The Enigmas of Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Forms of Capital, Desistance and the Contextualisation of Carceral‐Community Offender Transitions
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | ROGER MOORE |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12315 |
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 2. June 2019 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12315
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 202–219
The Enigmas of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement: Forms of Capital,
Desistance and the Contextualisation
of Carceral-Community Offender
Transitions
ROGER MOORE
Formerly Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent
University
Abstract: In England and Wales the government project of Transforming Rehabilitation
(TR) has raised even further the profiles of rehabilitation and resettlement in penal
policy. However, the question of what rehabilitation and resettlement precisely mean has
once again been glossed over. This article returns to these problematics and asks whether,
in the context of post-carceral transitions, concepts of social and human capital might
have wider resonance in penal policy. It is argued that the work of Bourdieu may have
much to offer in reframing the delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement programmes for
offenders faced with the diverse challenges of societal return.
Keywords: Bourdieu; capital; desistance; field; habitus; re-entry; rehabilita-
tion; resettlement; Transforming Rehabilitation (TR)
In England and Wales, rehabilitation and resettlement have attracted ex-
tensive attention and coverage in criminological literature and penal appli-
cation in recent years. This has been particularly so with the government
initiative of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) but their essential problem-
atic status remains. There has been a tendency at times towards restrictive
conceptual and theoretical analysis in key areas. The format of this article
is to: (i) outline some of the major characteristics of rehabilitation and re-
settlement and their underpinning assumptions; (ii) examine the concept
of social capital in the context of offender experiences after imprison-
ment; and (iii) explore at an introductory level Bourdieu’s theorisation
of cultural capital, habitus, and field. The task is to determine whether
these concepts have traction to: (i) explore the lives of offenders following
imprisonment; (ii) deconstruct further the problematised epistemologi-
cal and ontological concerns of adaptation, adjustment and ‘moving on’;
202
C
2019 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 2. June 2019
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 202–219
(iii) evaluate Bourdieu’s contribution to future theoretical, ideological, and
empirical formulations of prison policy; and (iv) interrogate whether, and
how, habitus and field could have an impact on State interventions with
pre- and post-release offenders. Whether,even with the necessary political
and organisational will, the prevailing ethos and estate structure of the
prison system have the capacity to deliver well-thought-out programmes
that are less generic in focus and increasingly centred on individualised
needs and specific personal circumstance. Key aspects of connectivity with
Bourdieu’s work are identified but their examination is far from exhaus-
tive. The purpose is not to present a wider critique of Bourdieu’s work –
that can be found elsewhere – but offer initial conceptual insight. While
the focus is on England and Wales there is clearly a global relevance across
diverse penal cultures.
Background
Over recent years, resettlement and rehabilitation have assumed a higher
profile in contemporary penal policy in England and Wales (HM Inspec-
torates of Prisons and Probation 2001; Lewis 2005; Lewis et al. 2007;
Maguire and Raynor 2006; Ministry of Justice 2010, 2013; Social Exclusion
Unit 2002). Earlier penal welfarism (Garland 1985) has been superseded by
public protection, risk management, and end-to-end pre- and post-release
‘through the gate’ offender management (though the continuation of the
latter policy has been questioned by Maguire and Raynor 2017). As part
of its overall penal framework, the government has introduced the much-
criticised TR project (Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014) which has resulted
in part privatisation of the probation service (Ministry of Justice 2013). In
February 2015, a new national probation service (NPS) for England and
Wales was created to focus on high-risk offenders. The NPS replaced the
35 probation trusts, and 21 private sector community rehabilitation com-
panies (CRCs) were created. CRCs are responsible for the management of
low- to medium-risk offenders, and for the first time there will be statu-
tory supervision of short-sentence offenders, of less than twelve months
(a measure reminiscent of the previously abandoned ‘custody plus’ pro-
posal in the Criminal Justice Act 2003). Rehabilitation prisons have been
introduced, linked to the CRCs, so that offenders will be moved to such
an establishment close to where they live for the final three months of the
custodial element of their sentence. More funding has been allocated for
the recruitment of extra prison staff but given the current turnover and
departure rates of many experienced officers and the time lag of training
and experience, this may not be the supposed positive claimed in some
government circles (Taylor 2017).
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Rehabilitation and resettlement are two conceptually distinguishable, but
theoretically interrelated, constructs. The terms are frequently used inter-
changeably, and erroneously (see Sapsford, Moore and Watson 2004), but
203
C
2019 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial