Toward a Focused Conceptualization of Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Who Sexually Offend: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Despite speculation regarding the role of collateral consequences of sexual offender policies in psychosocial and criminogenic outcomes, there has been no empirical analysis in the extant literature examining these links. Lack of conceptual underpinnings and no psychometrically valid measure of collateral consequences has limited study in this area. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the state of measurement in terms of conceptual and operational definitions, populations sampled, domains assessed, items used, and scale properties reported. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. Themes emerged regarding commonly assessed collateral consequences, the misconnect between legal and psychological conceptualizations of collateral consequences, the division between external (i.e., social) and internal (i.e., affective) collateral consequences, as well as a trend toward emphasizing the psychological damages (in addition to discrete experiences of loss) associated with a sexual offense. Findings are discussed, and a unifying definition of collateral consequences is proposed to guide future scale development.

Keywords

sexual offenders collateral consequences review conceptualization

Among the variety of concerns regarding general offender legislation, sentencing, and post-incarceration reentry, sexual offender registration and community notification have garnered ongoing attention due to the potential impact on areas of life that extend beyond the punishment phase (Pinard, 2006, 2010; Pinard & Thompson, 2005). While any criminal conviction can carry with it a stigma that persists well after incarceration, collateral (or unintended) consequences are a stronghold of sexual offense convictions in particular (Edwards & Hensley, 2001). For individuals convicted of a sexual offense, collateral consequences extend not only from the fact of conviction, but also from an individual’s status on the national sex offender registry and subjection to community notification laws, as the public is more frequently made aware of the offender’s denigrated place in society (Tewksbury, 2005).

Perhaps due to its presence in both the legal and psychological research, the construct of collateral consequences has been inconsistently defined across the literature. In its simplest definition, Pinard (2006) described collateral consequences as “indirect sanctions that result from criminal convictions.” Related, collateral consequences have been defined as an “interconnected system of disadvantage that amplifies disparities in economic and social well-being” (Wheelock, 2005; Wheelock & Uggen, 2005). Collateral consequences have also been described as an indefinite civil disenfranchisement, or a “civil death” befalling those with a criminal record (Higgins & Rolfe, 2017). In addition, collateral consequences have more comprehensively been described through identification of socially imposed (rather than court-sanctioned) barriers to social capitol (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008), including employment (Brown et al., 2007), housing (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009; Zgoba et al., 2009), and financial opportunities, inclusive as well of social exclusion, psychological turmoil (Jeglic et al., 2012), isolation, and interpersonal and romantic difficulties (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson et al., 2007a). Relatedly, the definition of collateral consequences has expanded to encompass victimization of family members of individuals convicted of a sexual offense, who may experience secondary housing and employment difficulties, or harassment related to their relative’s membership on the registry (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000).

In an attempt to systematize the range of collateral consequences documented to affect individuals convicted of a sexual offense, a number of organizational definitions have been postulated in the theoretical and law literature. Collateral consequences have been referred to as either formal, an expression of law or legal sanction, or informal, consequences arising independently of legal authority, such as interpersonal or psychological harm (Logan, 2013; Roberts, 2008). According to this definition, formal consequences tend to be those handed down directly from the court or sentencing body, serving to limit the civic and social interactions of former offenders through direct law (Logan, 2013; Roberts, 2008). Informal collateral consequences, conversely, are often social in nature. Informal consequences similarly serve to limit civic and social participation for offenders, but are often executed by community members, neighbors, employers, and family members and friends, out of self-protection or a desire to distance themselves from the “deviant” individual (Logan, 2013; Uggen & Stewart, 2014).

Expanding upon the bidimensional definitions of collateral consequences, collateral consequences have been dichotomized as intended versus unintended consequences (Edwards & Hensley, 2001), or primary versus secondary collateral consequences (Burchfield & Mingus, 2014), which parallel the definitions of formal versus informal consequences, respectively. For example, formal, intended, and primary consequences each denote sanctions handed down directly to the offender and protected by statute. According to mainstream definitions, these consequences include employment and residence restrictions, as well as stipulations associated with community supervision (e.g., curfews, internet restrictions; Wheelock, 2005). Informal, unintended, or secondary consequences that arise from societal response to the offender’s criminal behavior, on the contrary, may result in social exclusion, relationship difficulties, and behavioral avoidance (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson et al., 2007; Logan, 2013; Tewksbury, 2007).

Despite the myriad of terms used to categorize collateral consequences, the overarching theme across the literature conceptualizes formal consequences as those most proximal to sentencing, such as court-imposed sanctions that accompany direct punishment, and informal consequences as those most distal from formal sentencing, including the interpersonal and psychological consequences that occur at the individual level (Burchfield & Mingus, 2014). Yet defining collateral consequences in this way can be problematic, as formal collateral consequences are easily conflated with direct consequences. Formal consequences tend to arise through operation of law and/or accompany direct punishment; while definitions of collateral consequences may diverge across the literature, their position in relation to direct punishment is relatively consistent. In contrast to the immediate and automatic direct consequences of conviction, collateral consequences reflect the unintended penalties associated with the sheer fact of conviction rather than punishment handed down directly from the courts (Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Logan, 2013; Pinard, 2006). Thus, the essence of collateral consequences as unintended may not be well-reflected in existing definitions, many of which include unquestionably intentional and formal legal sanctions (e.g., conditions of supervision, residence and employment restrictions; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Travis, 2002; Wheelock, 2005).

Formal conceptual definitions are necessary for all theory-building empirical research and instrument development (Wacker, 2004). Aforementioned definitional inconsistencies, as well as the often-blurred lines between legal and psychological conceptualizations of collateral consequences, have certainly impacted progression toward developing a valid and reliable instrument of collateral consequences. Furthermore, although several qualitative and theoretical articles addressing collateral consequences have emerged in the past two decades (e.g., Higgins & Rolfe, 2017; Tewksbury, 2007, 2012; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006a, 2007; Wakefield, 2006), empirical research demonstrating the impact of collateral consequences has somewhat lagged in comparison. Yet beyond the spectrum of theoretical descriptions of collateral consequences, most important are the ways in which these consequences have thus far been defined in the extant empirical research. Given recent strides toward a more systematic (and bidimensional) conceptualization of commonly experienced collateral consequences, there is a current need for (a) synthesis of existing scales and items used to assess the experiences of collateral consequences among individuals convicted of a sexual offense, (b) identification of gaps in the current measurement of collateral consequences, and (c) proposal of a unifying, empirically suited conceptualization of collateral consequences. The current study attempts to address these needs through a systematic review of the extant empirical literature. To the author’s knowledge, only one study (Lasher & McGrath, 2012) presented a limited review of offender-identified psychosocial experiences resulting from sexual offender policies. Thus, findings from this study have important implications in more cohesively conceptualizing the construct of collateral consequences, with the overarching goal of strengthening the foundation of empirical examinations into collateral consequences and their psychosocial and criminogenic correlates.

Method

A systematic review of the literature was conducted following the evidence-based guidelines and quality assurance checklist outlined by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Liberati et al., 2009). To determine the types of items included in extant measures of collateral consequences, original empirical research studies including a multi-item scale assessing some dimension of collateral consequences were reviewed. Methods of the analysis and inclusion criteria were specified in advance. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and scanning reference lists of articles addressing collateral consequences among individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Between the dates of January 12, 2019 and September 13, 2020, electronic literature searches were conducted using the following databases: Academic Search Complete, MEDLine (1966–present), PsycARTICLES (1985–present), PsycINFO (1887–present), and Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection (1965–present). The following search terms were used: collateral consequences, sex[ual] offenders, measurement, measure, instrument, scale, items, registry, registration. The abstracts and methods sections of all returned articles were then read and assessed for eligibility.

