Imprisoning charities
Yesterday morning I had a fascinating meeting with the Charity Commission about whether charities should manage prisons. I went with Kevin Curley and others from NAVCA and met with Suzi Leather and her team. We sought the meeting because we are concerned that two charities, Turning Point and Catch 22, have joined with Serco to form a consortium and are bidding to build and manage new prisons.
Our argument is that the infliction of punishment cannot be a charitable activity and that the main purpose of a prison is punishment. Whilst we support charities delivering rehabilitative services under contract inside prisons, it is a whole different ball game when they join a consortium to manage a jail.
The government has set out its vision of an expanded prison estate to accommodate 96,000 men, women and children and that all new prisons will be financed, built and managed by private companies and the third sector. The government does not even pay lip service to the concept of independence of charities but sees them merely as a way of achieving a burgeoning prison estate without the taxpayer having to pay the initial capital costs up front. Privatisation of expensive capital spend allows the government to do it “off balance sheet” which is basically building prisons on a mortgage. Contracts would be up to 40 years – a hugely long time to tie a charity into a service and very seductive to a sector that is used to short term agreements.
The problem is that charities could be involved in deciding policy on punishments inside the prison. I can imagine the conversation at a management board – “should we stop people from having exercise or family visits as a punishment for swearing at a prison officer?” “What about not allowing them a radio when they are in solitary confinement after the second week?”. Prisons a complex regulatory structure but within that they have discretion to invent their own incentives and punishment systems.
Charities would have a financial incentive to deliver the contract as they would share the profits. They could also share the fines imposed for failing to deliver on the contract. The private sector has not been particularly innovative because they operate on tight margins and the profit imperative rules, so charities involved in this structure would be inhibited from experimentation and improving practice.
Interestingly it has proved impossible to get hold of the contracts and even the charities involved have not been transparent about what their relationship and arrangements are. The private sector plays hardball and would not allow their more benevolent partners to reveal anything that could affect their reputation or profits.
A story to illustrate this. I am to take part in BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions this week, which was due to be held in a Serco prison. When they heard I was on the panel, Serco withdrew the invitation to the BBC to host the programme. Why didn’t they want me to see the prison? What have they got to hide?
Back to the Charity Commission. It has decided to do some fact finding so it has a better understanding of the issues. I am very pleased with that outcome. We are going to meet again.
I strongly believe it is both immoral and impractical for charities to be involved in the management of prisons. If we let this happen, it could change the very nature of charities and mislead the public as to what a prison is, for generations to come.
Related posts:
- A new face at the top Phil Wheat
- Pre-budget report The pre-bu
- The death of Aleksey Baranovsky The bleedi
- Viva la rehabilitation revolution? There has
- Work in prison: different European models I was invi
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
February 3, 2010
Tags: NOMS, Prisons, Public Services Posted in: Government policy, Prisons, Public Services, Rehabilitation, Uncategorized
Twitter
6 Responses
Well done Frances and NAVCA. I am really glad that the Commission is being asked to rule on this vital issue. I cannot see how punishment can be part of any sensible charitable objects. I guess the problem with waiting for the Commission to do some “fact finding” is that it will put off any decision until after an election. The Commission is already running scared from Tories who have made clear their disdain for some of its decisions and its leading personnel. I find it hard to believe that the Commission would have the courage of any convictions that it might (or might not) discover when finding these “facts” and stand up to an incoming Tory administration to whom privatisation and “voluntarisation” will be even more of an ideological drive than has been the case under New Labour (to its shame)
Libby Brooks had an excellent column on this a while back http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/03/charities-marketisation-private-partnerships
It is a very worrying development
Really good to see this being picked up it is just so wrong on all sorts of different levels, political, ethical, ideological, practical, reputational and legal keep up the pressure
Hi
Glad you are doing this, support you 100%. This policy the government has, of using the vol sector to fill gaps, is just neo-liberal rubbish which allows them to hide the true cost of decent services. The prisons thing is particularly worrying as it represents a convergence of two of the worst themes in public administration; PFI and the subordination of charities, both of which have been around for some time now. Society will be the poorer but the poorest and those with the least power, ie. prisoners, will suffer most.
Please keep on going.
pete
Frances,
If you hold to the position that prisons are just there as a punishment then you are missing out on their potential function as rehabilitation centres, which is eminently suitable for charitable work. The main purpose of a prison is the protection of the public, not a punishment. I suspect too much Foucault.
As an ex prisoner I am deeply concerned by your objection to this. Being sent to prison IS the punishment. People are not sent to prison TO BE punished.
What exactly is the problem with charities being involved in deciding policy on punishments inside the prison? You say you can imagine the conversation – but that conversation will occur anyway, whoever is involved.
Punishments are there to maintain discipline and work towards rehabilitation. They exist in drug rehabs run by charities and prison are, to a significant degree, drug rehabs – or should be. Why should this be restricted to the state and business? If prisons can produce law abiding releasees, why does it matter what kind of organization achieves this?
You say “If we let this happen, it could change the very nature of charities” – but they are changing anyway! Many many charities are involved in business and have trading arms, they run all kinds of rehabilitation, education and accommodation facilities – why should prisons be any different?
To argue they should be excluded from doing this kind of business is to argue that prisoners are essentially a different type of person who should only be managed by the state, and that ignores the fact that the vast majority of prisoners are ordinary people who’ve made some stupid decisions and had very poor examples and opportunities.
It is far more worrying to me that a misandrist feminist such as yourself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/13/prisons-women-human-rights) should be in such an influential position to effect penal policy for men. I am very happy the the Howard League is excluded from the debate until it revises it’s policy of encouraging sexual apartheid i.e. small local units for women only, and ignoring the fact that men have families too and many men are also in prison because they have been attacked and abused. Your bias appalls me. Please review or resign ASAP.
Regards
Obsidian
Glad this is being taken up. I am very against either private sector companies or charities running prisons. Very simplistically, this seems to be something that is so obviously the responsibility of the statutory sector when it is only people who have broken the law (decided through statute) that are sent to prison. Charities and even private sector companies are set up to provide services that the state doesn’t have to provide. They (mainly charities – as its unlikely to be a profitable activity) can also campaign for the provision that the state provides to be improved and to provide help, support, rehabilitation to prisoners and ex-offenders. Often the best kind because its informed by people who have gone through that system.
My main knowledge is through visiting people I know and I find the whole system, even of getting VOs or what you can give them, so complicated. I know the not knowing where you are going to be and who can visit you gets my friends down to the point of getting angry and not wanting to do any type of activity. This way of running a prison system is not something that could be in any way described as charitable.
My reading of the Howard League’s policy position suggests that they would be equally supportive of fathers with families as mothers, so I am surprised by the previous post
Leave a Reply