The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Desistance from Crime over the Life Course 

Author(s): Pamela K. Lattimore, Debbie Dawes, Kelle 

Barrick 

Document Number: 252080 

Date Received: September 2018 

Award Number: 2012-R2-CX-0047 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number 2012-R2-CX-0047 

RTI ProjectNumber 0213489

Desistance from Crime over the Life Course

Final Summary Report 

September 2018 

Prepared for 

National Institute of Justice 

810 7th Street NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Prepared by 

Pamela K. Lattimore 

Debbie Dawes 

Kelle Barrick 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Acknowledgements 

Desistance from Crime over the Life Course was funded by grant 2012-R2-CX-0047 from the 

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, 

findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The study team would also like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of our colleague Julie 

Horney in developing the approach and content of the life event calendar. We are sorry that she was 

unable to see the completion of this work. 

Report Contributors 

Kelle Barrick, RTI International 

Debbie Dawes, RTI International 

Julie Horney, Pennsylvania State University 

Pamela K. Lattimore, RTI International 

Doris L. MacKenzie, Pennsylvania State University 

Derek Ramirez, RTI International 

Stephen Tueller, RTI International 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................... ii 

Exhibits......................................................................................................................................................... iii 

Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ iv 

Problem and Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 1 

Research Design............................................................................................................................................ 3 

Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Differences between Recidivists and Desisters ........................................................................................ 8 

Recidivism Gap Analyses........................................................................................................................... 9 

Negative Binomial Recidivism Model Results.........................................................................................10 

Patterns of Rearrest................................................................................................................................11 

Self-Reported Employment, Drug Use, Violence, and Crime..................................................................13 

Qualitative Findings ................................................................................................................................14 

Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Practice.................................................................................16 

References ..................................................................................................................................................18 

Appendix A: Additional Exhibits................................................................................................................ A-1 

Appendix B: Qualitative Analysis and Codes..............................................................................................B-1 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. Subject characteristics at Wave 1 SVORI interview (approx. 30 days prior to release, 2004-

2005) ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 

Exhibit 2. Distributions of lifetime and post-SVORI arrests for the SC sample through December 2015. ... 7 

Exhibit 3. Arrest history (prior to SVORI incarceration) for the SC sample (N = 479)...................................7 

Exhibit 4. Post-SVORI arrests for the SC sample (N = 479) ........................................................................... 8 

Exhibit 5. Comparison of baseline characteristics of those who desisted and those who recidivated........9 

Exhibit 6. Lognormal survival results for time to first, second, and third post-SVORI arrests ...................10 

Exhibit 7. Negative binomial results for number of post-SVORI arrests.....................................................10 

Exhibit 8. Distribution of post-SVORI arrests over 10 years’ follow-up following SVORI release ...............12 

Exhibit 9. Logistic model results for any arrest in years 1, 2 and 3 following SVORI release .....................13 

Exhibit 10. Self-reported housing, employment, drug use, and violence at Waves 2, 3, and 4 SVORI 

interviews and 2015-2016 interview, desistance sample only...................................................................14 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 

PURPOSE: The Desistance from Crime over the Life Course study focused on 479 men and women 

from South Carolina who were enrolled as participants in a multi-site reentry program evaluation shortly 

before prison release in 2004-2005. The study goals were to (1) update information on current status 

across multiple domains, including housing, employment, and substance use; (2) collect additional 

recidivism data to examine long-term offending patterns; and (3) acquire information about factors 

individuals associated with decisions to desist from further criminal activity. 

RESEARCH SUBJECTS: Between 2004 and 2005, 345 men, 79 boys, and 55 women incarcerated in 

South Carolina were interviewed about 30 days before release from prison/juvenile detention for 

inclusion in the multi-site evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). The 

male subjects (men and boys) were about 27 years and the female subjects were about 30 years of age at 

the time of release. The men were most likely to be black (63%) while the women were equally likely to 

be black or white (46%). The women were less likely than the men to report having been employed 

during the 6 months prior to their original incarceration but were more likely to report having a high 

school diploma or equivalent. Overall, the participants had extensive criminal histories and about 33% 

reported having received drug treatment prior to the interview. 

METHODS: Arrest records through December 31, 2015 were obtained from the South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Division for all 479 subjects. The interview instrument included modules from the original 

SVORI interviews, new modules focused on factors linked to emerging theories of desisting behavior, 

and a life event calendar captured details of their experiences between their original release from prison 

and the interview. Interviews were conducted between 9/10/2016 and 3/3/2017 with 208 individuals (174 

men and 34 women). Quantitative analyses included (1) descriptive analyses of interview data to identify 

the current status of individuals; (2) lognormal survival, negative binomial, and logistic recidivism 

analyses; and (3) qualitative analyses of responses related to the factors associated with criminal 

persistence and desistance. 

RESULTS: Recidivism, measured as at least one new arrest, was experienced by 90% of the sample. 

On average, individuals had about 7 arrests (with an average of 11 charges) after their SVORI 

incarceration. Majorities of the sample had at least one post-SVORI charge for a person, property, and 

public order/order offense, while 49% had at least one new drug charge. Results from sequential 

lognormal survival models predicting time to first arrest, second arrest, and so forth following the original 

release show those older at release had, on average, longer times to rearrest following the first arrest, 

while property priors were associated with shorter times. Consistent with previous findings, those with 

more prior arrests had shorter times to subsequent arrests and those who were older at first arrest had 

longer times to subsequent arrests. Negative binomial model results show that having completed high 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

iv 
 

 

 

 

school at the time of the SVORI-related release predicted fewer post-SVORI arrests, while being younger 

at first arrest and having more priors predicted more post-SVORI arrests. Interview results suggest that 

individuals were somewhat less likely to be working in 2016-2017 than they were immediately following 

their SVORI release 10 years or so prior. They were also more likely to report drug use and having 

engaged in criminal behavior over this much more extensive period than during the 3-15 months 

following the original release. A similar percentage (18%) was incarcerated at the time of the 2016-2017 

interview as was incarcerated during original follow-up interviews. Qualitative findings were consistent 

with other recent research on desistance. Common reasons stated for not committing crimes included 

incarceration having a deterrent effect, consideration for children and family, changes in the way 

individuals think about and perceive crime, a change in lifestyle, employment, religion, and sobriety. 

Conversely, events that were more likely to encourage criminal involvement included financial or 

employment issues, drugs and alcohol use, stressful events including the death of a family member, and 

antisocial peers. 

CONCLUSIONS: Most of the 479 subjects had been arrested at least once following their 

participation in the SVORI evaluation, with little variation in arrest patterns between the male and female 

participants. Criminal history indicators were the strongest predictors of recidivism, while completing 12th 

grade was the only non-criminal factor consistently significant in the analyses with those with more 

education doing better. The qualitative analyses provide support for recent work examining the factors 

associated with desistance that suggests identity transformation may be necessary (if not sufficient) to 

facilitate movement away from criminal behavior. The quantitative findings with respect to education also 

provide support for this work as education is a traditional pathway to new opportunities.The findings 

point to the need for additional work to identify interventions that may facilitate desisting behavior 

through individual transformation as opposed to interventions that address specific needs. 

The research is limited by several factors. First, the subjects were individuals recruited for a prisoner 

reentry program evaluation in 2004-2005 in South Carolina; results may not be generalizable to other 

populations (or even to a more general South Carolina prisoner population). The interview findings are 

further limited to the roughly 50% of the original sample who were located and interviewed. Although 

analyses comparing these respondents to non-respondents using the original SVORI data revealed no 

significant differences between the two groups, there is always a possibility that those who were located 

and consented to a new interview differ from those who were not on unobservable measures. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem and Purpose 

Given that most prisoners return to society and soon re-engage in criminal activity, research on the 

dynamic process of desistance from criminal activity among released prisoners is important to policy 

makers and criminal justice practitioners. A better understanding of these processes could help to identify 

more effective strategies to reintegrate offenders into the community while reducing the likelihood that 

they return to criminal activity. Yet, the understanding of the process of desistance from crime is 

underdeveloped. 

Much of the focus of criminal interventions has been to address needs and deficits correlated with 

criminal activity (e.g., Lattimore and Visher, 2014, MacKenzie, 2006; Visher, Lattimore, Barrick, & 

Tueller, 2017). These deficits include drug use, mental health issues, and limited education and job skills. 

Wraparound services, including transportation and housing, and help obtaining identification and licenses, 

have also been included in the bundles of services provided by reentry programs hoping to prevent 

returning prisoners from re-engaging in criminal conduct. Research suggests cognitive-behavioral 

approaches and programs that target criminogenic factors and individual needs and focus on individuallevel change may be most effective at reducing recidivism among adults and juveniles (Andrews & 

Bonta, 2003; Andrews et al., 1990; Aos et al., 2006; Fonagy & Kurtz, 2002; Lipsey, 1995; Lipsey & 

Cullen, 2007; MacKenzie, 2006). In line with this research, Visher et al. (2017) show services associated 

with individual needs (mental health and substance use treatment, assistance working on personal 

relationships, training on changing criminal attitudes, anger management, and education) were more 

likely to be associated with reduced recidivism than more practical services (case management, needs 

assessment, reentry planning and programming, life skills, and employment services) (also see Lattimore, 

Barrick, Cowell, Dawes, Steffey & Tueller, 2012). 

Criminologists have proposed that the factors associated with desistance from criminal activity may 

differ from factors associated with ongoing engagement. For example, identity transformation (from the 

criminal to the noncriminal) has been suggested as a necessary first step away from criminality (e.g., 

Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). Absent this transformation, 

programming that focuses on structural or instrumental factors like employment skills and assistance 

finding housing or transportation may be of limited use in reducing recidivism. 

For example, Giordano and colleagues place an emphasis on human agency and stress the 

importance of individual identity and cognition in explaining desistance, proposing a theory of cognitive 

transformation grounded in symbolic interactionism (Giordano, et al., 2002, 2007). Paternoster and 

Bushway (2009) build on this and other early work with a theory of multifaceted identity that includes a 

“working self” and “possible self.” Individuals commit to the working (criminal) self until its costs 

outweigh its benefits—gradual change in identity occurs as failure and dissatisfaction are linked to the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

working self. Once the criminal identity is weakened, identity change is possible. As described by 

Paternoster and Bushway (2009, p. 1105), the “perceived sense of a future or possible self as a nonoffender coupled with the fear that without change one faces a bleak and highly undesirable future 

provides the initial motivation to break from crime.” After the criminal identity is weakened and a nonoffender possible self is considered, then the individual might move toward conventional institutions such 

as employment and marriage. 

Some evidence in support of the identity theory of desistance (ITD) emerged from a study examining 

the long-term recidivism of drug-using offenders (Bachman, Kerrison, Paternoster, O’Connell & Smith, 

2016; also see Na, Paternoster, & Bachman, 2015; Paternoster, Bachman, Kerrison, O’Connell, & Smith, 

2016). Interviews were conducted with 304 individuals who participated in drug treatment demonstration 

projects in 1989 and 1990 approximately 20 years after the original studies. The interview data were 

qualitatively analyzed and the results suggest that offenders who desisted from crime and substance use 

underwent an identity transformation that was motivated by the realization that they needed to change to 

avoid an undesirable future, such as dying in prison. 

Na, Paternoster, and Bachman (2015) used longitudinal data from the same cohorts of individuals 

followed by Bachman and colleagues to examine the role of self image and efforts to improve self (as 

measured by treatment seeking). They found support in the results of their growth-curve models for these 

factors to be associated with long-term desistance from substance use and crime (measured by arrest). 

Using different analytic approaches to examine ITD with the same data, Paternoster and colleagues 

(2016) subsequently found that postitive identity and treatment-seeking was positively and significantly 

related to longer time to rearrest. 

Additional evidence is suggested in interview data collected for the Multi-site Evaluation of the 

Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI)1 (see, e.g., Lattimore and Visher, 2009). During followup interviews (3, 9, and 15 months post release from incarceration associated with study enrollment), 

respondents were asked to identify reasons why they were newly incarcerated—if they were 

incarcerated—and why they were no longer engaging in criminal behavior—if they were not incarcerated. 

The responses suggested clear differences between the two groups with many of the incarcerated 

respondents ‘blaming’ others for their continued engagement in crime and subsequent incarceration and 

those who were not incarcerated pointing to changes in themselves. For example, the most common 

1 The Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative was supported by NIJ 

grants 2003-RE-CX-K101 and 2004-RE-CX-002; see, e.g., The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and 

Synthesis (December 2009) by P.K. Lattimore and C.A. Visher available from the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230421.pdf. Prisoner Reentry Services: What Worked 

for SVORI Evaluation Participants was funded by NIJ grant 2009-IJ-CX-0010; see, e.g., Lattimore, P.K., Barrick, 

K., Cowell, A., Dawes, D., Steffey, D., & Tueller, S. (April 2012). Prisoner Reentry Services: What Worked for 

SVORI Evaluation Participants (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238214.pdf). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasons given for returning to prison were using drugs/alcohol, feeling their parole officer wasn’t helpful,

and the influence of friends. The most common reasons given for not returning to prison were supportive 

family and being “committed to not going back to prison.” These findings support Paternoster et al.’s 

(2016, p. 1206) hypothesis that “Offenders can, then, operate with a self-serving bias (Miller & Ross, 

1975) whereby they attribute their success at crime to their own wit and skills, and their failures to chance 

or someone else. The process of identity change occurs when, after repeated failures, the illusion of the 

self-serving bias begins to be questioned, and failures get connected and projected into the future.”

The current study focuses on the 479 men, women and boys who were the South Carolina 

participants in the original SVORI evaluation and who were enrolled and released from prison in 2004 

and 2005. The original SVORI data suggest that these respondents were similar to the multi-site sample—

with “committed to not going back to prison” the most common reason for desisting and using drugs or

alcohol as the most common reason for persisting (see Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A). 

The goals of the current study were to (1) update information on the current status of these 

individuals across multiple domains (e.g., housing and employment); (2) acquire information about the 

factors individuals associated with their decisions to desist from criminal activity, as well as 

circumstances associated with renewed criminal activity or desistance; and (3) gather additional 

administrative recidivism data to examine long-term offending patterns. Interviews were conducted with 

those who were located and additional administrative arrest data were acquired for the full sample, 

providing recidivism followup over at least a 10 year period. 

Research Design 

Between 2004 and 2005, 479 individuals (345 men, 79 boys, and 55 women) were enrolled and 

interviewed as South Carolina participants in the Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent 

Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)2

. All initial, Wave 1, interviews were conducted in prison or 

juvenile detention facilities about 30 days prior to release3

. Subsequently, three follow-up waves of 

interviews were conducted at 3, 9, and 15 months following the original release in the community or, for 

those reincarcerated, in prison or jail. These interview data were supplemented with arrest and prison 

incarceration data collected from state agencies (e.g., Lattimore and Visher, 2009; Visher et al., 2017). 

2

Determination of where to conduct this extended follow-up was constrained by considerations of costs 

(i.e., budget ceilings limited the number of places where interviews could be conducted). The SVORI evaluation 

included 2,391 participants in 12 adult and 4 juvenile sites (1,697 adult males, 357 adult females, and 337 juvenile 

males). South Carolina had 21% of all adult males, 15% of all adult females, and 23% of juvenile males, offering the 

largest number of subjects in a single site. 3 The initial SVORI interviews were conducted about 30 days prior to release between July 31, 2004 and 

November 30, 2005. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the current study, a new interview instrument was developed that included modules from the 

original evaluation, new modules that focused on factors linked to emerging theories of desisting 

behavior, and a life event calendar to capture details of their experiences between their original release 

from prison (2004 or 2005) and the date of the interview. The instrument covered a number of domains 

over the life-event calendar period, including basic demographic information, education, attitudes (e.g., 

legal cynicism), receipt of programs and services, family (marriage, children, and intimate relationships), 

physical and mental health, criminal identity, peers, social support, location and living arrangements, 

employment and income, leisure activities, stressful life events, substance use, and avoided and 

committed criminal behavior. Although most items had closed responses, several were open-ended. 

Extensive tracing efforts were used to locate individuals for interviews that were conducted between 

September 10, 2016 and March 3, 2017. Of the original 479 study participants, 29 were confirmed to have 

died4

; 24 had moved from South Carolina5; and 34 were unavailable during the interview period6. We 

were unable to contact (locate) 149 individuals. There were 30 refusals by respondents and 3 refusals by 

others for potential respondents. Two interviews were terminated by the respondent before completion 

(consent withdrawn) and were lost. Thus, 208 individuals were successfully located and completed the 

interview (171 in the community and 37 in prison)7

. Of the 208, 174 were male (24 of whom were 

juvenile males at the time of their original release) and 34 were female. Interviews were conducted by 

experienced and trained field interviewers using laptop computers. The field interviewer read a series of 

questions from the laptop screen and entered the respondent’s answers. For some questions, individual 

responses were audio recorded for subsequent transcription. 

