Could Personalisation Reduce Re-offending? Reflections on Potential Lessons from British Social Care Reform for the British Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Rising prison numbers and high rates of re-offending illustrate the need for criminal justice reform. In the social care sector, the ‘personalisation revolution’ has resulted in the near eradication of long-term, institutional care for the majority of people with disabilities and many frail older people, increasing satisfaction. This paper examines what this has entailed and considers the case for introducing personalisation in the criminal justice system. It concludes that criminal justice reformers can learn from the social care experience and suggests how personalisation might fit within the current criminal justice reform agenda. However, introducing personalisation will pose significant challenges, perhaps the biggest being the need to change criminal justice culture.

Sharing power in criminal justice: The potential of co‐production for offenders experiencing mental health and addictions in New Zealand

“…For example, Fox et al . () examine links between social disability models and the justice reinvestment models in Britain, arguing that problems with structural responses to prisoners re‐integration (such as correctional policy, funding models), in conjunction with encouragement to develop ‘pro‐social’ identities, should be seen as a core focus rehabilitation model. To achieve this, the Fox et al .…”

“…To achieve this, the Fox et al . () insist criminal justice culture must change by shifting power from professionals back to the community and end‐users to support re‐integration through co‐design of services and research, giving agency to offenders to have a say in how they should be rehabilitated and punished (Weaver ).…”

“…Across all five papers we located, exactly where coproduction fits within the contested site of rehabilitation in criminal justice was in focus (Fox et al 2013;McCulloch and Members of Positive Prison? Positive Futures, 2016;Surva et al 2016;Weaver 2011;Weaver & McNeill 2011).…”

“…At the heart of the debate is the relationship between individuals and society that occurs at prisoner re-integration. In four of the papers, individualized forms of co-production that lead to individual outcomes, such as tailor-made supports with peer support, professionals, or citizens leading to recovery, desistence, or change were illustrated (Fox et al 2013;McCulloch and Members of Positive Prison? Positive Futures, 2016;Surva et al 2016;Weaver 2011).…”

Is Personalization the Right Plan at the Wrong Time? Re‐thinking Cash‐for‐Care in an Age of Austerity

“…Over the past 20 years, personalization has emerged as a reforming concept across many areas of social policy in the UK (see Fox et al for criminal justice; Pykett for education; Toerien et al for employment; Forder and Jones for health), gaining what West () identifies as an ‘ideological grip’ across the public sector. Its appearance in UK systems of social care draws in part from the legacy of disability activism culminating in a long fought campaign to secure direct payments as a facilitator of independent living (Campbell and Oliver ; Morris ), alongside a drive to ‘modernize’ and provide more cost‐efficient and flexible modes of service provision in emerging local care markets (Pearson ; Spandler ).…”