Introducing a new project at ex-offender.co.uk. It is my belief that offenders and ex-offenders have become commodities to a third and private sector hungry for funding.
The recent noises coming from the Ministry of Justice that service providers will be paid for results, including the changes to the administration of offender management and rehabilitation has created a gold rush, in terms of public funding. Therefore, I am going to be working hard on understanding the new possibilities, but also reviewing services offered and delivered by those offering services to offenders and ex-offenders, and invite opinion comment or review, private or public of the services provided.
During the last three months since being back in Leeds, I have worked hard on my websites and have lost sight slightly of what it is I am trying to say. I have a criticism ringing in my ears from my tutor at University in reference to my dissertation, “you are not critical enough, you should have been more critical in your appraisal of…”
What was said to me was true. I am critical in normal conversation and discussion, but not when I write. In recent weeks, I have had numerous e-mails congratulating me, in terms of my website and the message it is aimed to send. Correspondence has continued with many, even by telephone and planned meetings for the future. The conversation is always generally the same. We discuss the nature of help available to ex-offenders and offenders which, leads often to the fact few offenders have voices or at least have them heard, they’re voices become the voice of an organisation. The organisation uses the offenders’ narrative usually to promote their individual services.
The discussion or should I say ‘rant’ often turns to the belief that many organisations that help offenders and ex-offenders use them as a ‘commodity’. My reasoning apart from certain sociological and theoretical discussions is my own experience. I have contacted numerous well-known organisations and people in terms of help and wanting to get involved. I get the same response from many of them, if any of them respond at all. “Become a member”, “Buy our magazine”, “distribute our newsletter”, “get people to join”, but never did they ask ‘how did you achieve rehabilitation?’, ‘what can you offer’, or ‘what do you think?’
After a while, I realised they had not really read my e-mail or looked at my website. During my discussions with professors, PhD students, probation officers, practitioners and [ex] offenders, all seem to agree that the [ex] offender are just a commodity for certain organisations. It is important to say at this point, many if not all do some great work, but to what ends. I search the web daily for news and comments about the criminal justice system and help that is available and in particular offenders and ex-offenders voices, independent and confident. I hardly ever find independent voices; if I do, they are part of some other organisation’s agenda or promotion, claiming to be the voice of the offender, whose own agenda is wrapped up in gaining funding and appraisal.
Unfortunately I cannot name those I have attempted to contact or have found their response worrying, or at least not yet! However, now that ex-offender.co.uk is been visited daily by hundreds, it is time to reveal the real agenda, that offenders and ex-offenders can become agents to their own destiny and those claiming to help must be appraised by those using their services. Why should an agency or organisation receive funding if they are not delivering satisfactory services? I believe it is our responsibility to make sure that people needing help should not become commodities for anyone, other than themselves.
All kinds of things can be traded “as if” they are commodities, so long as property rights can be attached to them. These are “fictitious commodities” or “pseudo-commodities” or “fiduciary commodities”, i.e. their existence as commodities is only nominal or conventional. They may not even be tangible objects, but exist only ideally
One Response to Offender = Commodity
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Contribute Your Thoughts
Raymond
I think there is a fine line between being critical and being cynical. It is clear to anyone that if governments set up tendering processes for money then any type of client (ex-offender or otherwise) will be turned into commodities. Agencies who have to chase govt funding will inevitably then try to the minimise their input or cherry pick their clients once the contracts are issued. I think it is only those agencies who gain unrestricted funding or generate their own income that are truly client focussed. I see this sometimes in the agency who I’m a trustee for. A solution that some agencies use (eg Leeds Mind) is for clients to pay for their services. This means not only that agencies get some additional funding, but also that the clients are truly voluntary. The biggest bonus is that it turns people away from being passive clients into an active and powerful customers, giving power and control to them. I think that’ srealy important in desiatance, and also in identifying motivated clients or customers whne resources are limited. In reality customers can’t pay serious money, so my model is to have them pay a nominal fee per session, or to buy any workbooks or materials themselves. I believe that even serving motivated prisoners will pay something or sacrifice something (eg association time)if they value what is on offer. This makes them a more powerful agent in their own rehabilitation. I’d like to think this approach doesn’t use offenders as commodities, but I also believe that the motivations of third and private sector agencies are good and well intentioned. Unfortunately their original values are inevitably compromised if they rely solely on government departments who are subcontracting out their work for the reasons of cost rather than of trying to improve services or making services closer to the people they are meant to serve. Of course, when govt departments keep the money to spend themselves, that’s even worse.
Andy