Inclusionary control? Theorizing the effects of penal voluntary organizations’ work
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Author | Philippa Tomczak,David Thompson |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480617733724 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480617733724
Theoretical Criminology
2019, Vol. 23(1) 4 –24
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362480617733724
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Inclusionary control?
Theorizing the effects of penal
voluntary organizations’ work
Philippa Tomczak
University of Sheffield, UK
David Thompson
University of Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Recent penal policy developments in many jurisdictions suggest an increasing role for
voluntary organizations. Voluntary organizations have long worked alongside penal
institutions, but the multifaceted ways their programmes affect (ex-)offenders remain
insufficiently understood. This article addresses the implications of voluntary organizations’
work with (ex-)offenders, using original empirical data. It adds nuance to netwidening
theory, reframing the effects of voluntary organizations’ work as inclusionary and
exclusionary. Exclusionary effects sometimes have inclusionary aspects, and inclusionary
effects are constrained by a controlling carceral net. We propose the novel concept of
inclusionary control. This is not an alibi for punishment but enables rich analysis of the
effects of voluntary organizations’ work, and raises possibilities for change in penal practice.
Keywords
Netwidening, punishment, social exclusion, social inclusion, voluntary sector
Introduction
Penal voluntary organizations are now more significant than ever, yet, so far, remain
poorly understood. Sitting between the state and the market (Considine, 2003) these
Corresponding author:
Philippa Joy Tomczak, University of Sheffield School of Law, Bartolome House, Sheffield, S3 7ND, UK.
Email: p.j.tomczak@sheffield.ac.uk
733724TCR0010.1177/1362480617733724Theoretical CriminologyTomczak and Thompson
research-article2017
Article
Tomczak and Thompson 5
organizations engage with (ex-)offenders through varied formal and informal mecha-
nisms. They have a social benefit mandate.1
Voluntary organizations have been implicated alongside private companies in recent
public social welfare service marketization (Considine, 2003; Salamon, 2015), although
competitive service delivery contracts are only one means through which they govern (ex-)
offenders (Kaufman, 2015). Their marketized involvement in punishment occurs around
the world (see Tomczak, 2017).2 Even the traditionally strong Nordic welfare states increas-
ingly utilize voluntary and private bodies in social service delivery (Helminen, 2016).
The distinctive place of penal voluntary organizations, alongside but separated from
statutory penal institutions (albeit to varying degrees), justifies distinctive theorization of
their work. This theorization has broader implications for netwidening theory and penal
practice, enabling a nuanced agenda by illustrating how inclusionary outcomes can occur
in exclusionary contexts and highlighting potential mechanisms of inclusion. These find-
ings have value for both penal abolitionists and reformers.
Voluntary sector programmes are context specific and this article primarily applies to
the penal and policy contexts and cultures of England and Wales. English and Welsh
voluntary organizations have a history of penal philanthropic involvement (Ignatieff,
1978; McWilliams, 1983), have featured in marketized penal policy rhetoric since 1991
and are (at least) discursively implicated in the decentralizing Transforming rehabilita-
tion policy agenda (Ministry of Justice, 2013), adopting Payment by Results (PbR) con-
tractor payments.3 However, this analysis is relevant internationally, with consideration
of contextual variations.4
Although the voluntary sector is broadly under-researched (Considine, 2003), there is a
particular dearth of penal voluntary sector research compared to, for example, housing and
social care (Armstrong, 2002; Corcoran, 2011; Goddard, 2012). Given the sector’s promi-
nence in penal policy (Ministry of Justice, 2010, 2013),5 ‘long and rich history’ (Mills et al.,
2012: 392)6 and significance in punishment,7 it is peculiar that it is not better understood.
Our limited understanding of how voluntary organizations affect (ex-)offenders is par-
ticularly problematic. A burgeoning English and Welsh literature stresses that marketiza-
tion threatens voluntary organizations’ ‘special contribution’ to service users (Maguire,
2012: 490; see also Mythen et al., 2013). However, the ‘richly positive imagery’ evoked by
voluntary action is not substantiated by evidence (Armstrong, 2002: 351). Commentary
about effects ranges from claims that voluntary groups: build social capital (Lewis et al.,
2007); diffuse control, governance and penology; and justify intensified interventions into
the lives and psyches of (ex-)offenders based on their structural needs (Hannah-Moffat,
2005; Quirouette et al., 2016). Although we consider how voluntary organizations may
contribute to (ex-)offenders, we do not endorse imprisonment and community sentences.
Similarly we do not negate the pains of such punishments, nor legitimize political choices
to cut public services and de-responsibilize the state for structural inequalities and social
problems (Goddard, 2012). Rather, this article seeks to improve understanding.
The penal voluntary sector
The voluntary sector is diverse and notoriously difficult to define. It contains a ‘bewil-
dering variety of organisational forms, activities, motivations and ideologies’ (Kendall
To continue reading
Request your trial