Exploring the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in criminal justice

Abstract

Voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) have a long history of engagement with offenders. Recent policy developments have aimed to increase their participation in the criminal justice system, leading to considerable speculation about the impact on the sector's independence and ethos. This paper draws on qualitative interviews with stakeholders in the voluntary sector and criminal justice fields to explore the effects of such developments on the relationship between the sector and the state, including the implications of opening the criminal justice market to VSOs, gaps between the rhetoric and reality of commissioning, and the potential loss of the sector's distinctiveness and critical voice.

The Voluntary Sector and the Mandatory Statutory Supervision Requirement: Expanding the Carceral Net

“…This paper adds to the limited empirical knowledge about voluntary organisations (Corcoran, 2011;Mills et al, 2011;Armstrong, 2002). It illustrates how voluntary sector involvement in penal policy can result in expanded penal control; and how apparently inclusionary 'support' policies may mean that penal institutions remain, their remit is widened, intervention is intensified, control is extended and the net of carceral power is widened (cf.…”

Prisoner Relationships with Voluntary Sector Practitioners

“…It has been characterised as ‘a loose and baggy monster’ containing a ‘bewildering variety of organisational forms, activities, motivations and ideologies’ (Kendall and Knapp , p.66; see, also, Tomczak ). Understandings of this diverse sector are ‘lacking’ (Mills, Meek and Gojkovic , p.195) and it remains ‘a descriptive rather than theoretically rigorous concept or empirically defined entity’ (Corcoran , p.33).…”

“…Although voluntary sector practitioners are often argued to make a ‘special’ or distinctive contribution to prisoners, in contrast to public or private sector engagement (Maguire , p.490; see, also, Corcoran and Hucklesby ; Mills, Meek and Gojkovic ; Neuberger ), this has not been substantiated through research (Armstrong ). Indeed, there is a relative dearth of research in the area (Meek, Gojkovic and Mills ; Corcoran ; Mills, Meek and Gojkovic ). The idea of bottom‐up ‘voluntary’ and ‘community’ action exerts a hold over criminal justice policy reform movements and evokes a powerful and ‘richly positive imagery’ of inclusion, but this remains under‐theorised and unproven (Armstrong , p.351; see, also, Crawford , p.151).…”

Nordic and Scottish Civil Society Organisations Working with Offenders and the Effects of Service Delivery: Is Pursuing Mission Impossible Whilst Bidding for Contracts?

“…The PESOs, in contrast, were able to portray themselves as ‘one of them’ and distinct from the authorities. It was apparent that this ability to form trustful, personal relationships with the members was one of the most significant assets of the work of the PESOs, despite the fact that it often becomes undervalued when evaluating the effectiveness of different crime prevention measures (Mills, Meek and Gojkovic ). Nevertheless, preserving the distinctiveness and credibility required constant effort from the PESOs, as they were also obliged to co‐operate with the criminal justice system:

Too close co‐operation with the prison authorities and too close co‐operation with the police make problem for us to work.

…”

“…However, the actual research evidence about the possible effects of service‐delivery contracts on the independence of the CSOs working with offenders and their ability to pursue their missions whilst delivering public services is still scarce, and much of it is based on speculation. For example, in one of the few studies in which stakeholders from the CSOs were interviewed, half of the interviewees stated that government contracts muted their critical voice, whilst half of them had not noted such an effect (Mills, Meek and Gojkovic ). Furthermore, Tomczak () has highlighted the heterogeneity of the CSOs working in the area of criminal justice, arguing that CSOs are able to find alternative funding sources instead of becoming ‘junior partners’ of the government.…”