ABSTRACT
The primary and secondary functions of organisations in the sample were compared to Kendall and Knapp’s typology of voluntary organisation functions (1995: 67), namely service delivery, policy advocacy, mutual aid and coordinating functions. This typology was not imposed upon the sample and the categorisations were illustrative rather than deterministic. Every voluntary organisation in the sample delivered a direct service to its clients, either in kind or in the form of information and support (Kendall and Knapp, 1995: 67), but the services offered and service users varied. For example, Fine Cell Work offered prisoners the opportunity to train in paid, skilled, creative needlework (Fine Cell Work, 2010: 2). The Apex Trust provided ‘employment-related advice and support services’ to jobless (ex-)offenders and probationers living in the community (Apex Trust, 2010: 4). Among other functions, NEPACS owned two caravans which were used to provide prisoners’ families with a one-week respite holiday (NEPACS, 2010: 7). Numerous organisations undertook campaigning or ‘policy advocacy’ work, which involves collecting information about a specific interest and utilising this information to put public pressure on decision makers through direct action,
campaigning, lobbying and advocacy work, aiming to change policy and practices (Kendall and Knapp, 1995: 67). Fourteen organisations in the sample campaigned as one of their functions and four were principally campaigning organisations (e.g. the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League). By way of illustration, the Prison Reform Trust aimed to create a ‘just, humane and effective penal system’ by ‘influencing Parliament, Government and officials towards reform’ (Prison Reform Trust, 2010: 4). Their key campaign was to ensure prison is reserved for those whose offending is so serious that they cannot serve their sentence in the community (Prison Reform Trust, 2010: 3, 4). Similarly, the Howard League for Penal Reform worked for ‘less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison’ (Howard League, 2010: no pagination). Again, client groups varied between organisations. Action for Prisoners’ Families was not principally a campaigning organisation, but their mission included representing the issues affecting prisoners’ families to government and policy makers (Action for Prisoners’ Families,1 2010: 4). Eight organisations provided ‘mutual aid’, which entails self-help and exchange around a common need (Kendall and Knapp, 1995: 67). For example, the Apex Trust run the ACT4 Women Project in Merseyside, a women-only peer support project which offered opportunities for project beneficiaries to support their peers in building self-confidence and self-reliance (Apex Trust, 2010: 4). Although the Samaritans had a broader remit and were not a penal voluntary organisation, their Prison Listener Scheme was another important example of mutual aid. Under this scheme, prisoners were trained by the Samaritans to listen to fellow prisoners in confidence. The scheme aimed to reduce prison suicides and self-harm, and alleviate the feelings of prisoners in distress. Five voluntary organisations were involved in ‘co-ordinating’ or umbrella functions, providing services to other voluntary sector bodies (Kendall and Knapp, 1995: 67). Clinks was one such organisation, supporting voluntary and community organisations who worked ‘with or for offenders and their families’ (Clinks, 2010: 2). Clinks’ activities included ‘sharing good practice’ between their member organisations (Clinks, 2010: 2). Action for Prisoners’ Families was also an umbrella organisation, whose primary objective was to work with their members to ‘ensure that real improvements are made that increase the likelihood of families maintaining wellbeing during and following imprisonment’ (Action for Prisoners’ Families, 2010: 4). Their work included producing specialist publications for member organisations working with the families of prisoners (Action for Prisoners’ Families, 2010: 4). This section has illustrated variations in voluntary organisations’ functions. Although all four of Kendall and Knapp’s functions (1995) feature in this analysis, the service delivery and policy advocacy functions are most important for this discussion. The next section scopes further significant variables amongst voluntary organisations, which are analysed in subsequent sections.
