Advertisement

Is Desistance Invariant Across Time and Geography? Examining Desistance in Released Prisoners from 30 States over 9 Years

  • Mariel AlperEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

Most criminal career research must use data with inherent limitations. Two common areas of data-imposed limitations for recidivism and desistance researchers are short observation lengths (i.e., follow-up periods) and jurisdiction-specific criminal histories. To help researchers understand the effect of data-imposed limitations, this study explores and compares the criminal career patterns observed (1) with varying follow-up periods and (2) using individuals’ jurisdictionally limited vs. national criminal history records.

Methods

This study uses criminal history data to track a sample of about 70,000 prisoners selected to represent the more than 400,000 prisoners released in 2005 from 30 states from their first arrest to 9 years after their release. Using a multivariate analysis, this study measures desistance as the cessation of arrest activity after release from prison in 2005. First, the study examines if the correlates of desistance after release from prison are consistent across 3-, 6-, and 9-year follow-up periods. Second, the study examines if the correlates of desistance are consistent when post-release data only describe arrests that occurred in the state of release from prison compared to arrests occurring within and outside the state of release (i.e., nationwide). Given their unique offending patterns and pathways to crime, separate models are presented for males and females.

Results

Those who are falsely labeled as desisters in the shorter follow-up periods or when using just in-state arrest records differ from those labeled as desisters in the more complete criminal histories.

Conclusions

This study has implications for developmental and life-course theories that rely on empirical support from limited recidivism follow-up periods and jurisdiction-specific criminal histories. By understanding the effects of data-imposed limitations of follow-up periods and geographical coverage on criminal career research, the validity of criminological theories of desistance across the life course and across place can be better measured and understood.

Keywords

Desistance Recidivism Criminal history 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Howard Snyder and Matthew Durose for their insights and comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Wormith, J. S., Guzzo, L., Brews, A., Rettinger, J., & Rowe, R. (2011). Sources of variability in estimates of predictive validity: a specification with level of service general risk and need. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(5), 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett, A., & Lofaso, A. J. (1985). Selective incapacitation and the Philadelphia cohort data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again? Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology, 5(4), 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blumstein, A., & Nakamura, K. (2009). Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology, 47(2), 327–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blumstein, A., Farrington, D. P., & Moitra, S. (1985). Delinquency careers: innocents, desisters, and persisters. Crime and Justice, 6, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bushway, S. D., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Blokland, A. (2011). The predictive value of criminal background checks: do age and criminal history affect time to redemption? Criminology, 49(1), 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durose, M. R., Snyder, H. N., & Cooper, A. D. (2015). Multistate criminal history patterns of prisoners released in 30 states. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: key theoretical and empirical issues-the 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology, 41(2), 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, B. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). What have we learned from offender profiling? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 40 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1247–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ihrke, D. K., & Faber, C. S. (2012). Geographical mobility: 2005 to 2010. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacLeod, J. F., Grove, P. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Explaining criminal careers: Implications for justice policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maruna, S. (1999). Desistance and development: the psychosocial process of going straight. In The British criminology conferences: selected proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 1–19).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology, 31(3), 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soothill, K. L., & Gibbens, T. C. (1978). Recidivism of sexual offenders: a re-appraisal. The British Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Townsley, M., & Sidebottom, A. (2010). All offenders are equal, but some are more equal than others: variation in journeys to crime between offenders. Criminology, 48(3), 897–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wallerstedt, J. F. (1984). Returning to prison. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of JusticeBureau of Justice StatisticsWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations