Beyond Recidivism and Desistance

• Author: Susan Starr Sered
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1557085120951849
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120951849

Feminist Criminology

2021, Vol. 16(2) 165 –190

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1557085120951849

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Article

Beyond Recidivism and

Desistance

Susan Starr Sered1 with Maureen Norton-Hawk

Abstract

Reflecting on research following formerly incarcerated Massachusetts women for

more than a decade, this paper questions whether conventional understandings

of recidivism and desistance are meaningful frames for understanding women’s life

trajectories. Drawing on our ongoing ethnographic work we argue that conventional

measures of recidivism and desistance tend to (1) overstate the significance of

distinctions between licit and illicit behavior—especially for women, (2) undervalue

macro/structural and institutionalized barriers to stable housing and employment,

(3) overly focus on individual choices and narratives in contexts where freedoms

are constrained by structural and institutional policies and practices, (4) overlook

the risks and erratic nature of daily and family life for women and other vulnerable,

marginalized and poorly-resourced populations.

Keywords

ethnographic research, reentry from prison to community, social constructions of

female deviance, women’s desistance, women’s reentry

Introduction1

Decades of mass incarceration in the United States have resulted in millions of indi-

viduals and families struggling to navigate post-incarceration landscapes.2 While

recidivism and desistance from crime typically serve as lenses for researchers and

policy-makers seeking to understand how people manage—or do not manage—these

landscapes, realities on the ground may be far more complicated. For more than ten

years we have spent time with women released from prison in Massachusetts in 2007

to 2008. The length of the project together with our ethnographic approach has allowed

1Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Susan Starr Sered with Maureen Norton-Hawk, Department of Sociology, Suffolk University, 73 Temont

Street, Boston, MA 02108, USA.

Email: ssered@suffolk.edu

951849FCXXXX10.1177/1557085120951849Feminist CriminologySered

research-article2020

166 Feminist Criminology 16(2)

us to witness ups and downs, ambiguities, and competing structural pressures that may

not emerge in shorter studies or in research that relies on official records or single

points in time.

Looking back at how the 47 women’s lives have unfolded over the years, we are not

able to identify demographic, attitudinal or programmatic indicators that distinguish

recidivists (persisters) from desisters. That is the case whether we define desistance

narrowly in terms of not picking up new criminal charges (not recidivating) or broadly

in terms of securing employment and housing and turning away from crime.

In this paper we draw on our ongoing fieldwork to argue that conventional mea-

sures of recidivism and desistance tend to (1) overstate the significance of distinctions

between licit and illicit behavior—especially for women, (2) undervalue macro struc-

tural and institutionalized barriers to stable housing and employment, (3) overly focus

on individual choices and narratives in contexts where freedoms are constrained by

structural and institutional policies and practices, (4) overlook the risks and erratic

nature of daily and family life for women and other vulnerable, marginalized and

poorly-resourced populations.

Criminologist Shadd Maruna recently called for “[Shifting] the lens away from

individual journeys to a much more collective experience, drawing attention to the

macro-political issues involved in crime, justice and reintegration” (2017, p. 13).

While a strong case is being made for shifting the research lens away from individual

journeys, criminal justice policies as well as a great deal of criminology research have

yet to follow suit. We see this paper as an effort to facilitate that shift.

From Recidivism to Desistance: A Brief Review

Social constructions of criminality and recidivism. Complex power and intersecting cul-

tural dynamics shape what is deemed deviant or criminal and how people accused of

deviance are categorized, labeled and treated in particular social contexts (Wacquant,

2010). Historically, gendered inequalities gave rise to legal permission for men to

assault the women under their control and to legal sanctions against women who fail

to comply with social norms governing obedience and sexuality (Basch 1986). In a

similar vein, studies show comparable rates of illegal drug use among white and Afri-

can American youth. However, African American youth are 40% more likely than

white youth to be arrested for drug offenses, in part due to racially driven practices of

policing in minority neighborhoods (Butts & Schiraldi, 2018).

Because structural disparities shape the experiences of people at every stage of

contact with the criminal justice system, neither arrests nor convictions are accurate

markers of having committed a crime or of having carried out a bad or anti-social act.

For example, because being locked up, rather than being released on bail while await-

ing trial, increases the likelihood of conviction and incarceration (Sankofa, 2018), men

and women who cannot afford even small sums for bail are more likely to be convicted

and incarcerated—regardless of the act for which they were arrested (Taxman et al.,

2005). Then, plea bargaining accounts for approximately 95% of criminal convictions,

a fact that throws into doubt any clear relationship between criminal records and actual