Understanding the Mechanisms of Desistance at the Intersection of Race, Gender, and Neighborhood Context

Abstract

Objectives This study tests theorized mechanisms of desistance, and whether the process of desistance is conditioned by social structural position. Methods We investigate how marriage promotes desistance from crime among urban African American males raised in the Woodlawn community, a disadvantaged neighborhood in Chicago. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we test the resiliency of the marriage effect by observing offending trajectories following marital dissolution; is the marriage effect conditional upon staying married, indicating situational effects? or does the effect persist when marriage is taken away, indicating enduring effects? Further, we test if the process of desistance is conditional upon contextual disadvantage. Results While initial findings show an increase in violent and property offending upon divorce, further analysis shows evidence that this effect differs by neighborhood structural context; the increase in offending upon divorce is apparent only for African American men who experience continued disadvantage across the life course. Those who moved to relatively more advantaged areas by adulthood show no increase in offending upon marital dissolution. Conclusions How marriage matters for desistance is partially influenced by social structural position; context matters. These findings invigorate criminological research on the mechanisms driving the marriage effect and provide insight into the interactive nature of person and context.

Desistance from Offending in the Twenty-First Century

“…Individuals displaced to new neighborhoods were significantly less likely to reoffend than those who returned to their pre-prison neighborhoods. Shifting to how contexts may matter for desistance, Doherty & Bersani (2016) investigate whether the structural or subjective nature of the mechanisms of desistance is shaped by social-structural position. Results suggest that persistent residence in disadvantaged contexts may impose barriers to subjectively facilitated desistance, rendering structural mechanisms more central compared to those living in less disadvantaged contexts.…”

“…Using an innovative modeling approach, Bersani & Doherty (2013) and Doherty & Bersani (2016) evaluated competing theories of desistance by shifting the focus from testing factors associated with theories (marriage, identity) to considering expected theoretical outcomes. Akin to an implication analysis (see Lieberson & Horwich 2008), this research evaluated the nature of change inferred by theories of desistance.…”

Early Narratives of Desistance from Crime in Different Prison Regimes

“…It has been stated that this onward process towards criminal desistance is related to different personal and social factors: aging and maturation, race, gender, military service, marriage, and stable and meaningful interpersonal relationships (intimate partners, children, friends, etc. ), motivation and commitment to change, prosocial values, moderate lack of stress, good mental health, structured activities, reevaluation of previous criminal conduct, stable employment, religion, identity change, perception of self-efficacy, expectation about the future, favorable characteristics of the reintegration context, and received social support (Abeling-Judge, 2017; Barr & Simons, 2015;Cauffman, Fine, Thomas, & Monahan, 2017;de Vries Robbé, Mann, Maruna, & Thornton, 2015;Doherty & Bersani, 2016;Forrest, 2014;King, 2013;Rocque & Wels, 2015;Shepherd, Luebbers, & Ogloff, 2016;Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014;Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Stallings, Lacourse, 2008;Terry & Abrams, 2017;Veysey, Martinez, & Christian, 2013;Walker et al, 2013;Weaver & McNeill, 2015;Zoutewelle-Terovan, van der Geest, Liefbroer, & Bijleveld, 2014).…”

Peer mentoring justice-involved youth: a training model to promote secondary desistance and restorative justice among mentors

“…The history of behavioural and mental health policy and practices is replete with approaches that failed to acknowledge the economic, social and structural barriers experienced by people with disabilities and recovery needs (Ayón & Carlson, 2014). The literature also confirms that the disproportionate number of low-income, Black and Latino men within the prison system represents a significant factor in how the problem and response to mass incarceration is constructed (Alexander, 2012;Doherty & Bersani, 2016;Livingston, Miller, Brunson & Stewart, 2014). Analogous to the history of stigmatising policies and services for people with disabilities and recovery needs, the intersectionality of race and class has served to reinforce punitive policies and services that invest minimal resources in repairing the harm experienced by individuals with a history of incarceration.…”