “prisons and the Ministry for Justice are interested in the

results” without any direct partnership between them which could give credence to the

information. To express, during a communication, interest in a project does not

necessarily mean that the hierarchy is also interested, nor that the results will be used.

The participants in projects are awaiting “acknowledgement”, they want to feel that

things are “moving”. Twice, the question came up about the need to organize a report

after the completion of the projects in order to know how the results were diffused, by

which partner, and which changes did they influence. For example, in the case of

projects involving a partnership with supranational leaders, the question was to know if

the results had been used in other countries, in other continents, who were the

beneficiaries…

The idea of a “tool box” for a particular theme has been brought up several times. Has

it already been done? In which country? With which structures? What were the

results? What can be used again?

The question of justifying financing activities is permanent. What should be done so that

a central administration obtains the results of projects and uses them daily? What is the

validation? The answer could come from new types of partners : enabling us to

approach less solicited professionals, management personnel,…


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


With regard to the complexity of the environment (security rules, the types of individuals,

the diversity of professionals,…) and the size of the field of investigation, most

participants agree in the fact that it is necessary to get things moving by changing ways

of thinking, first of all, before, secondly, attempting to introduce change to the systems.

Apart from the list published by the EEFF Agency, a great number of transnational

projects identified have a strong theatrical connotation, or at least cultural. Indeed, the

theatre, like photography, film-making, painting, the radio, the media…are just a range

of different forms of expression which should be used for more than just the need to

identify a/different means of approach and practices according to the individual

detained and the context of the environment. If at the same time we think about a

“better way” (which is very commendable as it happens), for the benefit of the

detainee without taking into consideration the global picture, including the duration of

financing for the project, the saying “working on the same piece for the hundredth time,

put it away” will still have a long future ahead of it, as have the present systems and

plans. To give an example, let us refer to a project which evokes from the very

beginning, final artistic products (and the support of communication) while stating the

practical problem of authorization from the Ministry of Justice for distribution, without

even involving in the partnership one or several participants from the penitentiary

administrations.

To state the objectives that the author of the project cannot control, and the fact of the

specificity of the penitentiary rules and the context of imprisonment, .. also leads to the

question of the expertise of candidates in an environment that is so defined, prison in

France. Thus is was possible to read “possible agreements between the Ministers of

Justice to encourage the circulation of shows – the transportation of prison actors across


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


national borders” when it should be almost impossible for a “prisoner” to cross borders

for a theatre show, or even an exceptional motive ; it would have been more fair to

write “people in the hands of justice” which would have included other means of

accompanying, including people who have been freed but are still under legal

measures. It also remains that an exception cannot does not change the rules and is it

worth the EU’s financial investment to encourage “one” experience or will it “upset”

practices with unsustainable changes.

Over and above certain concrete and interesting achievements which are brought to

fruition in voluntary establishments and most of the time perfectly identified with

organization coming from the same region, it remains that the agreements depend on

management and not on plans validated by the central administration. It would

therefore be interesting to work on their transferability rather than having a “thread-like”

model which sometimes appears in different projects when applications and partners’

profiles intersect.

The interesting factor of the impact survey and the interviews that greatly contributed to

it is without the great richness and diversity of the past and profiles of the people who

have “ideas” to experiment with. It remains that the penitentiary participants (in all

meanings of the word) are more or less absent from the laboratories and centre of

reflection ; they are barely in the background of some projects.

About the word “Discussion” (rencontre in French – meeting in English)

� The HACHETTE encyclopedia precises that it is an exchange between people

� The Petit LAROUSSE indicates a conversation to be followed-up


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The two definitions of the word “Discussion” are complementary and suitable for the

subject.

The idea that prevails in the meetings with the “legitimate” participants was to listen as

much to the commitments and the institutional circumstances (with regards to law,

experiences, security,…) within the field of the survey as to non-institutional but

“legitimate” participants as well as to representatives less easily “accepted” by the

Penitentiary Administration but nonetheless who cannot be ignored. Speaking with

each of them enabled the growth of reflection without taking into account power

struggles which have nothing to do with this work.

