Role of ngos in prisoner resettlement rosie meek


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Role of ngos in prisoner resettlement rosie meek

  1. 1. THE ROLE OF NGOs IN PRISONER RESETTLEMENT: PROVISION AND ENGAGEMENT Rosie Meek University of Southampton, United Kingdom Alice Mills University of Auckland, New Zealand Dina Gojkovic Third Sector Research Centre ESC ANNUAL CONFERENCE, VILNIUS: 22 nd SEPTEMBER 2011
  2. 2. Overview <ul><ul><li>‘Third sector’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aim 1 : Explore the extent of third sector involvement in the resettlement of offenders. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Secondary analysis of existing datasets from the Charity Commission and the National Survey of Third Sector Organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aim 2 : To explore awareness of, and engagement with, third sector organisations from the perspectives of those currently service prison sentences. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey carried out in eight English prisons </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Strengths of TSOs
  4. 4. Academic debate <ul><li>Volunteers viewed as amateurs and with suspicion (Bryans et al . 2002; Neuberger 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship varies. Prison governors and probation area directors use their discretion in allocating budgets (NPC, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Expertise of public sector lost - divested of social welfare role (Gelsthorpe and Sharpe 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriateness of TSOs managing penal institutions (Garside 2009; Neilson 2009)? Involved in punishment = at odds with charity ethos (Benson and Hedge 2009) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan (Home Office, 2004) <ul><li>Reducing re-offending ‘pathways’: </li></ul><ul><li>Accommodation </li></ul><ul><li>Education, employment and training </li></ul><ul><li>Health </li></ul><ul><li>Drugs and alcohol </li></ul><ul><li>Finance, debt and benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Children and families </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes, thinking and behaviour </li></ul>
  6. 6. Methodological challenges <ul><li>Measurement largely depends on: </li></ul><ul><li>Which parts of the sector are measured </li></ul><ul><li>Whether organisations consider offenders to be one of their main client groups </li></ul><ul><li>Whether we include only the organisations whose primary area of work is the criminal justice system </li></ul>
  7. 7. Secondary analysis: Charity Commission <ul><li>CC is a non-ministerial governmental body charged with the regulation of charities. Charities are required to register with the CC and to submit their annual accounts </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 166,000 active charities, and another 111,000 which were inactive or newly registered </li></ul><ul><li>No obligation to report to the CC for organisations below the reporting threshold (which in 2007 was raised from £1,000 to £5,000) </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: Excludes TSOs such as social enterprises, community groups, non-charitable housing associations, cooperatives and mutuals, and faith groups </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: Offenders are not specified as one of the client groups available for selection. </li></ul><ul><li>Keyword search </li></ul>
  8. 8. National Survey of Third Sector Organisations <ul><li>Commissioned by OTS, aimed to provide a measurement of contributions made by local authorities to meeting National Indicator 7: creating an environment for a thriving third sector </li></ul><ul><li>Encompasses charities, social enterprises, community groups, clubs and societies, non-profit organisations, voluntary organisations, housing associations, trusts, cooperative and mutuals, and faith groups </li></ul><ul><li>129,000 charities + 40,000 companies limited by guarantee, Industrial and Provident Societies and Community Interest Companies </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaires received from 40,692 charities, 5,622 non-charitable companies limited by guarantee, 271 community interest companies, 2,354 industrial and provident societies </li></ul><ul><li>Beneficiary groups, main client groups and main areas of work </li></ul>
  9. 9. Findings <ul><li>CC: keywords identified 769 charities </li></ul><ul><li>NSTSO: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>18,380 identified offenders, ex-offenders and their families as one of their client groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1,744 as main client group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4,916 identified criminal justice as one of their areas of work </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Variation in findings from the two datasets <ul><li>Interpretation of criminal justice and what it means to work within it </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrates the inter-penetration of the criminal justice system and community work, where working with offenders and their families goes beyond the immediate boundaries of the criminal justice system </li></ul>
  11. 11. Engagement with and awareness of TSOs: prisoner self reports 308 (25) Closed local Male 46 (10) Closed Male young adults 66 (12) Closed Male 16 (11) Open, training Female 19 (4) Juvenile Male 90 (9) Open, local Male 50 (10) Open, training Male 85 (18) Closed Female Response rate n (% population) Type of prison (two privately run) Population
  12. 12. Survey respondents <ul><li>N = 680, age 15-78 years (mean age 32) </li></ul><ul><li>85% male </li></ul><ul><li>3% juvenile, 7% young adult </li></ul><ul><li>59% repeat prisoners </li></ul><ul><li>60% White British, 12% Black British, 7% Asian, 6% mixed race, 6% White other </li></ul><ul><li>19% on remand </li></ul>
  13. 13. Prisoner awareness of and engagement with TSOs <ul><li>TSOs operating in each prison </li></ul><ul><li>n = 15-31, total of 116 different organisations </li></ul><ul><li>Have you heard of x? </li></ul><ul><li>Have you worked with x? (If not, why not?) </li></ul><ul><li>Low overall engagement levels with TSOs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heard of, on average, just four organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engaged with an average of one </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. <ul><li>Estimating the prevalence of TSOs in CJ is complex and challenging: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Registered Charities who consider work with offenders as one of their key aims and worth highlighting in their aims and objectives (769) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those with offenders as their main beneficiary group (1,743) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those that identified offenders as one of their beneficiary groups but not necessarily the main one (18,380) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those that identified criminal justice as their area of work (4,916) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Levels of awareness of resettlement-focused TSOs in prisons remains low: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average number of TSOs per prison was approximately 20 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respondents were aware of an average of only four TSOs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respondents engaged with an average of no more than one TSO </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A number of TSOs had no or very few users among our respondents, despite the prisons reporting a working relationship with them </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance of VCS coordinators (Prison Service Order 4190, 2002) </li></ul></ul>