Opening Remarks 

Amy L. Solomon 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Justice Programs 

Jennifer Scherer, Ph.D. 

Acting Director 

National Institute of Justice 

But What Does It Mean? Defining,

Measuring, and Analyzing

Desistance From Crime in Criminal 

Justice 

Michael Rocque 

Bates College 
What Is Desistance? 

• Age and crime

• Maturational reform

• Desistance etymology

Source: 

https://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore9780190264079-e-58 
 

 

Conceptual Definitions 

• Recidivism

• Early definitions (1970-1999)

o binary, termination, event

• Current definitions (2000-present)

Source: Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). 

Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among o Stages, progression, process delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41(3), 

555-592.
 

 

Operational Definitions/Methods 

• Generally followed conceptual definitions 

• Early (1979-1999) 

o Offend/not 

o Logistic regression 

• Current (2000-present) 

o Process 

o Trajectories and multilevel models Source: Eggleston, E. P., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2004). 

Methodological sensitivities to latent class analysis of long-term 

criminal trajectories. Journal of quantitative criminology, 20(1), 1-26. 
Definition 

....the process by which criminality, or the individual risk for 

antisocial conduct, declines over the life-course, generally after 

adolescence 
Implications and Recommendations 

• Type of data matter • Measures/modeling 

o Survey/Official o Processual 

o General/Offending • Indicators 

• Follow-up/time frame o Need not be crime 

o Longer the better 
Biosocial Factors and 

Their Influence on Desistance 

Danielle Boisvert 

Sam Houston State University 
 

 

Focus of Paper 

• Desistance from crime from a biosocial perspective 

o Brain development, neuropsychological functioning, and stress system response 

• Impact that risky lifestyles and adverse environments have on 

neuropsychological functioning and stress response 

• Importance of researcher-practitioner partnerships 

o Increased interdisciplinary research 
Desistance from a Biosocial Perspective 

• Developmental perspective 

o Normative brain development 

• Beyond the “Big 5” to the “Critical 2” 

o Neuropsychological functioning 

o Stress system response 

• Acquired neuropsychological deficits 

o Traumatic brain injury 

o Substance abuse 

o Impoverished environments 
Moving Forward 

• Focus on enhancement plans 

• Mitigate negative impact of conditions of imprisonment 

o Nutrition, exercise, sleep 

o Prosocial interactions 

o Limiting noise pollution, toxin exposure, and overcrowding 

• Risk assessments 

o Create a Biopsychosocial Profile 
Moving Forward 

• Programs to improve neuropsychological deficits 

o Cognitive remediation 

o Mindfulness training 

o Nutritional supplements 

o Medications for substance use and mental illness 

• Programs to consider stress system response 

• Strength-based approach 
The Impact of Incarceration on

the Desistance Process Among

Individuals Who Chronically

Engage in Criminal Activity 

Christopher Wildeman 

Duke University 
Existing Research on Incarceration and Desistance 

• Custodial sentences, longer sentences, and more punitive 

conditions of confinement increase crime (in the long-run) 

• Also have negative effects on other core life-course outcomes 

(e.g., labor market, health and well-being, and family stability) 

• Suggests incarceration likely inhibits desistance, on average 
Limitations of Existing Research 

• No emphasis on individuals who chronically engage in crime 

• Measurement problems all over the place on crime/contact 

• Minimal attention to conditions of confinement 

• Relies mostly on samples that don’t generalize to today 
Limitations Notwithstanding 

Seems likely that incarceration is at least as damaging to the 

desistance process for individuals who chronically engage in 

criminal activity as those who do not, and may be more harmful. 
 

 

 

Implications for policy 

• Incarceration is costly and almost certainly does not promote 

desistance. 

• Provided the short-term incapacitation benefits of incarceration are 

not so great that these alternatives are not feasible, policymakers 

might consider, when possible, a greater use of noncustodial 

sentences, cutting the length of custodial sentences, and markedly 

improving conditions of confinement. 
Implications for Practice 

Challenges of system response to: 

• More noncustodial sentences (especially probation) 

• Shorter sentences (especially in terms of programming) 

• Less punitive conditions of confinement (especially in terms of 

incorporating more challenging individuals) 
Avenues for Future Research 

• Build on existing BJS holdings (especially NCRP and RSP) 

• Enhanced studies on conditions of confinement 

• Extend existing longitudinal studies (both of the general 

population and of juveniles/young adults who have been 

involved in criminal activity and/or been in contact with the 

justice system) 
Desistance-Focused 

Criminal Justice Practice 

Bret Bucklen 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 
 

 

 

 

 

“Recidivism” vs. “Desistance” 

• Policymakers are mostly familiar with the concept of “recidivism,” but not with 

“desistance.” 