Through the meetings and reports of specific needs in the penitentiary environment, it is

evident that, and it is primordial that the founders of projects and their financial

“investors” are convinced, if they want that the fruit of their work has an impact on the

prisoners who are the direct beneficiaries, that nothing can be achieved without

collaboration (flexible and geometrically variable) with the representatives of the A.P. ;

it is necessary that the latter accepts to be “open minded” by collaborating with the

initiatives of participants from the outside world. The launching of politics is a reflection

of institutional strength but, in the interest of the theme and its capacity to innovate, it is

important that the legislators and organizers participate in the gathering of reflections

by relying on the experimenters who are always searching for areas to explore, as it is

thanks to their supplementary work that the plans and systems can evolve.

It goes without saying that the Penitentiary Administration (A.P.) is not waiting for

projects co-financed by the European funds (structural and community) to establish its

priorities of reflection and action. From now on, as much through interviews as through

meetings, it can be noticed that common disciplinary fields that just require consultation

and coordination, are the base of a good number of Managements for reflection

coming from the impact survey and mentioned in the last part of the survey.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Words from people in prison

It would have been interesting, at one moment or another, to be able to discuss the

theme of education for adults in prison with the detainees (suspect and condemned),

direct beneficiaries of the teaching activities (formal, non-formal and informal) but the

impact survey itself did not necessitate this because, through the different co-financed

projects, these people who are identified at the “targeted public” are never direct

partners, nor associates of the projects, a point that should be evidently thought about.

However, to enable the “ultimate beneficiaries” to make a contribution to this work, the

choice was made to take several statements from the first consultation led by BVA in

June 2006 with prisoners, in the same context but wider, from the General States of the

Penitentiary Condition (October 2006).

61,725 questionnaires were distributed to prisoners by the Penitentiary Administration in

its establishments in the capital and in the French overseas departments and territories

(45,300 directly handed over by the Republic Mediator). 15,530 responses were

returned of which 5,000 were used 68.

68 « The structure of the supervision, very similar to that of the detainees, was reorganized according to the real prison

population structure, in terms of the type of imprisonment, the status of imprisonment and the length of the

sentence »(ref.BVA page 6 “turnaround variables”).


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


In reply to the question about teaching and socio-cultural activities the response was

from a point of view :

• Statistic

Satisfactory 3

Quite satisfactory 24

A little satisfactory 27

Not very satisfactory 33

Not satisfactory at all 32

Unsatisfactoty 65

Don’t know 8

• Priority Actions

3 priority actions Total Statements

Renumerate prisoners who follow teaching or training (*) 50 78

Propose more sportive and cultural activities 45 81

Propose teaching and training programmes to all the prisoners 35 75

Allow prisoners to participate in ASC decision maki ng in establishments 28 70

Give minors the same schooling as they would have in a school environment (**) 26 70

Allow all prisoners to have access to education grants (***) 25 62

Facilitate access to libraries and ensure a rich so urce of information 25 71

Ensure the continuation of courses throughout the y ear 21 68

Propose French lessons to prisoners 17 62

Others 6 11

Don’t know 11 4

The total is superior to 100 because there are seve ral responses possible

The results given are in percent

(*) (**) (***) are not as a result of this survey in terms of axes of reflection to be developed ; however not less than 2

observations relative to renumeration and education grants (added to the question of social subsistence levels) were very

often mentioned during the interviews and meetings as being a hindrance to the education of adults in prison


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


In annex is the complete analysis of 5,000 questionnaires with the complementary

disciplinary fields which intersect with observations made in interviews and meetings.

The idea is not to take them one by one but to enable project founders find

Managements of work which directly respond to the remarks made by the prisoners.

It is also important to precise that although the statements had been read once at the

time of the documentary resources consultation, the intersecting of propositions made

by the prisoners and emanating from the BVA investigation with those obtained from

interviews and meetings was not done until the last stage of the survey, thus allowing for

the identification of propositions of common axes of reflection.

The survey in the concerned penitentiary establishments

Without coming back to the prohibition made by the DAP to contact in an exhaustive

way all of the penitentiary establishments in the capital and overseas’ sites, it was

necessary to reorganize the questioning of penitentiary establishments. It is therefore

from reading the application forms and final evaluation reports that a selection could

be made. This way, 7 penitentiary establishments are mentioned once and 4 two times

(in different projects) for a total of nine projects appearing on the list established by the

EEFF Agency, some projects mentioning several penitentiary establishments.

