The Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Management Policies: Views From Professionals

Abstract

In this study, the perceptions of community corrections professionals and clinical specialists toward the collateral consequences of current sex offender management policies were explored and contrasted. In addition, potential influencing factors of these perceptions were examined. Results indicate high levels of belief that sex offenders experience a variety of collateral consequences upon reentry; however, community corrections professionals are significantly less likely to believe that sex offenders experience collateral consequences than clinical specialists. Furthermore, few demographic variables were found to significantly influence the perceptions of the sample. Implications for the management of sex offenders are discussed.

Keywords

sex offending registration notification residence restrictions

Introduction

Sex offender management moved to the forefront of policy issues in the 1990s as several highly publicized cases involving the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of children were reported by the media. Fearful for the safety of children from sex offenders, the public demanded increased protection from this class of offenders (Meloy, Saleh, & Wolff, 2007; Zgoba, 2004). The two most notable pieces of legislation to emerge from this period, the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law, created a management system known as sex offender registration and notification (SORN). SORN requires convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement and have that information be made available to the public via the Internet (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007). The type of information made publicly available varies by state but generally includes a photograph of the offender, home address, race, age or date of birth, physical description, and a description of the convicted offense(s) that necessitated registration of the offender (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013). Although not federally mandated, more than half of all states have enacted residence restrictions that prevent sex offenders from living within a certain distance (varying by state) from locations where children typically gather such as schools and parks (Barnes, 2011; Mancini, Barnes, & Mears, 2013).

SORN and residence restrictions have been the subject of extensive debate and criticism. Empirical findings reveal that current sex offender management policies have little to no effect on recidivism (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010; Tewksbury, Jennings, & Zgoba, 2012; Zgoba, Veysey, & Dalessandro, 2010). In addition, scholars have pointed out several collateral consequences that stem from current sex offender management policies (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009). While the aim of sex offender management policies is to prevent future victimization, the collateral consequences experienced by registered sex offenders have the potential to increase risk of reoffense as they severely limit the ability of offenders to attain necessities such as housing and employment (Jennings, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2012).

The perceptions of professionals interacting with or supervising sex offenders reveal mixed support for current sex offender management policies overall (Connor, 2012; Levenson, Fortney, & Baker, 2010; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Meloy, Curtis, & Boatwright, 2013; Sample & Kadleck, 2008; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, 2013; Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Payne, 2011), but little is known about how professionals perceive the collateral consequences of current sex offender management policies. The present study seeks to advance the knowledge regarding collateral consequences of sex offender management policies in three ways. First, the perceptions of professionals regarding their belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences of sex offender management policies will be investigated. If professionals who interact with or supervise sex offenders do not believe that this population regularly experiences collateral consequences associated with current sex offender management policies, this finding would run contrary to the results of numerous studies in which sex offenders have reported experiencing a variety of collateral consequences stemming from SORN and residence restrictions (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009). A discrepancy between the beliefs of professionals and the populations they work with has the potential to affect the way services are delivered. For example, the impact of collateral consequences may be an issue that needs to be addressed during treatment; however, if the frequency or severity of collateral consequences being experienced is underestimated by the treatment professional, inappropriate treatment approaches may be applied. Second, comparisons will be made between the perceptions of community corrections professionals and clinical specialists to determine what role, if any, profession plays in shaping attitudes toward collateral consequences. When sex offenders return to living in the community, many are under the supervision of community corrections professionals and/or are receiving some form of treatment from clinical specialists. Community corrections professionals and clinical specialists have a great influence on the experiences of sex offenders in the community; however, these professional groups play vastly different roles in the management of sex offenders. Community corrections professionals are tasked with enforcing the policies that create collateral consequences for the offenders, such as ensuring that sex offenders are not residing within restricted areas. The priority of clinical specialists, however, is the treatment of sex offenders. Treatment may include addressing collateral consequences dealing with emotional or psychological distress. By comparing the perceptions of professionals who approach the management of sex offenders with different priorities, a greater understanding will be gained of the role of professional characteristics as a source of perceptions toward collateral consequences. Finally, demographic characteristics will be examined as potential sources of perceptions toward collateral consequences. The literature examining professional support for sex offender management policies has revealed few individual characteristics that influence policy support (Connor, 2012; Levenson, Fortney, et al., 2010; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, 2013). It is currently unknown if the same can be said for the perceptions of professionals toward collateral consequences.

Literature Review

Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Management Policies

Several studies have shown that sex offenders returning to their communities have difficulty securing housing and employment (Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000). Sex offenders who are able to obtain housing are often found to reside in economically disadvantaged and socially disorganized areas (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008; Hughes & Kadleck, 2008; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011; Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006; Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010). In addition, sex offenders have reported increased social isolation, including the deterioration of relationships with family members, friends, and significant others (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Mercado et al., 2008; Tewksbury, 2005, 2013; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). The breakdown of social relationships removes valuable support structures for offenders as they attempt to reintegrate back into society. Furthermore, sex offenders experience numerous emotional and psychological issues following their registration, including increased levels of shame, depression, stress, hopelessness, and feelings of stigmatization (Comartin, Kernsmith, & Miles, 2010; Jeglic, Mercado, & Levenson, 2012; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007; Mercado et al., 2008; Tewksbury, 2012, 2013; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010). Although reported with less frequency, offenders have also recounted instances of being threatened, harassed, or assaulted by community members following the discovery of their status as a registered sex offender (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson, D’Amora, et al., 2007; Mercado et al., 2008; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000).

While all offenders face obstacles when returning to society, sex offenders represent a unique subset of offenders who are particularly susceptible to collateral consequences due to the sexual nature of their crimes. For instance, in a study of employer attitudes toward hiring offenders, Albright and Denq (1996) found that offenders convicted of sex crimes were the least likely to be considered for employment. In a more recent study, Jennings et al. (2012) discovered that sex offenders were more likely than non-sex offenders to experience certain collateral consequences such as living in group facilities. Sex offenders are also viewed negatively among other offender populations. For example, within prison communities, sex offenders are viewed as being on the bottom of the offender hierarchy (Tewksbury, 2012).

Perceptions of Collateral Consequences

Little is known about how non-offenders perceive collateral consequences experienced by sex offenders. The public appears to believe that sex offenders experience certain collateral consequences more strongly than others. To illustrate, Schiavone and Jeglic (2009) discovered that 22% of the public agree that sex offenders are forced to live further away from needed social services due to residence restrictions, whereas 57% of the public believe that sex offenders fear for their own safety due to SORN. Although the limited empirical literature demonstrates public knowledge of collateral consequences, the public significantly underestimates the frequency in which collateral consequences occur among sex offenders (Brannon, Levenson, Fortney, & Baker, 2007).

There is a dearth of research examining the attitudes of professionals toward the collateral consequences of sex offender management policies. The available research shows that probation and parole officers (Datz, 2009), law enforcement officers (Gaines, 2006), and legislators (Meloy et al., 2013) are aware that residence restrictions affect the ability of sex offenders to find housing and employment. In addition, Malesky and Keim (2001) found that 63% of mental health professionals believe that sex offenders are targets for vigilantism.

Factors Influencing Perceptions of Collateral Consequences

To date, only one study has explored factors influencing perceptions of collateral consequences of sex offender management policies. Focusing exclusively on harassment, Mancini (2014) discovered that use of sex offender registries and lack of belief in sex offender rehabilitation were associated with decreased public concern over sex offender harassment. Although little is known about factors that influence perceptions of collateral consequences, insight into possible correlates may be gained from the literature examining factors that influence attitudes toward sex offender management policies. For instance, having children appears to influence the attitudes of the public, as several studies have demonstrated that being a parent is associated with greater support for sex offender management policies (Caputo & Brodsky, 2004; Comartin, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2009; Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010). Higher levels of education are associated with lower levels of support among the public for juvenile sex offender registration (Stevenson, Smith, Sekely, & Farnum, 2013) and sex offender management policies in general (Comartin et al., 2009). The relationships between having children, educational attainment, and policy support have also been found to exist among parole board members (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012) but not among other professional groups (Connor, 2012; Levenson, Fortney, et al., 2010; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). In regard to gender, female community members show higher levels of support for several types of sex offender management strategies, including electronic monitoring (Button, Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Payne, 2013), residence restrictions (Mancini et al., 2010), and community notification (Brown, Deakin, & Spencer, 2008; Caputo & Brodsky, 2004; Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009). Gender, however, does not appear to be an influential characteristic among professionals (Connor, 2012; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, 2013). In general, few predictive factors have shown to influence the perceptions of professionals toward sex offender management.

The Current Study

A large gap exists in the literature surrounding the collateral consequences of sex offender management policies as few studies (Datz, 2009; Gaines, 2006; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Meloy et al., 2013) have attempted to examine the attitudes held by professionals toward collateral consequences and no studies have focused exclusively on professional perceptions of collateral consequences. The current study attempts to address this shortcoming in the literature by examining and comparing the perceptions of professionals toward the collateral consequences of sex offender management policies. Addressing this gap in the literature will add to the scholarship on collateral consequences of sex offender management policies and give a fuller understanding of how professionals perceive the policies and the effects of the policies on sex offenders.

Research Methods

The current study seeks to expand knowledge regarding the perceptions of professionals toward the collateral consequences of current sex offender management policies. The data for this study originate from voluntary, confidential, electronic surveys administered over a 4-week period to a national sample of professionals who are members of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and/or the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Members of the APPA and ATSA were chosen for this study due to their successful use in previous studies related to sex offending (Fuselier, Durham, & Wurtele, 2002; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Payne & DeMichele, 2010; Tewksbury et al., 2011; Way, VanDeusen, Martin, Applegate, & Jandle, 2004). An email invitation to participate in the study was sent out to all individual members of the APPA and ATSA by an intermediary at each organization. Follow-up emails were sent to all members of the organizations once a week at the beginning of the second, third, and fourth weeks of the data collection period.

A total of 274 respondents accessed the survey; however, two respondents declined to provide consent and 24 respondents consented but did not complete the survey. The final sample consisted of 248 participants. An accurate response rate could not be calculated because (a) the researcher did not have direct access to the membership rosters of the APPA and the ATSA as the survey distribution occurred through each agency, (b) neither the organization was able to determine how many of their members actually received or read the survey invitation, and (c) it was not possible to account for the extent of cross-over membership between the two organizations. It must be noted that 8% of the sample reported being members of both the APPA and the ATSA; however, it cannot be assumed that this reflects the level of cross-over membership between the two organizations. Although no studies to date have focused exclusively on the perceptions of professionals toward collateral consequences of sex offender management policies, the number of respondents is larger than (Bumby & Maddox, 1999; Fuselier et al., 2002; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Redlich, 2001; Sanghara & Wilson, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, 2013; Weekes, Pelletier, & Beaudette, 1995; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000) or comparative to (Balow & Conley, 2008; Datz, 2009; Fortney, Baker, & Levenson, 2009; Levenson, Fortney, et al., 2010) quantitative studies surveying the perceptions of professionals toward sex offending or sex offender management policies.

