Supporting Children’s Resettlement (‘Reentry’) After Custody: Beyond the Risk Paradigm
| Author | Neal Hazel,Tim Bateman |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225420923761 |
| Published date | 01 April 2021 |
| Date | 01 April 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420923761
Youth Justice
2021, Vol. 21(1) 71 –89
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473225420923761
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Supporting Children’s Resettlement
(‘Reentry’) After Custody: Beyond
the Risk Paradigm
Neal Hazel and Tim Bateman
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 custodial institutions.
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.
Keywords
aftercare, children, custody, desistance, identity, imprisonment, juvenile justice, reentry, resettlement,
risk, 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 transi-
tion of children from custodial institutions back into the community, levels of reoffending
remain extremely high. The article deals primarily with England and Wales, but the logic
of argument and the model developed from it are likely to have wider international rele-
vance, 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
(Development Services Group, 2017; O’Neill, 2018). 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 policymak-
ers not see that influence translated into impact on outcomes?
Corresponding author:
Neal Hazel, School of Health & Society, University of Salford, Manchester M5 4WT, UK.
Email: n.hazel@salford.ac.uk
923761YJJ0010.1177/1473225420923761Youth JusticeHazel and Bateman
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
72 Youth Justice 21(1)
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 facili-
tating 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 com-
munity (Hazel et al., 2002). A clear indicator of the importance attached by central gov-
ernment to making the transition back to the community smoother was the publication by
the Youth Justice Board (2005) of a framework for resettlement in 2005. This document
was updated 5 years later in the form of resettlement management guidance which
attempted to clarify some of the implications for practice of the framework (Youth Justice
Board, 2010a). In 2018, the Board confirmed that resettlement remained one of its priority
areas (Youth Justice Board, 2018b).
This growing attention was in large part a consequence of a recognition that recidivism
rates following a custodial sentence were historically poor and had shown little improve-
ment over time, and that this was particularly true for those below the age of 18 years
(Hagell and Hazel, 2001). The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established that preventing
offending by children and young people was the principal aim of the youth justice system.
Since 2010, reducing the 12-month rate of reoffending has been one of the three high-level
targets by which the performance of the youth justice system has been measured – the other
two being reductions in the number of first-time entrants and in the child custodial popula-
tion. While it should be acknowledged that reoffending is a blunt measure of effectiveness
(Bateman, 2010), there is little doubt that, based on this indicator, resettlement provision
has been found wanting. In spite of the increased profile of resettlement, any progress
against the target has been muted. In 2010, the 1-year reoffending rate for children subject
to custodial sentences of 6 months or less (which account for the majority of such dispos-
als) was 74.1 per cent; by 2015, it had risen to 79 per cent. While there was a modest fall
over the subsequent 2 years, to 71.5 per cent, there is, given developments hitherto, little
reason to suppose that this represents anything other than a statistical fluctuation (Youth
Justice Board/Ministry of Justice, 2019). In any event, it would seem unlikely that the
recent decline can be attributed to changes in resettlement policy or practice, given that, as
outlined above, resettlement has been a high priority for more than a decade.
The Paradox of Enduring Poor Outcomes
Such disappointing outcomes cannot be explained simply in terms of policy not drawing on
findings from research; equally, it would appear that they cannot be dismissed as being a
straightforward failure of practitioners to implement policy. Over the past 20 years, a consid-
erable body of evidence on what constitutes effective resettlement has been established (for
an overview, see Bateman et al., 2013). Moreover, a number of practice initiatives, which
have both reflected and added to the existing knowledge base, have demonstrated that
To continue reading
Request your trial