Messaging

One sentence. A free, plain-English question service that tells prisoners and their families what the prison rules actually say, cites the paragraph it came from, and says so when it does not know.

The longer version. YCG has run PLI, a peer-delivered prison legal information service, at HMP Oakwood since 2018, with serving-prisoner caseworkers handling around 10,000 recorded interactions a year. The evidence from that work is credited with three national policy changes (ROTL eligibility, IT access, apprenticeships). The digital service takes the same discipline and puts it online: answers come only from an approved, current corpus of Policy Frameworks, Prison Service Instructions and legislation maintained by YCG; every answer cites the document and paragraph and shows when it was last checked; the service refuses rather than guesses; it never characterises the person and never gives advice. It works for a family member on a phone and is built from day one to be approvable for use inside a prison.

Why now. No organisation combines a citation-grounded information service, a free-to-use model and a link to sentence planning. The Ministry of Justice's AI Action Plan talks about legal chatbots in general but names no prisoner-facing service. HMPPS is already funding digital content in prisons. The gap is real and it will not stay open.

What we are not. Not a law firm, not advice, not a replacement for a solicitor. When a question needs judgement, the service says so and points to a person.

Naming. 'PLI' is expanded differently across YCG material. Settle one expansion before anything is published.

• PLI has run at HMP Oakwood since 2018 (in some form since 2015), with sixteen serving-prisoner caseworkers trained in 16-week cohorts. Source: Mark's PLI documents, summarised in the 7 Sep 2026 briefing.
• About 10,000 recorded interactions a year for roughly 2,100 prisoners and 350 staff. Source: as above.
• Credited with three national policy changes: ROTL eligibility, IT access, apprenticeships. Source: as above.
• 91 resettlement prisons; PLI present in three (Oakwood, Leyhill, Five Wells). Source: as above.
• About 9,700 of 88,000 prisoners have digital access, so the family route over the open internet is the primary channel. Source: as above.
• None of 19 charities researched combines an AI-assisted, citation-grounded information platform, a tiered free/paid/sponsored model and a link to sentence planning. Source: Mark's third-sector landscape, Sep 2026.

Do not say that the digital service exists yet, that HMPPS has approved it, that any funder has committed, or that Reeds has signed.

• Your staff, mentors and peer advisers get asked legal and policy questions every day that they cannot safely answer. The service gives them a cited answer or a clear 'this needs a person'.
• It is free at the point of use and carries no advertising in the free tier.
• It refers complex matters onward, including back to you, using wording you approve.
• Shared evidence of use supports your own funding reports.
• Where a specific need exists (simpler wording, an older-learner pace, a disclosure strand), a small co-funded module is possible.

• Eight years of peer-delivered track record at HMP Oakwood; a defined first version with acceptance criteria.
• A safety design that funders can stand behind: approved corpus only, paragraph-level citations, refusal below a confidence threshold, red-flag routing to a named person, no personal data collected.
• A sustainable model: grants fund the free tier; paid applications and sponsorship fund the rest; running costs are known before launch.
• Reach through partners already in 100+ prisons rather than a new distribution network.
• Evidence to policy: the existing service's data has already changed national policy three times.

• Plain answers to the questions members ask every week: visits, money, property, release dates, categorisation, transfers.
• Every answer shows where it came from and when it was last checked, so members can trust it and check it.
• It says when it does not know. It never pushes anyone towards a lawyer.
• We offer content to moderators, credited to your group, rather than posting into your community.

• Fewer applications and complaints driven by misunderstanding of policy.
• Non-adversarial by founding principle: it explains what the rule says, including what is discretionary and who decides.
• Built to be approvable: no outbound links, no third-party assets, source text served from its own domain, nothing recorded about the person.
• Answers only from approved instruments, with the paragraph cited and a last-verified date; refuses outside coverage.
• Complements, rather than duplicates, HMPPS-funded education content.

• Founding-sponsor visibility on the first national prison legal information service, with families and prisoners.
• A defined handover point: when a question needs judgement, the service says so and offers a connection, with the user's consent.
• Pro bono content review that lends the service authority and the firm profile.
• A compliant structure: sponsorship and placement, not referral fees, agreed with regulatory advice.

Dear {{first_name}},

A short follow-up in case my note of {{original_date}} got buried. The one-line version: a free prison legal information service that cites the paragraph and refuses rather than guesses, and I think it could help {{organisation}}'s {{team_word}}.

If now isn't the right time, a name of the best person to speak to would be very welcome.

With thanks,
{{sender_name}}

Dear {{first_name}},

I'm writing from YCG, where we've run a peer-delivered prison legal information service at HMP Oakwood since 2018. Our serving-prisoner caseworkers handle around 10,000 questions a year, and the evidence from that work has changed national policy three times.

We're now building a digital version: a free service that answers questions about prison rules in plain English, cites the exact paragraph it came from, shows when that document was last checked, and says so when it doesn't know. No advice, no guessing, nothing recorded about the person.

I think it could be useful to {{organisation}}'s {{team_word}}, who I imagine get asked these questions every day and can't always answer them safely. {{specific_hook}}

Would you be open to a short call? I'd like to understand what your people get asked most, and whether a referral route into the service, or a small joint module, would help.

With best wishes,
{{sender_name}}
{{sender_title}}

Dear {{first_name}},

YCG has run a peer-delivered prison legal information service at HMP Oakwood since 2018. We're building a national digital version and I'd like to introduce it before any application.

In one sentence: a free service that tells prisoners and their families what the rules actually say, cites the document and paragraph, and refuses rather than guesses. It's designed to be approvable for use inside prisons and to reach families on their phones. The free tier is grant-funded; paid applications and sponsorship fund the rest.

{{specific_hook}}

Could I send a two-page note, or would a short call suit better?

With best wishes,
{{sender_name}}
{{sender_title}}

Hello {{first_name}},

I help run YCG, which has provided prison legal information at HMP Oakwood since 2018. We're building a free service that answers families' questions about prison rules in everyday language, shows where each answer came from, and says when it doesn't know.

I'm not writing to ask you to post anything. I'd like to offer {{organisation}} a short factual guide on {{guide_topic}}, credited to your group, that you can share if you think it's useful. If it lands well, we'd be glad to keep providing them.

Would that be welcome?

With thanks,
{{sender_name}}

Dear {{first_name}},

You will know YCG's PLI work at HMP Oakwood through the Deregulation and Operational Policy Team. We are building a digital version of the service and I would value {{organisation}}'s view early rather than late.

The design is deliberately narrow: it answers only from approved, current instruments, cites the paragraph, refuses when the material does not cover a question, routes risk to a named person, records nothing about the person asking, and is built as a walled garden from the start. It explains what the rule says, including what is discretionary and who decides. It is not advice.

{{specific_hook}}

Could we arrange a short conversation about how this sits alongside HMPPS's own digital content and what an approval route would look like?

Yours sincerely,
{{sender_name}}
{{sender_title}}

Dear {{first_name}},

Thank you for your candour on the exclusive package. I've reshaped the proposal so that {{organisation}} can be a founding sponsor without carrying the whole build.

{{specific_hook}}

What stays the same: founding-sponsor visibility on the service, a defined handover when a question needs judgement, and the option of pro bono content review that puts {{organisation}}'s name on the authority of the answers. What changes: no exclusivity, and a price that reflects that.

I'd welcome twenty minutes to walk through it.

With best wishes,
{{sender_name}}
{{sender_title}}

Hi {{first_name}},

A story for {{organisation}}: YCG, which has run a prisoner-delivered legal information service at HMP Oakwood since 2018, is launching a free national digital version. Prisoners and families ask in plain English; the service answers from the actual rules, cites the paragraph, and says when it doesn't know.

The angle: {{specific_hook}}

Happy to provide a case study, quotes from the caseworker team, and a launch date.

Best,
{{sender_name}}