Learning from Credible Messengers: Community Violence Interventions Provide a Validating and Supportive Mechanism for Crime Desistance
Join us this week (including today) at the American Society of Criminology Meetings (2023)
Criminology, as a field of study, has amassed a substantial literature base focused on criminal desistance. Desistance refers to the process by which individuals cease engaging in criminal activities. This field explores the factors and mechanisms that contribute to individuals making the decision to give up involvement in criminal activity. It involves understanding the processes of change, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society. Desistance is a process—it does not occur overnight, nor does it imply that individuals move from their former selves into desistance without some steps forward and some steps back.
As we know from U.S. Bureau of Justice’s surveys and administrative data collection capturing information about recidivism after state prison release, the majority of people released from prison are re-arrested at some point. Looking at my home state of Pennsylvania, Bret Bucklen and colleagues’ 2022 PA Department of Correction’s report on recidivism of Pennsylvania prisoners shows that 64.7% of releases in 2016 were re-arrested or re-incarcerated within three years of release.
As desistance theories were being extended in the 1990s and early 2000s to encompass a deeper understanding of human agency and identity, mass incarceration was wreaking havoc on our communities, and particularly communities of color. Paradoxically, this era of mass incarceration has provided an opportunity to better understand the transformation that some individuals (albeit a small percentage) undergo as they navigate incarceration and subsequently return home. Jeremy Travis, former Director of the National Institute of Justice, brought the issue of prisoner reentry to the forefront of policymakers’ and researchers’ minds, reminding us “they all come back” and that “the reentry process presents singular opportunities for advancing social goals—opportunities difficult to pursue within the legal constructs and operational realities of current criminal justice policy.”
One of these opportunities is to lift up and highlight the role that credible messengers play in our urban communities today. Credible messengers are often individuals who have been in prison, personally experienced or overcome involvement in violence, crime, or conflict. Their credibility stems from shared experiences, allowing them to establish trust and rapport with community members facing similar challenges. This shared background enhances their ability to effectively convey messages, offer guidance, and mediate conflicts within the community. Credible messengers are increasingly the centerpiece of many community violence interventions used today to reduce gun violence. Credible messengers are outreach workers, case managers, violence interrupters, restorative justice trainers, mentors, community healers, and program managers, as well as organizational/nonprofit founders.
In academic-speak, these credible messengers have “desisted” from crime and are motivating and inspiring others to move into (or further into) the process of desistance. Credible messengers have formed and maintained new identities—this shift in identity has been referred to as secondary desistance. Furthermore and importantly, community violence interventions provide a validating and supportive mechanism for tertiary desistance—part of long-term desistance where credible messengers have a sense of belonging to a formal, pro-social community.
American Society of Criminology President Shadd Maruna and his colleague Stephen Farrall were two of the first scholars to provide a scholarly avenue or backdrop from which to understand the roles of credible messengers who were formerly incarcerated. Maruna’s seminal research on “making good” has helped center the writings about desistance around self-determination and prosocial labeling, with an emphasis on accountability and reflexivity. This is directly applicable to credible messengers and the distinctions across primary, secondary and tertiary desistance.
My discussion here about theories and scholarly research is only to make the point that Maruna and Farrall and others (Fergus McNeill and Beth Weaver and other mostly non-US-based) scholars are advancing the research in this area not simply for theoretical discourse—but because it has significant practical implications. Findings from their research studies can be used as the foundation for developing sound policies and programming that support individuals as they move away from crime. But it is not simply academic scholars acting alone to create the backdrop for understanding the work of credible messengers. The basic foundations of knowledge here must be built with principles of equity and inclusion in mind. This week during the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting (2023) taking place in Philadelphia, the conference includes a number of roundtables and panels where credible messengers bridge the (often huge) gap between academic research and the real-world experiences of those directly involved on the ground in communities. Their firsthand experiences will shed light on successful strategies, practical challenges, and the human side of the issues being addressed.
Here are two highlights if you are attending ASC 2023 at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown:
(1): Wednesday, Nov 15, 2:00 to 3:20pm, Conference Suite I, 3rd Floor. Roundtable: Gun Violence Prevention: The Role and Experience of Credible Messengers from Three East Coast Cities
(2): Thursday, Nov 16, 9:30 to 10:50am, Conference Suite III, 3rd Floor, Roundtable: From Outlaw to Citizen, from Desistance to Peacemaking: The Role of Lived Experience in Social Transformation
See you there!