“…In line with this, research has documented that the adoption of actuarial risk instruments does not necessarily correspond with a movement away from a rehabilitative or case‐based approach (Kemshall, ; Kemshall & McGuire, ; Kemshall, Parton, & Walsh, ; Leacock & Sparks, ; Lynch, ; L. Miller, ; Robinson, , ; Simon, ). Recent scholarship suggests that, rather than the replacement of rehabilitation with risk management, penal practices merge or braid together different logics and goals (e.g., rehabilitation, retribution, risk containment/incapacitation) in response to varied, and changing, institutional agendas (Hutchinson, ; Maurutto & Hannah‐Moffat, ; O'Malley, ; Phelps, ; see also Rubin, ). In this way, it is clear that risk “is always shaped and given effect by specific social and political rationalities and environments” (O'Malley, , p. 326).…”