The full article was included in the current review if the following inclusion criteria were satisfied: (a) the study presented original empirical data, (b) the study included a multi-item scale or measure assessing collateral consequences reflective of the experiences of individuals convicted of/registering for a sexual offense, (c) the multi-item scale was directly provided within the article or Online Appendix, (d) the participant pool included individuals convicted of/registering for a sexual offense and/or individuals (e.g., family, treatment providers) rating the offender’s experience of collateral consequences, and (e) the research was presented in the English language. No restrictions were imposed with regard to publication date or publication status (e.g., unpublished manuscripts, conference proceedings). A complicating factor when considering research examining collateral consequences among individuals convicted of a sexual offense is the variability with which collateral consequences are defined and measured. The purpose of the current study, however, is to illustrate the lack of definitional standardization of collateral consequences and its subsequent impact on measurement. Therefore, no eligibility restrictions were made with regard to author-specified definitions of collateral consequences to include the greatest range of data.

The initial search returned 112 sources. After screening for and removing duplicates, 89 articles remained. Of these, 33 were identified by both the abstract and methods section as potentially meeting eligibility criteria. The full-text articles were then examined, and 13 were retained. The reference lists of the remaining 13 articles were then reviewed. Additional studies that appeared to meet eligibility criteria but were not located during the original search were then obtained and examined. This search resulted in an additional six eligible sources. Thus, 19 sources were included in the final review. A flowchart detailing the search process is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of study selection process.

Information extracted from each source included the publication year, sample characteristics (e.g., age, gender, registration status), items used to assess collateral consequences, and any information regarding survey development and scale properties (i.e., reported reliability and validity). Alongside the reported quantitative items/measures assessing discrete collateral consequences, some studies included qualitative data resulting from open-ended questions; these data and questions were not reported as part of the current systematic review. The included studies and relevant information are provided in Table 1 in Online Appendix A. A detailed discussion of results is presented below.

Results

In total, the specified search returned 19 studies which had measured incidence of specific collateral consequences experienced by individuals convicted of a sexual offense. As mentioned, there were no exclusion criteria with regard to sample; therefore, studies that did not directly sample individuals convicted of a sexual offense (though did specify the subject of the collateral consequences questionnaire as sexual offenders) were included. Of note, relevant study information in Table 1 in Online Appendix A is presented using the language used by the study authors, thus verbiage across cells may vary.

Sample Characteristics

With regard to sample characteristics, 13 articles directly assessed individuals convicted of and/or registering for a sexual offense; of these, the majority included a mixed male and female sample (k = 6). In addition, two studies included an all-male sample, whereas one study (Tewksbury, 2004) included an all-female sexual offender sample and three studies did not specify gender breakdown of their samples. The mean age of sexual offending samples tended to be between 38 and 50 (Brannon et al., 2007; Frenzel et al., 2014; Robbers, 2009; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006b; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), with five studies specifying an adult age range (e.g., pp. 25–64; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson et al., 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007). Based on search results, there were no articles found that assessed collateral consequences among a juvenile sample; however, one article assessed treatment providers’ perceptions of collateral consequences particularly among their juvenile clients who had sexually offended (Harris et al., 2015). Conversely, six articles sampled nonsexual offenders. Of these, two articles sampled the family members or acquaintances of sexual offenders to assess either (a) the individual’s perception of collateral consequences faced by the sexual offender or (b) the individual’s direct experience with collateral consequences as a byproduct of association with the offender. Primarily, these samples included spouses, parents, siblings, friends, and romantic partners. The remaining four articles assessed corrections staff, law enforcement, and/or treatment providers, and their perceptions of the most salient collateral consequences affecting the individuals with which they work.

