Co-Producing Community Justice: The Transformative Potential of Personalisation for Penal Sanctions

Weaver, Beth

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr011

Cited by 60 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Different approaches have been suggested to foster user engagement. Among others, Brudney and England (1983) discussed three types of service co-production, which are related to the breadth and depth of users' involvement: 1) Individual co-production (Weaver, 2011), which concerns the one to one relationship between user and provider, who accept to join a co-creating partnership rather than sticking to the traditional relieving approach of public service delivery;…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading Public Service Co-Production through the Lenses of Requisite Variety

Ciasullo¹,

Palumbo²,

Troisi³

2017

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper conceives municipalities as Smart Local Service Systems (SLSS), where co-production and variety perform as key resources to merge service quality and sustainability. The attention is focused on local public transport services, where users' involvement in value creation process is considered to be especially relevant. A narrative case study is presented, concerning the mobility service system of the municipality of Bologna (Italy). The research focused on the SMARTIP (Smart Metropolitan Areas Realised Through Innovation & People) European project, which was aimed at enhancing service quality and sustainability through citizens' empowerment and co-production. Citizens' involvement in co-planning and co-designing local transport services was found to be critical to improve service quality. Citizens' empowerment process allows to establish a co-creating relationship among the different stakeholders who are involved in urban mobility, paving the way for their engagement in devising, implementing and assessing transportation services. Public managers should take into consideration the role of value co-creation to enhance the responsiveness of public sector organizations and to achieve increased smartness. On the one hand, a citizens' empowerment process is required to foster their participation in service co-production; on the other hand, citizens' involvement engenders a virtuous cycle, encouraging the latter in co-producing public services. This paper represents one of the first attempts to examine service co-production in light of the requisite variety perspective. Co-production allows to merge competing purposes by activating the citizens' sleeping assets and by absorbing external variety through the creation of internal variety.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading Public Service Co-Production through the Lenses of Requisite Variety

Ciasullo¹,

Palumbo²,

Troisi³

2017

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If so, how? (Weaver, 2011;Graham, 2015a) • How do practitioners engage in 'intrapreneurship' and pioneer innovation, together with others, from within probation and other justice-related services? What is the meaning of this for their work, sense of job satisfaction and identity, and for practice cultures?…”

Section: Reflexive Questions Gentle Problematisations and Explorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation and criminal justice: Editorial introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Innovation’, December 2017

Graham

2017

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Special Issue of the European Journal of Probation considers examples and influences of innovation within criminal justice and community contexts. It offers some timely and insightful contributions from different countries to broader discussions of innovation in this field, a multi-faceted topic which piques significant interest but has perhaps not yet received the level of sustained critical analytical engagement it warrants. This editorial introduction critically reflects on a series of questions and problematisations of innovation and criminal justice. Questions about the forms and functions ('what', 'where' and 'how') of innovation in criminal justice should not be divorced from questions about its architects and beneficiaries, including their intentions and ideologies ('who' and 'why'). Following this, a brief overview of the Special Issue is provided. There is much more yet to be done, as well as celebrated in this area.

show abstract

“…See: www.offendersupervision.eu 2. For discussions of co-production in offender supervision practice, see Weaver (2011Weaver ( , 2013.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish out of water? Introduction to the Special Issue on innovative methods for comparative research on offender supervision practice

Robinson

Svensson²

2015

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the second Special Issue of the European Journal of Probation that has its origins in the ongoing work of a European academic network, the COST Action on Offender Supervision, which commenced its work in 2012. 1 The first of the Special Issues, published in December 2014, brought together a collection of articles on the theme of consent and cooperation in the context of offender supervision (see Morgenstern and Robinson, 2014). This was a theme that cut across the work of all four of the Working Groups that make up the COST Action, which address: Experiencing Supervision; Practising Supervision; Decision-Making and European Norms, Policy and Practice. In this second Special Issue, our focus is methodological, and the articles it includes were commissioned from two of the Action's Working Groups, whose members have been engaged in a common purpose for the last two years or so. That common purpose has been the development and piloting of innovative methods for studying aspects of offender supervision practice comparatively. To explain the specific origins of our methodological endeavours, it is necessary to revisit a review of the European literature on the practice of offender supervision that we conducted in the first year of the COST Action (Robinson and Svensson, 2013). This review, which collated overviews of research in 15 jurisdictions, reached a number of general conclusions. The first was that, notwithstanding significant variations between jurisdictions, there was surprisingly little empirical research into the 'everyday' practice of offender supervision in Europe. We further found that, looking across the studies conducted to date, two methods dominated: namely, interviews and surveys. This led us to conclude that extant research on offender supervision in Europe had rather more to tell us about what practitioners say they do, but rather less about what they actually do. A third finding was that the empirical studies conducted to date were overwhelmingly within a single jurisdiction, such that there was almost no comparative research on which to report. Indeed, we found only one study that included a comparative element in its design (Bauwens, 2011). Meanwhile, a parallel review of the research literature by members of the Decision-Making Working Group (Boone and Herzog-Evans, 2013) revealed a particular gap in research in relation to the construction of and reactions to breaches of community

show abstract

Co-Producing Community Justice: The Transformative Potential of Personalisation for Penal Sanctions

Cited by 60 publications

References 21 publications

Reading Public Service Co-Production through the Lenses of Requisite Variety

Reading Public Service Co-Production through the Lenses of Requisite Variety

Innovation and criminal justice: Editorial introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Innovation’, December 2017

Fish out of water? Introduction to the Special Issue on innovative methods for comparative research on offender supervision practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About