Two distinct categories of professionals emerged from the sample: community corrections professionals (community corrections, parole, or probation officers) and clinical specialists (psychologists, psychiatrists, professional counselors, or therapists). There were a higher number of community corrections professionals (81%) who responded compared with clinical specialists (19%). Table 1 presents the demographic and professional characteristics of the total sample as well as a comparison across the two professional categories. The overall sample consisted of White (90%) females (58%) who report being married (68%) with children (72%) and in their mid-40s. In addition, more than half of the sample obtained a graduate or professional degree and had a yearly household income of at least US$80,000. The largest portion of the sample, 41%, identified as politically liberal, while 31% identified as conservative, and 29% identified as politically moderate. The community corrections professionals and clinical specialists differed significantly on age, education, income, and political affiliation but not gender, race, or marital status. That is, the community corrections professionals were significantly more likely than the clinical specialists to be younger, have achieved less education, have a lower yearly household income, and identify as politically conservative.

Table 1.

Demographic and Professional Characteristics of the Sample.

	Overall		Community corrections		Clinical
	%	n	%	n	%	n
Demographic characteristics
Sex
Male	42	89	41	67	43	16
Female	59	124	59	95	57	21
Age*
M, SD	47.35, 9.85		46.01, 8.68		52.53, 12.04
Race/ethnicity
White	90	195	88	145	92	35
Non-White	10	22	12	19	8	3
Education***
Some college	1	2	1	2	0	0
Associate degree	2	5	3	5	0	0
Bachelor’s degree	45	100	58	97	5	2
Graduate or professional degree	51	113	38	63	95	36
Marital status
Married	68	149	67	111	76	28
Not married	32	69	33	55	24	9
Parent
Yes	73	158	72	119	78	29
No	28	60	28	47	22	8
Yearly household income***
US$20,000-US$39,999	4	8	4	7	3	1
US$40,000-US$59,999	16	34	19	31	3	1
US$60,000-US$79,999	22	47	23	37	14	5
US$80,000-US$99,999	16	34	18	29	11	4
US$100,000+	42	90	36	59	69	24
Political views***
Liberal	41	87	28	46	76	29
Moderate	29	62	35	57	11	4
Conservative	31	68	37	61	13	5
Professional characteristics
Tenure in current profession (years)
M, SD	13.68, 8.92		14.08; 8.48		13.92; 11.14
Contact with sex offenders*
Yes	84	184	82	137	97	37
No	16	36	18	30	3	1
Frequency of contact with sex offenders
At least once a week	68	123	64	87	78	29
At least once a month	17	30	17	23	14	5
At least once every 3 months	8	15	9	12	8	3
Less than once every 3 months	8	14	10	13	0	0
Provide treatment***
Yes	38	83	28	46	82	31
No	62	137	72	121	18	7

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Otherwise, not statistically significant.

Examination of the professional characteristics of the sample reveals that the average tenure within both professional groups is 14 years. In addition, the majority (84%) of the sample has contact with sex offenders as part of their profession. Among this portion of the sample, 68% have weekly contact with sex offenders and 38% provide direct treatment to this population. When comparing the two professional groups, the community corrections professionals were less likely to have contact and provide treatment to sex offenders, but there were no significant differences regarding professional tenure and frequency of contact with sex offenders.

Measures

Dependent variable: Belief in collateral consequences

As attitudes are complex and cannot be readily measured through a single item, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the dependent variable in this study to construct scales to measure the variable of interest. The survey contained 28 items addressing belief that sex offenders experience various types of collateral consequences when returning to their communities. The items were designed based on prior research (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury, 2005) on collateral consequences of sex offender management policies. All of the items correlated .4 or higher with at least one other item, suggesting reasonable factorability. The diagnostics of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix, and communalities were all above the recommended thresholds. Three iterations of the principal components factor analysis using varimax and oblimin rotations were conducted resulting in four factors emerging with eigenvalues above 1 that explained 78% of the total variance. The oblimin rotation provided the best-defined factor structure. Six items were dropped from the analysis following the first iteration of the factor analysis due to the items not having a primary factor loading greater than .5. One additional item was dropped from the analysis following the second iteration of the factor analysis due to the item loading similarly across two factors. The original scales were preserved by dividing the composite scores with the number of items, so higher scores indicate higher levels of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The exact wording of the items in each factor for the dependent variable is presented in Table 2. Factor 1, measuring Loss, includes six items that explain 53% of the variance and maintain an eigenvalue of 11.14. The Loss scale had a range of 2.7 to 5 with a mean of 4.4 (n = 236; SD = 0.5) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .92. Higher scores on this scale indicated greater belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving loss of things such as housing, employment, and relationships. Factor 2, Threats and Harassment, contains six items that explain 12% of the variance and maintain an eigenvalue of 2.5. The Threats and Harassment scale had a range of 1.3 to 5 with a mean of 3.7 (n = 234; SD = 0.84) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .94. Higher scores on this scale indicated greater belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences in the form of threats and harassment. Factor 3, measuring Emotional and Psychological issues, includes five items that explain 8% of the variance and maintain an eigenvalue of 1.66. The Emotional and Psychological Issues scale had a range of 1 to 5 with a mean of 4.2 (n = 234; SD = 0.66) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .92. Higher scores on this scale indicated greater belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences in the form of emotional and psychological issues such as shame, depression, and hopelessness. Factor 4, measuring Residence Restrictions, contains four items that explain 5% of the variance and maintain an eigenvalue of 1.12. The Residence Restrictions scale had a range of 2 to 5 with a mean of 4.1 (n = 236; SD = 0.72) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .9. Higher scores on this scale indicated greater belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences stemming from residence restrictions.

Table 2.

Belief in Collateral Consequences Factor Analysis.

Item	Factor loading (Lambda)
Factor 1: Loss
Loss of a job	.86
Loss or denial of housing	.85
Being denied employment	.79
One or more family members have ceased contact	.70
One or more friends have ceased contact	.69
Being forced to move due to residence restrictions	.58
Factor 2: Threats and harassment
Family members have been harassed or threatened	.90
Suffered property damage or vandalism	.90
Received harassing or threatening communications	.88
Being physically assaulted	.88
Family members have had property damaged or vandalized	.87
Factor 3: Emotional and psychological
Feeling lonely or isolated	.92
Feeling depressed	.84
Difficulty forming new friendships or relationships due to not wanting them to learn about sex offender status	.82
Feeling shame or embarrassed	.80
Feeling stressed	.78
Factor 4: Residence restrictions
Having to live farther away from employment opportunities due to residence restrictions	.86
Living farther away from social services or treatment due to residence restrictions	.85
Difficulty finding affordable housing that is in compliance with residence restrictions	.79
Being unable to live with supportive family members due to residence restrictions	.60

Independent variables

Although there has been no scholarship to determine factors that influence the perceptions of professionals toward collateral consequences faced by sex offenders, as evidenced in the literature review, there are a number of factors that influence perceptions of sex offender management policies. Factors such as those previously discussed should be considered when investigating perceptions of collateral consequences. Nine independent variables were used in the regression analysis measuring demographic characteristics: profession (0 = community corrections professionals, 1 = clinical specialists), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), being a parent (0 = yes, 1 = no), education (0 = some college, 1 = associate’s degree, 2 = bachelor’s degree, 3 = graduate degree), race (0 = White, 1 = non-White), age, marital status (0 = married, 1 = not married), income (0 = US$20,000-US$39,999; 1 = US$40,000-US$59,999; 2 = US$60,000-US$79,999; 3 = US$80,000-US$99,999; 4 = US$100,000 and above), and political conservatism (0 = liberal or moderate, 1 = conservative).

Results

The descriptive statistics for the dependent variable of belief in collateral consequences are presented in Table 3. As shown, a majority of all professionals agreed or strongly agreed that sex offenders experience each category of collateral consequences when returning to their communities except for collateral consequences involving threats and harassment (45%). The professionals were most likely to agree or strongly agree that sex offenders experience collateral consequences related to loss (91%), followed by collateral consequence related to emotional and psychological issues (77%), and then residence restrictions (70%).

Table 3.

Variations in Attitudes Toward Collateral Consequences by Profession.

Variable	Overall		Community corrections		Clinical
Variable	%	n	%	n	%	n
Loss
Strongly disagree	0	0	0	0	0	0
Disagree	0	1	1	1	0	0
Neither agree nor disagree	8	19	10	17	3	1
Agree	58	138	61	102	50	19
Strongly agree	33	78	28	46	47	18
Threats and harassment
Strongly disagree	1	3	1	1	3	1
Disagree	14	33	16	26	14	5
Neither agree nor disagree	41	96	41	69	41	15
Agree	29	67	27	45	24	9
Strongly agree	16	37	16	26	19	7
Emotional and psychological
Strongly disagree	0	1	0	0	0	0
Disagree	2	5	3	5	0	0
Neither agree nor disagree	20	47	22	36	8	3
Agree	52	122	55	90	43	16
Strongly agree	25	59	21	34	49	18
Residence restrictions
Strongly disagree	0	0	0	0	0	0
Disagree	6	14	7	12	0	0
Neither agree nor disagree	23	55	26	44	8	3
Agree	44	105	46	77	42	16
Strongly agree	26	62	20	33	50	19

A series of independent samples t tests were conducted to compare belief in collateral consequences between the community corrections professionals and the clinical specialists. As shown in Table 4, a majority of the relationships were statistically significant. To illustrate, clinical specialists perceived collateral consequences in the areas of loss, emotional and psychological distress, and residence restrictions as being more likely to occur for sex offenders than for community corrections professionals. There was no significant difference between the professional groups on belief that sex offenders experience threats and harassment.

Table 4.

Overall Mean Responses by Profession and t Test for Professional Differences.

Variable	Community corrections		Clinical		t test
Variable	$\bar{X}$	s	$\bar{X}$	s	t test
Loss	4.34	.49	4.63	.47	−3.3**
Threats and harassment	3.65	.84	3.78	.90	−0.8
Emotional and psychological	4.13	.63	4.63	.45	−4.6***
Residence restrictions	3.99	.72	4.60	.52	−4.9***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Otherwise, not statistically significant.