Administrative arrest data through December 31, 2015 were obtained from the South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Division (SLED). Analyses comparing characteristics at the time of the original study 

release showed no significant differences between those who responded to the new interview and those 

who did not respond. 

Quantitative analyses included (1) descriptive analyses of interview data to identify the current status 

of individuals; (2) recidivism analyses; and (3) qualitative analyses of responses related to the factors 

associated with criminal persistence and desistance. Recidivism analyses included negative binomial 

4 Deaths were confirmed for 2 boys (at initial SVORI release), 24 men, and 3 women. 

5 The structure of the interview required that it be administered in person so individuals out of state were 

not contacted for a potential telephone interview. 6 Of those unavailable to be interviewed, eight were incarcerated out of state (or in one case, in Federal 

custody), one was in segregation in a SC prison, and two were in jail. 7 The overall response rate was 46.2% (208 interviews of 450 eligible—nondeceased—respondents). There 

was variability in response rates across the demographic groups—the response rate was 43.7% for the male 

participants (150 of 321 or 46.7% for men at SVORI release; 24 of 77 or 31.1% for juvenile males at SVORI 

release) and 65.4% for females (34 of 52 female subjects). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

models examining the number of arrests following the original release (with offset for prison 

incarceration and time at risk), lognormal survival models examining the factors associated with the time 

to rearrest for each new arrest following the original release up to 10 new arrests (“gap analyses”); and

graphical analyses that plotted number of arrests each year following the original release and 

accompanying logistic regression models that examined factors associated with rearrest in each of 10 

years following the original release. 

The qualitative analyses were based on the short-answer items that were either manually entered into 

the computer by the interviewer or audio-recorded and then transcribed. The open-ended questions 

covered: (1) reasons for avoiding criminal behavior in at least the past 6 months; (2) reasons for avoiding 

criminal behavior in periods in which they were tempted to commit crime; (3) life events that occurred 

during periods when they were less likely to engage in criminal behavior; and (4) life events that occurred 

during periods when they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Audio recordings of 

interviews were transcribed and merged with those that were manually typed. Qualitative content analysis 

was used to examine themes in the short response items. An initial set of codes was developed and 

additional codes were added after iteratively reading the transcripts. (See Appendix B.) 

Findings 

Characteristics of the subjects at the time of their original SVORI interview are shown in Exhibit 1. 

The original sample of 479 included 424 men and boys and 55 women. For this study, the two male 

samples were combined so the men were somewhat younger then the women at release because of the 

inclusion of the boys with the adult men. The men were most likely to be black (63%) while the women 

were equally likely to be black or white (46%). The women were less likely than the men to have reported 

being employed during the 6 months prior to their original incarceration (53% v. 65%), but were more 

likely to have reported having a high school diploma or equivalent (66% v. 39%). Overall, the sample had 

an extensive criminal history and 36% were classified as high risk; 33% reported having had drug 

treatment prior to the original interview. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

5 
 

 

 = 

Exhibit 1. Subject characteristics at Wave 1 SVORI interview (approx. 30 days prior to release, 2004-2005) 

Variable All (N = 479) 

Mean SD 

Males (N 

Mean 

424) 

SD 

Females (N = 55) 

Mean SD 

Age at release 27.4 7.655 27.1 7.950 30.2 3.854 

Male=1 0.885 0.319 1.00 0.00 

Race=black=1 0.614 0.487 0.634 0.482 0.455 0.503 

Race=Hispanic=1 0.013 0.111 0.012 0.108 0.018 0.135 

Race=white=1 0.330 0.471 0.314 0.465 0.455 0.503 

Race=other=1 0.044 0.205 0.040 0.196 0.073 0.262 

Employed 6 months prior to incarceration 0.637 0.481 0.651 0.477 0.527 0.504 

Completed 12th grade or equivalent 0.418 0.494 0.388 0.488 0.655 0.480 

Currently married or in steady relationship 0.404 0.491 0.381 0.486 0.582 0.498 

Age at first arrest (minimum of 7) 17.1 5.766 16.8 5.857 19.4 4.406 

Total prior arrests 7.6 6.694 7.0 6.239 12.3 8.114 

Times convicted (max 30; 98th percentile) 4.5 5.344 4.2 5.017 7.0 6.962 

Times juvenile lockup 0.797 1.502 0.807 1.367 0.7 2.310 

Conviction Offense=Drug 0.256 0.437 0.254 0.436 0.273 0.449 

Conviction Offense=Person/Violent 0.391 0.489 0.428 0.495 0.109 0.315 

Conviction Offense=Property 0.334 0.472 0.301 0.459 0.582 0.498 

Conviction Offense=Public Order/Other 0.228 0.420 0.222 0.416 0.273 0.449 

In for probation or parole violation=1 0.305 0.461 0.303 0.460 0.327 0.474 

LSI-R:SV risk classification=maximum 0.363 0.481 0.382 0.486 0.218 0.417 

Prior AOD treatment=none=1 0.669 0.471 0.697 0.460 0.455 0.503 

Prior AOD treatment=once=1 0.142 0.350 0.137 0.344 0.182 0.389 

Prior AOD treatment=2 or more=1 0.188 0.391 0.165 0.372 0.364 0.485 

Recidivism was measured as one or more new arrests following the original SVORI release. Data 

were obtained from South Carolina Law Enforcement Division for arrests through December 31, 2015. 

Exhibit 2 shows the frequency distribution of lifetime arrests and the frequency distribution of arrests 

post release from the original SVORI study (since 2004-2005). (Two of the juvenile male participants had 

zero arrests, reflecting original confinement on a juvenile detainer and no subsequent recidivism arrests.) 

The maximum number of lifetime arrests was 60 and post-SVORI arrests was 33. Lifetime median 

number of arrests was 12 and median number of post-SVORI arrests was 4. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6 
 

 

Exhibit 2. Distributions of lifetime and post-SVORI arrests for the SC sample through December 2015. 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 45 60 

% of Sample 

Number of Arrests 

Lifetime Arrests Post-SVORI Arrests 

Note: Two juvenile males had zero arrests, reflecting original confinement on a juvenile detainer and no 

subsequent recidivism arrests. 

Exhibit 3 shows additional information about arrest history prior to the SVORI incarceration. On 

average, individuals had experienced nearly 8 arrests (14 charges) prior to their SVORI incarceration. 

Most had at least one prior charge for each of a person, property, drug, and public order/order offense. 

Exhibit 3. Arrest history (prior to SVORI incarceration) for the SC sample (N = 479) 

Variable Mean SD 

Number arrest events 7.570 6.694 

Has a prior person charge=1 0.653 0.476 

Has a prior property charge=1 0.666 0.472 

Has a prior drug charge=1 0.557 0.497 

Has a prior public order/other charge=1 0.704 0.457 

Number prior charges 13.818 12.849 

Number prior person charges 2.144 2.841 

Number prior property charges 5.557 8.618 

Number prior drug charges 2.159 3.129 

Number prior public order/other charges 3.958 4.833 

Exhibit 4 shows information about arrests following the SVORI incarceration. Ninety percent had 

been arrested at least once. On average, individuals had nearly 7 arrests (with an average of 11 charges) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

7 
 

 

 

 

 

after their SVORI incarceration. Most had at least one post-SVORI charge for each of a person, property, 

and public order/order offense, while 49% had at least one new drug charge. 

Exhibit 4. Post-SVORI arrests for the SC sample (N = 479) 

Variable Mean SD 

Number arrest events 6.900 6.229 

Has an arrest=1 0.900 0.301 

Days to first arrest 531.622 596.532 

Has a person charge=1 0.520 0.500 

Has a property charge=1 0.601 0.490 

Has a drug charge=1 0.491 0.500 

Has a public order/other charge=1 0.810 0.393 

Number of charges 10.923 9.644 

Number of person charges 1.382 2.042 

Number of property charges 3.271 5.316 

Number of drug charges 1.390 2.076 

Number of public order/other charges 4.879 5.064 

Differences between Recidivists and Desisters 

Ninety percent of our sample experienced at least one arrest following their SVORI release in 2004-

2005. There are substantial differences between those with no new arrests (desisters) and those with one 

or more (recidivists). Exhibit 5 presents results on several key measures. The desisters were older at 

release, more likely to be white (less likely to be black), and more likely to have completed high school 

(or equivalent). About 88% of both the desisters and the recidivists were male. 

A criminal past was definitely a prologue for these subjects. Desisters were considerably older at 

first arrest (24 on average versus 16) and had fewer prior arrests (5 versus 8), arrest charges (9 versus 14) 

and convictions (2.7 versus 4.7)8

. Desisters had fewer juvenile detentions and were less likely to have 

been serving time for a probation/parole violation. There were also significant differences in conviction 

offenses—desisters were much more likely to have been serving time for a person/violent offense and 

much less likely to have been serving time for a property offense. Fewer desister were classified as high 

risk on the LSI-R (12.5% versus 39%). The desisters were also less likely to have reported receiving 

substance abuse treatment (21% versus 34%). 

8 Desisters were also less likely to have any prior charges for property, drug, and public order/other 

offenses and to have fewer of these charges on average. While they were more likely to have a prior person/violent 

offense, the mean number of person/violent charges was less for the desisters than the recidivists. (Data not shown.) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

8 
 

 

 

 = -

Exhibit 5. Comparison of baseline characteristics of those who desisted and those who recidivated 

Variable Desisters (N 

Mean 

48) 

SD 

Recidivists (N = 431) 

Mean SD 

t statistic 

Age at release*** 33.854 10.443 26.717 6.935 4.623 

Male=1 0.875 0.334 0.886 0.318 -0.233 

Race=black=1*** 0.375 0.489 0.640 0.480 -3.623 

Race=Hispanic=1 0.021 0.144 0.012 0.107 0.430 

Race=other=1 0.104 0.309 0.037 0.189 1.474 

Race=white=1** 0.500 0.505 0.311 0.463 2.657 

Employed 6 months prior to incarceration 0.729 0.449 0.626 0.484 1.404 

Completed 12th grade or equivalent** 0.625 0.489 0.395 0.489 3.083 

Currently married or in steady relationship 0.354 0.483 0.409 0.492 -0.737 

Age at first arrest (minimum of 7)*** 24.255 11.158 16.301 4.154 4.851 

Total prior arrests** 4.917 5.971 7.865 6.711 -2.918 

Total prior arrest charges** 8.958 11.329 14.360 12.906 -2.782 

Times convicted (max 30; 98th percentile)** 2.729 3.874 4.719 5.452 -3.215 

Times juvenile lockup*** 0.065 0.250 0.876 1.558 -9.661 

Conviction Offense=Drug 0.156 0.367 0.266 0.443 -1.622 

Conviction Offense=Person/Violent*** 0.644 0.484 0.364 0.482 3.706 

Conviction Offense=Property* 0.178 0.387 0.350 0.478 -2.345 

Conviction Offense=Public Order/Other 0.133 0.344 0.238 0.427 -1.597 

In for probation or parole violation=1* 0.167 0.377 0.321 0.467 -2.207 

LSI-R:SV risk classification=maximum*** 0.125 0.334 0.390 0.488 -4.934 

Prior AOD treatment=none=1 0.792 0.410 0.656 0.476 1.901 

Prior AOD treatment=once=1 0.104 0.309 0.147 0.354 -0.795 

Prior AOD treatment=2 or more=1 0.104 0.309 0.198 0.399 -1.927 

Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 

Recidivism Gap Analyses 

Results from the sequential lognormal survival models predicting time to first arrest, second arrest, 

and so forth following the original release from prison are included in Exhibit A-2. Exhibit 6 shows the 

results for the first three models—i.e., time to first arrest following release, time to second arrest 

following first arrest, and time to third arrest following second arrest (predictors are from the original 

SVORI pre-release interview). Those older at release had, on average, longer times to rearrest following 

the first arrest, while property priors were associated with shorter times. Consistent with most findings in 

the literature, those with more prior arrests had shorter times to subsequent arrests and those who were 

older at first arrest had longer times to subsequent arrests. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9 
 

 

 

Exhibit 6. Lognormal survival results for time to first, second, and third post-SVORI arrests 

Variable First Arrest Second Arrest Third Arrest 

Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 4.84*** 0.484 4.854*** 0.708 4.401*** 0.744 

Race=white 0.222 0.16 -0.03 0.214 0.044 0.221 

Employed 6M prior to incarceration 0.104 0.154 -0.093 0.203 0.247 0.209 

Completed 12th grade or equivalent 0.235 0.154 0.033 0.205 0.138 0.213 

Age at release 0.008 0.014 0.059** 0.019 0.027 0.02 

Conviction offense=Person/Violent 0.334 0.2 -0.059 0.263 -0.009 0.265 

Conviction offense=Property -0.575** 0.195 -0.077 0.255 -0.209 0.256 

Conviction offense=Drug 0.094 0.207 0.094 0.272 0.037 0.277 

Conviction offense=Public Order/Other -0.1 0.19 -0.15 0.248 -0.209 0.247 

In for probation/ parole violation -0.033 0.159 -0.02 0.21 0.02 0.214 

Times juvenile lockup -0.086 0.053 -0.06 0.069 0.019 0.068 

Total prior arrests -0.026*** 0.007 -0.033*** 0.009 -0.04*** 0.01 

Male=1 -0.206 0.235 -0.449 0.318 -0.207 0.333 

Age at first arrest 0.077*** 0.018 0.012 0.028 0.056 0.03 

Log(scale) 0.379*** 0.035 0.612*** 0.038 0.57*** 0.04 

N 460 417 373 

Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 

Negative Binomial Recidivism Model Results 

Results from the negative binomial model are shown in Exhibit 7. The dependent variable is the 

number of arrests (0 to 33) following the SVORI-related release and predictor values are from the SVORI 

pre-release interview. Completing high school (or the equivalent) predicts fewer post-SVORI arrests, 

while being younger at first arrest and having more priors predict more post-SVORI arrests. 

Exhibit 7. Negative binomial results for number of post-SVORI arrests 

Variable Incident Rate Estimate Std. Error z value 

(Intercept) 0.004*** -5.497 0.318 -17.2863 

Race=white 1.026 0.026 0.103 0.2510 

Male=1 0.932 -0.070 0.151 -0.4665 

Age at release 0.986 -0.014 0.009 -1.5532 

Completed 12th grade or equivalent 0.698*** -0.359 0.100 -3.6011 

Employed 6M prior to incarceration 1.132 0.124 0.098 1.2670 

Age at first arrest 0.945*** -0.057 0.012 -4.5464 

Times juvenile lockup 1.033 0.032 0.033 0.9771 

Total prior arrests 1.027*** 0.027 0.004 6.5164 

Conviction offense(s)=Person/Violent 0.837 -0.178 0.127 -1.4055 

Conviction offense(s)=Property 1.147 0.137 0.124 1.1059 

Conviction offense(s)=Drug 0.96 -0.041 0.132 -0.3135 

Conviction offense(s)=Public Order/Other 1.137 0.129 0.120 1.0743 

In for probation/ parole violation 1.037 0.037 0.101 0.3640 

Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

10 
 

 

 

 

 

Patterns of Rearrest 

The patterns of rearrest were also examined using an innovative method for visualizing event 

patterns and more traditional logistic regression. Exhibit 8 shows the number of arrests each year 

following the SVORI release for each individual in the sample. (The graph is composed of stacked 

horizontal lines with each line corresponding to one individual. Each line shows the number of arrests 

each year following release with a gradient of color—darker segments representing more arrests during 

the year; see Tueller, Van Dorn, & Bobashev, 2016.) Death events are indicated by an “o” and the lines 

for the individuals who died during follow-up are at the bottom of the chart. 

The dark orange lines at the top of the chart for the initial 1-year period indicate that some 

individuals had many arrests (up to 9) in the year following release. About half of the sample had no 

arrests during that first year as is indicated by the large number of lines that are light yellow during the 

initial 1-year period. The 10% who experienced no new arrests for the full 10-year period following their 

SVORI release are the group of lines at the bottom of the chart (above the 29 who died during the followup period). The overall graphic suggests that the pattern of arrest events varies considerably across these 

individuals—e.g., ranging from the desisters (no arrests in any year) to those with many arrests early on to 

those with high frequencies of arrests throughout the 10-year period. 

To examine arrest patterns more closely, a series of logistic models were estimated to examine the 

factors predicting any arrest each year. Exhibit 9 shows the first three years’ results. (Results for all 10 

years are in Exhibit A-3.) Age and criminal history were most often predictive of an arrest, consistent 

with expectations. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

11 
Exhibit 8. Distribution of post-SVORI arrests over 10 years’ follow-up following SVORI release 

Note:This graphic is composed of a stacked set of lines with one for each of the 479 individuals in the 

analyses. The x-axis is the years, up to 10, following release. The color of the line segments indicates the 

number of arrests that was experienced by an individual during the first, second, ..., 10th year following 

release, with darker segments indicating more arrests during the period.. The lines for the 29 individuals 

who died during follow-up are at the bottom of the chart with their deaths indicated by a circle. Above 

these, are the lines for the individuals who experienced no arrests during the 10 years. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

12 
 

 

 

Exhibit 9. Logistic model results for any arrest in years 1, 2 and 3 following SVORI release 

Variable Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

Odds 

Ratio 

Estimate St. Err Odds 

Ratio 

Estimate St. Err Odds 

Ratio 

Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 0*** -7.989*** 1.451 0.002*** -6.256*** 1.279 0.001*** -7.558*** 1.441 

Race=white 1.42 0.351 0.522 2.539* 0.932* 0.406 0.893 -0.113 0.385 

Employed 6M prior 

to incarceration 0.585 -0.535 0.53 1.416 0.348 0.454 0.488 -0.718 0.382 

Completed 12th 

grade or equivalent 0.837 -0.178 0.596 0.805 -0.216 0.429 3.093** 1.129** 0.372 

Age at release 0.934 -0.068 0.053 1.079* 0.076* 0.034 1.054 0.053 0.033 

Conviction offense= 

Person/Violent 2.392 0.872 0.618 2.068 0.727 0.536 1.349 0.299 0.478 

Conviction offense= 

Property 0.966 -0.035 0.569 1.203 0.185 0.467 1.15 0.14 0.447 

Conviction offense= 

Drug 1.327 0.283 0.564 3.171* 1.154* 0.539 1.838 0.609 0.478 

Conviction offense= 

Public Order/Other 1.11 0.104 0.553 0.521 -0.652 0.646 0.699 -0.359 0.421 

In for probation/ 

parole violation 1.292 0.256 0.421 1.146 0.136 0.44 0.801 -0.221 0.369 

Times juvenile 

lockup 0.86 -0.151 0.14 0.981 -0.019 0.129 0.8 -0.223 0.236 

Total prior arrests 1.017 0.017 0.019 0.957* -0.044* 0.022 0.973 -0.027 0.015 

Male=1 0.837 -0.178 0.621 0.103*** -2.278*** 0.605 0.643 -0.441 0.567 

Age at first arrest 1.197** 0.18** 0.064 0.965 -0.036 0.049 1.054 0.052 0.05 

N with no arrests 234 227 257 

N with any arrest 198 205 175 

Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 

Self-Reported Employment, Drug Use, Violence, and Crime 

The in-person interviews conducted in 2015-2016 (N = 208) covered a variety of domains. Results 

are reported here for key domains—employment, self-reported drug use, and self-reported violence and 

crime (Exhibit 10). Results from this interview are compared to results for the same sample from the 

original SVORI follow-up interviews. (Results comparing the full SC sample to the 2016 sample are in 

Exhibit A-4.) 

Individuals were somewhat less likely to be working in 2015-2016 than they were immediately 

following their SVORI release—about two-thirds reported currently working in the 2015-2016 interview 

compared to about 80% who reported working in 2005-2007. In reports on their behavior since their 

SVORI release in 2004-2005, respondents were more likely to report drug use and having engaged in 

criminal behavior over this much more extensive period than during the 3-15 months since their SVORI 

release. Only 38% reported no illegal drug use post-SVORI, although nearly two-thirds (66%) said they 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - - -

had used no illegal drugs other than marijuana. In contrast, most respondents in the earlier interviews 

reported no illegal drug use of any kind. Although fully 90% had experienced at least one post-SVORI 

arrest, most (59%) said that they had not engaged in any criminal behavior since that release. A similar 

percentage (18%) was incarcerated at the time of the 2016 interview as the Wave 3 and 4 interviews. 

Exhibit 10. Self-reported housing, employment, drug use, and violence at Waves 2, 3, and 4 SVORI 

interviews and 2015-2016 interview, desistance sample only 

Wave 2 

(2004 2006) 

(N = 151) 

Wave 3 Wave 4 

(2005 2006) (2005 2007) 

(N = 151) (N = 174) 

2016 Interview 

(2015 2016) 

(N = 208) 

Mean (Standard Deviation) 

Currently employed in legal job 0.702 (0.459) 0.810 (0.394) 0.803 (0.400) 0.678 (0.469) 

No self-reported drug use 0.768 (0.423) 0.589 (0.494) 0.579 (0.495) 0.380 (0.487) 

No self-reported drug use other than 

marijuana or steroids 0.907 (0.291) 0.795 (0.405) 0.789 (0.409) 0.663 (0.474) 

No perpetration of violence 0.735 (0.443) 0.576 (0.496) 0.644 (0.480) 0.745 (0.437) 

No criminal behavior 0.907 (0.292) 0.850 (0.358) 0.738 (0.442) 0.587 (0.494) 

No violent or weapons crimes 0.834 (0.373) 0.675 (0.470) 0.684 (0.466) 0.716 (0.452) 

Not reincarcerated at follow-up 0.914 (0.281) 0.821 (0.384) 0.822 (0.384) 0.822 (0.383) 

Qualitative Findings 

Embedded within the interview were opportunities to elicit open-ended responses to provide insight 

into respondents’ perceptions concerning factors associated with engaging in or desisting from criminal 

behavior. Qualitative content analysis was used to evaluate these responses in an effort to understand 

motivations related to desistance and continued criminal activities. Of particular interest were responses 

related to identity and identity transformation. 

To probe why individuals avoided criminal behavior, interviewees were asked whether they had 

engaged in robbery, property crimes, prostitution, drug dealing, intimate partner violence, and other 

violence during the approximately 10 years following their SVORI incarceration release. When 

individuals responded ‘yes,’ they were asked a series of follow-up questions, including the timing and 

frequency of involvement in these activities. 

The 112 interviewees who indicated that they had not engaged in any of these criminal behaviors 

during at least the past 6 months were asked to tell the interviewer why they had not committed a crime 

recently. One of the most common reasons cited involved incarceration having a deterrent effect. About 

one-third of the respondents indicated that they had been deterred from committing more crimes. For 

example, one respondent indicated that, “I learned my lesson.” while another said, “... if you commit 

crimes you will go to jail, you will pay the price, it is wrong.”

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Another common reason involved changes in the way individuals think about and perceive crime, 

which could also be a reflection of an identity shifting away from a criminal self. For example, one 

respondent reported that “...my life has changed and I don’t think the way I used to think anymore.”

Another stated, “I don’t want to commit any crimes at all.” A third said, “I’ve matured a lot. It is just 

common sense—doing crimes ain’t right.” About one-third of respondents reported changes in the way 

they think or in how they perceive themselves as reasons for not engaging in crime. One respondent, for 

example, volunteered that “I’m not a criminal.” While another said, “I’m a law-abiding citizen.” Five 

respondents specifically reported a change in lifestyle, including one who said, “Because my life has 

changed.” and another who stated, “I changed my way of life and there’s no need to commit a crime.”. 

Similar to changes in cognitive thinking, a number of respondents said they were ready for change. 

For example, one said “I want to do right. I want to do better.” Another stated, “Because I’m trying to do 

right and keep my head above water so I don’t go back to prison.” While a third indicated, “I’ve been 

trying to change my life around.” Informal social control including the impact of employment, children, 

partners, and other family were also mentioned. About one in six respondents mentioned having a job or 

having a good job as a reason for their desistance while about one in five mentioned children or family. 

Respondents were also asked whether there was a time when things were happening in their life that 

made them less likely to get involved in crime, and if so, what happened. The most common responses 

were related to employment and family. For example, one respondent said, “Having a family, being a 

father.” While another said, “Working a lot, couldn’t get into any trouble.” A few respondents mentioned 

sobriety, while a few also mentioned religion and church life. For example, “When I got off the drugs 

June 27th, I started rebuilding my relationship with my family. Until this day, my sister has two nephews, 

and she told me if you're going to be part of their lives, then you have to be clean and you have to be 

everyday clean and you can't walk in and out of their lives or you can't be a part of it. So that was a big 

motivation and then as time has gone on, my family has really supported me and got behind me being 

clean.” A few others acknowledged that they were ready to change or thought about crime differently. For 

example, one respondent indicated that “I was just trying to stay out of trouble and do the right thing” and 

another noted that he “Came back to my senses. Realized what was right and wrong—what really 

mattered in life.”

