Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/27177
Title: Horizontal and vertical responsibilisation in the resettlement field
Authors: Cracknell, M
Keywords: responsibilisation;resettlement;short sentences;transforming rehabilitation;through the gate;mass supervision
Issue Date: 16-Feb-2021
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Citation: Cracknell, M. (2021) 'Horizontal and vertical responsibilisation in the resettlement field', Safer Communities, 22 (1), pp. 28 - 41. doi: 10.1108/SC-09-2022-0037.
Abstract: Purpose: The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 extended post-release supervision to individuals serving short prison sentences while introducing an extended array of actors into the resettlement field. This paper aims to explore the barriers that prison practitioners and community probation workers faced in their attempts to provide resettlement support, and how in response to these barriers, these practitioners enacted particular responsibilisation strategies. Design/methodology/approach: This empirical research features the perspectives of 19 prison, probation and third-sector actors within a case-study area in England. Qualitative interviews were carried out, alongside observations and field notes of daily practice. Findings: Findings indicate that despite the promise of additional support, practitioners face significant barriers inhibiting their ability to provide effective resettlement assistance. The three specific barriers identified are institutional, temporal and political-economic. In response, practitioners enacted particular responsibilisation strategies, shifting blame vertically down to service users and horizontally towards the other actors involved in managing these individuals. Practical implications: This article concludes with a brief overview of the latest iteration of resettlement practice, before exploring how a desistance-focused approach by practitioners may improve resettlement outcomes. Originality/value: These findings help to expand our understanding of the responsibilisation literature, particularly how responsibilisation operates at a practitioner level, and how barriers become refracted and reframed into responsibilisation strategies. This article also draws on the “mass supervision” literature to demonstrate how the introduction of multiple agencies obfuscates individual responsibility for resettlement and large caseloads erode supervisory practice.
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/27177
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-09-2022-0037
ISSN: 1757-8043
Other Identifiers: ORCID iD: Matthew Cracknell https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9909-1173
Appears in Collections:Dept of Social and Political Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited. This Authors Accepted Manuscript is provided for your own personal use only. It may not be used for resale, reprinting, systematic distribution, emailing, or for any other commercial purpose without the permission of the publisher. See: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/publish-with-us/author-policies/our-open-research-policies#green.409.92 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.