Collaboration Between Knowledgeable Civil Society and Government in Criminal Justice: Lessons from the UK
Dr Alice Mills,
Senior Lecturer in Criminology
University of Auckland
Introduction and background
Civil society organisations (CSOs) (also known as third sector, non-governmental or community and voluntary sector organisations) have a long history of providing services to offenders, ex-offenders and their families. In the UK, the first Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society was established in 1874, and in the late 19th century, volunteers from the Church of England Temperance Society became police court missionaries, the forerunner to the modern probation service. Early civil society initiatives in New Zealand followed a similar pattern. In the late 19th century the Salvation Army engaged in rescue work through ‘prison gate brigades’ (Tennant 2007). The first Pa tients’ and Prisoners’ Aid Society (later to become Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS)) was established in Dunedin in 1877 and the first probation volunteers in New Zealand, linked to local branches of PARS, were licensed in 1913. Today CSOs provide a variety of different services, including prisoner reintegration, addiction treatment, education and training, restorative justice services, and spiritual and faith guidance. In England and Wales, the vast majority of organisations are small, local and rely on volunteers. In New Zealand, services are more likely to be provided by religious groups or iwi/hapu groups. Drawing on research conducted in the UK, this paper will examine some of the challenges faced by CSOs working in criminal justice at both government and grassroots levels. It will discuss organisational structures that guide collaboration between these organisations and the state in the UK, notably the Compact[1] and Clinks[2]. It draws upon an example of a collaboration between the Prison Service and an emotional health charity, in which the author was personally involved, to illustrate the importance of an appreciation for CSO knowledge and expertise and prison cultural changes in successful partnership working. Finally, it will discuss the implications of these findings for CSOs in New Zealand.
Strengths
CSOs are deemed to have a number of strengths in working with offenders (Gill and Mawby 1990; HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002; New Philanthropy Capital 2009; Silvestri 2009), including their independence from the criminal justice system, which may allow for considerable diversity and innovation in their provision and resources which are more suited to offenders’ needs. Offenders may view them as more approachable and trustworthy. In the case of organisations working in prisons which are based predominantly in the community, they may also enhance social cohesion (Bryans et al. 2002), and can assist in the provision of seamless ‘through the gate’ services. Additionally, CSOs can provide opportunities for offenders themselves to volunteer, which can have a number of benefits, including work experience, new skills and improved self-confidence, potentially preparing them for paid employment (HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002; Levenson and Farrant 2002). It may also help them to desist from offending by enhancing their social capital, and giving them a ‘a reason to live that is inconsistent with continued offending’ (Maruna 2007: 6).
Policy and organisational structures in England and Wales
Over the last decade, CSOs have become increasingly involved in the provision of services in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. A series of policy documents from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) have recognised the benefits of working in partnership with CSOs. These include the ‘added value’ CSOs could bring to their work, particularly to reduce re-offending (MoJ 2007; 2008; MoJ/NOMS 2008a; 2008b), reflecting the realisation that state correctional services cannot address this alone. For example, the Third Sector Reducing Re-Offending Action Plan states:
‘The third sector has a critical role to play as advocates of service users and communities, as partners in strategy and service development, and as service providers. We value their role as enablers of effective community engagement, volunteering and mentoring’ (MoJ/NOMS 2008a:7).
CSOs now provide most prisoner reintegration and support services. Additionally, the creation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which brought prison and probation services in 2004, envisaged a broad neo-liberal marketization of criminal justice (Robinson and Crowe 2009). Several large CSOs have successfully joined with private sector companies and/or state agencies to bid to run new and existing prisons. ‘Payment by results’ initiatives at HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster, designed to reduce re-offending, have involved private prison operators and a number of CSOs. In the last year, probation services for low and medium risk offenders have been contracted to 21 ‘community rehabilitation companies’, which consist of either staff mutuals or partnerships between private companies and rehabilitation charities.
Several structures exist to support CSOs in their dealings with government agencies in the UK. Probably the most well-known is the Compact,[3] which consists of a non-legally binding framework, first signed by both the voluntary sector, represented by NCVO (The National Council for Voluntary Organisations)[4] and government in 1998. Under the Compact, the government undertakes to respect the sector’s independence, to respect the sector’s right to advocate within the law to advance their aims, and to consult with the sector early in the policy design process (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010). The voluntary sector agrees, among other things, to be open and accountable and contribute constructively to public policy (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010; Holland 2008), and an independent mediation process is available in case of dispute. Implementation is overseen by the Office for Civil Society and Compact Voice, and the Compact is regularly reviewed. (Elson 2011).
In the UK, the strategic position of CSOs which work with offenders is further strengthened by the existence of Clinks; a largely government-funded umbrella body founded in 1993 which supports and represents organisations which work with offenders. Clinks has over 550 members and its work includes campaigning, influencing policy and practice, and promoting opportunities for CSOs to develop their work. Clinks represents an example of a ‘formal institutional structure’ (Elson 2011:156), as it encourages collaboration between organisations, builds consensus through research and engages in broad, systematic consultation in order to develop astute policy analysis and a strong collective voice to create meaningful and sustainable relationships with the state. Elson (2011) suggests such structures are more likely than more informal organisations to be successful in promoting the needs and value of their member organisations and developing productive relationships with state bodies.
Research on the role of civil society in criminal justice
In 2009 myself and colleagues, Rosie Meek and Dina Gojkovic, embarked on a two-year study to examine the role of the civil society in criminal justice in the UK. The first stage of the research involved a scoping study of qualitative interviews with twelve key criminal justice and CSO stakeholders to explore the strategic position of CSOs in criminal justice. The second stage aimed to explore the role and impact of CSOs, critically evaluate the ‘added value’ of CSO work and examine the impact of volunteering on empowering offenders and ex-offenders to desist from crime. It involved qualitative interviews with prisoners (n=102), criminal justice staff (n=74) and CSO staff (n=78), and a prisoner survey (n=680) at eight prisons. The prisons were selected to ensure the sample covered different prison populations (e.g. male/female, YOs/adults/juveniles), and different functions and providers (e.g. remand, low security, private). The research revealed that CSOs experienced a number of challenges working in criminal justice, at both the government and grassroots levels.