If the survey had to have been based on interviews only, it has to be recognized that

the partners and promotors of listed projects were (too) easily known to work with the

penitentiary structures ; they sometimes expressed their opinion about difficulties that

are met when trying to launch projects, whilst paying tribute to the SPIP for their

facilitating…incontrovertible…


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The DAP, in its letter of January 2009 to the Agency, opened up a job that didn’t exist at

the origin of the proposition. By doing this, it authorized individual contact with

establishments involved in the projects listed by the Agency with the only condition

being an information letter first sent to the DISP.

Although 6 DISPs received the letter announcing the contacts to make with the

management of the different penitentiary establishments listed by name, only very few

directors or assistants were informed when contact was made.

The specific investigation that was carried out is rich with information. First of all, only 3

establishments out of 11 replied but this weak result can also be explained by the

movement of posts of directors and assistants which means that there is very little

precedence in the management of establishments interrogated (the first telephone

contacts went this way “I wasn’t there” “I am going to try and find someone”…).

Beyond this report, and is certainly harmful, is also the proof that there doesn’t exist very

much “institution memory” and therefore no traceability or even less, a capacity to

“reconstruct” on the periods covered by the conventional and European requirements

; this report should be weakened by the fact that none of these penitentiary

establishments was the direct partner with one of the projects listed by the EEFF Agency.

While reading transversally the 3 responses that were obtained, it appears seems that :

• 1 out of 3 know the project Leader, the remaining 2 say they don’t know it.

• 1 out of 3 knows how much the project Leader was co-financed by the EU.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


• All 3 declare not to have taken part in the elaboration of the project.

• 1 out of 3 declares having participated during the work, the other two clearly say

that they were not implied in the development of the project.

• 1 out of 3 declare to have organized a visit to the prison during a transnational

seminare (the same declare to have participated in a public symposium).

• 2 out of 3 declare that the project changed neither practices nor competence in

the establishment, either with the trainers, the prisoners or the penitentiary

personnel.

• All 3 declared having never been partners in a project co-financed by the EU, as

Leader, direct partner or associated partner.

• All 3 admit to not having a good knowledge of the different programmes and

financing European (community and structural).

To the questions about the different Managements of reflection and the players to

implicate, the responses are :

• Which pertinent players can you see working together?

The penitentiary administration, the SPIP, the private delegates, national

education, the health services, associate partners, social research, the unities of

pedagogic engineering.

• What ideas do you have to work directly for the prisoners?

Conversation groups, an internal newspaper, an idea box.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


• What about the idea of having prisoners as “learning mediators”?

Having seen the texts and internal orientation of the AP, this concept does not

seem to be current practice (for 2 out of 3 responses) ; the idea of “qualified

external personnel” would be more realistic.

• What about the European concepts of “community learning” and “local centre

of the acquisition of knowledge”?

Only one states knowing a little the concept of “community learning”.

• Finally, on the question about access to Internet

Two responses imply it is the responsibility of the central Administration; the third

does not respond.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Quantitive representations

1. taken from the list published by the EEFF Agency

� View of the group of projects (Grundtvig 1, 2 et 3) involved in the survey 69

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Grundtvig 1

Grundtvig 2

Grundtvig 3

� The ratio of Leaders / Partners / Individuals (Grundtvig 1, 2 et 3)

0

5

10

15

Leader

Partner

Individual

69 A project was withdrawn from the survey by the Agency because of the high cost of extraction of information from its archives


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


� The positions of 9 individual training subsidies (Grundtvig 3)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Meeting

Telephoneinterview

No response

2. A view of the different means of collecting details

2.1 Interviews and Meetings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Investigation directly withthe prisons

Meetings

Interviews with theproject developers

Meetings with theplayers(non A.P.)

Meetings with thetransnational players


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


2.2 Summary table

Insert here the table summarising contacts…


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


From the past to the future…

Statements, Recommendations

and Managements for reflection


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The requirement which is to analyse, from a list of projects communicated by the

Agence Europe Education Formation France, the impact/s of the work co-financed by

the EU on the theme of education of adults in prison could not, alone, lead to concrete

propositions because the penitentiary administration is very rarely present as a partner,

either directly or indirectly.