Another way to assess attitudes towards criminal activity is to determine why individuals did not 

engage in a crime when they were considering doing so. Therefore, respondents were asked whether they 

had been tempted to commit a crime during the follow-up period but decided not to do it. If they 

responded “yes,” they were asked why they decided not to commit the crime. Twelve of the 31 

respondents who responded “yes” indicated that there was some situational characteristic that led them to 

not commit the crime, such as fear of retribution and potential risk. For example, “So I thought if I take 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15 
 

 

the money, they’ll find out who took the money and kill me. That’s the real reason I didn’t take it.” 

Thinking of family—partners or children—was also a common reason. Twenty-five percent cited family, 

including, for example, one respondent who said, “You’re always telling your kids, I’m ain’t going back 

and ain’t going to lose them no more, not going to deal, not going to do that.” Six individuals implied 

deterrence, such as, “I wasn’t willing to take the risk and I didn’t want to go to jail for it.” Only four 

participants mentioned their job, such as, “So luckily a job came through or I don’t know what would 

happened.” Readiness for change and discontent with the criminal lifestyle were also mentioned by two 

respondents. They responded, “I just didn’t want to live that life anymore. I didn’t want to go back to it,” 

and “I thought about all the times that my lawyer and bondsman helped me through the years between my

incarceration and my kids and myself and thought better of it. I was trying to do better for myself and my 

kids.”

Respondents were also asked whether there was a time during the calendar period when things were 

happening in their life that made them more likely to get involved in crime, and if so, what happened. The 

most common reason provided was financial, as 31 of 62 respondents pointed to a need for money. For 

example, one respondent said, “No money coming in and everything just falling apart.” Lack of 

employment or a job was mentioned by about 25% of respondents, including one who said simply, “I was

out of work.” Drug and alcohol use was mentioned by 10 respondents, such as, “Started the drinking that 

led to out of control behavior,” and “Suffering from the disease of addiction. That’s just it addiction.” 

Stressful events, including the death of a family member, was mentioned by multiple interviewees. One 

respondent indicated that, “My brother was given some drugs and overdosed and it pushed me over the 

edge, it led to a bad place.” Another mentioned that a “Family member passed away, which caused me to

struggle emotionally.” Spending time with antisocial peers and being content with the criminal lifestyle 

were also mentioned by several participants. One said, “The streets were still in me. I still... I craved that 

lifestyle.” and another said, “When I went to prison it kinda consumed my life so when I got out, I wanted 

to be the big dog I guess. And I went and pursued it.”

Overall, the findings sugggest some support for identity transformation, particularly cognitive 

change as well as readiness for change. The results, however, also provide support for the deterrent 

effects of prison/jail which were commonly cited as reasons for desisting from new criminal behavior. 

Financial needs, not having a job, and substance use were the most widely cited reasons for continuing 

engagement in crime. Family, including children, were sources of positive support for desistance, while 

stress associated with, e.g., death or injury of a family member was associated with criminal activity. 

Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Practice 

Most of the 479 subjects were rearrested at least once during the follow-up period which extended at 

least 10 years following their release from prison/juvenile detention in 2004-2005. Recidivism analyses 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

16 
 

suggested criminal history was the best predictor of the time to rearrest. There was little variation in 

rearrest between men and women and between black and white participants. Comparing the 10% of the 

sample who had desisted to the 90% with at least one arrest again revealed that criminal history—age at 

first arrest, numbers of priors, etc.—clearly distinguished the desisters from the recidivists. In these 

analyses, there was a racial difference with a greater percentage of the desisting group being white. 

Completing 12th grade was the only non-criminal factor that consistently was significant in the analyses—

with those with more education doing better on the various arrest measures. 

The qualitative analyses provided support for the emerging views on criminality and desistance. 

Desisters, or those individuals who self-reported no engagement in criminal activities for at least 6 

months, emphasized deterrence, cognitive changes, readiness for change, and employment. These 

findings are consistent with several theoretical frameworks for recidivism and desistance, including 

deterrence and theories focused on cognitive behavioral change and individual agency (e.g., Giordano and 

colleagues). Moreover, while only a few respondents explicitly invoked “identity” as described by

Paternoster & Bushway (2009), there was no explicit probe about identity. Because these were short 

response items, rather than detailed qualitative interviews, the fact that identity rose to the surface 

suggests the salience of the issue for some respondents. 

In contrast to past 6-month desistance, periods of committing less crime were explained through 

conventional ties (e.g., family, employment, religion, prosocial peers) and sobriety. These findings are 

consistent with Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social control. Interestingly, the issues 

of cognitive change, readiness for change, lifestyle and identity that were mentioned by desisters were not 

mentioned when describing periods where one was less likely to commit crime. This may suggest that 

while informal social control helps in the desistance process, it is not sufficient to sustain desistance. 

Periods of more crime were not simply the converse of periods of less crime. Rather than the absence 

of conventional ties, these criminogenic periods were explained through financial and employment issues 

and stress. These pushes toward crime are more consistent with strain theories. Overall, these results may 

suggest that informal social control is important in periods of desistance, but more “upfront work” such as 

cognitive changes and being ready to change are needed to solidify desistance. Furthermore, the pushes 

into and pulls out of crime do not appear to be the opposite side of the same coin—i.e., there is a lack of 

symmetry between recidivism and desistance. Cognitive changes and informal social control may help 

push people toward desistance but stress and financial issues appear to pull them back in. However, 

employment and sobriety appear to be important on both sides. 

Additional work is needed to determine what types of interventions may facilitate desisting behavior 

among serious offenders. The focus of past work to identify successful interventions that tackle known 

risk factors, including our own, suggests that we need to develop a better understanding of readiness for 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

17 
change and how to help individuals achieve this. Absent this readiness, providing specific services that 

address practical needs may be insufficient to help individuals turn away from crime. The exceptions, for 

this South Carolina sample, may be assuring employment that is sufficient to meet needs. 

The research is limited by several factors. First, the subjects were individuals recruited for a prisoner 

reentry program evaluation in 2004-2005 in South Carolina; results may not be generalizable to other 

populations (or even to a more general South Carolina prisoner population). The interview findings are 

further limited to the roughly 50% of the original sample who were located and interviewed. Although 

analyses comparing these respondents to non-respondents using the original SVORI data revealed no 

significant differences between the two groups, there is always a possibility that those who were located 

and consented to a new interview differ from those who were not on unobservable measures. 

References 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: 

Lexis/Nexis. 

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does 

correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. 

Criminology, 28, 369–404. 

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison 

construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates (Report No. 06-10-1201). Olympia: Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy. 

Bachman, R., Kerrison, E., Paternoster, R., O’Connell, D, & Smith, L. (2016). Desistance for a long-term 

drug-involved sample of adult offenders: The importance of identity transformation. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior 43, 2, 164-186. First Published September 8, 2015. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604012 

Fonagy, P., &. Kurtz, A. (2002). Disturbances of conduct. In P. Fonagy, M. Target, D. Cottrell, J. 

Phillips, & Z. Kurtz (Eds.), What works for whom? A critical review of treatments for children and 

adolescents (pp. 106–192). New York: Guilford. 

Giordano, P.G. Cernkovich, S.A. & Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a 

theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990-1064. 

Kerrison, E.M., Bachmann, R., & Paternoster, R. (2016). The effects of age at prison release on women’s 

desistance trajectories: A mixed-method analysis. Journal of Development and Life Course 

Criminology, 2, 341–370. Published online: 8 September 2016. DOI 10.1007/s40865-016-0039-0 

Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. (2014). The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: 

evidence from a multi-site evaluation. Evaluation Review, 37, 274–313. 

doi:10.1177/0193841X13519105 

Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. (2009, December). Multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and 

synthesis. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

18 
 

 

 

Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with 

juvenile delinquency? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from 

research and practice (pp. 63–78). West Sussex, England: Wiley. 

Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of 

systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320. 

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections? Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and 

delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in the attrition of causality: Fact or fiction? 

Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225. 

Na, C., Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2015). Within-individual change in arrests in a sample of serious 

offenders: The role of identity. Journal of Development and Life Course Criminology, (1), 385–410. 

DOI 10.1007/s40865-015-0017-y 

Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Kerrison, E., O’Connell, D., & Smith, L. (2016). Desistance from crime 

and identity: An empirical test with survival time. Criminal Justice and Behavior 43(9), 1204-1224. DOI: 

10.1177/0093854816651905 

Paternoster, R. & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the feared self: Toward an identity theory of 

criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99(4), 1103-1156. 

Tueller, S. J., Van Dorn, R. A., & Bobashev, G. V. (2016). Visualization of categorical longitudinal and 

times series data. Methods report (RTI Press). 

Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2017). Evaluating the long-term effects of 

prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 

136-165. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

19 
Appendix A: Additional Exhibits 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-1 
Exhibit A-1. Endorsed reasons for returning to prison and for not committing crimes for South Carolina respondents (original SVORI follow-up 

interviews, 2005-2007) 

Recidivists Desisters 

Variable Wave 2 

(N = 16) 

Wave 3 

(N = 64) 

Wave 4 

(N = 104) 

Variable Wave 2 

(N = 307) 

Wave 3 

(N = 254) 

Wave 4 

(N = 246) 

Using drugs or alcohol 0.25 0.4219 0.4904 Committed not going to prison 0.9349 0.9409 0.9187 

Not have enough money 0.4375 0.2656 0.4615 Family is supportive 0.9121 0.8976 0.8862 

Associated with friends 0.3125 0.3438 0.3942 Found stable place to live 0.8013 0.8346 0.8008 

Too much stress 0.1875 0.3281 0.3654 Learned deal with stress 0.7655 0.7992 0.7927 

Other reason 0.5 0.2969 0.3462 Stopped associating with troubled 

friends 

0.7850 0.7441 0.7846 

Neighborhood made it easy 0.25 0.2656 0.3365 Adequate transportation 0.5505 0.6260 0.6789 

P.O. not helpful 0.25 0.2031 0.3269 Safe neighborhood 0.6482 0.7047 0.6748 

Problems with family 0.0625 0.2188 0.3269 Religion/spirituality 0.5635 0.6142 0.6667 

Could not get services 0.1875 0.1406 0.2596 Found good job 0.5537 0.5866 0.6098 

No transportation 0.125 0.2188 0.2596 Wanted change for children 0.4984 0.5315 0.5691 

Could not find good job 0.1875 0.2344 0.2500 Got needed services 0.4235 0.4331 0.5407 

Could not find place to live 0.125 0.0781 0.1442 Stopped drugs or alcohol 0.6189 0.5433 0.5285 

Didn't care if back to prison 0.125 0.0781 0.0673 Helpful probation/parole officer 0.5668 0.5551 0.4878 

Crimes exciting & challenging 0 0.0938 0.0673 Specific reentry programs helped 0.3192 0.3465 0.3577 

Receive more services in prison 0.125 0.0156 0.0385 Reentry case manager helpful 0.3355 0.3346 0.3374 

Safer in facility than street 0 0.0156 0.0385 Other reason 0.0684 0.0827 0.1341 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-2 
Exhibit A-2. Gap analyses: lognormal survival results for the first 10 arrests following SVORI release 

Arrest 1 Arrest 2 Arrest 3 Arrest 4 Arrest 5 

Variable Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 4.84*** 0.4837 4.854*** 0.708 4.401*** 0.7439 5.325*** 0.8265 4.62*** 0.9994 

Race=white 0.222 0.16 -0.03 0.2138 0.044 0.2211 -0.344 0.2346 -0.023 0.2771 

Employed 6M prior to 

incarceration 0.104 0.1537 -0.093 0.2032 0.247 0.2089 -0.195 0.22 0.036 0.2626 

Completed 12th grade or 

equivalent 0.235 0.1543 0.033 0.2046 0.138 0.2134 0.108 0.2289 0.14 0.2756 

Age at release 0.008 0.0138 0.059** 0.0192 0.027 0.0204 0.04 0.0226 0.021 0.0274 

Conviction offense=Person/ 

Violent 0.334 0.1999 -0.059 0.2626 -0.009 0.2649 0.609* 0.272 0.1 0.3242 

Conviction offense=Property -0.575** 0.1953 -0.077 0.2554 -0.209 0.2559 0.092 0.2627 0.035 0.3126 

Conviction offense=Drug 0.094 0.2074 0.094 0.2717 0.037 0.277 -0.154 0.2806 -0.019 0.3262 

Conviction offense=Public 

Order/Other -0.1 0.1897 -0.15 0.2479 -0.209 0.247 0.321 0.2543 0.279 0.3039 

In for probation/parole 

violation -0.033 0.1594 -0.02 0.2098 0.02 0.2144 -0.16 0.224 0.315 0.2689 

Times juvenile lockup -0.086 0.0528 -0.06 0.0689 0.019 0.0684 -0.094 0.0696 -0.021 0.0785 

Total prior arrests -0.026*** 0.0066 -0.033*** 0.009 -0.04*** 0.0096 -0.026* 0.0102 -0.012 0.0123 

Male=1 -0.206 0.2352 -0.449 0.3182 -0.207 0.3326 0.24 0.3538 0.14 0.437 

Age at first arrest 0.077*** 0.0184 0.012 0.0283 0.056 0.0303 -0.04 0.0363 -0.001 0.0436 

Log(scale) 0.379*** 0.0353 0.612*** 0.0375 0.57*** 0.0402 0.548*** 0.0439 0.633*** 0.0483 

N 460 417 373 326 276 

Missing due to covariates 19 13 12 7 4 

Total N for model 479 430 385 333 280 

(continued) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-3 
 

Exhibit A-2. Gap analyses: Lognormal survival results for the first 10 arrests following SVORI release (continued) 

Arrest 6 Arrest 7 Arrest 8 Arrest 9 Arrest 10 

Variable Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err Estimate St. Err 

Race=white 2.645* 1.0318 5.468*** 1.0921 4.176** 1.3764 4.605*** 1.346 5.622*** 1.5176 

Employed 6M prior to 

incarceration -0.338 0.2905 0.098 0.3094 -0.285 0.3992 -0.365 0.4117 0.091 0.4511 

Completed 12th grade or 

equivalent 0.278 0.2702 0.073 0.288 0.283 0.3726 0.499 0.3731 0.207 0.4204 

Age at release 0.291 0.2909 0.054 0.3141 0.052 0.4026 0.017 0.4119 0.019 0.5011 

Conviction offense=Person/ 

Violent 0.029 0.0277 0.004 0.029 -0.017 0.0366 -0.004 0.0366 0.039 0.0409 

Conviction offense=Property -0.005 0.3361 -0.258 0.3599 0.142 0.4457 0.091 0.4589 -0.111 0.5417 

Conviction offense=Drug 0.265 0.3249 -0.808* 0.3523 -0.498 0.4406 -0.344 0.4373 -1.082* 0.4793 

Conviction offense=Public 

Order/Other 0.03 0.3448 -0.423 0.3646 -0.163 0.4605 -0.62 0.4682 -0.08 0.5319 

In for probation/parole 

violation -0.071 0.3088 -0.303 0.3242 -0.521 0.4238 -0.899* 0.4272 -0.182 0.4735 

Times juvenile lockup 0.029 0.2721 -0.229 0.2954 0.618 0.3757 -0.011 0.3777 -0.522 0.4221 

Total prior arrests 0.111 0.0768 0.021 0.0779 -0.029 0.0936 0.129 0.0896 -0.055 0.0991 

Male=1 -0.013 0.0131 0.013 0.0139 -0.001 0.018 -0.03 0.0185 -0.006 0.0221 

Age at first arrest 0.614 0.4655 0.507 0.5024 0.484 0.6395 0.279 0.6527 -0.023 0.7489 

Log(scale) 0.064 0.0455 -0.035 0.0521 0.06 0.0678 0.076 0.0671 -0.045 0.0744 

N 228 199 161 138 106 

Missing due to covariates 3 3 3 3 2 

Total N for model 231 202 164 141 108 

Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-4 
Exhibit A-3. Logistic model results for any arrest in years following SVORI release 

Variable Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 

Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 0*** -8.312*** 1.439 0.002*** -6.386*** 1.216 0*** -7.686*** 1.436 0.002*** -6.171*** 1.013 

Race=white 1.221 0.2 0.513 2.267* 0.818* 0.392 0.876 -0.132 0.37 1.325 0.281 0.358 

Employed 6M prior to 

incarceration 0.631 -0.461 0.438 1.289 0.254 0.436 0.451 -0.796 0.378 0.857 -0.154 0.343 

Completed 12th grade or 

equivalent 0.7 -0.357 0.518 0.784 -0.244 0.432 2.486** 0.911** 0.361 1.634 0.491 0.321 

Age at release 0.94 -0.062 0.048 1.085* 0.081* 0.033 1.059 0.058 0.033 1.043 0.043 0.027 

Conviction offense=Person/ 

Violent 2.065 0.725 0.523 1.913 0.649 0.514 1.385 0.326 0.471 0.768 -0.264 0.432 

Conviction offense=Property 0.822 -0.196 0.526 1.143 0.133 0.451 1.206 0.188 0.441 0.986 -0.014 0.411 

Conviction offense=Drug 1.371 0.315 0.535 2.955* 1.084* 0.514 1.94 0.663 0.462 1.019 0.019 0.442 

Conviction offense=Public 

Order/Other 1.228 0.206 0.475 0.611 -0.493 0.575 0.715 -0.336 0.422 0.804 -0.218 0.461 

In for probation/parole 

violation 1.605 0.473 0.415 1.069 0.067 0.433 0.903 -0.102 0.368 1.402 0.338 0.383 

Times juvenile lockup 0.858 -0.153 0.135 1.003 0.003 0.122 0.768 -0.264 0.258 0.599* -0.513* 0.258 

Total prior arrests 1.021 0.021 0.018 0.95* -0.051* 0.022 0.973 -0.028 0.014 0.966 -0.035 0.018 

Male=1 0.822 -0.196 0.637 0.108*** -2.221*** 0.598 0.76 -0.275 0.546 0.676 -0.391 0.478 

Age at first arrest 1.211** 0.191** 0.064 0.977 -0.024 0.045 1.048 0.047 0.049 1.008 0.008 0.04 

N with no arrests 238 234 258 252 

N with any arrest 222 223 196 199 

Not available (death) 0 3 6 9 

Notes: 19 cases were excluded from model because of missing values on one or more covariates. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .0. (continued) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-5 
Exhibit A-3. Logistic model results for any arrest in years following SVORI release (cont.) 

Variable Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 

Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 0.001*** -7.042*** 1.217 0.001*** -7.336*** 1.024 0.002*** -6.065*** 1.095 0*** -8.194*** 1.281 

Race=white 0.901 -0.104 0.336 0.798 -0.226 0.319 1.133 0.125 0.354 1.154 0.143 0.376 

Employed 6M prior to 

incarceration 1.032 0.031 0.347 0.658 -0.418 0.313 0.429** -0.846** 0.325 0.692 -0.368 0.351 

Completed 12th grade or 

equivalent 1.547 0.437 0.337 1.897 0.64 0.317 0.939 -0.063 0.39 1.021 0.021 0.36 

Age at release 1.096** 0.092** 0.033 1.07* 0.067* 0.029 1.073* 0.07* 0.031 1.071 0.068 0.036 

Conviction offense=Person/ 

Violent 1.069 0.067 0.453 0.834 -0.181 0.383 0.573 -0.557 0.443 0.87 -0.14 0.45 

Conviction offense=Property 1.548 0.437 0.44 1.251 0.224 0.372 1.416 0.347 0.385 0.74 -0.301 0.413 

Conviction offense=Drug 0.805 -0.217 0.504 0.999 -0.001 0.389 0.725 -0.322 0.412 1.103 0.098 0.431 

Conviction offense=Public 

Order/Other 0.543 -0.611 0.483 1.197 0.18 0.378 1.235 0.211 0.391 1.835 0.607 0.412 

In for probation/parole 

violation 1.579 0.457 0.339 1.978* 0.682* 0.311 0.582 -0.542 0.329 0.691 -0.369 0.329 

Times juvenile lockup 1.035 0.034 0.101 0.833 -0.183 0.118 0.726* -0.321* 0.132 0.962 -0.039 0.17 

Total prior arrests 0.943* -0.059* 0.022 0.963* -0.038* 0.015 1.004 0.004 0.014 0.961 -0.04 0.023 

Male=1 0.917 -0.087 0.568 1.302 0.264 0.479 2.084 0.734 0.488 2.482 0.909 0.696 

Age at first arrest 0.957 -0.044 0.057 1.013 0.013 0.041 0.941 -0.061 0.045 1.063 0.061 0.047 

N with no arrests 271 283 298 306 

N with any arrest 179 164 146 139 

Not available (death) 11 14 17 19 

Notes: 19 cases were excluded from model because of missing values on one or more covariates. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .0. (continued) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-6 
Exhibit A-3. Logistic model results for any arrest Years 1,2 and 3 following SVORI release (cont.) 

Variable Year 9 Year 10 

Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err Odds Ratio Estimate St. Err 

(Intercept) 0*** -8.906*** 1.26 0.009*** -4.704*** 1.391 

Race=white 0.698 -0.359 0.371 1.162 0.15 0.38 

Employed 6M prior to 

incarceration 0.499* -0.695* 0.345 1.623 0.484 0.335 

Completed 12th grade or 

equivalent 1.45 0.372 0.351 1.149 0.139 0.368 

Age at release 1.123*** 0.116*** 0.034 1.014 0.014 0.03 

Conviction offense=Person/ 

Violent 1.139 0.13 0.415 0.63 -0.462 0.495 

Conviction offense=Property 1.706 0.534 0.404 0.655 -0.424 0.438 

Conviction offense=Drug 1.71 0.537 0.418 0.913 -0.091 0.45 

Conviction offense=Public 

Order/Other 1.901 0.642 0.411 1.215 0.195 0.433 

In for probation/parole 

violation 0.759 -0.276 0.327 0.643 -0.441 0.361 

Times juvenile lockup 0.928 -0.075 0.105 0.804* -0.218* 0.11 

Total prior arrests 0.975 -0.025 0.015 1.001 0.001 0.014 

Male=1 2.751 1.012 0.57 1.927 0.656 0.589 

Age at first arrest 1.006 0.006 0.049 0.924 -0.079 0.073 

N with no arrests 314 317 

N with any arrest 124 111 

Not available (death) 23 27 

Notes: 19 cases were excluded from model because of missing values on one or more covariates. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .0. (continued) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-7 
 

- - -

Exhibit A-4. Self-Reported housing, employment, drug use, and violence at SVORI interviews waves 2, 3, and 4 and 2016-2017 interview (all 

subjects) 

Wave 2 

(2004 2006) 

(N = 323) 

Wave 3 Wave 4 

(2005 2006) (2005 2007) 

(N = 319) (N = 351) 

2016 Interview 

(2016) 

(N = 208) 

Mean (standard deviation) 

Employed in legal job 0.674 (0.469) 0.745 (0.436) 0.729 (0.445) 0.678 (0.468) 

No self-reported drug use 0.922 (0.267) 0.785 (0.410) 0.782 (0.413) 0.379 (0.486) 

No self-reported drug use other than marijuana or 

steroids 0.832 (0.373) 0.678 (0.467) 0.663 (0.473) 0.663 (0.473) 

No perpetration of violence 0.711 (0.453) 0.589 (0.492) 0.641 (0.480) 0.745 (0.436) 

No criminal behavior 0.845 (0.362) 0.667 (0.471) 0.666 (0.472) 0.586 (0.493) 

No violent or weapons crimes 0.916 (0.277) 0.833 (0.373) 0.811 (0.391) 0.716 (0.451) 

Not reincarcerated at follow-up 0.885 (0.318) 0.711 (0.453) 0.564 (0.496) 0.822 (0.383) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-8 
 

Appendix B: Qualitative Analysis and Codes 

The responses were reviewed manually and coded using the following categories for specific items. 

Avoidance: “Please briefly tell me about what happened when you decided not to commit this crime.”

 Situational (riskiness, difficulty in pulling it off) 

 Decision 

Engagement in Crime: “Please briefly describe what was happening in your life that made you more 

likely to get involved in crime.” 

 Alcohol or other drug use 

 Antisocial peers (negative influences) 

 Children 

 Content (with criminal lifestyle), not ready for change 

 Death (of family or other) 

 Employment problems 

 Family problems/trouble (not including illness in family—those were coded as ‘stress’)

 Financial trouble 

 Housing (instability, homelessness) 

 Lack of education 

 Loss of partner 

 Stress (nonfinancial, not death) 

Desistance from Crime: “Please briefly tell me about what happened when you decided not to commit 

this crime.” and “You reported that you have not been involved in crime recently. Can you tell us why 

you have not committed a crime recently?” and “Please briefly describe what was happening that made 

you less likely to get involved in crime.” and “

 Readiness for change (planning, goals, trying to stay out of trouble) 

 Discontent (with criminal lifestyle) 

 Identity change (feared self, future self) 

 Cognitive (think differently now, don’t want/need to commit crime, it’s wrong)

 Services (in-prison, probation, etc.) 

 Partner (marriage or other relationship) 

 Other family 

 Employment 

 Education 

 Children 

 Religion 

 Housing (place to live, not homeless, stable) 

 Sobriety 

 Prosocial peers (positive influences) 

 Deterrence (did not want to go back to jail/prison, like freedom) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-1 
 Future/hope 

 Physically incapable 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-2