Challenges at the government level
At the time of the stakeholder interviews, considerable changes in service commissioning were expected but the substance of those changes was unknown. Consequently, CSOs were described as feeling ‘fragile and nervous’ (CSO stakeholder), with particular concerns raised about the survival of smaller organisations in a competitive market. CSOs stakeholders also feared that the strength of CSO work in developing personal relationships with clients, which can be key in promoting desistance from crime (Asay and Lambert 1999; Farrall 2002), would be overlooked in favour of narrow quantifiable outcomes. Despite such trepidation, other aspects of the relationship between CSOs and criminal justice agencies were more positive. All CSO interviewees were asked if they thought obtaining service contracts would affect their ability to critique government policy or advocate for their cause. Half claimed this would have no negative impact on their ability to voice public criticism and ascribed this to government recognition of their independence:
We are very clear that actually providing services through government contracts has not actually prohibited us from having a voice… we still have the status of the [sic] charity and the government still treats us like a charity and respects our views like that of a charity and seeks to involve us in things that they do like we are a charity’ (CSO stakeholder).
The Compact was explicitly named as a source of protection for CSOs, enabling their continuing ability to campaign and engage in advocacy (Mills et al. 2011). Other CSO stakeholders, however, were less optimistic about their relationship with government and noted the tenuous financial position of a sector that was highly dependent on service contracts:
There is hardly any organisations out there with substantial reserves… so sector organisations are immensely dependent on contract delivery for their cash flow and their survival, which makes it very difficult to be fund campaigning, to be very critical (CSO stakeholder)
CSOs working with offenders often rely on short-term, inconsistent funding which can leave them in a highly vulnerable position, particularly as just 1.25% of their funding comes from public donations (Clinks 2015). Additionally CSO interviewees were asked if they thought their organisation was at risk of ‘goal distortion’ (Kendall and Knapp 1996), where the mission of an organisation but also the distinctive nature and ‘added value’ of their work can become endangered through their involvement in government contracts. Some CSO interviewees raised concerns that in competing with private sector companies and state bodies, little distinction would soon exist between providers. For others though the key issue was the degree to which CSOs themselves were prepared to compromise their ideals to access funding:
I think it’s absolutely important that CSOs remain independent and that independence is understood and valued […] the organisation itself needs to be clear about its independence, about the values of the organisation and whether they can get compromised. I think it’s possible for certain organisations to become very large, very removed from the front line […](Criminal justice stakeholder)
Challenges at the grassroots level
CSOs face a number of difficulties in providing services to offenders, particularly within the confines of the restrictive prison environment. The prison regime and timetable could leave little time for contact with clients. CSOs were limited to a maximum of four and a half hours a day to access prisoners and this issue could be exacerbated if they were locked out of the prison due to suspected security breaches; a source of substantial frustration particularly when volunteers had travelled considerable distances to attend and no effort was made to inform them that they would not be allowed to enter the prison (Mills et al. 2012). The transient nature of the prison population, could further limit the extent of CSO work with clients:
We get very short sentences, people on remand, that's not enough time to do any dedicated work. So names come through, we might get to do assessments but we don't get to follow that up. (CSO staff, male remand prison)
Other interviewees spoke about the different cultures, priorities and approaches of the prison system and CSOs. Prison staff are likely to be concerned primarily with security and risk management. Public protection has become the central concern of the penal system (Crewe 2009:23), and prison staff confessed to feeling anxious and uneasy about the lack of information sharing pertaining to risk management by CSOs and whether this jeopardised their ability to perform their statutory responsibilities to protect the public (Mills and Meek forthcoming). However, CSOs also complained they did not have access to information on pre-convictions and risk assessment which could be problematic when attempting to link clients up with services outside the prison.
CSOs tend to favour more rehabilitative, relational approaches to working with offenders which were not always appreciated by prison staff:
There is a view held by staff – that we are do-gooders, time wasters, we can’t really help them. (CSO staff, female prison)
Others, however, suggested that this had changed in recent years and that CSOs were becoming more accepted in prisons as their value and expertise were starting to be clearly recognised:
Years ago maybe voluntary organisations were seen as do-gooders and interfering busybodies. Thank goodness that attitude, I think, has changed now completely. […] Like the Samaritans that come in […] And they go and they sit with them […] it makes our job a lot easier because there’s nothing worse than somebody sat in a cell ruminating over what has been, what will be or what could be. (Criminal justice staff, male remand prison)
This was supported by several stakeholders in stage one of the study who suggested that the attitude of prison staff has softened and the value of CSOs has become acknowledged in prisons:
There has been quite a cultural shift in the Prison Service where the voluntary sector is no longer seen as the threat. Either […] in terms of just leaving prison officers to turn keys, or a threat to the Prison Service’s main aim which is managing risk to public safety (CSO stakeholder).
The policy rhetoric and many interviewees referred to the importance of partnership working between criminal justice agencies and CSOs, but the context in which this takes place is worthy of analysis. Difficulties gaining access to prisoners served to remind CSOs that they were guests in a host environment who were often dependent on the cooperation of prison staff to fulfil their service remit. Any partnership between CSOs and prison providers is therefore likely to be inequitable. Clearly CSOs may have a vested interest in remaining guests. If they identify too strongly with the criminal justice system, they run the risk of losing their distinctiveness, including their perceived independence and trustworthiness (Mills et al. 2012).
Successful collaboration: changing prison cultures and the role of ‘expert power’
Despite the challenges, several examples exist of excellent, long-term collaboration between prison authorities and CSOs. One example, of which I have personal experience, is the ‘Listener’ scheme, run by the Samaritans where prisoner volunteers provide emotional support to other prisoners. This scheme initially represented a substantial challenge to the prison staff culture and the prison priorities of security and risk management. However, it is now widely accepted and illustrates how recognition and respect for the expertise of CSOs is essential in successful partnership working.
Samaritans is a UK-wide emotional health charity organisation which provides confidential emotional support to people in distress, either on the telephone, face to face, or through email and text. Local Samaritan branches initially started outreach work with prisons in the early 80s, though this often consisted of offering training to prison officers rather than any direct contact with prisoners. As Kathy Biggar, a Samaritan and probation officer who pioneered prison support, states, ‘We were told that they were very grateful for our offer of help but they could manage very well without us’ (Biggar 1997). However, by 1990 branches were holding ‘surgeries’ in prisons, providing emotional support by phone or letter and responding to urgent requests to visit prisoners, due to the acknowledged need for Samaritans expertise in addressing the complex issues of suicide in prisons (Jaffe 2011). Around this time, a 15-year-old remand prisoner, Philip Knight, killed himself in HMP Swansea. He was the youngest prisoner to have taken his own life. After his death, the governor of Swansea indicated that he was willing to adopt a more radical, multi-disciplinary approach to suicide prevention (Jaffe 2011). Peer support schemes had been in operation in Boston, USA for sometime. Kathy Biggar, had been seconded into the Prison Service Suicide Awareness and Support Unit, was keen to use the Boston model to show how non-judgemental, confidential emotional support could be provided by prisoners themselves (Jaffe 2011). Prisoners in distress may be more likely to trust other prisoners rather than staff as they may fear the repercussions of reporting suicidal feelings. Talking to staff could also be greatly frowned upon by other prisoners. A group of three selected prisoners, ‘the Swansea Listeners’ were trained to become peer-supporters. After the success of the pilot, the name ‘Listeners’ was adopted nationally, and Listener schemes now exist in 90 per cent of prisons in England and Wales (Edgar et al. 2011). If a prisoner is in distress, they can ask to see the Listeners, who are often available on a 24/7 basis. Local Samaritans branches select and train Listeners, support them through regular meetings and liaise with the prison on their behalf. Listeners can receive Samaritan support by phone day or night.
Sticking points
Although the presence of Samaritans and Listeners is now fairly well accepted in prisons, certain aspects of Samaritans’ work have been problematic for prisons to understand and tolerate. One of the main challenges has been the Samaritans’ policy of total confidentiality. This policy aims to ensure that people feel able to talk to Samaritans and Listeners about anything without fear of repercussions. It is highly controversial in prisons where sharing information for security reasons is emphasised and where prison staff may feel powerless and fearful that they will be disciplined if an at-risk individual self-harms. Despite this, the Samaritans’ confidentiality policy has high-level support. The Prison Service has issued regular instructions to staff stressing its importance to the Samaritan service and asking staff not to challenge Listeners and Samaritans to breach confidentiality. Nevertheless, prison staff may continue to place Listeners under informal pressure to reveal what was said in conversations with distressed prisoners; a situation which can be hard to negotiate in a milieu where staff have substantial power over prisoners.
Furthermore, some prison staff have continued to view Samaritans with suspicion and have resented the trust placed in Listener volunteers. Samaritan volunteers in turn have struggled to adapt to the restrictive prison environment where security is prioritised and they are heavily reliant on staff to move around the prison (Jaffe 2011). To facilitate close working relationships between prison staff and Samaritans, all prisons have a Safer Custody officer, a senior member of uniformed staff, who liaises with the Samaritans and communicates with prison staff on their behalf. To maintain ‘a constant dialogue between Samaritans and the Prison Service and monitor consistency of practice at a national level (Jaffe 2011:16), regular partnership meetings are held between the Samaritans National Prison Support Co-ordinator and the Prison Service Safer Custody Group. The costs of running the scheme, national publicity materials, and a dedicated Samaritan prison support administrator are funded by the Prison Service.
From partnership to tripartite relationship
The partnership between Samaritans and the Prison Service in England and Wales has become firmly established. The Prison Service has demonstrated considerable respect for the Samaritans’ expertise in suicide prevention, and Samaritans’ work in prison and the introduction of the Listener scheme have contributed to changes in prison culture and practice, particularly in the way suicidal prisoners are treated. As Davies, who evaluated the first Listener scheme at HMP Swansea, stated:
‘The traditional veil of secrecy over prison suicide, where the gates were an effective barrier to ‘outside’ interference, is beginning to disappear and be replaced by greater openness sharing and an admission that none of us knows as much as all of us’ (Davies 1994).
The work of the Listeners is often highly appreciated by prison staff. As one Senior Officer in Edgar et al.’s (2011) study noted ‘Can you imagine doing a night shift without the Listeners?’ Furthermore, the relationship between the Prison Service, Samaritans and Listeners is regularly referred to as ‘tripartite’ one as the Listeners are seen as equal partners in the task of suicide prevention. Listener schemes have demonstrated that prisoners can help each other, work as a team and be successfully supported by outside agencies to do this. As a result, many other peer support schemes in prisons have been developed such as prison readers (run by the Shannon Trust), and Health Trainers (supported by local health authorities). Edgar et al. (2011) argue that there has been a gradual evolution in prison management towards the concept of ‘active citizenship’, whereby prisoners ‘exercise responsibility by making positive contributions to prison life or the wider community’ (Edgar et al. 2011:5). Volunteering can allow prisoners to participate in the ‘economy of regard’ (Halpern 2010). It can give purpose to their lives in prison, offer a chance to acquire new skills and to develop an increase capacity for responsibility whilst earning the trust of others (Edgar et al. 2011). This can lead to a re-appraisal of self-identity as they find fulfilment in helping others which can inform a choice to desist from further offending (Maruna 2001). Being placed in a position of trust and responsibility could certainly have a profound effect on Listeners, and research has shown that they describe higher levels of self-confidence, self-control and patience (Jaffe 2011), but meeting prisoners with lives so diverse from their own could also have a profound and powerful effect on Samaritan volunteers.
Implications for New Zealand
Relationships between CSOs and government agencies in criminal justice are complex and challenging. Despite the often diverse aims of CSOs and criminal justice agencies, the example of the Samaritans and the Listeners demonstrates that they can collaborate within a restrictive environment even when the policies of the CSOs substantially conflict with those of the prison and potentially challenge the authority of prison staff. A substantial reason for the success of this collaboration has been the respect for the ‘expert power’ (French and Raven 1959) of the Samaritans as the Prison Service acknowledged the need to bring external knowledge and expertise into the prison system. High-level support from Prison Service Head Office and the organisational structures in place to facilitate partnership working have also played a substantial role in ensuring the continuation of this partnership and Samaritans have maintained a near monopoly on the provision of emotional support in prisons. Furthermore, appreciation for the work of the Samaritans/Listeners has contributed to cultural changes which has seen the concept peer support well established throughout the prisons system.
At the time of the research described in this paper, the policy rhetoric in England and Wales regarding the involvement of CSOs in work with offenders was overwhelming optimistic with frequent reference made to the innovation and added value CSOs could bring to their work. The policy rhetoric in New Zealand is less overtly positive about the work of CSOs and the notion of partnership working has received substantially less attention. However, the concept of ‘expert power’ is potentially a useful one for examining and improving relationships between CSOs and government in criminal justice in New Zealand. A recent study of 18 CSO and criminal justice stakeholders has found that relationships with state agencies were often characterised by anxiety and mistrust, but expert power was a key factor in explaining why some organisations were able to build up good relations with state servants (Mills 2015).
For CSOs in the UK, the Compact is clearly of considerably importance in mediating their relationships with the state. Although not legally binding, it is well respected, and often heralded as a good example of such an accord (Elson 2011). A similar agreement was mooted in New Zealand but rejected because there is no single umbrella body with the authority to sign it on behalf of civil society (Community and Voluntary Sector Working Party 2001). The ‘Kia Tutahi Standing Together Relationship Accord’ does set out a series of expectations to guide the relationship between government and the sector (Department of Internal Affairs 2011), but the awareness of this Accord appears limited. In my recent study with CSO and criminal justice stakeholders, only one interviewee was aware of it (Mills 2015). Its effectiveness was also questioned just a week after it was signed when the Government decided to disestablish the Charities Commission without voluntary sector consultation (New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations 2011). The Accord is currently under review.
The position of CSOs working in criminal justice in New Zealand might be strengthened through the establishment of a specialist umbrella organisation or ‘formal institutional structure’ (Elson 20111) similar to Clinks. This could support CSOs and promote their expertise and the ‘added value’ they can bring to work with offenders to ensure they are not viewed as just another service provider, although collaboration between CSOs has been made more difficult by contracting processes which tend to encourage competition at the expense of collaboration. A promising development has been the establishment of the Justice Coalition in 2012 by twelve prominent criminal justice CSOs which aims to improve working relationships with government and produce a collective voice on criminal justice issues (Rethinking Crime and Punishment 2012). Primarily it intends to have an impact on policy formation to promote just, effective and positive justice sector strategies and aspires to foster collaboration and ‘contract coalitions’ (Justice Coalition 2012). At the time of my research with stakeholders, there was considerable hope that it would lead better government recognition of the sector’s knowledge and experience. However, at the time of writing, the extent of involvement by smaller, potentially more vulnerable, CSOs is not yet known and it does not have the considerable financial and organisational infrastructure that Clinks enjoys. Furthermore, as recent contracts have been given to private companies and organisations outside the traditional criminal justice sphere, the danger remains that state agencies in New Zealand will simply choose to bypass it altogether (Mills 2015).
Word Count: 4363 (excluding references)
Bibliography
Asay, T.P. and M.J. Lambert (1999) ‘The empirical case for the common Factors in therapy: Quantitative findings’, in M.A. Hubble, B.L. Duncan and S.D. Miller (eds) The Heart and Soul of Change: What works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Biggar, K. (1997) ‘Caring for the suicidal in custody: The Samaritans role’, Prison Service Journal, 127: 44-46.
Bryans, S., Martin, C., & Walker, R. (2002), ‘The road ahead: issues and strategies for future joint working’, in S. Bryans, C. Martin and R. Walker (eds) Prisons and the Voluntary Sector. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Clinks (2015) The State of the Sector: Key trends for voluntary sector organisations working with offenders and their families. London: Clinks.
Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, B. (1994) ‘The Swansea Listener Scheme: Views from the prison landings’, Probation Journal, 33(2): 125-135.
Department of Internal Affairs (2011) Kia Tūtahi Standing Together Relationship Accord. Available at: http://www.dia.govt.nz/vwluResources/The%20Kia%20Tutahi%20Relationship%20Accord/$file/Kia_Tutahi_Standing_Together_Accord.pdf
Edgar, K., Jacobson, J. and Biggar, K. (2011) Time Well Spent: A practical guide to active citizenship and volunteering in prison, London: Prison Reform Trust.
Elson. P.R. (2011) High Ideals and Noble Intentions: Voluntary sector-government relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, social context and desistance from crime. Cullompton: Willan.
French, J. and Raven, B. (1959) ‘The bases of social power’, in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Gill, M.L. and Mawby, R.I. (1990) Volunteers in the Criminal Justice System. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Halpern, D. (2010) The Hidden Wealth of Nations, Cambridge: Polity Press.
HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002. Good Practice Guide. London: Clinks.
Holland, C. (2008) The Development and Implementation of the Statement of Government Intent: The literature review. Wellington: ANGOA.
Jaffe, M. (2011) A History of the Listener Scheme and Samaritans’ Prison Support, London: Samaritans
Justice Coalition (2012) About the Justice Coalition. Available at: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/GeneralPDF/Justice-Coalition%20Booklet.pdf
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. (1996) The Voluntary Sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Levenson, J. and Farrant, F. (2002) ‘Unlocking potential: Active citizenship and volunteering by prisoners’, Probation Journal, 49(3): 195-204.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S. (2007) ‘Why volunteerism ‘works’ as prison reintegration: Rehabilitation for a ‘bulimic society’’, The 18th Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture, House of Lords, 24 April 2007.
Mills. A. (2015) ‘A gentle thaw or continued deep freeze? Relationships between voluntary and community organisations and the state in criminal justice In New Zealand’, Third Sector Review, 21(1): 121-142.
Mills, A., and Meek, R. (2015) ‘Voluntary work in prisons: Providing services in the penal environment’, in A. Hucklesby, and M. Corcoran (eds) The Voluntary Sector and Criminal Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mills, A., Meek, R. and Gojkovic. D. (2011) ‘Exploring the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in criminal justice’, Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2): 193-211.
Mills, A., Meek, R., and Gojkovic, D. (2012) ‘Partners, guests or competitors: relationships between criminal justice and third sector staff in prisons’, Probation Journal, 54(4): 391-405.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2007) Third sector strategy: Improving policies and securing better public services through effective partnerships. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2008) Third sector strategy: Improving policies and securing better public services through effective partnerships 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ)/NOMS (2008a) NOMS third sector action plan: Securing effective partnerships to reduce re-offending and protect the public 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ)/NOMS (2008b) Working with the third sector to reduce re-offending: securing effective partnerships 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) (2009) Breaking the cycle: Charities working with people in prison and on release. London: New Philanthropy Capital.
New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations (2011) Kia Tutahi Fails its First Test. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1108/S00162/kia-tutahi-fails-its-first-test.htm
Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice (2010) The Compact. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61169/The_20Compact.pdf
Rethinking Crime and Punishment (2012) Justice Coalition Seeks Closer Relationship with Government. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00050/justice-coalition-seeks-closer-relationship-with-government.htm
Robinson, G. and Crow, I. (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice. London: Sage.
Silvestri, A. (2009) Partners or Prisoners? Voluntary sector independence in the world of commissioning and contestability. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Stowe, K. (1998) ‘Professional developments: Compact on relations between government and the voluntary and community sector in England and Wales’, Public Administration and Development, 18(5): 519-22.
Tennant, M. (2007) The Fabric of Welfare: Voluntary organisations, governmental and welfare in New Zealand, 1840-2005. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
[1] A formal agreement between civil society organisations and the government.
[2] An umbrella body for CSOs working with offenders.
[3] ‘The Compact: The Coalition government and civil society organisations working effectively in partnership for the benefit of communities and citizens in England’ (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010).
[4] NCVO is a civil society umbrella organisation which represents almost half the civil society workforce in England (Elson 2011). It was instrumental in the consultation process that led to the development of the Compact, which was seen to be key in its acceptance by the sector (Stowe 1998). It now advocates on behalf of CSOs in the independent mediation process (Elson 2011).
Dr Alice Mills,
Senior Lecturer in Criminology
University of Auckland
Introduction and background
Civil society organisations (CSOs) (also known as third sector, non-governmental or community and voluntary sector organisations) have a long history of providing services to offenders, ex-offenders and their families. In the UK, the first Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society was established in 1874, and in the late 19th century, volunteers from the Church of England Temperance Society became police court missionaries, the forerunner to the modern probation service. Early civil society initiatives in New Zealand followed a similar pattern. In the late 19th century the Salvation Army engaged in rescue work through ‘prison gate brigades’ (Tennant 2007). The first Pa tients’ and Prisoners’ Aid Society (later to become Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS)) was established in Dunedin in 1877 and the first probation volunteers in New Zealand, linked to local branches of PARS, were licensed in 1913. Today CSOs provide a variety of different services, including prisoner reintegration, addiction treatment, education and training, restorative justice services, and spiritual and faith guidance. In England and Wales, the vast majority of organisations are small, local and rely on volunteers. In New Zealand, services are more likely to be provided by religious groups or iwi/hapu groups. Drawing on research conducted in the UK, this paper will examine some of the challenges faced by CSOs working in criminal justice at both government and grassroots levels. It will discuss organisational structures that guide collaboration between these organisations and the state in the UK, notably the Compact[1] and Clinks[2]. It draws upon an example of a collaboration between the Prison Service and an emotional health charity, in which the author was personally involved, to illustrate the importance of an appreciation for CSO knowledge and expertise and prison cultural changes in successful partnership working. Finally, it will discuss the implications of these findings for CSOs in New Zealand.
Strengths
CSOs are deemed to have a number of strengths in working with offenders (Gill and Mawby 1990; HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002; New Philanthropy Capital 2009; Silvestri 2009), including their independence from the criminal justice system, which may allow for considerable diversity and innovation in their provision and resources which are more suited to offenders’ needs. Offenders may view them as more approachable and trustworthy. In the case of organisations working in prisons which are based predominantly in the community, they may also enhance social cohesion (Bryans et al. 2002), and can assist in the provision of seamless ‘through the gate’ services. Additionally, CSOs can provide opportunities for offenders themselves to volunteer, which can have a number of benefits, including work experience, new skills and improved self-confidence, potentially preparing them for paid employment (HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002; Levenson and Farrant 2002). It may also help them to desist from offending by enhancing their social capital, and giving them a ‘a reason to live that is inconsistent with continued offending’ (Maruna 2007: 6).
Policy and organisational structures in England and Wales
Over the last decade, CSOs have become increasingly involved in the provision of services in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. A series of policy documents from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) have recognised the benefits of working in partnership with CSOs. These include the ‘added value’ CSOs could bring to their work, particularly to reduce re-offending (MoJ 2007; 2008; MoJ/NOMS 2008a; 2008b), reflecting the realisation that state correctional services cannot address this alone. For example, the Third Sector Reducing Re-Offending Action Plan states:
‘The third sector has a critical role to play as advocates of service users and communities, as partners in strategy and service development, and as service providers. We value their role as enablers of effective community engagement, volunteering and mentoring’ (MoJ/NOMS 2008a:7).
CSOs now provide most prisoner reintegration and support services. Additionally, the creation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which brought prison and probation services in 2004, envisaged a broad neo-liberal marketization of criminal justice (Robinson and Crowe 2009). Several large CSOs have successfully joined with private sector companies and/or state agencies to bid to run new and existing prisons. ‘Payment by results’ initiatives at HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster, designed to reduce re-offending, have involved private prison operators and a number of CSOs. In the last year, probation services for low and medium risk offenders have been contracted to 21 ‘community rehabilitation companies’, which consist of either staff mutuals or partnerships between private companies and rehabilitation charities.
Several structures exist to support CSOs in their dealings with government agencies in the UK. Probably the most well-known is the Compact,[3] which consists of a non-legally binding framework, first signed by both the voluntary sector, represented by NCVO (The National Council for Voluntary Organisations)[4] and government in 1998. Under the Compact, the government undertakes to respect the sector’s independence, to respect the sector’s right to advocate within the law to advance their aims, and to consult with the sector early in the policy design process (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010). The voluntary sector agrees, among other things, to be open and accountable and contribute constructively to public policy (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010; Holland 2008), and an independent mediation process is available in case of dispute. Implementation is overseen by the Office for Civil Society and Compact Voice, and the Compact is regularly reviewed. (Elson 2011).
In the UK, the strategic position of CSOs which work with offenders is further strengthened by the existence of Clinks; a largely government-funded umbrella body founded in 1993 which supports and represents organisations which work with offenders. Clinks has over 550 members and its work includes campaigning, influencing policy and practice, and promoting opportunities for CSOs to develop their work. Clinks represents an example of a ‘formal institutional structure’ (Elson 2011:156), as it encourages collaboration between organisations, builds consensus through research and engages in broad, systematic consultation in order to develop astute policy analysis and a strong collective voice to create meaningful and sustainable relationships with the state. Elson (2011) suggests such structures are more likely than more informal organisations to be successful in promoting the needs and value of their member organisations and developing productive relationships with state bodies.
Research on the role of civil society in criminal justice
In 2009 myself and colleagues, Rosie Meek and Dina Gojkovic, embarked on a two-year study to examine the role of the civil society in criminal justice in the UK. The first stage of the research involved a scoping study of qualitative interviews with twelve key criminal justice and CSO stakeholders to explore the strategic position of CSOs in criminal justice. The second stage aimed to explore the role and impact of CSOs, critically evaluate the ‘added value’ of CSO work and examine the impact of volunteering on empowering offenders and ex-offenders to desist from crime. It involved qualitative interviews with prisoners (n=102), criminal justice staff (n=74) and CSO staff (n=78), and a prisoner survey (n=680) at eight prisons. The prisons were selected to ensure the sample covered different prison populations (e.g. male/female, YOs/adults/juveniles), and different functions and providers (e.g. remand, low security, private). The research revealed that CSOs experienced a number of challenges working in criminal justice, at both the government and grassroots levels.
Challenges at the government level
At the time of the stakeholder interviews, considerable changes in service commissioning were expected but the substance of those changes was unknown. Consequently, CSOs were described as feeling ‘fragile and nervous’ (CSO stakeholder), with particular concerns raised about the survival of smaller organisations in a competitive market. CSOs stakeholders also feared that the strength of CSO work in developing personal relationships with clients, which can be key in promoting desistance from crime (Asay and Lambert 1999; Farrall 2002), would be overlooked in favour of narrow quantifiable outcomes. Despite such trepidation, other aspects of the relationship between CSOs and criminal justice agencies were more positive. All CSO interviewees were asked if they thought obtaining service contracts would affect their ability to critique government policy or advocate for their cause. Half claimed this would have no negative impact on their ability to voice public criticism and ascribed this to government recognition of their independence:
We are very clear that actually providing services through government contracts has not actually prohibited us from having a voice… we still have the status of the [sic] charity and the government still treats us like a charity and respects our views like that of a charity and seeks to involve us in things that they do like we are a charity’ (CSO stakeholder).
The Compact was explicitly named as a source of protection for CSOs, enabling their continuing ability to campaign and engage in advocacy (Mills et al. 2011). Other CSO stakeholders, however, were less optimistic about their relationship with government and noted the tenuous financial position of a sector that was highly dependent on service contracts:
There is hardly any organisations out there with substantial reserves… so sector organisations are immensely dependent on contract delivery for their cash flow and their survival, which makes it very difficult to be fund campaigning, to be very critical (CSO stakeholder)
CSOs working with offenders often rely on short-term, inconsistent funding which can leave them in a highly vulnerable position, particularly as just 1.25% of their funding comes from public donations (Clinks 2015). Additionally CSO interviewees were asked if they thought their organisation was at risk of ‘goal distortion’ (Kendall and Knapp 1996), where the mission of an organisation but also the distinctive nature and ‘added value’ of their work can become endangered through their involvement in government contracts. Some CSO interviewees raised concerns that in competing with private sector companies and state bodies, little distinction would soon exist between providers. For others though the key issue was the degree to which CSOs themselves were prepared to compromise their ideals to access funding:
I think it’s absolutely important that CSOs remain independent and that independence is understood and valued […] the organisation itself needs to be clear about its independence, about the values of the organisation and whether they can get compromised. I think it’s possible for certain organisations to become very large, very removed from the front line […](Criminal justice stakeholder)
Challenges at the grassroots level
CSOs face a number of difficulties in providing services to offenders, particularly within the confines of the restrictive prison environment. The prison regime and timetable could leave little time for contact with clients. CSOs were limited to a maximum of four and a half hours a day to access prisoners and this issue could be exacerbated if they were locked out of the prison due to suspected security breaches; a source of substantial frustration particularly when volunteers had travelled considerable distances to attend and no effort was made to inform them that they would not be allowed to enter the prison (Mills et al. 2012). The transient nature of the prison population, could further limit the extent of CSO work with clients:
We get very short sentences, people on remand, that's not enough time to do any dedicated work. So names come through, we might get to do assessments but we don't get to follow that up. (CSO staff, male remand prison)
Other interviewees spoke about the different cultures, priorities and approaches of the prison system and CSOs. Prison staff are likely to be concerned primarily with security and risk management. Public protection has become the central concern of the penal system (Crewe 2009:23), and prison staff confessed to feeling anxious and uneasy about the lack of information sharing pertaining to risk management by CSOs and whether this jeopardised their ability to perform their statutory responsibilities to protect the public (Mills and Meek forthcoming). However, CSOs also complained they did not have access to information on pre-convictions and risk assessment which could be problematic when attempting to link clients up with services outside the prison.
CSOs tend to favour more rehabilitative, relational approaches to working with offenders which were not always appreciated by prison staff:
There is a view held by staff – that we are do-gooders, time wasters, we can’t really help them. (CSO staff, female prison)
Others, however, suggested that this had changed in recent years and that CSOs were becoming more accepted in prisons as their value and expertise were starting to be clearly recognised:
Years ago maybe voluntary organisations were seen as do-gooders and interfering busybodies. Thank goodness that attitude, I think, has changed now completely. […] Like the Samaritans that come in […] And they go and they sit with them […] it makes our job a lot easier because there’s nothing worse than somebody sat in a cell ruminating over what has been, what will be or what could be. (Criminal justice staff, male remand prison)
This was supported by several stakeholders in stage one of the study who suggested that the attitude of prison staff has softened and the value of CSOs has become acknowledged in prisons:
There has been quite a cultural shift in the Prison Service where the voluntary sector is no longer seen as the threat. Either […] in terms of just leaving prison officers to turn keys, or a threat to the Prison Service’s main aim which is managing risk to public safety (CSO stakeholder).
The policy rhetoric and many interviewees referred to the importance of partnership working between criminal justice agencies and CSOs, but the context in which this takes place is worthy of analysis. Difficulties gaining access to prisoners served to remind CSOs that they were guests in a host environment who were often dependent on the cooperation of prison staff to fulfil their service remit. Any partnership between CSOs and prison providers is therefore likely to be inequitable. Clearly CSOs may have a vested interest in remaining guests. If they identify too strongly with the criminal justice system, they run the risk of losing their distinctiveness, including their perceived independence and trustworthiness (Mills et al. 2012).
Successful collaboration: changing prison cultures and the role of ‘expert power’
Despite the challenges, several examples exist of excellent, long-term collaboration between prison authorities and CSOs. One example, of which I have personal experience, is the ‘Listener’ scheme, run by the Samaritans where prisoner volunteers provide emotional support to other prisoners. This scheme initially represented a substantial challenge to the prison staff culture and the prison priorities of security and risk management. However, it is now widely accepted and illustrates how recognition and respect for the expertise of CSOs is essential in successful partnership working.
Samaritans is a UK-wide emotional health charity organisation which provides confidential emotional support to people in distress, either on the telephone, face to face, or through email and text. Local Samaritan branches initially started outreach work with prisons in the early 80s, though this often consisted of offering training to prison officers rather than any direct contact with prisoners. As Kathy Biggar, a Samaritan and probation officer who pioneered prison support, states, ‘We were told that they were very grateful for our offer of help but they could manage very well without us’ (Biggar 1997). However, by 1990 branches were holding ‘surgeries’ in prisons, providing emotional support by phone or letter and responding to urgent requests to visit prisoners, due to the acknowledged need for Samaritans expertise in addressing the complex issues of suicide in prisons (Jaffe 2011). Around this time, a 15-year-old remand prisoner, Philip Knight, killed himself in HMP Swansea. He was the youngest prisoner to have taken his own life. After his death, the governor of Swansea indicated that he was willing to adopt a more radical, multi-disciplinary approach to suicide prevention (Jaffe 2011). Peer support schemes had been in operation in Boston, USA for sometime. Kathy Biggar, had been seconded into the Prison Service Suicide Awareness and Support Unit, was keen to use the Boston model to show how non-judgemental, confidential emotional support could be provided by prisoners themselves (Jaffe 2011). Prisoners in distress may be more likely to trust other prisoners rather than staff as they may fear the repercussions of reporting suicidal feelings. Talking to staff could also be greatly frowned upon by other prisoners. A group of three selected prisoners, ‘the Swansea Listeners’ were trained to become peer-supporters. After the success of the pilot, the name ‘Listeners’ was adopted nationally, and Listener schemes now exist in 90 per cent of prisons in England and Wales (Edgar et al. 2011). If a prisoner is in distress, they can ask to see the Listeners, who are often available on a 24/7 basis. Local Samaritans branches select and train Listeners, support them through regular meetings and liaise with the prison on their behalf. Listeners can receive Samaritan support by phone day or night.