In the respect of the specifications of the project proposition, it is maybe useful to

mention that the field of collection of details was broadened to include other actors

besides only the developers of the projects. As such, the observations emanating from

an collection of meetings and interviews to which was added the documentation of

the of projects (application forms, intermediate report(s), final report), the study of the

responses to the different questionnaires and to the electronic survey and, finally, a

certain amount of documentary resources (texts, reports, press articles,…the list is

annexed) enabled the identification and organisation of generic statements and

targeted statements which, themselves, lead to recommendations and Managements

of reflection, or work which is primarily exploratory.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Generic statements

They are more spefically destined to stimulate reflection within the EEFF Agency (within

the scope which they initially define) but why not also between national Agencies, or

with the leaders on a European level such as the DG 70 of Education and Culture and

the EACEA. These generic statements must at least influence, or even better nourish,

progress because, as organisations, they have all at some stage had to go against their

usual practices in matters of priority action plans, management tools,…

At an internal level

With 3 exceptions, therefore in 2/3 cases, it was impossible to speak with people

having benifitted, in an individual manner, from a training subsidy (Grundtvig 3)

and who, however, had signed on their form a clause which committed them to

answer questions from the Agency and/or organisations nominated by the

Agency, in exchange for funds received.

70 DG for Management Générale (General Management)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Administrative « anomalies », scattered but numerous, were noticed :

� A Grundtvig 2 project with 4 organisations in three member countries. In

the country which validated 2 partners, it is noticed that the coordinator is

the same for the two structures (with the same administrative coordinates).

� A Grundtvig 2 project with 3 theatre companies from 3 different member

countries. Two of the companies, one situated in Norway, the other in Italy

and therefore several thousand kilometres away from each other, had the

same coordinator, the same email address, the same telephone number.

� A « partner » which is not a legal entity and therefore doesn’t have the

legal capacity to contract (2 projets).

Whatever the type of form to be completed, answers were often “rushed”. We

see therefore :

� A lot of errors in email addresses (if a letter is missing the mail is rejected),

telephone numbers and prefixes,

� Badly written addresses for Internet sites,

� Company email addresses missing ; those mentioned are those of contact

persons (most of the time nominative and personal) which causes problems

when the person leaves the organisation or, more often, when they change their

email address.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


For the Grundtvig 2 andt Grundtvig 3 actions, the final 71 evaluation report is often

completed very succinctly. In the same way, the readings from the “Statistical

Details” taken from the above report, show that it is very often a validation form

used to motivate the granting of an individual subsidy on the one hand, and an

approbation of the EEFF Agency on the other hand.

To study the theme in the most thorough manner possible with an objective of

intersecting details and observing the results, it must be pointed out that access

to information other than that of decentralised Grundtvig projects (Grundtvig 2

and 3) is complex. This lack of access is without doubt harmful for the

dissemination of the results to the network of players of the profession and

environment, but also in regards to new potential actors of new projects who

would be looking for similar or innovating ideas before starting something.

External level

« subsidy hunters (« s ? ») » : they run several projects at the same time at the risk

of confusing spending, not least airports. Apart from the fact that a

representative could not find a few minutes to answer an electronic

questionnaire concerning the transnational partnership because, personally

involved in several projects at the same time and working between three airports

(Lisbon, Paris, London) in the space of only a few days, it is important to consider

the real time “actors” have to involve their territorial partners and/or the ultimate

beneficiaries, to distribute information, to explain, to work with experiment...

71 Depending on the years, the document is also called final evaluation report.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The referents of projects who participated in interviews are far from being

« specialists » of the theme (responsable pôle Europe, CFC de GRETA 72,

administration manager, training manager,…). They do not always have the

correct perspective of a project, they do not always speak the language that is

defined as the working language, they do not always have local external

correspondants on the ground. They sometimes don’t understand the object of

the project they have just signed for, or they have a letter of engagement

signed. An example of an extreme situation is one where the interview served to

update different managers from different fields of expertise within the same

organisation (discovery of an account where 14 400 euros had been deposited

by the EEFF Agency several months previous and had been blocked on another

account by an accountant who was not aware that his organisation had

undertaken a project ; ignorance also on the part of the coordinator and

signatory concerning the regulated and contractual grant from the EEFF Agency

account).

Concerning silence in the place of a response, the question to be asked is how to

understand how the partners of the project(s) can « ignore the invitation » which

is given to them by an organisation representing the EEFF Agency to participate

in the impact survey when they have just been selected and their projects have

begun.

