1 Supporting children’s resettlement (‘reentry’) after custody: Beyond the risk paradigm Neal Hazel and Tim Bateman Pre-publication proof – Youth Justice Journal Abstract In response to policy concerns in England and Wales and internationally, a considerable knowledge base has identified factors statistically associated with reduced recidivism for children leaving custody. However, despite resulting guidance on how to support resettlement (‘reentry’), practice and outcomes remain disappointing. We argue that this failure reflects weaknesses in the dominant ‘risk paradigm’, which lacks a theory of change and undermines children’s agency. We conceptualise resettlement as a pro-social identity-shift. A new practice model reinterprets existing risk-based messages accordingly, and crucially adds principles to guide a child’s desistance journey. However, successful implementation may require the model to inform culture change more broadly across youth justice. Increased attention on resettlement; limited results The current article aims to resolve an apparent conundrum in youth justice: In spite of a considerable body of evidence, and associated practice guidance, in relation to the transition of children from custody back into the community, levels of reoffending remain extremely high. The paper deals primarily with England and Wales, but the logic of argument and the model developed from it are likely to have wider international relevance, given that a range of jurisdictions continue to have stubbornly poor recidivism rates alongside a plethora of initiatives to improve support for children leaving custody (O’Neill, 2018; Development Services Group, 2017). This conundrum also has relevance for the research-practice nexus and issues of academic impact more generally: Why might a body of research on ‘what works’ that has informed practice guidance from policymakers not see that influence translated into impact on outcomes? At a policy level, the focus on resettlement (also known internationally as ‘reentry’ or ‘aftercare’) into the community after a period of custody has become more pronounced in recent years, particularly as regards children. Indeed, in England and Wales, better facilitating resettlement was part of the rationale for introducing the detention and training order (DTO) as the standard custodial penalty for children; the youth offending team (YOT) officer responsible for supervising the community element of the order “would also be involved in the planning and supervision of the custodial element” (Home Office, 1997, para 6.17). The DTO was intended to ensure a seamless intervention that offered a continuity of provision from the point of entry to the custodial institution, into the community (Hazel et al., 2002). A