Reintegration and Desistance among Former Young Offenders in Ghana: Key Factors for Success

Introduction

Globally, many young people come into conflict with the law and spend time in juvenile detention/correctional centres. Annually, about one million juveniles are held in police custody worldwide, with at least 410,000 detained on remand and in correctional centres (Penal Reform International, 2019). In Ghana, as of April 2023, there were 254 male young offenders in the senior correctional centre in Accra (Bosomprah, 2023a), a slight reduction from April 2022, when there were 266 (Ghana News Agency, 2022). To prevent reoffending and improve public safety, their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration into society are crucial (Bosomprah, 2023a, 2023b; Chikadzi et al., 2022; Griffiths et al., 2007; Mugure, 2020, 2021; Muntingh, 2001). Studies have shown that the lack of established structures to guide and assist former young offenders to resettle and reintegrate into society after their release increases their likelihood of reoffending (Bosomprah, 2023a, 2023b; Chikadzi, 2017; Chaima et al., 2023)

While these juveniles may benefit from quality skills training and rehabilitation programmes during detention, many are released without reliable support programmes to aid their reintegration into society (Bosomprah, 2023a, 2023b; Buck et al., 2022; Denney et al., 2014; Fredericks et al., 2021; Ike et al., 2023; Kajawo and Johnson, 2023; Mugure, 2020; Sakib, 2022; Sharma, 2024). This lack of reintegration support renders many young releasees vulnerable to reoffending. Like their adult counterparts, studies show that these juvenile releasees face numerous obstacles, including stigmatization, unemployment, family and community rejection, a lack of housing, and inadequate social, emotional and financial support; these challenges often push them towards reoffending, resulting in rearrest and incarceration (Abrah, 2019; Bosomprah, 2023a; Buck et al., 2022; Chikadzi, 2017; Chikadzi et al., 2022; Denney et al., 2014; Fredericks et al., 2021; Ike et al., 2023; Markina, 2019; Mugure, 2021; Sakib, 2022; Sharma, 2024). In Namibia, for example, Fredericks et al. (2021) reported that released young offenders face multiple challenges – including a lack of skills, unemployment and limited family and community support – which make the reintegration process extremely difficult.

Similarly, in Ghana, young ex-offenders face comparable challenges in their reintegration journey. Research indicates that those released from the country’s youth correctional centre struggle with reintegration due to inadequate preparation for life post-incarceration, often leading to reoffending (Bosomprah, 2023a, 2023b). For instance, the Senior Correctional Center suffers from severe underfunding, lacking essential training materials and equipment for rehabilitation programmes, while facing overwhelming pressure on its limited facilities as the country’s only correctional centre for boys (Boakye and Akoensi, 2021). As a result, many released young offenders struggle to find employment, apply the limited vocational training they acquired during detention or continue their education due to financial constraints (Boakye and Akoensi, 2021; Bosomprah, 2023b). In addition, ‘support services that facilitate reintegration of children in conflict with the law with their family and community are lacking’, further undermining their successful rehabilitation and transition back into society (Boakye and Akoensi, 2021: 96). These structural challenges are further compounded by underlying social issues such as parental neglect or rejection, financial hardship and continued association with criminal peers – factors identified as key drivers of juvenile delinquency in Ghana (Dako-Gyeke et al., 2022). Given these persistent challenges, understanding the factors that enable successful reintegration becomes crucial.

This study seeks to explore the mechanisms that enable some young ex-offenders in Ghana to reintegrate successfully while others continue to reoffend. Drawing on desistance theory and qualitative data from in-depth semi-structured interviews, it aims to address a key question: What factors facilitate or hinder the reintegration of young ex-offenders in Ghana? Desistance theory encompasses several theoretical perspectives on how and why positive change, such as the cessation of offending among juvenile releasees, occurs and how it can be sustained (Barry, 2010; Hirschi, 1969; Maruna, 1997; McNeill, 2006; Paternoster, 1989; Paternoster and Bushway, 2009; Soyer, 2014; Weaver, 2019). These theoretical perspectives primarily include social bonds, rational choice, social learning/control and interactionist theories. For instance, social bonds theory posits that the cessation of criminal activities can be achieved by helping ex-offenders strengthen their ties to society, including education, employment and family (Hirschi, 1969; McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2019). By strengthening these connections, ex-offenders may develop a stake in society, serving as an informal way to dissuade further criminal behaviour. Rational choice theory suggests that criminal activities cease when offenders realize that the costs of engaging in crime far outweigh its benefits (Burnett, 1992; Clarke and Cornish, 1985; Cornish and Clarke, 1986; Paternoster and Bushway, 2009). Interactionist theory suggests that an interplay of agency (the ability to choose not to reoffend) and social forces results in long-term desistance (Farrall and Bowling, 1999; McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2019). Situating the current work in this body of thought illuminates how some young former offenders overcome significant obstacles to reintegrate into society and cease offending.

This study is critical since there is limited research on how some young ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society and avoid further criminal activity despite the lack of robust support systems in developing countries like Ghana. Such research has rich theoretical and policy implications, as it aids in identifying and prioritizing critical programs and services to help young ex-offenders smoothly reintegrate, reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend, improve public safety and enhance their contributions to society. Examining the experiences and perspectives of young Ghanaian ex-offenders who have successfully reintegrated into society and have ceased offending is vital for shaping rehabilitation and reintegration policy, as well as advancing desistance theory.

Background

In the Gold Coast (now Ghana), the formal administration of the criminal justice system, including juvenile justice, was introduced during British colonial rule (Ame, 2017). Various laws enacted between 1928 and 1946 established the formal justice system, replacing the traditional pre-colonial approach to handling children who violated social norms within families and communities (Ame, 2017; Riby-Williams, 1954). In 1947, under the colonial administration, Borstal institutes were established as industrial schools to help reform delinquent children in the Gold Coast (Ame, 2017).

The post-independence Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), consolidated juvenile justice-related legislation from 1944 and guided juvenile justice administration in Ghana (Ame, 2017) until the passage of the current Juvenile Justice Act (JJA), 2003 (Act 653). The current Act outlines the procedural processes that must be followed when dealing with young people in conflict with the law and the conditions under which custodial and non-custodial sentencing options may be considered. The Act aims to advance juveniles’ best interests, including securing their ‘right to privacy during arrest, the investigation of offence, at the trial of the offence and at any other stage of the cause or the matter’ to protect their identity (Government of Ghana, 2015: 4).

The JJA defines any person under the age of 18 who comes into conflict with the law as a juvenile, who ‘shall be dealt with in a manner which is different from an adult, except under exceptional circumstances’ as enshrined in section 17 on exclusive jurisdiction and transfer (Government of Ghana, 2015: 4). The Act prohibits sending young offenders to an adult prison. It also establishes a juvenile court system and specialized junior and senior correctional centers ¹ for young people. Section 46 of the Act specifies where juveniles and young people can be sent and the duration of their detention: up to 3 months for those under the age of 16; 6 months for those between 16 and 18; 24 months for those 18 or above but under 21 and 3 years for any serious offence (Government of Ghana, 2015). Juvenile offenders under 18 are detained in a junior correctional centre, but those between 18 and 21 years are sent to a senior correctional centre. However, juvenile offenders under 18 convicted of a serious offence are detained in a senior correctional centre; these offences include murder, rape, defilement, indecent assault involving unlawful harm, robbery with aggravated circumstance, drug offences and offences related to firearms (Government of Ghana, 2015: 19).

Despite the rehabilitative and rights-based goals of Ghana’s 2003 JJA, its implementation has consistently fallen short across key institutions – from the police and courts to correctional centres and social welfare departments (Ame et al., 2020; Boakye and Akoensi, 2021). According to Boakye and Akoensi (2021), while some juvenile justice professionals strive to implement its provisions, lapses such as arbitrary detention, trial delays, inadequate legal representation and limited diversion access undermine the letter and the spirit of the JJA. These shortcomings are rooted in institutional constraints, including limited resources and a lack of specialized training to ensure child-friendly policing – particularly in rural areas where units like the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DOVVSU), expected to handle/process juveniles in conflict with the law, are absent (Boakye and Akoensi, 2021). Similarly, Ame et al. (2020) highlight that child panels, intended for youth diversion, were non-existent in their study region, revealing a gap between legal intent and practice. As Boakye and Akoensi (2021: 84) put it, ‘there is a major gap between the JJA provisions and what happens in practice’. This gap extends to rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, as studies show that young people held in detention facilities in Ghana are not prepared for post-incarceration life (Bosomprah, 2023b).

Rehabilitation and reintegration

In a narrow sense, social reintegration refers to the support offered to released offenders during their re-entry to society after incarceration (Buck et al., 2022; Griffiths et al., 2007; Markina, 2019; Mugure, 2021; Sharma, 2024). More broadly, it involves ‘various forms of interventions and programmes aimed at preventing individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour and, where an individual is already in conflict with the law, reducing the likelihood of reoffending’ (Muleya, 2022: 1035). Muleya’s definition of reintegration encapsulates rehabilitation, which, according to Raia and Hirschfield (2014: 1), is defined as a ‘program of treatment that aims to reduce delinquency through addressing its perceived individual causes’. For Ward and Maruna (2007: 109), rehabilitation is intended to equip offenders with the ‘capabilities to meet their needs, pursue their interests, and therefore live happy, fulfilling lives’. In brief, rehabilitation involves offender-specific interventions to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, social reintegration transcends rehabilitation and includes further interventions required to support the resettlement of discharged offenders in society. As scholars assert, social reintegration is both a process and an event – a long-term process that begins before release and continues well after it (Buck et al., 2022; Griffiths et al., 2007; Markina, 2019; Mugure, 2021; Sharma, 2024).

Why is offender social reintegration important? Social reintegration programmes play a crucial role in reducing reoffending (Chikadzi et al., 2022). Studies indicate that failing to support ex-offenders in their resettlement after detention leads to higher crime rates due to reoffending ( Chikadzi, 2017). Further studies reveal that ex-offenders who participate in rehabilitation and reintegration programmes are less likely to reoffend than those who do not (Buck et al., 2022; Markina, 2019; Mugure, 2021; Muntingh, 2001; Sharma, 2024), emphasizing the need to strengthen such support systems in reducing recidivism. The importance of these programmes is seen in a study from South Africa, which found that ex-offenders without access to post-incarceration support had trouble meeting basic needs like accommodation, food and clothing, increasing their tendency to join criminal gangs as a means of survival (Chikadzi et al., 2022).

Reintegration programmes are especially important because young people in conflict with the law predominantly come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (Dako-Gyeke et al., 2022; Bosomprah, 2023b; Kajawo and Johnson, 2023; Kandala, 2018). A study of young offenders in Malawi, for example, revealed that inmates were socioeconomically disadvantaged (Kajawo and Johnson, 2023), mirroring the situation in other African countries (Dako-Gyeke et al., 2022; Bosomprah, 2023b; Kajawo and Johnson, 2023; Kandala, 2018). To support the smooth reintegration of ex-offenders and reduce recidivism, it is imperative to offer various forms of assistance, including education, skills training and financial support for further education or to help individuals establish small businesses, such as opening their own shops. Previous studies have demonstrated that without these supports, individuals encounter numerous challenges, including social isolation due to family and community rejection, homelessness, stigmatization, unemployment, as well as physical and mental health issues and substance abuse (Aloisio et al., 2014; Batastini et al., 2017; Buck et al., 2022; Fredericks et al., 2021; Griffiths et al., 2007; Markina, 2019; Martinez and Abrams, 2013; Mugure, 2021; O’Neil et al., 2017; Sakib, 2022; Sharma, 2024).

A major barrier to reintegration in sub-Saharan Africa is the stigmatization of released offenders, leading to their ostracism by the community and severely limiting their ability to build healthy social connections, find employment, secure housing and pursue education (Ike et al., 2023; Mugure, 2021; Sakib, 2022). In Nigeria, stigmatization resulting from the ‘lack of trust in the genuine repentance of ex-offenders’ is a significant barrier to reintegration (Ike et al., 2023: 17).

Similarly, in Namibia, released offenders face discrimination, with many employers reluctant to hire former offenders because of their prior involvement in crime (Fredericks et al., 2021).

In the Ghanaian context, young ex-offenders face similar reintegration challenges from stigma and family rejection to lack of institutional support and employment opportunities, limiting their chances of building a stable, productive life (Abrah, 2019; Acheampong et al., 2022; Boakye and Akoensi, 2021). For instance, Abrah (2019) highlights how societal labelling and stigma hinder the reintegration of young offenders, reinforcing criminal behaviour, while relocation to communities unaware of their past can support desistance. These challenges underscore the urgent need for reintegration strategies that address both societal attitudes and systemic barriers to support the successful transition of young ex-offenders into society.

Theoretical background

This study is grounded in desistance theory. Desistance refers to ‘ceasing offending and then refraining from further offending’ (McNeill, 2006: 47). Weaver (2019: 642) defines desistance as ‘the process by which people come to cease and sustain cessation of offending behaviour’. Shover (1996: 121) describes it as ‘the voluntary termination of serious criminal participation’, while also suggesting that minor offences do not necessarily negate desistance. Laub and Sampson (2001: 11) distinguish between termination and desistance, viewing termination as the point ‘at which criminal activity stops’ and desistance as ‘the causal process that supports the termination of offending’. Despite these varying definitions, desistance broadly concerns how and why offending behaviour stops and remains in check over time.

Different explanations offered for the processes of desistance and change emphasize (1) agency, (2) social/structural factors and (3) an interactionist perspective (Barry, 2010; Maruna, 1997). Rational choice theories, for example, hold that individuals maximize their expected utility (Clarke and Cornish, 1985; Cornish and Clarke, 1986), so ex-offenders consciously choose to desist when motivated to pursue a future free of offending (Paternoster, 1989; Paternoster and Bushway, 2009; Soyer, 2014). This decision may stem from a distressing experience (Haggard et al., 2001) or be a response to an accumulation of unfavourable experiences (Cusson and Pinsonneault, 1986). This line of reasoning suggests that ‘the decision to desist is based on a conscious reappraisal of the costs and benefits of crime’ (Weaver, 2019: 645). Burnett (1992) found that ex-offenders who decided not to reoffend were motivated by the realization that the costs of crime outweighed the benefits. Similarly, Paternoster and Bushway (2009: 1121) developed an ‘identity theory of criminal desistance’, arguing that offenders decide to change because of increasing dissatisfaction with their lives, described as a ‘crystallization of discontent’, creating the motivation for imagining and embracing a new identity (self) as a future non-offender. Other agency-based explanations, such as those focusing on age and maturation, ² have faced criticism for disregarding the social context that influences individual agency. As Weaver (2019: 645) argues, age and maturational theories ‘divorce the individual from the context within which these developmental changes occur by ignoring the role of relational, cultural, social or structural processes’.

Social/structural explanations, encompassing social bonds, social learning and social control theories, focus on how external influences on offenders shape their desire to change or cease criminal involvement. Social learning and differential association frameworks indicate that the exact circumstances under which some may learn, model or imitate criminal behaviour can also explain desistance from offending (Weaver, 2019; Wright and Cullen, 2004). Social bonds theories hold that strong ties to society encourage conformity as they help create a shared stake in society – an interest to protect, not to jeopardize (Hirschi, 1969; Weaver, 2019; McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2019: 645) argues that ‘employment and marriage confer obligations and expectations on the individual that generate informal controls through a network of social bonds, regardless of prior individual differences in criminal propensity’. Similarly, Burnett (2000: 14) asserts that ex-offenders abstain from reoffending because they are unwilling to risk their new interests, such as ‘a partner, a child and a good job’. However, as McNeill (2006: 46) points out, when these social ties are weak or absent, ‘people who offend have less to lose from continuing to offend’.

Although social/structural explanations shed light on how an offender’s social environment influences desistance, they do not explain ‘how the individual perceives and responds to such influences, to which interactionist theories attend’ (Weaver, 2019: 648). Interactionist theories focus on how offenders interpret and evaluate the objective events and changes they experience – such as arrests and detention – which significantly affect their decision to desist from crime (McNeill, 2006). These theories hold that desistance arises from an interplay between individual personal agency and broader social influences (Farrall and Bowling, 1999; McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2019). Farrall and Bowling (1999: 261) describe desistance as a process ‘produced through an interplay between individual choices and a range of wider social forces, institutional and societal practices which are beyond the control of the individual’. Overall, then, desistance theory helps explain how and why some ex-offenders transition from offending to non-offending by focusing on the role of agency, social/structural influences and individuals’ subjective meanings/mental impressions of the objective events and changes that motivate and sustain their cessation of criminal behaviour.

Research methodology

The current work focused on understanding the pathways to successful reintegration and desistance from crime among some former young offenders in Ghana. Given the study’s focus, a qualitative method was chosen for its ability to prioritize insiders’ subjective experiences and provide contextual understanding of social phenomena (Braun and Clarke, 2019; Creswell, 2013). The research participants, referred to as desisters, were young male ex-offenders who were between 18 and 21 years old at the time of their incarceration. They had served sentences of up to 3 years for theft-related offences at the senior correctional centre in Accra (Ghana). They had remained without subsequent arrest or conviction following their release. At the time of the study, their average age was approximately 25 years.

This study is based on primary data from 41 in-depth semi-structured interviews with these desisters, whose rich lived experiences offer valuable insights into the phenomenon under investigation. The desisters were selected using purposive and snowball (referral) sampling methods, which help recruit individuals with a wealth of information and perspectives crucial for understanding the studied social phenomenon (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007). In this study, participants were identified through the researcher’s local contacts – including correctional officers and community organizations that support released offenders – as well as through referrals from those already interviewed.

Before encountering legal troubles, these former young offenders endured significant hardships, including poverty, parental neglect or abuse and family breakdowns through divorce or separation or the death of a parent. They were either school dropouts or had completed only primary/junior school. As a result, their struggle to survive continued after their release. According to their accounts, none had any substance use problems before, during or after their discharge from the correctional centre. Of the 41 participants, only five had married and fathered children. At the correctional centre, only four had pursued academic education (i.e. senior secondary school), while the remaining 37 had opted for vocational training such as tailoring, craftwork, auto-mechanics and vulcanizing.

The research interviews, conducted in Ghana between July and August 2023, focused on the following questions: How did you get into trouble with the law? (2) How long did you stay in the correctional centre, what did you do while there and when were you discharged from the centre? (3) When did you decide to stop further offending and why? (4) How did you reintegrate into society after your discharge from the correctional centre? Did you receive any support to aid your reintegration? If yes, describe the support, specifying the supporters and what this support meant to you. (5) Is there any additional information you would like to share?

All the interviews, except for three conducted in English, were held in Twi, a dominant Ghanaian local language. Except for one phone interview, all were conducted in person at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the researcher and the participants. For instance, while some of the interviews were conducted at the participants’ workplaces, others were conducted in public areas, including Accra Mall and the University of Ghana. Six interviews were audio-recorded, while notes capturing key interview points were taken for the others. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, while notes taken were also typed to obtain soft copies for coding and analysis, as explained below. All research ethical protocols, including obtaining informed consent from participants, were strictly observed.

The interview transcripts and the researcher’s typed notes were imported into NVivo software (version 12), which provides a platform that facilitates qualitative data coding and analysis. Using NVivo, the coding process involved a step-by-step approach in identifying key interview segments and extracting their core significance in relation to the study through summaries. The NVivo’s search tools, such as text queries and word frequency functions, enabled the researcher to identify specific keywords, such as ‘support’ and ‘lessons learned’, within the data and examine the contexts in which participants used them.

A thematic analysis, which often employs a combination of deductive and inductive coding approaches (Braun and Clarke, 2019; Saldaña, 2021), was conducted to uncover the recurring patterns in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2019; Creswell, 2013; Saldaña, 2021). Whereas deductive coding begins with pre-established themes/codes derived from the study’s theoretical background, existing insights and research questions, inductive coding starts with no such prior themes/codes. Deductive coding is recommended when ‘inquiry is theoretically driven’ and focuses on specific experiences, phenomena and actions expected to be in the empirical data (Saldaña, 2021: 41). However, even when researchers approach a study with prior knowledge or expectations, they must remain open to surprises or unexpected findings (Saldaña, 2021).