To gain a better understanding of factors that may influence professional beliefs toward collateral consequences of sex offender management policies, ordinary-least-squares regressions were utilized. As the bivariate analyses revealed significant differences between the community corrections professionals and the clinical specialists, the influence of profession was of particular interest while also considering demographic variables as sources of the perceptions of the professionals. Given the lack of statistical significance between profession and belief in collateral consequences involving threats and harassment at the bivariate level, the threats and harassment variable was withdrawn from additional consideration during the multivariate analyses.

The results of the multivariate analyses of belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences related to current sex offender management policies are provided in Table 5. The models accounted for 9% of the variance in belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving loss, adjusted R² = .09, F(9, 172) = 5.69, p < .01; 9% of the variance in belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving emotional and psychological distress, adjusted R² = .09, F(9, 170) = 9.13, p < .01; and 18% of the variance in belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving residence restrictions, adjusted R² = .18, F(9, 173) = 21.44, p < .001.

Table 5.

OLS Regression of the Influence of Profession and Demographic Characteristics on Belief in Collateral Consequences.

Variable	Loss			Emotional/psychological			Residence restrictions
Variable	b (SE)	β	VIF	b (SE)	β	VIF	b (SE)	β	VIF
Constant	4.40 (0.24)			4.57 (0.31)			3.54 (0.34)
Profession	0.342 (0.11)	.271***	1.32	0.584 (0.14)	.360***	1.31	0.650 (0.15)	.341***	1.31
Gender	0.053 (0.08)	.054	1.16	0.048 (0.01)	.038	1.19	0.346 (0.11)	.233**	1.15
Education	−0.010 (0.07)	−.012	1.31	−0.026 (0.09)	−.025	1.31	0.067 (0.10)	.055	1.31
Children	0.115 (0.09)	.108	1.24	−0.021 (0.11)	.015	1.28	0.043 (0.12)	.026	1.25
Race	0.143 (0.12)	.089	1.06	0.154 (0.15)	.077	1.07	0.378 (0.17)	.160*	1.07
Marital status	0.036 (0.09)	.034	1.38	0.080 (0.17)	.060	1.38	−0.032 (0.13)	−.020	1.37
Age	−0.001 (0.01)	−.011	1.21	−0.007 (0.01)	−.108	1.20	0.005 (0.01)	.061	1.21
Income	−0.014 (0.03)	−.037	1.34	−0.042 (0.04)	−.084	1.36	−0.062 (0.05)	−.106	1.34
Conservative	−0.162 (0.08)	−.154*	1.10	−0.041 (0.10)	−.030	1.11	−0.032 (0.11)	−.020	1.10
	adjusted R² = .09df = 9χ² = 5.69; α = .004			adjusted R² = .09df = 9χ² = 9.13; α = .004			adjusted R² = .18df = 9χ² = 21.44; α = .000

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; VIF = variance inflation factor.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The bivariate findings regarding profession were maintained on all three models measuring collateral consequences related to loss, emotional and psychological issues, and residence restrictions. In each instance, the clinical specialists were significantly more likely to believe that sex offenders experience collateral consequences than the community corrections professionals.

Three additional significant factors influencing belief in collateral consequences are also revealed in Table 5. First, political conservatism was a significant predictor of belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving loss. This finding revealed that professionals who identify as politically conservative are less likely to believe that offenders experience these collateral consequences. Second, gender was found to be a significant predictor of belief in the occurrence of collateral consequences involving residence restrictions. Females were more likely than males to believe that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving residence restrictions. Third, race was also found to be a significant predictor of belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving residence restrictions as Whites were less likely than non-Whites to believe that sex offenders experience collateral consequences involving residence restrictions. Education, parental status, marital status, age, and income were not found to significantly influence belief in collateral consequences.

Discussion

The current research advanced the literature on collateral consequences in three important ways. First, the results of the present study revealed high levels of belief among professionals that sex offenders experience collateral consequences of sex offender management policies. Among the four categories of collateral consequences, a majority of professionals believed that sex offenders experience consequences involving loss, emotional and psychological issues, and residence restrictions. Second, while the professionals endorsed high levels of belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences, belief still varied by profession. Clinical specialists were significantly more likely to believe that sex offenders experience consequences involving loss, emotional and psychological issues, and residence restrictions compared with community corrections professionals. Finally, few demographic variables were found to be significant predictors of belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences. Although gender, race, and political conservatism were found to significantly influence belief that sex offenders experience certain categories of collateral consequences, these relationships were sporadic.

Overall, there was a high level of agreement among the professionals that sex offenders experience a variety of collateral consequences due to current sex offender management policies. Based on the results of this study, it appears that professionals are more likely to believe that sex offenders experience collateral consequences than the public (Brannon et al., 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). This finding may be due to the fact that the professionals in this sample regularly have contact with sex offenders, and thus may be privy to knowledge of collateral consequences directly from the offenders. In addition, as the sample was comprised of members of professional organizations, these individuals may be more likely to be aware of the research (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009) exploring the experiences of sex offenders with collateral consequences.

The differences in belief between the community corrections professionals and clinical specialists may be attributed to the types of interactions the professional groups have with sex offenders. Tewksbury et al. (2011) argued that community corrections professionals are found to have greater levels of support for SORN than parole board members due to community corrections professionals having more frequent contact with sex offenders and a greater professional focus on supervision in the community. Although the present study focuses on perceptions of collateral consequences and not on the overall policies, the differences between community corrections professionals and clinical specialists in the current study could also be explained by the roles played by the professional groups in the lives of sex offenders. The clinical specialists in the present study were significantly more likely to both have contact with sex offenders and provide treatment to sex offenders than the community corrections professionals. The literature has shown that sex offenders generally have positive attitudes about their therapists and are comfortable sharing personal information with them (Levenson, Macgowan, Morin, & Cotter, 2009; Levenson, Prescott, & D’Amora, 2010; Levenson, Prescott, & Jumper, 2014). It is probable that sex offenders are more likely to discuss their personal difficulties with clinical specialists than community corrections professionals due to the dynamics of the treatment process and the greater amount of interaction.

As the results of the multivariate analysis revealed, few variables held a significant influence on the perceptions of the professionals toward collateral consequences. The influence of profession was maintained as a predictor of belief in the occurrence of collateral consequences involving loss, emotional and psychological issues, and residence restrictions. Sex and race significantly influenced the belief that offenders experience consequences involving residence restrictions, while political conservatism significantly influenced the belief that offenders experience consequences related to loss. Education level, having children, marital status, age, and income were not significant predictors of belief in any of the categories of collateral consequences. No variables except for profession significantly influenced the belief that sex offenders experience collateral consequences related to emotional and psychological issues. Similar to the literature on professional support for sex offender management policies (Connor, 2012; Levenson, Fortney, et al., 2010; Malesky & Keim, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, 2013), few demographic characteristics appear to influence professional perceptions toward collateral consequences of the policies. These findings are evidence that there are other influential factors shaping perceptions toward sex offender management not related to demographic characteristics that currently remain unknown.

This study was not without its limitations. The survey instrument utilized referred to sex offenders in general without making any distinctions between different types of sex offenders. Sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, and thus may experience collateral consequences differently depending upon several different factors. For instance, in a study by Tewksbury (2005), sex offenders with child victims experienced several collateral consequences with less frequency than sex offenders without child victims. Participants in the current study may have held different beliefs about collateral consequences for different types of sex offenders.

In addition, the use of a web survey as a mode of data collection presented its own limitations. The largest drawback of electronic surveys, in general, is the potential lack of Internet access of the sample (Wolfer, 2007). This was unlikely to have been an issue with this study as an email address is required for registration with both the APPA and ATSA; however, there is the possibility that the email invitation was ignored or regarded as spam. Furthermore, as an accurate response rate could not be calculated for this study, it was unknown how well the attitudes of this sample reflected the attitudes of the target population. Thus, the data gathered might not truly be representative of the members of the APPA and ATSA but only representative of those motivated to participate. Tied to the issue of overall response rate, the differential response rate between the community corrections professionals and the clinical specialists should also be noted as limitation on the external validity of the findings in this study.

In future research, the sources of perceptions toward collateral consequences of sex offender management policies should continue to be explored. As shown in this study, demographic characteristics do not appear to have a substantial influence over the perceptions of professionals toward collateral consequences. In addition, consideration of the attitudes of professionals toward specific subpopulations within the overall sex offending population (such as those with adult victims vs. those with child victims) may yield variations in perceptions of collateral consequences. Also, the present research should be replicated to include a larger and more diverse sample of professionals who play roles in the creation, enforcement, and management of sex offender policies to present a more inclusive view of the attitudes of actors within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the views of non-professionals, such as community members and students should be included to provide a contrasting perspective to samples of professionals.

Policy Implications and Conclusion

The findings from this study have several implications for the management of sex offenders in the community. Prior research has shown that current sex offender management policies have had little effect on sex offender recidivism rates (Letourneau et al., 2010; Tewksbury, Jennings, et al., 2012; Zgoba et al., 2010). In addition, sex offenders have reported experiencing a variety of collateral consequences associated with current sex offender management policies (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009). The present study reveals that professionals possess a strong belief that sex offenders experience a variety of collateral consequences. Based on this finding, it can be inferred that professionals who have contact with sex offenders, whether in a supervisory or treatment capacity, believe that current sex offender management policies have detrimental effects on the reentry of sex offenders. The findings from earlier research on recidivism and sex-offender-reported collateral consequences coupled with the results of the present study should encourage policy makers to move away from the current deterrence-based approach to managing sex offenders. While a deterrence-based approach is supported by the public and has been the norm for managing sex offenders in recent decades, the empirical evidence demonstrating a lack of success of current strategies makes it clear that the usefulness of policies such as SORN and residence restrictions must be called into question.

Significant alterations to current sex offender management policies would not be an easy feat due to public perceptions of sex offenders and the policies used to manage them. It has been argued that the driving force behind the passage of SORN was public demand for increased protection from sex offenders due to fears of sexual victimization propagated by media reports of sex crimes involving child victims (Meloy et al., 2007; Zgoba, 2004). Although the public desires enhanced security from sex offenders in the community, the public does not appear to be invested in the policies used to manage sex offenders. For example, several studies have shown that the public is aware of sex offender registries; however, only one third of the public has reported accessing the registry (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Kernsmith, Comartin, Craun, & Kernsmith, 2009; Sample, Evans, & Anderson, 2011). In addition, the public endorses the false belief that SORN has been effective in reducing sexual victimization (Brannon et al., 2007; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). Thus, the key to changing the course of sex offender management policies is by changing public perceptions surrounding the policies. The public needs to be educated regarding the limitations of current policies and what those limitations mean for community safety. Current sex offender management policies create numerous collateral consequences for sex offenders in the community. A community is not safer when a sex offender in that community cannot secure housing, cannot find employment, cannot establish social relationships, and suffers emotionally.