Sticking points
Although the presence of Samaritans and Listeners is now fairly well accepted in prisons, certain aspects of Samaritans’ work have been problematic for prisons to understand and tolerate. One of the main challenges has been the Samaritans’ policy of total confidentiality. This policy aims to ensure that people feel able to talk to Samaritans and Listeners about anything without fear of repercussions. It is highly controversial in prisons where sharing information for security reasons is emphasised and where prison staff may feel powerless and fearful that they will be disciplined if an at-risk individual self-harms. Despite this, the Samaritans’ confidentiality policy has high-level support. The Prison Service has issued regular instructions to staff stressing its importance to the Samaritan service and asking staff not to challenge Listeners and Samaritans to breach confidentiality. Nevertheless, prison staff may continue to place Listeners under informal pressure to reveal what was said in conversations with distressed prisoners; a situation which can be hard to negotiate in a milieu where staff have substantial power over prisoners.
Furthermore, some prison staff have continued to view Samaritans with suspicion and have resented the trust placed in Listener volunteers. Samaritan volunteers in turn have struggled to adapt to the restrictive prison environment where security is prioritised and they are heavily reliant on staff to move around the prison (Jaffe 2011). To facilitate close working relationships between prison staff and Samaritans, all prisons have a Safer Custody officer, a senior member of uniformed staff, who liaises with the Samaritans and communicates with prison staff on their behalf. To maintain ‘a constant dialogue between Samaritans and the Prison Service and monitor consistency of practice at a national level (Jaffe 2011:16), regular partnership meetings are held between the Samaritans National Prison Support Co-ordinator and the Prison Service Safer Custody Group. The costs of running the scheme, national publicity materials, and a dedicated Samaritan prison support administrator are funded by the Prison Service.
From partnership to tripartite relationship
The partnership between Samaritans and the Prison Service in England and Wales has become firmly established. The Prison Service has demonstrated considerable respect for the Samaritans’ expertise in suicide prevention, and Samaritans’ work in prison and the introduction of the Listener scheme have contributed to changes in prison culture and practice, particularly in the way suicidal prisoners are treated. As Davies, who evaluated the first Listener scheme at HMP Swansea, stated:
‘The traditional veil of secrecy over prison suicide, where the gates were an effective barrier to ‘outside’ interference, is beginning to disappear and be replaced by greater openness sharing and an admission that none of us knows as much as all of us’ (Davies 1994).
The work of the Listeners is often highly appreciated by prison staff. As one Senior Officer in Edgar et al.’s (2011) study noted ‘Can you imagine doing a night shift without the Listeners?’ Furthermore, the relationship between the Prison Service, Samaritans and Listeners is regularly referred to as ‘tripartite’ one as the Listeners are seen as equal partners in the task of suicide prevention. Listener schemes have demonstrated that prisoners can help each other, work as a team and be successfully supported by outside agencies to do this. As a result, many other peer support schemes in prisons have been developed such as prison readers (run by the Shannon Trust), and Health Trainers (supported by local health authorities). Edgar et al. (2011) argue that there has been a gradual evolution in prison management towards the concept of ‘active citizenship’, whereby prisoners ‘exercise responsibility by making positive contributions to prison life or the wider community’ (Edgar et al. 2011:5). Volunteering can allow prisoners to participate in the ‘economy of regard’ (Halpern 2010). It can give purpose to their lives in prison, offer a chance to acquire new skills and to develop an increase capacity for responsibility whilst earning the trust of others (Edgar et al. 2011). This can lead to a re-appraisal of self-identity as they find fulfilment in helping others which can inform a choice to desist from further offending (Maruna 2001). Being placed in a position of trust and responsibility could certainly have a profound effect on Listeners, and research has shown that they describe higher levels of self-confidence, self-control and patience (Jaffe 2011), but meeting prisoners with lives so diverse from their own could also have a profound and powerful effect on Samaritan volunteers.
Implications for New Zealand
Relationships between CSOs and government agencies in criminal justice are complex and challenging. Despite the often diverse aims of CSOs and criminal justice agencies, the example of the Samaritans and the Listeners demonstrates that they can collaborate within a restrictive environment even when the policies of the CSOs substantially conflict with those of the prison and potentially challenge the authority of prison staff. A substantial reason for the success of this collaboration has been the respect for the ‘expert power’ (French and Raven 1959) of the Samaritans as the Prison Service acknowledged the need to bring external knowledge and expertise into the prison system. High-level support from Prison Service Head Office and the organisational structures in place to facilitate partnership working have also played a substantial role in ensuring the continuation of this partnership and Samaritans have maintained a near monopoly on the provision of emotional support in prisons. Furthermore, appreciation for the work of the Samaritans/Listeners has contributed to cultural changes which has seen the concept peer support well established throughout the prisons system.
At the time of the research described in this paper, the policy rhetoric in England and Wales regarding the involvement of CSOs in work with offenders was overwhelming optimistic with frequent reference made to the innovation and added value CSOs could bring to their work. The policy rhetoric in New Zealand is less overtly positive about the work of CSOs and the notion of partnership working has received substantially less attention. However, the concept of ‘expert power’ is potentially a useful one for examining and improving relationships between CSOs and government in criminal justice in New Zealand. A recent study of 18 CSO and criminal justice stakeholders has found that relationships with state agencies were often characterised by anxiety and mistrust, but expert power was a key factor in explaining why some organisations were able to build up good relations with state servants (Mills 2015).
For CSOs in the UK, the Compact is clearly of considerably importance in mediating their relationships with the state. Although not legally binding, it is well respected, and often heralded as a good example of such an accord (Elson 2011). A similar agreement was mooted in New Zealand but rejected because there is no single umbrella body with the authority to sign it on behalf of civil society (Community and Voluntary Sector Working Party 2001). The ‘Kia Tutahi Standing Together Relationship Accord’ does set out a series of expectations to guide the relationship between government and the sector (Department of Internal Affairs 2011), but the awareness of this Accord appears limited. In my recent study with CSO and criminal justice stakeholders, only one interviewee was aware of it (Mills 2015). Its effectiveness was also questioned just a week after it was signed when the Government decided to disestablish the Charities Commission without voluntary sector consultation (New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations 2011). The Accord is currently under review.