In this study, both deductive and inductive coding methods were employed. The analysis focused not only on identifying data that aligned with pre-determined, theoretically driven codes/themes – including agency, personal choices/decisions and social/structural factors such as interactions with the juvenile justice system – but also on uncovering elements that could either challenge these themes or introduce novel insights. Building on the initial coding conducted during the interviewing and transcription phases, the transcripts were subsequently reviewed in greater depth to enhance the understanding of participants’ reintegration narratives. Statements, phrases and ideas were colour-coded either to align with pre-defined, theoretically informed themes or to identify and develop new themes as needed. The following were examples of words or parts of words used as flags to identify relevant themes: (1) Agency-related terms – ‘behaviour change’, ‘prove them wrong’, ‘good example’, ‘resolve’, ‘choices’, ‘lessons learned’, ‘decisions’. (2) Social/structural influences – ‘support’, ‘freedoms’, ‘treated well’, ‘help’, ‘programs’, ‘opportunities’, ‘guidance’, ‘financial assistance’, stake in society’, ‘justice system experiences’. (3) Interaction between agency and structure – ‘reassessing circumstances’, ‘support inspires change’, ‘changes and their meanings’, ‘lessons learned’, ‘not disappoint others’. To further validate the themes and provide depth to the analysis, representative quotes were selected from the transcripts.

Findings

The participants’ narratives revealed that their desistance was shaped by an interplay between their personal agency and the influence of their social environment.

Discussions

This study investigated the mechanisms underpinning reintegration and desistance from criminal behaviour among some former young offenders. Participants’ narratives underscore the role of individual agency in fostering desistance while highlighting the enabling or constraining influence of social environments. Their personal resolve to change aligns with rational choice theories, which suggest that individuals make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis (Burnett, 1992; Cornish and Clarke, 1986; Haggard et al., 2001; Weaver, 2019). Recognizing the tangible benefits of desistance – such as fairer treatment, expanded freedoms and legitimate opportunities – participants were motivated to abandon criminal behaviour, echoing Weaver’s (2019) insight that social context plays a crucial role in shaping desistance. The study also underscores the pivotal role of strong financial support and societal ties – particularly through employment and education – in reinforcing the decisions of young ex-offenders to sustain desistance from crime. As reflected in participants’ narratives, stable employment enables released young offenders to meet their material needs and help them reorient their identities around socially accepted roles and responsibilities. Access to education and work by the young former offenders further reduced the chances of associating with criminogenic peers and diminished the allure of former criminal lifestyles. Thus, employment and education serve not only as practical reintegration tools but also as strong catalysts for psychological change, supporting the broader view that successful desistance demands both structural support and identity transformation opportunities.

Aside from education and employment, this study reveals the vital role of consistent social support in the form of mentorship and encouragement from correctional staff, NGOs and community stakeholders in helping young ex-offenders remain committed to desistance. For example, the regular check-ins and words of encouragement from a correctional officer epitomize how positive relationships with authority figures can foster a sense of accountability and belonging, acting as motivation for the former offenders to sustain desistance. Participant narratives further revealed that emotional, material and practical support acted as a buffer against setbacks and a motivator during difficult times post-release. One participant’s story of academic perseverance, supported by the YMCA and CRRECENT, illustrates how targeted social support systems can reignite hope and self-efficacy to ensure success. It also underscores the importance of second chances for young former offenders and the need for reintegration systems to recognize and respond to these needs. Thus, supportive interventions and relationships (e.g. with mentors) could help young ex-offenders to reject criminal labels and reconstruct positive identities.

