Family Learning with KNEX: Pilot project summative evaluation
- Background
The pilot project, funded by The Indigo Trust, involved six of the 17 prisons within the East Midlands Region ranging in category from B – D. The aim of the project was to encourage prisons to offer quality family visits by providing them with resources - staff training, and KNEX sets - which would contribute towards the maintaining and strengthening of family ties. Further development could include the provision of accredited family learning modules. Initially targeted at prisons which had little if any history of offering family visits, perhaps due to cultural attitudes, reluctance and perhaps ‘fear of the unknown’, the project eventually secured the participation, evidenced by a signed agreement, of a wide range of prisons, some of which already offered family visits. The pilot project ran from March – December 2007.
Initial training in family learning of – in most cases – two staff members from the prisons was provided in March 2007 by ‘Read On Write Away!’ , a family learning organisation based in Derbyshire which had previously taken KNEX into prisons as a ‘fun’ way of learning. Each prison was then provided with 12 sets of KNEX Construction Kits, a mixture of Discovery Sets for people aged 7 and upwards, and Transportation Sets for those under 7. Three different evaluation sheets were compiled –for staff, for prisoners/family members, for children – and prisons asked to use these at each family visit using KNEX. Support was also given by the APF Development Officer, both by telephone and in person at visits, which enabled observation, monitoring and evaluation to be carried out.
At the end of the project each prison was asked to complete a summative evaluation form and submit copies of evaluation sheets. Thus both quantitative and qualitative evaluation has been carried out.
2Evaluation
Of the six prisons involved, one submitted a ‘nil’ return. Discussions with those who had been trained at this prison revealed that although family visits had already been held, substantial staff - and cultural – changes had taken place following the training and provision of KNEX sets, and a state of flux pertained. Thankfully at the time of compiling this report, a new person is in post who is keen to pick up the project and will receive training.
DATA: responses from questionnaires:
1Did you run regular family visits before participating in this project:
Yes:3No:2
2Number of KNEX family visits held April – December 07: 15
3Number of other visits using KNEX and other activities:1
4(i) Number of prisoners participating:161
(ii) Number of adult visitors participating:231
(iii) Number of children under 16 participating:305
Age range: 1 month – 16 years
NB: it should be noted that in some cases the ‘head count’ in each case may represent the same people who attended more than one visit.
‘Other activities’: art & craft, themed visits (eg Christmas, Hallowe’en), storytelling, RAW, parachute games, family/board games, toys, bingo
5Dedicated staff visits team?Yes: 4No: 1
ranging in number from 2 (most frequent 4/5) – 6
6(i) Learning & Skills teams involvement?Yes: 1No: 4 (although one Head of L & S attended the initial training, but took little further part in the KNEX family visits)
(ii) Library staff involvement?Yes: 3No: 2
(iii) Accredited modules using KNEX on offer:No: 5
6Are KNEX visits embedded into your prison visits programme? Yes: 5
Qualitative evaluation from prisons:
Asked for three positive results of using KNEX for family visits, comments included:
‘increased communication skills between families’
‘ families had a fun session’
‘families worked together….this increased their interaction’
‘Encourages sharing, praise’
‘Good for co-operation and sharing’
‘Families enjoy the competitive element’
‘Using KNEX provides a stimulating challenge for older children (over 7s). ‘It’s not always easy to find exciting activities for this age group’
‘Provides a project for fathers and children to do together’
‘Enabled our prison to set up family visit(s)’
‘Provided structured family learning through play’
‘Suitable for all ages and can be used again’
‘Encourages the family to work together as a team helping to strengthen the bonds between them’
‘The sets have added another element to encourage families to interact throughout the visit’
‘Having KNEX has enhanced the quality of the visits. It adds another dimension to the interaction between the fathers and their children and is a pleasure to see them producing something together'
‘Staff feedback positive’
‘Stimulated thoughts on how to improve family visits in general’
Invited to express concerns about using KNEX for family visits:
‘Cost of KNEX/novelty may wear off ‘
‘As long as other themes are used in conjunction/alternately – as the adults can get ‘too familiar’ with the KNEX and become bored.’
‘Small pieces are quite hazardous for young children’ ‘Staff have to keep a close eye on the toddlers to stop them putting pieces in their mouths’
‘Young children get bored with it quickly. There needs to be an alternative activity to engage them at the same time. This needs careful planning.’
‘No concerns about KNEX, just about enforcing activities. The families seemed to use it well on their own.’
Qualitative evaluation from prisoners, family members and children.