72 CFC pour Conseiller en Formation Continue et GRETA pour Groupement d’ETAblissements (Education Nationale)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Internal-external level

Very (too ?) few French initiatives in the area of Leadering projecs and in

initiating reflection, to see in research-action. On the list elaborated by the EEFF

Agency we observe :

� a Grundtvig 1 project piloted and coordinate by a public institution,

� two Grundtvig 2 projects, one piloted by a public institution, the other by a

cultural association,

� all the other projects belong in the partner range.

Finally, the ultimate generic statement : it is certainly not because of not having

communicated about the different programmes it animates, since several years,

but it must be noted that , even if the EEFF Agency is well know by players from

associations and the world of training, it is sometimes less well know, or unknown,

by nearly all the institutional leaders and other « supporters » in the penitentiary

environment that we have met during our different meetings, starting by the DAP

itself. Before beginning our meetings and to explain our presence with regard to

the project; we have often begun by explaining the role and the actions of the

EEFF Agency 73.

73 Thinking it might be more explicit, we sometimes referred to the old denomination of the Agency which was the

National SOCRATES Agency, but that didn’t work.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Targeted statements

Their identification is to be dissociated with an evaluation of the projects ; in the context

of this survey, it was always clear and placed like an introduction in all correspondance

but also at the beginning of interviews and meetings. However, with hindsight, it can

also be a hypothesis amongst others to explain how so many organisations and

individuals felt in a position that would allow them not be present at organised

meetings.

Here, in this work, the statements targeted on the theme of education for adults in

prison are made from an angle of observations which should lead to recommendations

and it is presumed that the projects were carefully evaluated beforehand, at different

stages, and there is no need to back step.

At this stage, the survey was delayed by identifiable elements which were probable

breaks to the achievement of unsustainable results apart from the one question of

renewing financial sources.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Three important lacunar areas were identified : contextual expertise, certification of

finances and finally, a measured distribution of the results. As an example, it might be

interesting to mention :

Concerning the individual projects type G3, it is difficult to not be surprised by the

important number of candidates of an artistic nature (actress, actor, scriptwriter,

technical assistant) having participated, during the same week and in the same

place, at the same workshop74, with so many similarities and that is not all. Also,

four people having participated in the same workshop, the same year, work for

two associations with the same address in France and three of these four people

have the same employer75. An interview with one of them brings a bit of light : it

was upon the request of their employer that the people requested training

subsidies ; « it wasn’t my project, even if I enjoyed participating and I learnt

interesting things but they are not directly useful to me because I don’t work in a

prison environmet nor with a public from this environment ». Nothing more will be

said… the amount of training subsidies granted to participants from a same

company is not enough to learn anything because the majority did not reply to a

formal request to meet. In terms of impact, it would have been interesting to be

able to establish a link between plural participations in a workshop organise by a

company in year N-1 and the introduction of a project the following year by the

employer of most of the French participants, beneficiaries of a training subsidy

and on the Agency list.

74 This remark is however depending on the fact that only a few individual subsidies were listed by the EEFF Agency,

whereas there were other subsidies, in other years, in other places, under other theme, which were also granted. 75 This statement of « finances » could also have been applied to the French branch of the EPEA which requested two

subsidies type G3 in order to participate in the 11th international conference organised in Ireland (IE-2007-099-001) by

the mother-association on the theme of education in prison, if there had been, on the part of the EEFF Agency, a refusal for one of the requests presented.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Although the intention to do it is clearly written, on a declaration, in different final

evaluation reports, it remains that the only beneficiary who accepted the

interview does not know that the project previously introduced by the company

has a cause and effect link with the workshop. It would be interesting to know if

the DE, ES and IT partners of the project, and/or their representatives,

participated in the same workshop in Barcelona ; nothing can be written without

access to the list of participants. It would have been useful to intersect the

information with the Leadering structure and with the partners of the project ;

none of whom replied to the invitations (no response to the proposition of a

meeting in Marseille –Compagnie ALZHAR- nor to the electronic questionnaire

no.3 addressed to the partners of the project.

With the support of the list published by the EEFF Agency and in as far as

concerns the penitentiary world, ie., the ministerial institution, the interregional

management, the services of insertion and probation, the establishments,

management personnel, supervision, health,…it is surprising to observe :

� The nearly non-existence (only 1 project) of their representatives in the

position of direct partner (2 other projects name a penitentiary establishment in

the role of an associated partner),

� The low number of penitentiary establishments (11) whose names are

given in application forms (one theatre company named 3 prisons).

It can also be noticed that there is insufficient publicity (in the European sense of

the term, in other words “informing the public”) and explanations clearly given

which leads to an interference in information and unintentional confusion

between the sources of finance of different origins. This is the case of the

external socio-cultural benefits paid by the SPIP to associations that have

introduced projects for the same action which, after selection, received Grudtvig

funds (collateral financing ? double financing ? Who finances what ?)


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Objectives that are sometimes too ambitious (and not compatible with the

positioning of the « proposer » that will not be completed on time but yet count in

terms of « results » in the project software which is used when projects are

completed and therefore the details appear later in compendiums, search

engines,…Here we have a few examples (which will not be followed up on) :

� The installation of an observatory to fight against illiteracy in prison (a PIC

EQUAL project)

� The national inventory of university courses followed by prisoners (a project

from the Grundtvig Action 1 programme).


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Seven Suggestions

1. The creation of a thematic numeric database with intersecting information (on the

model of the electronic questionnaire n°3 for example), raising and descending,

which would feed a thematic catalogue grouping the productions and at the

same time serve the project by identifying « frozen » transnational partners (by

stopping, above a level of reasonable participation, “iterative” Leaders

and/partners).

2. The clause relative to the obligation to respond to all questions from the Agency,

directly or by nominated representative, should be identified as a strong and

personal engagement on the part of the beneficiary. To make it clearer, it would

be wise to isolate the clause from the body of the formula, explaining it a bit more

and above all reinforcing a conscious effort by mentioning for example “I

recognize being aware that by applying for this individual subsidy, I am obliged to

respond…”.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


3. Be attentive that the developers of ideas, tools, practices…produce, in terms of

responses, realistic propositions, viable and transferable, subsequently

unsustainable from a financial point of view. If everyone seems to be in agreement

on the fact that a project is above all a”laboratory” (ref. PIC EQUAL) then isn’t it

the objective of all researchers is to find something and make it known?

4. At the beginning of the Grundtvig 2 action – Educational partnerships- although

the supporting documents are qualatitively performant as of 2007 (application

form, evaluation and quality form, evaluation grill of the final report), an in-depth

work on the forms « Final evaluation report » and « Statistic form” from the Grundtvig

3 action should be undertaken, therefore common evaluation criteria would be

established at introduction of a project and at the final report of the beneficiary.

5. In the field of the education (formal, non-formal, informal) of adults in prison,

outside organisations (Leaders or partners) should not keep a distance with the

penitentiary representatives in case the results bring about some drastic reality,

one of which being for example security measures. For the effects and results of

projects to have concrete and lasting impact for the targeted public, ie., the

prisoners, it is indispendable to think about the minimal requirements in terms of

partnership, piloting committee, scientific committee,…for a targetted implication

of a panel of participants from the penitentiary terrain


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


6. In the project selection phase the independance of experts cannot have any

knowledge in this field of specific restraints (unless they are involved in the

penitentiary system of course). In fact, a project can by in innovative, pedagogic,

well thinking and …concretely abstract… at the end on the terrain. To co-finance

an idea and a production of which the results are not exploitable in prison is not an

outcome (even if the results benefit other types of public). The incontrovertibles of

the system ensure that, in this thematic priority, the co-existence with other profiles

(for example, ex-prisoners and prisoners) cannot be accepted, this priority must

remain whole and indivisible.

7. Whilst listening to meetings, it appears necessary to work rapidly on the conception

followed by putting into place a plan of external communication, with periodic

reminders, dedicated to all of the participants from decision makers to operational

(formal, non-formal, informal) from the penitentiary environment.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Emerging Managements

for reflection


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


In France, of course, but also on a European level. In fact, it would be interesting to be

able, through making comparisons with national plans, to develop new responses,

experiment with practices, tools,… All the Managements mentioned here are

susceptible to be support for reflection, they are all resulting from communication

(interviews and meetings) held during the 6 months that the survey took. The

representatives, who evoked them, motivated them,…will recgnise themselves, they are

greatly contributing to the reproduction of the work.