These findings resonate with previous studies conducted in Ghana, which suggest that if former young offenders receive adequate support that strengthens their social bonds to society, they are less likely to reoffend (Abrah, 2019; Acheampong et al., 2022; Adzewodah, 2019; Boakye and Akoensi, 2021). Conversely, without robust institutional support systems for released ex-offenders, their chances of recidivism are high due to the high risk of resocialization with criminal peers and renewed exposure to criminal opportunities (Abrah, 2019). The current study’s observations also corroborate evidence from previous studies beyond Ghana (Buck et al., 2022; Chikadzi, 2017; Chikadzi et al., 2022; Denney et al., 2014; Fredericks et al., 2021; Ike et al., 2023; Markina, 2019; Mugure, 2021; Sakib, 2022; Sharma, 2024). For example, studies in Kenya (Mugure, 2020), Nigeria (Ike et al., 2023) and Namibia (Fredericks et al., 2021) suggest that young ex-offenders with strong social bonds, including social support and stable employment, were less likely to resume criminal activity. Consistent with the desistance literature, the participants’ accounts in this study demonstrate that sustained encouragement and material assistance help desisters ‘envision an alternative identity and an alternative future for the offender even through periods when they cannot see these possibilities for themselves’ (McNeill, 2006: 49). Investments in desisters – through education, vocational training and mentorship – align with theoretical insights from Hirschi (1969), Burnett (2000), McNeill (2006) and Weaver (2019) underscoring the importance of strengthening social bonds to foster informal social control.

The findings are also consistent with interactionist theories, which hold that desistance is not solely the result of individual willpower but emerges from the interplay between personal agency and structural influences (McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2019). In the current study, participants’ experiences within the criminal justice system – from arrest to remand, trial, sentencing and post-release reintegration – and their reflections on them shaped their choices to stop offending. As McNeill (2006) has argued, desistance is not only about the events and changes individuals undergo but also about the subjective meaning they ascribe to these experiences. The participants’ reflections illustrate how support systems – whether emotional, financial or material – provided them with a sense of purpose and connection to society. This support strengthened their social bonds and gave them a stake in pursuing conventional goals such as education or vocational activities, further motivating them to desist from crime. Desistance, therefore, emerges as a dynamic process resulting from the interdependent relationship between personal agency and structural conditions.

Conclusion

This research used desistance theory and qualitative data from in-depth semi-structured interviews with former young offenders in Ghana to examine factors influencing successful reintegration and sustained criminal behaviour cessation. The study indicates that young ex-offenders in Ghana who reintegrate into society and cease reoffending rely on their agency and support – including education, skills training, accommodation, work, advising, mentoring, and financial, social, and emotional aid – from different actors, most of whom are good Samaritans. This work contributes to criminological literature by providing empirical evidence reinforcing the central tenets of agency, social/structural and interactionist theories of desistance. The study highlights that desistance is not solely the product of individual decisions but also of societal investments in rehabilitation and reintegration. This interplay between individual agency and structural support is vital in fostering sustainable desistance. The study extends the literature by providing firsthand evidence of the importance of creating enabling environments for positive behavioural change. It highlights the critical role of social bonds and supportive networks in reinforcing desistance, contributing to theories of informal social control. This evidence calls for policy interventions to assist and empower former offenders to meet their socioeconomic and emotional needs to redirect their thoughts, energies and actions away from crime towards pro-social behaviours, advancing both theoretical and practical understandings of desistance.

This article further contributes to criminological literature by highlighting that while young offenders’ decisions to desist from crime may emerge at various points during their interactions with the criminal justice system – particularly within correctional or rehabilitation centres, this personal determination is only the initial step in a broader process. Resocialization efforts within these centres, including disciplinary procedures and skill-building, may encourage reflection, maturity and a shift towards conventional, pro-social values. However, without access to post-release social/emotional support, employment and educational opportunities, and community reintegration, the progress made within the correctional centre risks regression. This insight advances the literature by revealing the critical, dynamic interplay between personal agency and structural supports enabling or impeding sustained positive behavioural change.

This study has one primary limitation, which is the makeup of the participant group, as it consisted solely of former young offenders involved in theft-related offences. Thus, future studies should include participants with a wider range of offences, such as sexual offences and murder. Future studies should also investigate how personal agency operates in diverse socio-economic and cultural settings. For example, research could explore whether the motivation to ‘prove critics wrong’ is a universal driver or context-specific.