No abstract

No 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.

Prison health, prisoner safety and imprisonment rates matter: intrinsically and for health and safety outside. Existing prison regulation apparatuses (e.g. OPCAT) are extensive and hold unrealized potential to shape imprisonment. However, criminologists have not yet engaged much with this potential. In this article, I reconceptualize prison regulation by exploring the work of a broad range of multisectoral regulators who operate across stakeholder groups. I illustrate that voluntary organizations and families bereaved by prison suicide act as regulators, although their substantive actions have been erased from official narratives. Mobilizing (threats of) litigation, these actors have responsibilized the state and brought qualitative changes across the prison estate.

In response to policy developments aiming to increase the involvement of penal voluntary