Charity Ends Where Exactly?

I notice that NACRO have commented on the recently published research by Civitas and which I mentioned in passing last week. In essence the research seems to be saying that increasing the length of prison sentences for burglary and fraud reduces offending. In contradicting this, or at least saying that it should have a large health warning attached, NACRO state that "in their experience a slightly longer sentence just means a slightly longer delay in reoffending." 


I have to say that I always treat research findings a tad cautiously, especially when trotted out in a political context, and this view was confirmed recently when an eminent professor confided that 'inconvenient' research had a habit of not getting published if the commissioner so decided. I must be more naive than I thought because I find this really worrying and not at all in tune with my clearly idealistic view of academia being concerned only with 'the truth'. 


Anyway, the article goes on to rehearse all the arguments as to why prison terms, especially short sentences, are frequently damaging and do nothing to rehabilitate offenders, in stark contrast to the improved outcomes from community-based options. The author states categorically that "our sole focus as a charity is to reduce crime and reduce the number of victims of crime." Now that is extremely laudable and not at all surprising as a mission statement for a charity founded as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. 


My problem with this is that I seem to recall that in NACRO's submission to the recent probation review, they pretty much make a case to be allowed to provide probation services themselves, and it was only in 2008 that they were part of a direct bid to run a couple of prisons. In deciding on a name for the organisation, I don't think it was ever in the founders minds that it might be taken literally as to mean the running of prisons or probation services directly, after all that wouldn't be charitable, would it?


I must confess I've had my doubts about NACRO for some time (The Dog that Doesn't Bark), because they used to have a distinguished record for campaigning, but I've only fairly recently come to realise that Frances Crooke of the Howard League for Penal Reform no less has similar concerns. It would seem that she fair put the cat amongst the pigeons by bringing the issue to the attention of the Charity Commission, which by all accounts lost her several friends amongst the charity world, Catch 22 and Turning Point included. 


Without doubt in this crazy world of successive governments trying to build a 'market' within the Criminal Justice System, some very strange and worrying things are happening. Again Francis Crooke points to the habit of charities appearing as 'bid candy' as part of the big players wider aspirations in the CJS carve-up, and some being left supplying free services in order to help the bottom line of 'transglobal bandits' like G4S. I think I'm with her in thinking that there's something really wrong about previously sound charities effectively turning into government contractors with all the consequent issues of being party to the dismantling of public service provision and helping to increase the profits of giant multi-nationals. What about the ethics of being directly involved in this way, can it really be regarded as charitable? 


As I write this, I see that there is discussion once more within the Labour Party about removing the charitable status of private schools if they ever get back into power. If they were ever foolish enough to go down that road, maybe the public might take a wider interest in exactly what's going on in the whole charity sector.