Charities that want to run prisons are 'naive' says Howard League boss

News

Charities that want to run prisons are 'naive' says Howard League boss 2

Finance | Vibeka Mair | 11 Aug 2009

Charities bidding to run prisons are naïve about what it will involve, according to Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

And she plans to seek a meeting with Charity Commission chair Dame Suzi Leather to debate the issue further.

Crime prevention charities Catch 22 and Turning Point became the first charities to win a Ministry of Justice bid to run two prisons in a consortium with private service deliverer Serco last month.

Crook (pictured), who has spoken out publicly against charities being able to run prisons, told Charity News Alert that she didn’t think charities had thought about it thoroughly.

“Prisons deliver punishment. Prisons have people physically restrained, this includes inflicting pain on them. Prison managers decide to hold prisoners in solitary confinement sometimes for weeks on end.

“We have someone dying in prison every day and half of them commit suicide. There are quite a lot of inspection reports and investigations into the deaths which highlight very serious failings in prisons. If someone dies, if someone is murdered or when someone is raped, charities would be responsible for that.

“I don’t think they have thought this through at all.”

'Profiting from locking people up'

She added that charities would be guilty of making a profit out of locking people up for punishment.

“They are part of running a prison for profit,” she said. “It is completely different to providing a drug rehabilitation service under contract to a prison.

“When running a prison you are managing people who are desperate, unhappy and very vulnerable. There are going to be tragedies and charities will be responsible for them.”

Crook to seek meeting with Dame Suzi Leather

Crook added that she would seek a meeting with Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Charity Commission, to follow up NAVCA chief Kevin Curley’s request for the Charity Commission to consider whether running a prison could be a charitable purpose.

Curley wrote a letter to Charity Commission chief executive Andrew Hind last month, saying he was horrified about the prospect of charities running prisons, and urging the Commission to review whether running a prison could be a charitable purpose.

Curley got a response from Alison Holt, head of legal services at the Commission, who refused to rule out the possibility that a charity could run a prison.

Crook complained that the response was not considered.

“I think the response Kevin got was from a middle-ranking officer,” she said. “I don’t think it was a properly thought-through or considered response to a very complicated issue that the Charity Commission is going to have to consider. I am going to seek a meeting with Dame Suzi to talk through some of the issues.”

Who's Who: Vibeka Mair

Place a comment

Carl Allen
12 Aug 2009

A one sided question ...How much greater could the influence of charities like us be with a seat on the management board?

What are the dangers, safeguards and remedies
when charities face legal and reputational liability for worst case scenarios and less than worst case scenarios?

What happens to improvements in service quality when a for-private-profit principle meets a not-for-private-profit principle?

A contradistinction of the parties will show up where contradictions, dilemmas, irreconciliable and reconciliable differences exist, paradox and perhaps paradigms shifts may be called for.

Turning Point and Catch 22 need to get it right from the start and not learn by avoidable experience.

Innovations in working together arrangements, dispute preventions and settlement and contract form seem to be called for.

What is happening here is unlikely to be a unique occurence and bodies such as the OTS, Treasury Solicitors Department and Office of Government Commerce will have an interest in the alliance agreement and implementation.

Bear in mind the ongoing London and Quadrant case which is being appealed to the House of Lords where a housing association charity was deemed subject to judicial review.

[Reply]

Stephen Elsden
Chief Executive
Compaid Trust
12 Aug 2009

The outcry about this new partnership seems to revolve around a belief that prisons and punishment are inherently bad for society and that charities should therefore have no part in their management.

With regards to the first part of this argument, there are undoubtedly pockets of British society who don't believe in global warming, or the rights of animals, and would be quite happy to see Greenpeace or WSPA close their doors. Yet those organisations do not, and both have established a position in the fabric of British society. With the current Charity Commission focus on public benefit, many people would argue that prisons and their function provide a public benefit.

To take the second part of Ms Crook's argument, that charities managing prisons become part of the 'problem', she seems to ignore the very real possibility that those same charities could find and implement solutions from within. The Howard League has done sterling work over many years to improve the situation of prisoners, but there is plenty of room for other charities to make their own contribution. My own organisation, Compaid Trust, works closely with a local prison to support the rehabilitation and social reintegration of prisoners as they approach parole, and this has proved to be a partnership with great benefits for the prisoners, the prison and for us. How much greater could the influence of charities like us be with a seat on the management board?

Charities have been delivering public services successfully for many years, and have fought for a long time to tender for such services in open and fair competition. Let us not suggest taking a retrograde step now.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.