The State’s Accomplices? Organizations and the Penal State 1

Penal hybridization: State influence and local resistance at a community-based reentry organization

“…Like many reentry organizations (Kaufman, 2019), Pathways receives the majority of its funding from penal state agencies, including the local Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). It does not receive these funds from the DOC or BOP directly, however.…”

“…Because they are often dependent on penal state agencies for funding and partnerships (Kaufman, 2019;Nhan et al, 2017;Quirouette, 2018), regulating PVS organizations working with or for the penal state may directly extend state control by performing surveillance functions similar to those of penal state agencies. For example, Kilty and DeVellis (2010) detail how staff at halfway houses combine tactics of round-the-clock surveillance with therapeutic services, thereby governing the movements of clients under the rhetoric and justification of rehabilitation.…”

“…PVS organizations and distal governance: Complicity, resistance, and hybridity However, PVS organizations and those staffing them are not simply "managerial robots" (Quirouette, 2018: 597) following transcarceral arrangements without question or resistance. A diversity of orientations exists within the PVS (see, e.g., Goddard et al, 2015;Helminen and Mills, 2019;Kaufman, 2019;Quirouette, 2018;Tomczak and Buck, 2019). Quirouette (2018: 586) describes how organizations may varyingly work "with, for, and against" the penal state.…”

“…However, the goals and activities of PVS organizations sometimes diverge from those of penal state agencies, as the former often center on service provision while the latter are typically more concerned with supervision (Nhan et al, 2017). In instances where state funding contracts encourage reentry organizations to employ more supervisory tactics over their clientele, organizational actors may resist penal state influence or even decline state funding (Burch, 2017;Kaufman, 2015Kaufman, , 2019. In fact, many organizations purposefully distance themselves from the penal state (Quinn and Goodman, 2022), with some working as agents of social change to break down social and penal structures impacting their clients (Goddard et al, 2015;Tomczak and Buck, 2019).…”

“…Reentry organizations exist in a grey space between the state and civil society. While they may provide services fundamentally aimed to incorporate the formerly incarcerated into social and political life, their typically high levels of dependence on governmental elements of the penal state for funding, logistical support, and clientele has led some to question their autonomy (see Kaufman, 2019). Questions therefore exist as to whether reentry organizations represent a constituent, associated, or peripheral element of the penal state, or if they operate in an independent or even oppositional capacity to it.…”