But, above all, it is probably worth remembering that prisoners are the priority of

different sources of European financing, these programmes have their own

specifications and it is indispensable, for a participant in a project, to know the

necessary dimension of a project before going in one Management or another. To

develop an action on a fund from local, regional, transregional, or national territory,

there is the operational programme FSE 2007 – 2013 which, in its axe 3, clearly targets

prisoners as a priority, the circuits of instruction ar unique to these structural funds and it is

possible to obtain all information from SGAR 76 and/or the DRTEFP / DDTEFP 77, and in the

near future the Conseils Régionaux78. In the 2007 – 2013 programming of the FSE, the

transnational dimension is new (its an EQUAL effect) , certain French regions used it to

create a working intersection, others didn’t.

76 SGAR for Secrétariat Général aux Affaires Régionales 77 DRTEFP / DDTEFP for Management Régionale (Départementale) du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation Professionnelle 78 The future knowledge of the Conseils Régionaux in the field of the education of prisoners (ref. Presentation of the

penitentiary law to the Conseil des Ministres on 28 July 2008 and the laws unique to the SSIG – Services Sociaux d’Intérêt Général) could generate new forms of organisation of the responses


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


The community programmes are different. In a general manner, there are more or less

large laboratories which work in different reference domains (water, environment,

scientific research, professional training,…). Concerning the education of adults, the

reference programme is GRUNDTVIG. Knowing the objective to be reached in order to

know which path to follow and with which resources allows the identification of the type

of action which is best suited (Grundtvig 1, Grundtvig 2, Grundtvig 3, Grundtvig 4). All

projects do not have the same needs, but they all have the same requirement…that is

to more or less succeed, or at least explain how the attempt was made and/or why it

failed, if that was the case.

If the Managements of reflection and therefore the work which follows do not have the

need to reach a transnational dimension (all is in the definition of the project and in the

obligation of the European funds to question), the minimum requirement is to create on

solid territory with strong partners, coherent and communicative.

It is complex to explain these Managements without being tedious because the access

keys necessitate the intersection of several parameters (for example the prison learner

but also the penitentiary personnel, the domain of competence, the external

participants, the plans,…). It appeared more constructive to present the sources of

ideas under the form of a variable geometric schema for which the payment mandate

is regulated.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________



September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


OOppeenn qquueessttiioonnss oonn

IIMMPPAACCTTSS ttoo ccoommee

The projects interviewed (and listed by the EEFF Agency79) are the proof of an

exchange of experiences, achievements,… which bring, it is unanimous, enrichment to

the participants in the projects, more rarely to structures, whereas the prisoners, in

function with the themes dealt with, benefit more or less directly from a certain amount

of their effects (plays, training in the film industry, direct contact with company

managers, VAE activities,…). However, what stands out, but it’s no surprise, is the wide

range of initiatives as well as the origin of needs.


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Certainly, the theme is complex and the public described as « priority » are not, most of

the time, the direct representatives of projects…to the point of believing that the

problem that emerged at the MA of Villeneuve-lès-Maguelone is not the same as the

one at the MA of Saint-Malo, and that the one at the MC de Saint-Maur is in no way

similar to the one at the MC d’Ensisheim...

The statement given reveals a loss of results and even sometimes a total disappearance

of its effects, (apart from, maybe, the direct beneficiaries) once the project is

completed, in every case, the “transfer” action is illegible if not inexistent. At the same

time the silence and absence of the “representative” brings about important questions

whereas, with the specific constraints that surround this theme, there would be every

point in considering it as permanent in the system when a doubtless great requirement

for a remodelling of forms of development is needed (ref. diagram page 91) at the

same time as an organisation in the centres of reflection (piloting committee, technical

committee,…). But, it’s a fact that the moment has not yet arrived to “enter into

negotiation” because the main question is elsewhere, although it could be interesting to

begin to give it some thought, of course, experimentally to begin with.

This exposed, the debate remains something else altogether. By noting the prisoners as

a priority public, the European authorities have certainly “mistaken” the target and are

misleading the creators of the projects who are only responding to given choices.

79 Of which some examples of products are in annex as technical forms


September 2008 / March 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________


Besides the parameter of « imprisonment » the person placed in the hands of the law is

no different to someone in a situation of freedom : the learner profiles are similar

(illiterate, they have been prevented from learning,…) who each accumulate skills

and/or weaknesses in terms of educational learning, the typology categories are

identical (man / woman / minor, migrant, insecure,…). No, that is not the real need and

to “promote” prisoners as priority signifies being unaware of the real problem and not

looking in the right Management for responses.

In fact, the problem reveals more than the uniqueness of the environment and to not

take any notice of this means missing the real subject. In this precise context, the priority

to define is not so much to do with the person “in need” as to the environment in which

he is held, through a decision of the law, with its stream of human, technical, financial,

structural, institutional,…constraints.

At this stage, should we continue with the idea of a permanent search for "good

practices" (often useless on "the ground") or should the context be worked with so that

the actions, with change, really benefit people in detention?

A huge debate…for a fallow waiting to be grown.

Technical support

2. Legal forces• Ministry of Justice• National Penitentiary Administration• Interregional Direction of Penitentiary Services• Penitentiary Services for Insertion and Probation• Penitentiary establishments• ENAP,ENM

CPROJECT:=5Jf

• 3. Lawful profiles in the penitentiary environment• Management personnel• Supervision personnel• Health personnel• Judges• Social workers (insertion, probation)

1 . Prioritv learners• PPSMJnon incarcerated

(+ 18years, 16-18 years)• PPSMJdétenues (aduits / 16/18,suspect or condemned prisoners /converted sentences)• PPSMJprisoners : men, women,migrants, young adults, students whoare prevented from learning,•

•/

/

/

//

/

/

/1 + 6=

4 + 2 et lou 3 + 5 4. Consistent participants(+7 with a transnational partnership) (non-exhaustive list)

• ANVP, CLIP,GENEPI• Public training centre (AFPA,

GRETA,... )• Distance learning (Auxilia,

5. Supports (lools, premises, finances, •.. ) CNED.... )• Penitentiary libraries • Arts and Cultural structures• Numeric platforms • Sports and socio-cultural• Language centres organizations• School, College, University in prison • Rights' Defenders (OIP, Ban• Production workshops (in prison) public, ... )• Electronic bracelet and leaming • ...• Local centre for knowledge acquisition• Group of employers, economic integration 6. Direction for thematic reflection (non-exhaustive list)

Unusual partnerships : fire brigade, Rescuers New training in QCP (*) and CPA (**)c-

• •road safety, solidarity • {(Educotion » in new quarters

• Arts, Religion, Culture, Sports,... • Iiliteracy of migrant adult prisoners• Charities, foundations, ... • Digital alphabetization• ... • Lote training and short sentences

• Social and professional reinsertion, ...• Auxiliary prisoners and training

~- -- ---- --- ~---~~- -- ---~-- - - -- - - -- -- -, • VAE or valorization of experiences----.J 7. Transnationalitv (2 possibilities) , • « Prison- Enterprise » a ne~ device,, • Work and education: time shared,

0 Project's leader: Vou are in search of, • Non formai/informai education (networks, recognition),

practices, answers, tools, ... outside, • Numeric technology and information documents,

your territory and may be your national,

• Training for the requirements and characteristics of the,,penitentiary environmentnetwork and Vou would like to spare ,

experiences and insert them in your • Prisoners1 words and life storiesown practices sharing them with your • Health and citizenship education, ...local partnership. • Certification of level(s) acquired

• Care during school holidays, 0 Project's partner: the project's leader • Culture, a tool for reinsertion,

needs your « good practices » to be • Prisoners1 participation in the organization of their sentence,,presented then may be transfered. • Prison: usefui time,, 1 Non-formol education and forms of expression, , •, ,

New scheme to open on contemporary knowledges, , •1 ________________________________________ _ A

EVS(***)•• ...(*) Short sentences Quarter(**) Centre for converted sentences(***) Eurooean Volunteer service

www.euro-cides.eu


September 2008 / March 2009

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

www.euro-cides.eu

Postface

The DAP, which may we remind you, had made a demand by letter of the return

of the results and recommendations of the survey, addressed an email to the EEFF

Agency cancelling the meeting of the 7th May in Paris because of other priorities.

Therefore action.

Beyond the second interrogation set out in the conclusion of the survey which

remains complete and open, is the general question which must be asked and is

therefore also the first point dealt with in the conclusion.

Today, and without the main change participant, is it possible to follow the

reflections and launching of the project, co-financed by Grundtvig, while there

cannot be dessemination or transfes amongst the unique garantors in the

penitentiary field ?

Remaining of course, are the activites resulting from projects which in one way or

another are direct openings for the ultimate beneficiaries, the prisoners.

adult education in prison - agence-erasmus.fr la prison uk.pdf · adult education in prison ......

Documents