Nacro join the prison business
By: Ben Gunn - HMP Shepton Mallet
Ben Gunn is concerned at Nacro leaping into bed with the private sector and considers their moral compass has gone astray.
You know you have those mad dreams, or drug-fuelled fantasies, in which reality is twisted to offer an alternative? Where some dolly-bird Governor brings you breakfast in bed, dressed as a French maid? Or where the Home Secretary appears, in sack-cloth and ashes, apologising for being such a total arse and opens the gate for you? That's just how I felt, when I heard that Nacro was leaping into a big fluffy financial bed with that shady conglomerate that is nowadays called ‘G4S’.
Then I woke up, and my first thought was, "what the ****?" just when the world was beginning to make some sort of screwed-up sense, along came a prison reform group declaring they were going into the bang-up business and I'm back to square one; dazed and confused, and even more confused when I discovered that Nacro didn't stand for the ‘National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders’ any more; oh no. They shape-shifted, inveigled their way into our company whilst dressed in new clothes. Now they are ‘Nacro - the crime reduction charity’. This happened ten years ago but, surprise, no-one bothered telling us poor crims. This is like catching an anti-hanging campaigner creeping up behind you with a rope in his hands.
This shift helps to explain their current love of G4S and the prospect of making money by helping to bang us up; that and the urge that must lurk in the hearts of all campaigners, that small voice of certainty that tells you … "I could do better". Most of us never get the chance to find out whether that is true, or we resist the urge to find out – but not Nacro, they think they can get in on the ground floor and help a security company create a prison regime that focuses on resettlement. They think they can create a decent prison. There are problems with this idea, and just in case Nacro are actually listening then I'll spell some of them out. It's not too late for them to engage their brain cell, apologise, and quit while they can.
Firstly, even private prisons are not masters of their own fate; they are part of a system and must fit within the structures. All the Orders and Instructions that roll down from HQ apply just as much as in state prisons. So even with the best of intentions, Nacro will end up with a prison and regime that cannot be too far different from what already exists - no imagination allowed.
Even if they did manage to do the impossible and create a decent prison, there are the financial pressures. G4S likes profit … it’s why it exists. To create a good resettlement regime, Nacro will have to supply good quality work which provides training and a real income. So far, G4S has never managed to do this, for the simple reason that it requires investment, and investment means fewer profits. As we speak, G4S crow about their ‘audio visual material recycling facility’ - a load of disgruntled cons smashing CDs and DVDs. That they feel this is something to boast about should be a hint to Nacro about the devil they are having supper with.
The biggest flaw in this plan is that Nacro swear blind they are having no input to either security or staffing. Interesting … that's like saying you want to help run a brewery but want nothing to do with alcohol. Security and staff are central to resettlement and that Nacro does not realise this should make us afraid …very afraid.
Take the whole drugs business, for example, and its terrible effect on domestic visits. In an effort to cut drug use, the security on visits has ripped the guts out of what was once a positive hour or two. One result has been that the number of visitors has collapsed. From that, re-offending increases because family support is a major factor in whether we go straight or not. So there is a balance to be found here between security and visits. One increases re-offending, one cuts it. If Nacro are not going to engage in how this balance is reached in their prisons, then they won't achieve any of their hoped for resettlement gains.
That is only one example, but a powerful one, to highlight how pervasive security concerns are in prison and how they are more than capable of overriding any resettlement agenda. Nacro may want to pretend that security and resettlement are not connected, but that is to insult everybody who knows the smallest thing about prisons and reveals a depth of ignorance that should rule them out of having anything to do with prison.
And what of education? Will cons have some sort of Net access? Laptops in cell? All of these are determined by security first, resettlement second. The same goes for work and training; and even more so when it comes to any type of temporary release.
Security and profit are the driving forces behind all that G4S do in prisons, with profit coming first. This has a huge effect on staff, both in quantity and quality - G4S has a global record of trying to get the fewest number of staff for the least amount of money.
Even if it was both philosophically and practically proper for Nacro to get itself involved in the bang-up business (and it isn't) there remains the question of its partner in this farce - G4S. This is a merger of Group 4 and Securicor, between them separate companies with very shady reputations. They also own a raft of other companies that run prisons and detention centres, including Rebound, GSL and Wackenhut. Their track record is not good. As far as resettlement is concerned, this global concern has shown no benefit compared to public prisons.
Worse, far worse, they have been accused variously of poor management, abusing detainees, sexually exploiting vulnerable prisoners, failure to maintain order, violating workers' human rights and excessive use of force. They are the proud owners of a raft of damning Inspection reports. These allegations include those made against G4S Rebound in its treatment of children in Secure Training Centres. The question shouldn't be whether Nacro should be involved with G4S; it should be asked whether G4S themselves should be allowed to run prisons.
This idea by Nacro is shameful. They will make money from detaining those who they have argued should not even be in prison, such as the mentally ill, the flotsam and jetsam of society that no one else wants. They have revealed that they have a frighteningly limited understanding of how prisons work, and that they are willing to collaborate with a company with a terrible reputation for ill-treatment and ineptitude.
We have to wonder what possessed them to sink to these depths. Nacro was once a great organisation - weighty and moral. A previous leader, Vivien Stern, was a fierce campaigner for prison reform. Under the leadership of Paul Cavadino that moral compass has gone astray, with one result being that Nacro receives most of its funding from the Government itself. No wonder the Chair of the Howard League has declared that Nacro will now …’have blood on its hands’. Hear, hear...
