For too long, discussions about the justice system have revolved around recidivism—a narrow, binary measure that frames outcomes as either total success or total failure. But the path away from criminal behavior is far more complex, shaped by a range of social, psychological, and structural factors. At The Fortune Society, we’re focused on understanding what truly supports lasting change. Our experience has shown that rearrest data alone tells an incomplete story—which is why we’re shifting the focus to desistance and other key metrics, working to reframe the narrative imposed on system-impacted individuals. We sat down with Dr. Ronald F. Day, Fortune’s Chief Operations Officer, to learn more.  

Can you describe what desistance is and how it is unique from recidivism? 

With desistance, we’re looking at different factors that influence people to desist from crime. We’re trying to better understand how people who have experience with the criminal legal system can disengage from criminal activity and potentially thrive in the community, despite many of the pitfalls that people face in their reentry from incarceration. 

There are many people who may never have any additional touchpoints with the system, but we know very little about these individuals and their experiences. With this study, Pathways Home: Desistance from Crime in the Context of Parole, we plan to share the insight we gain with the public to expand conversations about desistance in this field.  

There are tremendous limitations to recidivism, and we’re now trying to broaden our horizons as academics, as practitioners, as providers. We must start thinking about and acting on initiatives that give us a much broader perspective on what is happening with the people we serve.  

What are some of the factors you have observed that can increase the likelihood of desistance?  

We know that there are factors that may increase the likelihood of desistance, such as employment, education, and stable housing. For example, if a person is gainfully employed, they’re far less likely to be engaged in crime. But we also know that it’s not a job alone; it’s often the pro-social relationships that people establish while at work that make crime less palatable. 

Studies have consistently found that people who educated themselves while incarcerated are less likely to recidivate. But that provides little to no explanation about what education does to increase someone’s success. For example, if a person who went to prison with a 5th grade education earned a GED and an associate degree, then that person will be more employable, likely have better negotiation skills, and may be more inclined to commit to a hectic schedule.  

The likelihood of desisting from crime also increases by being stably housed. In fact, this need is referenced most often by people in reentry but in many cases these individuals nonetheless end up in shelters or unstably housed, risking greater exposure to the issues that resulted in a person’s incarceration.  

Can you share some more details about the methods used in the Pathways Home study? 

We started with over 400 people in the initial sample, and over several years, we observed them making a complicated transition. During the study, we engaged with the participants at five different intervals: within 60 days of their release, and then again after 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. There were many participants who returned to custody, and we conducted interviews with them on Rikers Island to understand what circumstances led to their reincarceration. Because ours was a longitudinal study, we think that we’ll get a much better sense of what people did to resist temptation and remain free.  

We added an innovative component to the study: we enlisted what we called “Support Agents,” who were randomly assigned to provide follow-up and support to half of the participants (treatment group), while the other half did not receive this additional support (control group). The Support Agents made phone calls for the participants, connected them with services, and checked in with them for roughly one year. The hope is that this added support made a difference in the lives of those who received it. 

How do you hope the Pathways Home study will inform the way we approach reentry services?  

I hope this study will open additional avenues of exploration into the lives of people transitioning from prison into the community, beyond learning if an individual reoffended. Indeed, when you turn on the news, you hear about a person who has a criminal record who just committed a crime. You don’t hear about how people have done well, how they have been able to navigate through many of the pitfalls and barriers that people often face in reentry. We must tell this more nuanced story, not just about success, but the process of what they went through, and how they made it through the gauntlet and were still able to thrive. 

This study was designed to inform the field, especially organizations that serve system-impacted individuals. We will learn from what people told us, some of whom served varying sentences in prison, and had eclectic experiences. The participants shared valuable time with our research team, and we believe strongly that time will make a difference in how we engage with people returning home from incarceration.