Abstract
In this chapter, the author draws on qualitative interview research to examine the role that community volunteers and non-profit organizations can play in providing rehabilitative programming in prisons and jails. The chapter spans voluntary sector provision in England and California and includes the perspectives of community volunteers and incarcerated individuals who have participated in a variety of educational and faith-based programs. The chapter also examines the effect of this provision on experiences of incarceration, preparation for reentry, and on encouraging a desire to give back. The implications for self-identity, desistance, and prison culture are discussed, including particular benefits that can emerge through building bridges between prisons and outside communities. Last, the chapter considers why some facilities may be more amenable to volunteers than others.
Partial funding covering various aspects of this study was provided by Birmingham City University (UK), the Prisoners’ Education Trust (UK), and a grant from the College of Social Sciences’ Research & Creative Activities Awards, California State University, Fresno (USA). I would also like to acknowledge Hannah Riccardi for her assistance with this project.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The prison system of England and Wales is combined under one governing body, but remains separate from that of Scotland, the third country constituting Great Britain.
- 2.
CDCR was compelled to make this reduction following the Supreme Court’s finding that overcrowding was interfering with the state’s ability to provide prisoners with acceptable levels of health care and thus was violating constitutional protections from “cruel and unusual” punishment.
- 3.
Research participants’ names have been changed in order to protect anonymity.
- 4.
In England and Wales, a “lifer” has a life sentence with a tariff that indicates the minimum time they are expected to serve before the Parole Board considers them for release. If they are released they remain on “life license,” subject to recall to prison as long as they live. Most lifers, like Joe, and Bruce who will feature later, do not have a “whole-life tariff” that makes them ineligible for release.
References
Batiuk, M. E. (1997). The state of post-secondary correctional education in Ohio. Journal of Correctional Education, 48(2), 70–72.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding-principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Blumstein, A. (2011). Bringing down the U.S. prison population. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 12S–26S.
Burnett, R. & Maruna, S. (2004). So ‘prison works’, does it? The criminal careers of 130 men released from prison under Home Secretary, Michael Howard. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 390–404.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2007). Master work plan for rehabilitative programming. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). (2008). Biannual report, July 15, 2008. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General.
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). (2010). Biannual report, March 15, 2010. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General.
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). (2014). Annual report, September 15, 2014. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General.
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). (2015). Annual report, September 15, 2015. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General.
Cohen, S. & Taylor, L. (1972). Psychological survival: The experience of long-term imprisonment. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Crawley, E. & Sparks, R. (2005). Older men in prison: Survival, coping and identity. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 343–365). Cullompton, Devon, England: Willan Publishing.
Cullen, F. T. (2007). Making rehabilitation corrections’ guiding paradigm. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 717–728.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Gehring, T. (1997). Post-secondary education for inmates: An historical inquiry. Journal of Correctional Education, 48(2), 46–55.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Harris, M. K. (2009). Identity change through the transformation model of the public safety initiative of LIFERS, Inc. In B. M. Veysey, J. Christian, & D. J. Martinez (Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 143–164). Cullompton, Devon, England: Willan Publishing.
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. (2015). Annual report, 2014–2015. Retrieved from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/07/HMIP-AR_2014-15_TSO_Final1.pdf.
Hughes, E. (2000). An inside view: Prisoners’ letters. In D. Wilson & A. Reuss (Eds.), Prison(er) education: Stories of change and transformation (pp. 138–157). Winchester, England: Waterside Press.
Hughes, E. (2009). Thinking inside the box: Prisoner education, learning identities, and the possibilities for change. In B. M. Veysey, J. Christian, & D. J. Martinez (Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 87–103). Cullompton, Devon, England: Willan Publishing.
Hughes, E. (2012). Education in prison: Studying through distance learning. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Irwin, J. (2009). Lifers: Seeking redemption in prison. New York: Routledge.
Jewkes, Y. (2005). Loss, liminality and the life sentence: Managing identity through a disrupted lifecourse. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 366–388). Cullompton, Devon, England: Willan Publishing.
Johnson, R. (2002). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Light, R. (1993). Why support prisoners’ family-tie groups? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), 322–329.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martinson, R. (1974). Nothing works: Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S. (2011). Reentry as a rite of passage. Punishment & Society, 13(1), 3–28.
Ministry of Justice. (2015). Prison population figures: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures-2015.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J. (2014). Voices from the field: How California stakeholders view public safety realignment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center.
Prison University Project. (2015). About us. Retrieved from http://www.prisonuniversityproject.org/about-us.
Prisoners’ Education Trust. 2015. What we do. Retrieved from http://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/index.php?id=home.
Rumgay, J. (2004). Scripts for safer survival: Pathways out of female crime. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 405–419.
Schuller, T. (2009). Crime and lifelong learning: IFLL thematic paper 5. Leicester, England: NIACE.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tewksbury, R. & Dabney, D. (2004). Prison volunteers: Profiles, motivations, satisfaction. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 173–183.
Ubah, C. B. A. & Robinson Jr., R. L. (2003). A grounded look at the debate over prison-based education: Optimistic theory versus pessimistic worldview. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 115–129.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). U.S. Department of Education launches second chance pell program for incarcerated individuals. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-launches-second-chance-pell-pilot-program-incarcerated-individuals.
Wilson, A. (2003). Researching in the third space—Locating, claiming and valuing the research domain. In T. Lillis & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and education: A reader (pp. 293–307). Clevedon, England: Open University Press.
Wilson, A. (2007). ‘I go to get away from the cockroaches:’ Educentricity and the politics of education in prisons. Journal of Correctional Education, 58(2), 185–203.
Wilson, A. (2010). Goodwill and good fortune: Obstacles and opportunities for level 2 learners in local jails—Extended report. London: Prisoners’ Education Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hughes, E. (2016). Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Programs in Prisons and Jails: Perspectives from England and the USA. In: Abrams, L., Hughes, E., Inderbitzin, M., Meek, R. (eds) The Voluntary Sector in Prisons. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54215-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54215-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54214-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54215-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)