Charities shouldn’t run prisons
I was shocked to hear about the bids to run prisons by Nacro and other charities. How naive are they? They won’t be able to stop their
prisons being overcrowded just like all the others, and what will happen when their staff have to cut down the first young man who hangs himself. The private sector delivers prisons on the cheap because they pay low wages without pensions, whereas the voluntary sector has always treated its staff properly – will that change?
My original draft of this blog included a literary reference, but my colleagues have advised that it was a bit too strong, so I have curbed my fury and wont talk about Christopher Marlowe at all.
I went to see Her Naked Flesh at the National last night, about the suffragettes. It was a much better play than the reviews have indicated, and some of the prison scenes were shocking. The brutality of imprisonment, albeit in this case of political women, was horrific.
How can charitable organisations go out with begging bowls to the public to fund their work when they have their hands covered in the blood (literally in many cases) of young men with mental health problems, suicidal drug addicts and people who are on remand.
No related posts.
September 2, 2008
¡ 
matthewcain ¡ 
3 Comments
Posted in: Government policy, Howard League
Twitter
3 Responses
I tried to post this to the Times blog you wrote in a similar vein to the above this morning (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6795185.ece). Sadly they wouldnât allow a lengthy response so I have come direct to the horses mouth, so to speak:
It strikes me from the above exchange that those âforâ seem to be focussed on the potential to get charitable assistance to the very hardest to reach, and those âagainstâ are locked in an existential conflict about the ethos of charitable work in the 21st Century. I am struck that Francis Crook cannot, or chooses not, to make the case that vulnerable prisoners would be better off if charities are not involved in the contract to run prisons.
I find many aspects of Ms Crooks argument, at best, eccentric. Take these nonsensical statements:
âCharities could not rattle a bucket and ask people to donate to running a prisonâ. If that were a valid indicator of charitable purpose then weâd have no charities helping refugees or working in dozens of other socially challenging areas. Youâd be better off doing a poll of taxi drivers to see where charities should be working. I doubt Terrence Higgins Trust would have had much luck rattling tins in pubs in the 1970âs, and thank goodness they found a way to fund their cutting edge work that led public opinion for several decades.
âPeople die in prisonâ. People die in charity run nursing homes, hospices, night shelters, and childrenâs homes. People die. If someone hanged themselves in a museum would you want that closed down or itâs charitable status revoked? A drop-in centre for youngsters battling with their sexual identity I once volunteered in saw three of their service users try taking their life in one year. It was utterly heartbreaking, but thank god the staff and volunteers of the charity were able to work with the families and individuals to bring them back from the edge in two of the three cases. If only vulnerable people in prison had access to such support, and if only those supporters had an empowered position with those making the decisions on security and restraint and other tough decisions that have to be made to protect the rest of society. In that case maybe the statistics you quote wouldnât be so horrendous.
âThe profit motive encourages secrecyâ. Every charity must, by law, be financially sustainable in the same was as the private sector. Itâs how the profit is spent where the difference lies and that difference will remain. And are you seriously trying to tell us that charities small and large are not competitive and at times territorial and secretive?
âHaving a financial stake in how a prison runs can create a more repressive regimeâ. Charities, by law, must prioritise charitable endeavor above profit. But I realise I won’t be able to change your mind on this as you seem to have such a very low opinion of people in other charities, suggesting that as soon as they see money or a contract their motivation and determination to achieve social justice will go straight out the window.
âThe charitable motive is too important to contaminate with involvement in punishmentâ. Get your facts straight. In the partnership Catch 22 and Turning Point will not be responsible for punishment or security. They will be doing the same fantastic rehabilitative and capacity building work they do in every other one of their projects.
Finally, for Andrew Neilson, who also works for Howard League, to state âThis is more about voluntary sector organisations joining in with corporate giants like G4S and Serco in order to secure lucrative contracts than anything to do with their charitable purposeâ is a total disgrace. From employment services to health and social care and now in the justice system, charities have been partnering with private sector organisations to achieve real outcomes for some of societyâs most excluded and vulnerable people. If you think that any one of these relationships runs contrary to a charityâs objects then you should lodge a complaint with the Charity Commission rather than making cheap, lazy, and slanderous comments like this on a blog.
The best charities make tough decisions, take risks, and at times challenge their own conceptions of what is within the charitable ethos in order to help individuals in most need. Charitable work should start with the vulnerable and work backwards from there, not start and end within the boundaries of Frances Crookâs comfort zone which, lets face it, would have excluded the work of almost every charitable pioneer for the last 800 years.
Peter Kyle, Deputy CEO, ACEVO
Peter, why get personal? Is it because we are rattled?
For the record – and I can’t speak for Frances who apparently excludes the work of ‘almost every charitable pioneer for the last 800 years’ (visit our website for copious refutation) – I am not ideologically against the involvement of the private or indeed voluntary sectors in the delivery of public services. But there are important issues in the criminal justice sector that you are ignoring, I (charitably) assume because you are not aware of them. Drop me a line any time you like and we can arrange a meeting to discuss in more detail.
all best
Andrew
I’m perhaps unqualified to comment on whether charities should *run* prisons.
However, I’ve become increasingly convinced that much more needs to be done about the disturbingly high rates of addiction in our prisons. I firmly believe that anyone (private, public or charity sector) who’s willing and able to help prisoners battle against addiction shouldn’t be hindered.
According to the BBC’s excellent Panorama programme, “Smugglers’ Tales” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lz9g2), approximately 55 per cent of prisoners have a serious drug problem and over seven out of ten prisoners test positive for illegal drugs when admitted to prison.
Whoever is best placed to oversee the most effective treatment of fundamental problems like this should run prisons, calling on all the talents – from whatever sector – to help them.
Leave a Reply