While empirical evidence indicates that a significant overhaul of current sex offender management policies is warranted, actions could also be taken to potentially lessen the impact of collateral consequences of the existing policies. Despite academic knowledge of collateral consequences, sex offenders who are approaching release from incarceration appear to be unaware of specific restrictions that they will face upon reentry and may not fully understand the breadth and intensity of collateral consequences they will face upon reentry (Tewksbury & Copes, 2013; Tewksbury, Connor, Cheeseman, & Rivera, 2012). Educating newly incarcerated sex offenders regarding collateral consequences they may face could ease their reintegration back into the community by allowing for better reentry planning, or at the very least, emotionally preparing sex offenders for barriers to their successful reentry.

In addition to educating sex offenders about collateral consequences, comprehensive reentry programming should be established for sex offenders. Evidence suggests that sex offenders who participate in some form of reentry programming have lower recidivism rates than sex offenders who have not participated in a reentry program (Wilson & Picheca, 2005; Wilson, Picheca, & Prinzo, 2007). Although a majority of states have some form of reentry programming for offenders, there are none that specifically target the needs of sex offenders (Daly, 2008). Ideally, reentry programming for sex offenders should begin with preparation for release and also include extensive follow-up post-release to address collateral consequences. Given their role in supervising and treating sex offenders in the community, along with the results of the present study showing their awareness of collateral consequences, community corrections professionals and clinical specialists should play a large role in programming addressing collateral consequences. Professionals who work with sex offenders in the community would be in the best position to serve as advocates to reach out to community partners to establish services and resources to aid the transition of the offenders and overcome collateral consequences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albright

Denq

(1996). Employer attitudes toward hiring ex-offenders. The Prison Journal, 76, 118-137.

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

(2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.

Balow

Conley

T. B.

(2008). A report to the Montana department of corrections on community corrections professionals’ attitudes towards sex offenders. Missoula: The University of Montana.

Barnes

J. C.

(2011). Place a moratorium on the passage of sex offender residence restriction laws. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 401-409.

Brannon

Levenson

J. S.

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 369-379.

Brown

Deakin

Spencer

(2008). What people think about the management of sex offenders in the community. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 259-274.

Bumby

K. M.

Maddox

M. C.

(1999). Judges’ knowledge about sex offenders, difficulties presiding over sex offense cases, and opinions on sentencing, treatment, and legislation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 305-315.

Button

D. M.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

Payne

B. K.

(2013). Factors contributing to perceptions about policies regarding the electronic monitoring of sex offenders: The role of demographic characteristics, victimization experiences, and social disorganization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 25-54.

Caputo

A. A.

Brodsky

S. L.

(2004). Citizen coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 239-252.

10.

Comartin

E. B.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Kernsmith

R. M.

(2009). Sanctions for sex offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 605-619.

11.

Comartin

E. B.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Miles

B. W.

(2010). Family experiences of young adult sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 204-225.

12.

Connor

D. P.

(2012). Prison wardens’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restrictions (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI 1521236)

13.

Daly

(2008). Treatment and reentry practices for sex offenders: An overview of states. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

14.

Datz

A. L.

(2009). Sex offender residency restrictions and other sex offender management strategies: The probation officer perspective in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Probation and Parole Field Services.

15.

Fortney

Baker

J. N.

Levenson

J. S.

(2009). A look in the mirror: Sexual abuse professionals’ perceptions about sex offenders. Victims and Offenders, 4, 42-57.

16.

Fuselier

D. A.

Durham

R. L.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2002). The child sexual abuser: Perceptions of college students and professionals. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 271-280.

17.

Gaines

J. S.

(2006). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and community notification. Police Practice & Research, 7, 249-267.

18.

Hughes

L. A.

Burchfield

K. B.

(2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice? Justice Quarterly, 25, 647-673.

19.

Hughes

L. A.

Kadleck

(2008). Sex offender community notification and community stratification. Justice Quarterly, 25, 647-671.

20.

Jeglic

Mercado

C. C.

Levenson

J. S.

(2012). The prevalence and correlates of depression and hopelessness among sex offenders subject to community notification and residence restriction legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 46-59.

21.

Jennings

W. G.

Zgoba

Tewksbury

(2012). A comparative longitudinal analysis of recidivism trajectories and collateral consequences for sex and non-sex offenders released since the implementation of sex offender registration and community notification. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 356-364.

22.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Comartin

Craun

S. W.

Kernsmith

R. M.

(2009). The relationship between sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 181-193.

23.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Craun

S. W.

Foster

(2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290-301.

24.

Letourneau

E. J.

Levenson

J. S.

Bandyopadhyay

Sinha

Armstrong

K. H.

(2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 435-458.

25.

Levenson

J. S.

(2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 153-166.

26.

Levenson

J. S.

Brannon

Y. N.

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 137-161.

27.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.

28.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168-178.

29.

Levenson

J. S.

D’Amora

D. A.

(2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 168-199.

30.

Levenson

J. S.

D’Amora

Hern

(2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602.

31.

Levenson

J. S.

Fortney

Baker

J. N.

(2010). Views of sexual abuse professionals about sex offender notification policies. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 150-168.

32.

Levenson

J. S.

Hern

(2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 59-73.

33.

Levenson

J. S.

Macgowan

M. J.

Morin

J. W.

Cotter

L. P.

(2009). Perceptions of sex offenders about treatment: Satisfaction and engagement in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 35-56.

34.

Levenson

J. S.

Prescott

D. S.

D’Amora

D. A.

(2010). Sex offender treatment: Consumer satisfaction and engagement in therapy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 307-326.

35.

Levenson

J. S.

Prescott

D. S.

Jumper

(2014). A consumer satisfaction survey of civilly committed sex offenders in Illinois. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 474-495.

36.

Levenson

J. S.

Tewksbury

(2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54-68.

37.

Malesky

Keim

(2001). Mental health professionals’ perspective on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 53-63.

38.

Mancini

(2014). Examining factors that predict public concern about the collateral consequences of sex crime policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 450-475.

39.

Mancini

Barnes

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2013). It varies from state to state: An examination of sex crime laws nationally. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 166-198.

40.

Mancini

Shields

R. T.

Mears

D. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1022-1030.

41.

Meloy

M. L.

Curtis

Boatwright

(2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 438-452.

42.

Meloy

M. L.

Saleh

Wolff

(2007). Sex offender laws in America: Can panic-driven legislation ever create safer societies? Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 423-443.

43.

Mercado

C. C.

Alvarez

Levenson

J. S.

(2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188-205.

44.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2011). Residential relegation of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 44-57.

45.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2013). What can be learned from an online sex offender registry site? An eight-year follow-up. Journal of Community Corrections, 23, 5-10.

46.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

Stengel

K. M.

(2006). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27, 329-350.

47.

Payne

B. K.

DeMichele

M. T.

(2010). Electronic supervision for sex offenders: Implications for work load, supervision goals, versatility, and policymaking. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 276-281.

48.

Redlich

A. D.

(2001). Community notification: Perceptions of effectiveness in preventing child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10, 91-116.

49.

Sample

L. L.

Evans

M. K.

Anderson

A. L.

(2011). Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 27-49.

50.

Sample

L. L.

Kadleck

(2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.

51.

Sanghara

K. K.

Wilson

J. C.

(2006). Stereotypes and attitudes about child sexual abusers: A comparison of experienced and inexperienced professionals in sex offender treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 229-244.

52.

Schiavone

S. K.

Jeglic

E. L.

(2009). Public perception of sex offender social policies and the impact on offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 679-695.

53.

Stevenson

M. C.

Smith

A. C.

Sekely

Farnum

K. S.

(2013). Predictors of support for juvenile sex offender registration: Educated individuals recognize the flaws of juvenile registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22, 231-254.

54.

Suresh

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

Higgins

G. E.

(2010). Social disorganization and registered sex offenders: An exploratory spatial analysis. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 180-213.

55.

Tewksbury

(2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-82.

56.

Tewksbury

(2012). Stigmatization of sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 33, 606-623.

57.

Tewksbury

(2013). Sex offenders and campus-based sex offender registration: Stigma, vulnerability, isolation, and the classroom as a refuge. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, 1, 221-242.

58.

Tewksbury

Connor

D. P.

Cheeseman

Rivera

B. L.

(2012). Female sex offenders’ anticipations for re-entry: Do they really know what they’re in for? Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 451-463.

59.

Tewksbury

Copes

(2013). Incarcerated sex offenders’ expectations for reentry. The Prison Journal, 93, 102-122.

60.

Tewksbury

Jennings

W. G.

Zgoba

K. M.

(2012). A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following implementation of SORN. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 308-328.

61.

Tewksbury

Lees

(2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334.

62.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 15, 215-239.

63.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2012). Parole board members’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 396-412.

64.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2013). Law-enforcement officials’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15, 95-113.

65.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

Payne

B. K.

(2011). Community corrections professionals’ view of sex offenders, sex offender registration and community notification and residency restrictions. Federal Probation, 75, 45-50.

66.

Tewksbury

Zgoba

K. M.

(2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders respond to stress, Internet restrictions, and the collateral consequences of registration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 537-551.

67.

Way

VanDeusen

K. M.

Martin

Applegate

Jandle

(2004). Vicarious trauma of clinicians who treat survivors of sexual abuse and sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 49-71.

68.

Weekes

J. R.

Pelletier

Beaudette

(1995). Correctional officers: How do they perceive sex offenders? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 55-61.

69.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

(2005). Circles of support and accountability: Engaging the community in sexual offender management. In Schwartz

B. K.

(Ed.), The sex offender: Issues in assessment, treatment, and supervision of adult and juvenile populations (pp. 13.1-13.21). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

70.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

Prinzo

(2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of professionally facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part two—A comparison of recidivism rates. The Howard Journal, 46, 327-337.

71.

Wolfer

(2007). Real research: Conducting and evaluating research in the social sciences. New York, NY: Pearson.

72.

Zevitz

R. G.

Farkas

M. A.

(2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 375-391.

73.

Zgoba

K. M.

(2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child safety legislation. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 385-404.

74.

Zgoba

K. M.

Veysey

Dalessandro

(2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27, 667-691.