See template evaluation forms attached.
i)The children’s evaluation forms show that the majority liked the session ‘a lot’ although noticeably of the six children’s forms from one specific visit, only two responded ‘a lot’, three others ranged from ‘quite’ to ‘ok’ and one replied ‘not at all’ and didn’t want to do this again. (NB similar mixed response from adults attending the same visit – refer to comment in analysis)
ii)The prisoners’/family members’ evaluation forms show a range of responses: those from 3 prisons were overwhelmingly positive, but from the other two much less so, with negative responses to questions such as ‘Is this better than an ordinary visit?’ and ‘Would you like to take part in another visit using KNEX?’ (Comment in analysis)
iii)The officers’ responses indicate that the majority would support more visits using KNEX, indicating that in spite of some difficulties in arranging the visits, staff felt positive about the benefits of the visits to the families involved, and felt mostly that some family learning had taken place.
The difficulties in arranging the visits include lack of financial support (eg for refreshments, small prizes etc), lack of management commitment to the visits in allowing the staff involved the necessary time to prepare and implement visits.
Observer’s evaluation:
I attended seven of the visits at four of the prisons during the period April – November 07. They varied in attendance between three to 16 families, and in staffing between three to many. At some, members of senior management including governor level dropped in to the visit; at all, staff members spoke to me about specific difficulties not necessarily included in the evaluation forms eg staff rotas making no allowance for the family visits, check my eval forms.
What is very evident is that where prisons had not previously run family visits, they kept these small to start with – perhaps just six families identified, of which on the day maybe only four would turn up (for a variety of reasons: security issues; transport problems; family illness; prisoner being transferred or at court). Undoubtedly this helped to make the visit more manageable, and is a sensible way to start something which other staff within the establishment feel is neither necessary nor right to do. It is interesting to have seen the change in some officers’ attitudes, from very negative – particularly in body language – at the start of a visit, to actually having a go at the KNEX themselves, and being more relaxed with both the prisoners and their families towards the end.
The evaluation forms and my observation highlight a very marked contrast between prisons offering their first ever family visits, and those with a previously established pattern of family visits. In the former case, as the visit was totally centred around the KNEX ‘challenge’ (in the early visits, at least), both adult and child satisfaction was very high. This is doubtless due in part to the fact that neither the prisoners nor the families knew what to expect; any visit where the prisoners could move relatively freely, could play with their children, where the atmosphere was more informal, would be rated highly. The visits were structured around the KNEX challenge, and – initially at least – there was no choice of activity. With the latter, by contrast, where a fairly unstructured pattern had developed over previous family visits, and where there was a fairly wide choice of activities – some directed at the children alone, others where the whole family could be involved – it proved far more difficult to integrate the structured, relatively formalised, KNEX session – hence a lower level of satisfaction. Indeed some adult evaluation forms made requests for videos or more for the children to do so that parents/carers could spend the time without them.
What is in no doubt from my own observation and discussions with staff involved is their commitment to family visits – many went ‘the extra mile’ to ensure that the visit took place in a relaxed, informal way.
Conclusion
Although this project took time and patience to set up – with some prisons taking a long time to decide whether they would participate or not – the evidence shows that quality family visits have resulted from it – and more importantly, will continue. It is also evident that it has been more successful where the prison had not previously put on family visits. In most cases a significant dimension can be added where library or learning & skills staff are involved (eg, the KNEX challenge can be combined with the reading of a particular story book or theme)
It is disappointing that no prison has extended the concept of family learning through KNEX to offer accredited modules – but see below for developments.
The project has undoubtedly been worthwhile doing: seeing families interacting together, barriers between prisoners/family member/prison staff reducing, and family learning taking place through play. It is vital that prisons seek ways of maintaining and strengthening family ties, and the KNEX project helps them to do so.
•‘I bonded properly with my son for the first time’
•‘Family time, relaxed atmosphere, friendly staff’
•‘I enjoyed being close with my family; I enjoyed the games played. I enjoyed buying sweets for my kids after one year, which made me feel happy’
Subsequent developments
The project has now been offered to the remaining prisons in the region. Nine out of 11 have responded, and staff members’ training took place in December 07. Five of the prisons have already run family visits using KNEX, another has one arranged. Of these, two already run family visits, two have held ‘fathers’ visits’ or ‘dads’ days’, two have held no family visits. Support is being given to these prisons.
In response to demand, a further training session has been offered for one staff member from each prison.
Pilot prisons have been invited to send one staff member on a ‘Train the trainer’ accredited training day to be held in conjunction with the Nottingham City Family Learning co-ordinator; on successful completion of this they will be able to train those over 14 in accredited modules at Level 1 using KNEX for numeracy. There are plans to develop a ‘train the trainer’ module specifically aimed at prison staff, and learning modules specifically developed for those in prison and their families.
Furthermore, in conjunction with the ‘KNEX User Group’, plans are in place to develop a ‘User Guide’ for running KNEX challenges in prisons.
It is hoped that the good practice gained from this project in the East Midlands will be shared nationally through Action for Prisoners’ Families.
RC
25.02.08