The position of CSOs working in criminal justice in New Zealand might be strengthened through the establishment of a specialist umbrella organisation or ‘formal institutional structure’ (Elson 20111) similar to Clinks. This could support CSOs and promote their expertise and the ‘added value’ they can bring to work with offenders to ensure they are not viewed as just another service provider, although collaboration between CSOs has been made more difficult by contracting processes which tend to encourage competition at the expense of collaboration. A promising development has been the establishment of the Justice Coalition in 2012 by twelve prominent criminal justice CSOs which aims to improve working relationships with government and produce a collective voice on criminal justice issues (Rethinking Crime and Punishment 2012). Primarily it intends to have an impact on policy formation to promote just, effective and positive justice sector strategies and aspires to foster collaboration and ‘contract coalitions’ (Justice Coalition 2012). At the time of my research with stakeholders, there was considerable hope that it would lead better government recognition of the sector’s knowledge and experience. However, at the time of writing, the extent of involvement by smaller, potentially more vulnerable, CSOs is not yet known and it does not have the considerable financial and organisational infrastructure that Clinks enjoys. Furthermore, as recent contracts have been given to private companies and organisations outside the traditional criminal justice sphere, the danger remains that state agencies in New Zealand will simply choose to bypass it altogether (Mills 2015).
Word Count: 4363 (excluding references)
Bibliography
Asay, T.P. and M.J. Lambert (1999) ‘The empirical case for the common Factors in therapy: Quantitative findings’, in M.A. Hubble, B.L. Duncan and S.D. Miller (eds) The Heart and Soul of Change: What works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Biggar, K. (1997) ‘Caring for the suicidal in custody: The Samaritans role’, Prison Service Journal, 127: 44-46.
Bryans, S., Martin, C., & Walker, R. (2002), ‘The road ahead: issues and strategies for future joint working’, in S. Bryans, C. Martin and R. Walker (eds) Prisons and the Voluntary Sector. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Clinks (2015) The State of the Sector: Key trends for voluntary sector organisations working with offenders and their families. London: Clinks.
Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, B. (1994) ‘The Swansea Listener Scheme: Views from the prison landings’, Probation Journal, 33(2): 125-135.
Department of Internal Affairs (2011) Kia Tūtahi Standing Together Relationship Accord. Available at: http://www.dia.govt.nz/vwluResources/The%20Kia%20Tutahi%20Relationship%20Accord/$file/Kia_Tutahi_Standing_Together_Accord.pdf
Edgar, K., Jacobson, J. and Biggar, K. (2011) Time Well Spent: A practical guide to active citizenship and volunteering in prison, London: Prison Reform Trust.
Elson. P.R. (2011) High Ideals and Noble Intentions: Voluntary sector-government relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, social context and desistance from crime. Cullompton: Willan.
French, J. and Raven, B. (1959) ‘The bases of social power’, in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Gill, M.L. and Mawby, R.I. (1990) Volunteers in the Criminal Justice System. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Halpern, D. (2010) The Hidden Wealth of Nations, Cambridge: Polity Press.
HM Prison Service/Clinks 2002. Good Practice Guide. London: Clinks.
Holland, C. (2008) The Development and Implementation of the Statement of Government Intent: The literature review. Wellington: ANGOA.
Jaffe, M. (2011) A History of the Listener Scheme and Samaritans’ Prison Support, London: Samaritans
Justice Coalition (2012) About the Justice Coalition. Available at: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/GeneralPDF/Justice-Coalition%20Booklet.pdf
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. (1996) The Voluntary Sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Levenson, J. and Farrant, F. (2002) ‘Unlocking potential: Active citizenship and volunteering by prisoners’, Probation Journal, 49(3): 195-204.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S. (2007) ‘Why volunteerism ‘works’ as prison reintegration: Rehabilitation for a ‘bulimic society’’, The 18th Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture, House of Lords, 24 April 2007.
Mills. A. (2015) ‘A gentle thaw or continued deep freeze? Relationships between voluntary and community organisations and the state in criminal justice In New Zealand’, Third Sector Review, 21(1): 121-142.
Mills, A., and Meek, R. (2015) ‘Voluntary work in prisons: Providing services in the penal environment’, in A. Hucklesby, and M. Corcoran (eds) The Voluntary Sector and Criminal Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mills, A., Meek, R. and Gojkovic. D. (2011) ‘Exploring the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in criminal justice’, Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2): 193-211.
Mills, A., Meek, R., and Gojkovic, D. (2012) ‘Partners, guests or competitors: relationships between criminal justice and third sector staff in prisons’, Probation Journal, 54(4): 391-405.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2007) Third sector strategy: Improving policies and securing better public services through effective partnerships. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2008) Third sector strategy: Improving policies and securing better public services through effective partnerships 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ)/NOMS (2008a) NOMS third sector action plan: Securing effective partnerships to reduce re-offending and protect the public 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ)/NOMS (2008b) Working with the third sector to reduce re-offending: securing effective partnerships 2008-2011. London: Ministry of Justice.
New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) (2009) Breaking the cycle: Charities working with people in prison and on release. London: New Philanthropy Capital.
New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations (2011) Kia Tutahi Fails its First Test. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1108/S00162/kia-tutahi-fails-its-first-test.htm
Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice (2010) The Compact. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61169/The_20Compact.pdf
Rethinking Crime and Punishment (2012) Justice Coalition Seeks Closer Relationship with Government. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00050/justice-coalition-seeks-closer-relationship-with-government.htm
Robinson, G. and Crow, I. (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice. London: Sage.
Silvestri, A. (2009) Partners or Prisoners? Voluntary sector independence in the world of commissioning and contestability. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Stowe, K. (1998) ‘Professional developments: Compact on relations between government and the voluntary and community sector in England and Wales’, Public Administration and Development, 18(5): 519-22.
Tennant, M. (2007) The Fabric of Welfare: Voluntary organisations, governmental and welfare in New Zealand, 1840-2005. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
[1] A formal agreement between civil society organisations and the government.
[2] An umbrella body for CSOs working with offenders.
[3] ‘The Compact: The Coalition government and civil society organisations working effectively in partnership for the benefit of communities and citizens in England’ (Office for Civil Society/Compact Voice 2010).
[4] NCVO is a civil society umbrella organisation which represents almost half the civil society workforce in England (Elson 2011). It was instrumental in the consultation process that led to the development of the Compact, which was seen to be key in its acceptance by the sector (Stowe 1998). It now advocates on behalf of CSOs in the independent mediation process (Elson 2011).