• Academics argue “recidivism” is a limited concept: 

o Focuses on failure rather than success 

o Tends to be operationalized as a binary measure 

o Conflates measurement of criminal behavior with system responses to criminal behavior 

• But problems with ”desistance” as a concept: 

o Has been mostly a theoretical concept 

o Unfamiliar to most policymakers 

o No widespread agreement on how to define/operationalize it 

o Link between markers of desistance and criminal behavior is often correlational and 

weak 
“Recidivism” + “Desistance” 

1. What behavior counts as recidivism? 

2. What sources to use for measuring criminal behavior? 

3. What time horizon to use for measuring desistance? 
Useful Concepts to Incorporate 

1. Redemption research (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009) 

2. Signaling (Bushway and Apel, 2012) 

3. Risk assessment - RNR 
 

 

Operationalizing Desistance 

1. Deceleration 

2. De-escalation 

3. ”Reaching a Ceiling” 

NOTE: these three concepts were borrowed from Loeber and Le Blanc (1990), with one difference being that “reaching a ceiling” is defined here differently than 

defined by Loeber and Le Blanc. This paper defines “reaching a ceiling” as complete cessation (or in other words, the inverse of recidivism). 
Operationalizing Desistance 
Desistance-Focused Corrections Interventions 
 

“Real World” Considerations Going Forward 

• Short time horizons for policymakers and politicians 

o Policymakers and politicians often plan short-term, but desistance requires longer time horizons 

o Can make use of probabilistic models, like risk assessment instruments 

o Should make use of rapid cycle experimentation (Bucklen, 2020) 

• Budgets 

o More Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) needed 

o More cost-benefit analyses needed 

• Non-criminal-justice outcomes 

o Criminal justice outcomes should remain the primary focus 

o Data may be hard to collect on non-criminal-justice outcomes 

• Communication 

o Translational criminology 

o Researcher-practitioner partnerships 
International Perspectives and

Lessons Learned on Desistance 

Stephen Farrall 

University of Derby 
 

 

 

International Perspectives and Lessons Learned on

Desistance 

• My paper focuses on how desistance has been defined and operationalized, 

and reviews the main associates and correlates of desistance. 

• It then critiques many criminal justice systems’ desistance-promoting elements 

and presents the lessons learned from various countries that have pursued 

such policies. 

• Finally, it discusses some of the interventions that appear likely to support and 

promote desistance. 

• I am going to focus on the last of these today. 
 

General Things That Can Be Done 

The paper argues that criminal justice systems may need to adapt their current 

approaches so they more readily embrace the idea that people who want to desist: 

• Have strengths that can be harnessed, while admitting that there are 

weaknesses that need to be avoided. This implies a change to assessment 

procedures. 

• Need to be treated individually (at least some of the time) and given

opportunities (rather than threats or punishments) to which they will want to 

respond positively. 

• Should be engaged and employed as co-producers of their own (and others’) 

desistance. This implies a greater use of former service users in peer 

mentoring schemes and as program designers. 
 

 

 

 

General Things That Can Be Done, cont. 

• Will face setbacks and relapse during their journey away from crime. Realism 

rather than idealism is the watchword here. 

• Will find informal, rather than formal, interventions most valuable and 

meaningful. 

• Do better when they are kept out of prison or sent to prison only briefly 

(whenever possible). 

• Will be more likely to remain out of trouble when criminal justice system workers 

support them in the wider social and community contexts in which they live. 

This means partnering with religious institutions, employers, community groups, 

local sports groups, and other organizations based in the community. 
 

 

General Things That Can Be Done, cont. 

• Will do better when the criminal justice system supports their relationships 

(where appropriate). 

• Should be encouraged to practice newly formed social identities (such as 

parent, partner, and employee) in supported contexts. 

• Should have good progress recognized and, if possible, certified. 

• Can be supported in careers (either formal employment careers or those 

developed away from the economy, such as school governor, homemaker, and 

volunteer) by selective access to their previous criminal histories. 
 

 

Some Practical Suggestions 

• The USA needs to roll back from the reliance on high rates of imprisonment, 

back towards a criminal justice system which relied less on imprisonment and 

more on community disposals. 

• Change assessment/planning systems to recognise strengths as well as risks 

(no longer 0-10 no risk/risk, but -10 to +10 risk/strength). 

• Directly employ former-offenders in socially positive roles - building homes 

for others, counselling, recycling schemes, setting up their own firms (catering, 

building, cleaning services and so on). 
 

Some Practical Suggestions, cont. 

• Building family relationships and social capital to access jobs and resources to 

support change. 

• Create circles of support for individuals to assist transformation. 

• Create ‘decertification’ or ‘judicial rehabilitation’ schemes to seal former 

criminal histories. 

• Focus on solving future challenges, rather than trying to unpack past (unless 

unpacking will assist in the future in some way). 
 

 

What to Do Next 

• Pilot schemes to both start some of these ideas and to evaluate some of the 

outcomes associated with them. 

• These projects will need to be well-supported both financially and ‘politically’ 

and given the time to produce lasting outcomes (5 year funding as a minimum). 

• Evaluations ought to be independent of those running the projects (universities 

and so on), in order to develop transferrable insights using the most up-to-date 

research methodologies and theories. 

• Projects will need to be assessed prior to funding and will vary from state to 

state, city to city and neighbourhood to neighbourhood; recognise cultural and 

ethnic diversity. 

• Draw upon experience of researchers and user services/providers to plan, 

assess and evaluate these projects. 
 

 

 

Pathways to Desistance From Crime 

Among Juveniles and Adults:

Applications to Criminal Justice

Policy and Practice 

Lila Kazemian 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice 
 

 

Some Empirical Facts about the Transition from

Juvenile Offending to Adult Crime 

• The paradox of the age-crime curve 

• The cognitive profiles of emerging adults (18-24 years old) 

• Desistance from crime as a process rather than an abrupt event 
 

Desistance-Promoting Law Enforcement 

• Police arrests can negatively affect known correlates of desistance: 

o HS graduation (Kirk & Sampson, 2013; Dennison & Demuth, 2018) 

o Employment outcomes (Dennison & Demuth, 2018) 

o Mental health outcomes (Sugie & Turney, 2017). 

• Arrests that do not lead to a conviction are a poor indicator of criminal behavior 

& create undue stigma 

• Law enforcement strategies with promising insight for desistance efforts: active 

partnerships with other agents of the CJS 
 

 

 

 

 

Promoting Desistance in the Courts 

• Sentence severity does little to prevent reoffending 

• The crucial role of prosecutors 

o Great deal of discretionary power in determining whether to charge or 

dismiss a case, severity of the charges, conditions of a plea bargain, 

and an individual’s trajectory in the CJS 

• Prosecution of emerging adults (18-24 years old) 

• Promising initiatives in prosecution: Fair and Just Prosecution 

o Aims to shift traditional prosecutor culture with a reform-driven model 

of prosecution 
 

 

 

Desistance from Crime in the Context of 

Incarceration 

Prison impedes desistance from crime by: 

1. Harming ties to key social institutions 

2. Neglecting the mental health needs and trauma histories of 

incarcerated individuals 

3. Disproportionately focusing on rule violations and failing to track 

and reward progress 

4. Creating an environment that may be incompatible with the outside 

world 
 

 

Desistance-Promoting Supervision Practices 

• Supervision system is well-equipped to detect recidivism, but not 

necessarily conducive to desistance from crime 

• Probation/parole supervision would benefit from striking a better 

balance between: 

o Informal and formal control structures 

o Imposing sanctions and providing incentives 

• We need reentry practices that reward paths to redemption 
 

 

 

Calling for a Paradigm Shift: Recidivism-Focused

versus Desistance-Promoting Interventions 

• Regarding desistance from crime as a process and normalizing 

relapses (e.g., offenses that do not pose a threat to public safety) 

• Integration of both recidivism & positive outcomes, and a better 

equilibrium between punishments and incentives 

• Interagency collaborations to promote desistance from crime 

• Desistance-promoting (tough-on-crime) versus punitive (tough-on-

“criminals”) approaches 
Questions? 

Please enter your questions into the Q&A box 

Send to ALL PANELISTS