The empirical study of desistence and resiliency in delinquency is a relatively new endeavor. Even recently, the concept of desistence in life course study has been viewed as a stable, discrete "end- state rather than a developmental process (Bushway et al., 2001). Many recent studies have instead devoted more focus on recidivism with policy-related motivations and there have simply been few theoretical explanations for desistence (Shover & Thompson, 1992). However, with renewed interest into the analysis of the desistence and resiliency phenomena, more explanations and empirical studies have emerged that afford unique insights into delinquency and challenge conventional definitions of these phenomena.
As an example, many life course investigations into delinquency attend to the relationship between age and offending but in doing so confound what are two distinct elements in a process, according to Bushway et al. (2001). Instead, as found by studying desistence, it may be "age-graded changes- in offending behavior rather than aging itself that are part of the causal mechanisms (Bushway et al. 2001). As Shover and Thompson (1992) explore, causal explanations for desistence may be linked to age, estimates of legal risk, differential expectations and degree of past success at criminal and legitimate means. Although their empirical study found no convincing support for most of these intervening variables (they admit limitations in their measures and data sampling), their findings did suggest that age acts in conjunction with expectations, education and past success in avoiding confinement in predicting desistence. Although there is much more to be examined, this research supports the view that desistence is a complex process impacted by other variables rather than a simple end state.
Much work has been done in the field of life course studies to identify factors that place youth at risk for delinquency.
