Incentives and Earned Privileges

EDIT: 19 NOVEMBER 2013

A NEW PSI RELATING TO IEP HAS BEEN ISSUED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 NOVEMBER 2013. THIS PAGE IS THEREFORE TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT PSI, PSI 30/2013, WHICH CAN BE FOUND HERE.

What are Incentives and Earned Privileges?

IEP is a scheme which aims to encourage responsible behaviour by prisoners. In addition, the scheme aims to;

• Encourage effort and achievement in work and other constructive activities (this is also in accordance with Rule 3 of the Prison Rules 1999, which states that "The purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life.");
• To encourage sentenced prisoners to engage in OASys and sentence planning;
• To benefit from activities designed to reduce re-offending;
• To create a more disciplined, better controlled and safer environment for prisoners and staff.

IEP is governed by PSI 11/2011.

Is it mandatory for every prison to have some form of IEP scheme?

Yes. Rule 8 of the Prison Rules states the following:

"There shall be established at every prison systems of privileges approved by the Secretary of State and appropriate to the classes of prisoners there, which shall include arrangements under which money earned by prisoners in prison may be spent by them within the prison."

In short, all prisons and Young Offenders Institutes must have a system of incentives and privileges in place. 

How exactly does it work?

There are three different levels of privilege; basic, standard and enhanced. The idea is that prisoners earn privileges according to their behaviour and performance.

Basic

• Participation in normal regime activities, e.g. work, education, treatment programmes;
• Minimum entitlements to visits, letters, phone calls and canteen allowances.

Standard

• All prisoners on reception are placed in this level;
• Prisoners receive all facilities of Basic, plus;
• More frequent visits;
• More time for association;
• Access to an in-cell TV;
• Higher rates of pay and more attractive jobs;
• Increased access to private cash.

Enhanced

• All Basic and Standard level privileges, plus;
• More visits;
• More time for association;
• Priority for higher rates of pay.

Governors must ensure that the scheme is fair and consistent. At least two members of staff need to be involved in the decision making process.

What kind of privileges can be earned?

• 
  
• A television in cell;
• Permission to wear own clothes;
• Access to private cash;
• Time out of cell;
• Extra visits;
• Enhanced prisoners' earning schemes.

Is it a form of discipline?

No. Although prisoners may feel as though they are being punished if they are downgraded, the IEP scheme is not punitive in nature. Rather, it is supposed to reflect the consequences of unacceptable behaviour (R (on the application of Potter) v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentt [2001] EWHC Admin 1401).

I've just had an adjudication. Does this mean I'll automatically have my privileges taken from me?

Not necessarily. The IEP scheme is completely separate from the adjudication process.  

Can I be downgraded if I haven't been put on report?

Yes, since the two processes are separate, and being put on report is not a condition of downgrade. 

What if I'm put on Basic?

This must be reviewed within seven days, and you must be informed of the steps you must take to return to standard level (PSI 11/2011, 4.3).

How is behaviour assessed?

The determination behaviour of a prisoner’s privilege level must be based on patterns of behaviour rather than a single incident, unless the incident is especially serious. An incident which may fall into that category  of serious one-off incidents that may be, for example, a the commission of a disciplinary offence.

Can decisions relating to IEP be challenged?

Yes, and there are two main methods;

1. Written representations;
2. Judicial Review.

The significance of Shutt & Tetley for individuals who deny their offending

You can read the judgement here, and I suggest you do so: http://www.prisons.org.uk/sandt.pdf

It was held in R (on the application of Shutt & Tetley) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 851 that a local IEP policy which precluded individuals who maintained their innocence from ever achieving "Enhanced" level on the IEP scheme was unlawful.