Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use

• Author: Doris C. Chu
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
• Published date: 01 May 2007
• Date: 01 May 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

RELIGIOSITY AND DESISTANCE

FROM DRUG USE

DORIS C. CHU

Arkansas State University

Recent research acknowledges an inverse relationship between religiosity and crime (though some claim it is a modest one),

but no desistance theories to date include religiosity in their model to help explain desistance from drug use. A better under-

standing of how religiosity is related to the initiation of and desistance from drug use can lead to more effective preventive

and rehabilitative interventions. Data derived from Wave 5 to Wave 7 of the National Youth Survey are employed to test

whether religiosity exerts an effect on initiation of and desistance from drug use. The findings suggest religious behavior has

a direct effect on individuals’ desistance from marijuana and hard-drug use. On the other hand, religious salience has a sig-

nificant deterrent effect only on the onset of drug use; it does not have a significant effect on individuals’desistance from

drugs. Policy implications are discussed, and future research suggestions are offered.

Keywords: religiosity; religion; desistance; drug use; religious behavior; religious salience; marijuana; hard drugs

Illicit drug use has been an important concern in the United States. According to the

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2005), in the year 2004,

“19.1 million Americans, or 7.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older, were current

illicit drug users” (p. 3). Although increased attention has been directed to the research on

drug abuse, some important issues remain understudied (Jang & Johnson, 2001). During his

first term in office, President George W. Bush created faith-based and community initia-

tives to strengthen the roles of faith-based and community organizations in addressing

social problems and to provide support for those organizations that target some popula-

tions, such as at-risk youths and prisoners. Still lacking is a theoretical basis to provide

more powerful explanations of why faith-based rehabilitation programs might be more effec-

tive than secular programs in facilitating individuals’ desistance. Thus, there is a need to

develop a criminological theory with which the relationship between faith-based initiatives

and desistance can be better understood. Also lacking is empirical research on whether they

are more effective.

Although recent research acknowledges an inverse relationship (though some claim it is

modest) between religion and crime (e.g., Albrecht, Chadwick, & Alcorn, 1977; Burkett &

White, 1974; Chard-Wierschem, 1998; Cochran & Akers, 1989; Evans et al., 1996;

Grasmick, Bursik, & Cochran, 1991; Higgins & Albrecht, 1977; B. R. Johnson, Jang, DeLi,

& Larson, 2000; R. E. Johnson, Marcos, & Bahr, 1987; Powell, 1997), no desistance theo-

ries to date include religiosity in their model as part of the explanation of desistance from

661

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 2007 661-679

DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485

© 2007 American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-

ments on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Doris C. Chu,

Department of Criminology, Sociology, and Geography, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467;

phone: (870) 972-3276; e-mail: dchu@astate.edu.

crime. The present research offers a theoretical framework that includes religiosity as an expla-

nation of desistance from drug use.

Two types of desistance—aided and unaided—are discussed in the literature. Aided desis-

tance occurs with the assistance of formal criminal justice agencies and services, such as those

provided by probation or prison; unaided desistance occurs without the assistance of formal

criminal justice agencies (Farrall, 2000). The focus of this study is unaided desistance.

DESISTANCE: DEFINITIONS, MODELS,AND SUPPORTING LITERATURE

In the studies of criminal careers, desistance is defined as a cessation or termination of

criminal behavior. Shover (1996) defines desistance as the voluntary termination of criminal

behavior. Additionally, Maruna (2001) constructively defines desistance as “the long-term

abstinence from crime among individuals who had previously engaged in persistent pat-

terns of criminal offending” (p. 26), emphasizing the sustenance of abstinence from

crime. Recently, criminologists have expanded the definition of desistance to include the

process by which people attain the state of nonoffending (Bushway, Piquero, Broidy,

Cauffman, & Mazerolle, 2001; Fagan, 1989; Uggen & Kruttschnitt, 1998). For example,

Fagan (1989) defined desistance from family violence as “a process of reduction in the fre-

quency and severity of family violence, leading to its eventual end when ‘true desistance’or

‘quitting’ occurs” (p. 380). Likewise, in Laub, Nagin, and Sampson’s (1998) study, they

illustrate a desistance model as “a gradual movement away from criminal offending,” which

varies from models considering desistance as discrete or abrupt cessation of offending

behavior. Similarly, Maruna (2001) points out that, unlike Alcoholics Anonymous members

who often provide the number of days or months since their last drink, most desisters drift

away from criminal offending gradually and thus cannot provide precise dates for the begin-

ning of their desistance (Bushway et al., 2001; Laub et al., 1998).

Desistance measures in most empirical studies center on the discrete state of nonoffend-

ing, not on a gradual process that reduces the severity and frequency of offending behav-

ior. Most of the time, studies define desisters as individuals who have not offended for a

certain period of time ranging from 1 to 11 years (Bushway et al., 2001; Farrington &

Hawkins, 1991; Warr, 1998). For example, in a national study conducted in England and

Wales, Graham and Bowling (1995) defined desisters as committing at least three offenses

or one serious offense in the past but not committing an offense for at least 12 months prior

to the interview. In Warr’s (1998) study, desisters were individuals who had reported using

marijuana in a previous interview but who did not report using marijuana during the refer-

ence period (1 year) preceding the current interview. The defined periods of desistance may

vary by studies. Unlike the above examples, Maruna (2001) considered desisters as the per-

sons with a record of one or two serious offending incidents or with massive criminal his-

tories involving repetitive and habitual offenses but who stated in the interview that they

would not be committing crimes in the future and reported they had been free of crime for

more than 1 year.

However, no matter how long the time period of nonoffending defined as desistance, it is

still difficult for researchers to determine whether offenders have completely stopped

offending (Baskin & Sommers, 1998; Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989) unless they are

tracked to the end of their lifetime. Farrington, Lambert, and West (1998) stated in their study

that “the true age of desistance can only be determined with certainty after offenders die”

(p. 97). Bushway et al. (2001) pointed out that the criminal careers of individual offenders vary

662 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR