Imprisonment, Social Support, and Desistance A Theoretical Approach to Pathways of Desistance and Persistence for Imprisoned Men

TL;DR: The main finding of the research is that strain-social support theory may be of primary importance for understanding desistance because of its capacity to explain processes of change that begin during imprisonment and that continue upon release.

Abstract: Desistance should be the main ground for reentry policies for imprisoned offenders. However, theories on desistance are diverse, and they disagree about the key factors related to the origin, maintenance, and failures of the desistance process. This research considers three main theories of desistance—control, cognitive transformation, and strain-social support—to explain desistance in a sample of imprisoned men in Spain. The main finding of the research is that strain-social support theory may be of primary importance for understanding desistance because of its capacity to explain processes of change that begin during imprisonment and that continue upon release.

Summary

Introduction

• The effect of a softwood calcium lignosulfonate, LSs, on the ettringite formed in cement paste 11 was investigated.
• Moreover, 529 the content in Ca and S was also measured for two LSs solutions dissolved in artificial pore 530 water (see Table 9).
• 562 From the results shown in Figure 23 and reported in Table 10, it can be observed that, 563 variations in the LSs dosage and time of addition (IA vs. DA), in general, led to little or no 564 differences in mass loss % in the range comprising the AFt decomposition.
• 664 In conclusion, for the system analysed in this paper, no changes in the morphology of the 665 ettringite crystals appeared to be caused by the LSs addition.

Figures

Table 1 Explanation of Desistance in Theories

Table 2 Population and Sample

Table 3 Profiles and Interviewees Analyzed

Full text

Imprisonment, Social Support, and Desistance: A Theoretical Approach to Pathways of
Desistance and Persistence for Imprisoned Men
José Cid
Research Group on desistance and reentry policies
Department of Political Science and Public Law
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
mail: Josep.Cid@uab.es
Joel Martí
Centre d'Estudis Sociològics sobre la Vida Quotidiana i el Treball (QUIT)
Institut d'Estudis del Treball (IET)
Department of Sociology
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
mail: Joel.Marti@uab.cat
The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, Online first version, by SAGE Publications Ltd.
Available at http:/dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0306624X15623988

Abstract
Desistance should be the main ground for reentry policies for imprisoned offenders. However,
theories on desistance are diverse, and they disagree about the key factors related to the origin,
maintenance, and failures of the desistance process. This research considers three main theories
of desistance—control, cognitive transformation, and strain-social support—to explain
desistance in a qualitative sample of imprisoned men in Spain. The main finding of the research
is that strain-social support theory may be of primary importance for understanding desistance
because of its capacity to explain processes of change that begin during imprisonment and that
continue upon release.
Keywords: desistance, strain-social support theory, control theory, cognitive
transformation theory, imprisonment.

Imprisonment, Social Support, and Desistance: A Theoretical Approach to Pathways of
Desistance and Persistence for Imprisoned Men
Introduction
Given that desistance theories provide the factors and mechanisms that explain why and
how offenders break with criminal careers it seems reasonable that they should be the main
grounding for rehabilitation and reentry policies for imprisoned offenders. However, despite the
relevant number of studies over the last 35 years on the factors and processes that explain the
abandonment of criminal careers, important theoretical debates about the desistance process
remain.
This paper examines debates identified among three relevant theories in the field (control
theory, cognitive transformation theory, and strain-social support theory). The debates concern
the origin of the desistance process (objective versus subjective factors), the mechanisms for
maintaining desistance (such as commitment, attachment, supervision, hooks of change,
compensation and moderation of strain) and the contingencies of the desistance process when the
person cannot achieve conventional adult roles (failure versus success). We address these three
debates by analyzing a diversity of desistance processes in a sample of 36 incarcerated men in
Barcelona (Catalonia) who were interviewed twice: in the final weeks of their prison sentences
and between one and two years after the expiration of the prison sentence. The analysis aims to
identify which of the aforementioned theories provides stronger support in explaining the factors
and mechanisms that are involved in the process of desistance.
Literature Review

To understand changes in criminal careers, two major approaches have been developed
by desistance scholars: the revised version of control theory (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson
& Laub, 1993) and cognitive transformation theory (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002;
Maruna, 2001; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). In addition to these two major approaches, this
paper examines social support intended as a development of strain theory (Cullen, 1994)
1
–that’s
why we use the term strain-social support theory- which has been less explicitly used as a
framework for understanding desistance but which appears to have emerging relevance in
research (Calverley, 2011; Schroeder, Giordano, & Cernkovich, 2010; Visher & O’Connell,
2012). In this section, we review these three theories to explain the origin, maintenance, and
contingencies of the desistance process.
Origin of Desistance: Objective Versus Subjective Factors
Theories of desistance agree that in the whole process of desistance both objective and
subjective factors are relevant. However, a degree of disagreement exists over the type of factor
–internal or external to the individual- that initiates the process of change in criminal careers.
Control theory adopts a relational vision of the desistance process, assuming that
delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken (Hirschi, 1969).
Although the original theory aimed to elucidate the onset and maintenance of offending
behavior, with the “age-graded theory of informal social control”
2
Sampson and Laub (1993)
extended it to explain desistance. According to these authors, desistance originates from the
formation of both new social bonds in adult life (such as a stable marriage or stable job) that
produce a stake in conformity and life routines that are incompatible with an offending lifestyle.
Although Laub and Sampson consider agency to be one relevant element of the desistance
process, subjective factors can be interpreted to have only a secondary role in their theory
because individuals choose to desist because of the desire to live according to the requirements

of conventional adult roles. In the words of the authors, “... we believe that most offenders
choose to desist in response to structurally induced turning points that serve as the catalyst for
sustaining long-term behavioural change” (Sampson & Laub, 2008, p. 172). Paternoster and
Bushway (2009) consider Laub and Sampson’s (2003, p. 278) expression “desistance by default”
to synthesize their position.
The position of Sampson and Laub has been challenged by a number of authors who
maintain that before individuals may adopt new roles that promote desistance, they must have a
mental state of openness to change (Bottoms & Shapland, 2011; Giordano et al., 2002; Lebel,
Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008; Maruna, 2001; Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014). Thus, for
cognitive transformation theorists, the main catalyst for change is not a turning point that is
external to the individual but a subjective reflection on the self. Although some authors have
explored the association of this cognitive change with spiritual and religious practices (Giordano,
Longmore, Schroeder, & Seffrin, 2008; Hallett & McCoy, 2015) or with certain negative events
in offenders’ lives (e.g., arrest, incarceration) that induce a reflection on the “feared self”
(Paternoster & Bushway, 2009), the factors that generate “openness to change” (Giordano et al.,
2002) in some people but not others remain unclear.
3
With respect to strain-social support theory, Cullen (1994) in his pioneering paper
suggests that “social supports may exert independent (main) effects on crime...by... transforming
deviant identities” (p. 542). Following Lin (1986), Cullen considers social support to entail
instrumental and/or expressive provisions that are supplied by people and organizations. Thus,
this support can be provided at the micro level, through personal ties, but “can be viewed as a
property of social networks and of communities and larger ecological units in which individuals
are enmeshed” (pp. 530-531). When applied to desistance research, this argument suggests that
the desistance process has an external, objective origin. However, Cullen also underscores the

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Imprisonment, social support, and desistance: a theoretical approach to pathways of desistance and persistence for imprisoned men" ?

This research considers three main theories of desistance—control, cognitive transformation, and strain-social support—to explain desistance in a qualitative sample of imprisoned men in Spain. 

Q2. What is the role of social support in the development of desistance?

Social support is not only a relevant protection mechanism in the framework of strain theory (moderating the strain that originates from not achieving a pro-social adult role) but also a potential theoretical explanation of desistance in itself, as social support received by imprisoned people produces a feeling of reciprocity and a desire of compensation that explains their motivation to initiate and maintain change and that stimulates the person to seek hooks for change. 

Q3. What is the meaning of the term desistance?

According to these authors, desistance originates from the formation of both new social bonds in adult life (such as a stable marriage or stable job) that produce a stake in conformity and life routines that are incompatible with an offending lifestyle. 

Q4. What is the main reason for the participants’ persistence in engaging in offending behavior?

The interviewees reported that in addition to pressure from peers, the strain from not having a job, having insufficient money to meet their needs and those of their families, or having insufficient support to overcome those difficulties was the main reason for their persistence in engaging in offending behavior. 

Q5. What is the role of support in the development of desistance?

Although support serves as a catalyst when the person is involved in relationships with significant others, other desistance pathways can emerge when participants react to their initial experience of imprisonment with a strong sense of self-efficacy or when they express a feeling of tiredness with respect to being imprisoned again. 

Q6. What is the point of concern raised by the anonymous reviewers?

5. One point of concern raised by two anonymous reviewers is the extent to which the underrepresented non-recidivist are those with better background and more social bonds that would have made them easier to be contacted and reinterviewed. 

Q7. How did the researchers determine the presence of desisters and persisters in the Spanish prisons?

To ensure the presence of desisters and persisters in these diverse situations, the sample included men who were ending their sentences in both open and closed regimes, which is an effective predictor of recidivism in Catalonia (Capdevila & Ferrer, 2009). 

Q8. How many men were reinterviewed after the end of their sentences?

The sample for the presented analysis includes data from the 36 men from the follow up: 21 of them have been qualified as desisters because they have not been reincarcerated in the two years since their prison sentences ended and they have not reported offenses that could result in their return to prison; the other 15 have been qualified as persisters because they have committed new offenses after their prison sentences and have been reincarcerated. 

Q9. What are the main reasons for the derailments?

In some cases, a lack of economic support and the need to provide money for the family in the context of the male breadwinner model and the criminogenic effects of masculinity (Carlsson, 2013) appear to explain derailments: 

Q10. How many of the participants were able to be reinterviewed?

The authors were unable to locate 27 of the remaining 31 participants; 2 refused to be reinterviewed, and 2 passed away during the follow-up period. 

Q11. What theory may be used to explain the desistance process?

The authors believe that control theory, cognitive transformation theory, and strain-social support theory may offer different answers regarding whether these threats can derail the desistance process. 

Q12. What is the purpose of the analysis?

The analysis presented in the following section aims to identify the factors andmechanisms that operate at each of the three stages of desistance (origin, maintenance, and outcome when a conventional adult role was not achieved) by considering the commonalities and differences among the participants.