A/HRC/11/8 page 20 62. Despite being free (at least for many courses), a disincentive to participate in education relates to its potential impact on opportunities for financial remuneration, although minimal, for employment, usually inside the place of detention. Although most States indicate there is no financial penalty in undertaking learning, it is the case that, for some learners, their inability to participate in employment affects their finances. This is not the case across the board, however, as demonstrated by Ireland, which referred to receipt of the “same daily payment as other prisoners”. Ireland also offers, as do other States, such as Hungary and Lithuania, monthly grants to compensate the potential loss of income. As an incentive to participate in education, some States, such as Algeria, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mauritius, Peru, Poland and Tunisia, also take into account the time spent in education programmes for parole or conditional release; in Peru and Tunisia, this time is considered for sentence reduction. 63. In the majority of States, education in detention is publicly funded. This can take a number of forms and, in some cases, may involve differing Government ministries, principally those concerned with criminal justice and/or education. This implies the need for active coordination between ministries to avoid waste, gaps and inconsistency in resourcing and provision. In decentralized States where regional and local entities are competent in the education sphere (for example in Argentina, Germany, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland), such risks may be inherently increased, although none were reported by States. 64. Education is also funded through grant schemes, initiated and/or assisted by various entities including, in some instances, the European Union (Slovak Republic) and other international bodies (Latvia, for instance, organized its library stock with the assistance of international project funds). Outsourcing through various processes is therefore not unusual, again taking a number of forms. Public entities are the principal providers, but the private sector may be involved in some States (for example, the United Kingdom), and provision is not uncommonly subcontracted to the voluntary and community sectors. Indeed, implementation of education provision in cooperation with the voluntary and community sectors is relatively common and seen in States including Burkina Faso, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Mauritius, the Republic of Moldova, Peru, Singapore, Suriname and the United Kingdom. Confidence in sufficient and long-term funding within such partnerships, alongside rigorous monitoring and evaluation, will do much to ensure the quality of such an approach. 65. One related issue is participation in the design, delivery and monitoring of education programmes. Participation of diverse actors, such as detainees, prison officers, the outside community, non-governmental organizations and families, is known to have a positive impact on their relevance and outcome.58 The Special Rapporteur was surprised therefore to learn that a number of States make no formal provision for participation of detainees. In failing to do so, they obviate a richness of experience, knowledge and informed opinion. 58 One related example concerns the participation of detainees as teachers or trainers, a practice encouraged in, for example, Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Romania and the Slovak Republic. Without appropriate resourcing and support, this practice may have some limitations.