Other sample characteristics provided across studies that sampled individuals convicted of a sexual offense included racial/ethnic background (k = 18), education (k = 12), employment (e.g., whether employed full- or part-time; k = 6), household income (k = 9), marital status (k = 11), and regional (i.e., state-specific; k = 10) versus representative U.S. (i.e., more than one state; k = 9) sample. Of the 13 studies with a sexual offender sample, some studies included whether or not the individuals were subjected to registration, community notification, or both (k = 11), average length of time registered (k = 4), and average length of time spent on probation (k = 3). Furthermore, the majority of the articles sampled at least some individuals currently participating in a sexual offender treatment program (k = 8), with fewer studies that included registering individuals in the community (e.g., Megan’s Law websites; k = 6). One study did not specify from where (i.e., community vs. treatment facilities) sexually offending participants were recruited. Two studies directly mentioned subjection to residency restrictions in reference to their samples (Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b). Last, 12 of the 13 studies with a sexual offender sample reported victim (e.g., including age, gender, and relationship to the offending individual) or offense (e.g., instant offense, felony) characteristics.

Survey Development and Item Selection

With regard to survey development, eight studies explicitly identified sources from which they gathered items assessing collateral consequences. The majority of these studies reported modifying existing surveys (e.g., Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Tewksbury, 2005) to fit their particular research questions. Of comparable frequency, seven studies included language describing survey design as reflective of their study’s specific purpose without further elaboration as to the method by which the items were drawn. Two studies did not include information regarding survey development (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009). Two studies (Robbers, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000) developed collateral consequences items based on qualitative (interview) data and/or thematic analysis. With regard to the identified target guiding participant responses to the collateral consequences, seven studies asked participants to indicate whether or not they had experienced each collateral consequence in relation to status (or family member’s status) on the registry, residence restrictions (k = 3), Megan’s Law/community notification (k = 5), or due to the general sexual offender label (k = 1; Robbers, 2009). Last, four studies asked respondents to identify collateral consequences experienced in relation to general sex offender registration and notification (SORN)/sex offender management policies. One study (Harris et al., 2015) asked participants to separately indicate collateral consequences due to registration and community notification and is thus included in both registration and community notification categories.

Instrument response options ranged from dichotomous only (or indicating whether or not the respondent had, at any point, experienced the collateral consequence; k = 5), to Likert-type response scales only (k = 7), to a combination of dichotomous and Likert-type response options (k = 7). For studies including Likert-type response options, items were generally rated along a 3-, 4-, 5-, or 10-point scale indicating level of agreement with, acceptability of, or concern with the collateral consequences of interest (Call, 2017, 2018; Cubellis et al., 2016; Harris et al., 2015; Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b; Levenson et al., 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006b; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). It did not appear that any of the included studies tracked the frequency with which the individual experienced the collateral consequence (e.g., singular vs. daily experiences of discrimination and/or harassment).

Instrument length ranged from five to 30 items, with an average length of 16.7 items. With regard to a global versus local approach to assessing collateral consequences, the majority of the studies (k = 16) utilized questionnaires targeting the most commonly endorsed collateral consequences, particularly those affecting housing (e.g., loss of residence), employment difficulties (e.g., loss of employment), interpersonal problems (e.g., harassment, loss of relationships), and psychological consequences (e.g., shame, depression). In contrast, three studies emphasized one specific dimension of collateral consequences, specifically residence restrictions affecting individuals convicted of a sexual offense (Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007).

Among the 16 global measurements of collateral consequences, the most frequently included items were those addressing loss of housing/housing instability. Several different aspects of housing difficulties were represented among the items, including denial of/exclusion from housing (included in eight studies), unable to live with/living farther away from supportive family (included in seven studies), having to move due to residence restrictions or legal restrictions (included in six studies), financial difficulties due to housing availability (k = 5), loss of housing due to being “found out” by landlords and/or neighbors (e.g., community pressure; included in five studies), and being unable to return to former housing (included in three studies).

Following housing loss, items assessing challenges to employment were also highly represented across studies (k = 15). Most common were items assessing general loss of employment (included in 12 studies). Other less-frequently included items referenced slow career advancement/denial of promotion (included in six studies), difficulty finding a job/denial of employment (included in three studies), lying to employers or coworkers (included in one study), not applying for a job in the first place (included in one study; Call, 2017), inability to maintain stable employment (included in one study; Cubellis et al., 2016), and employment below qualifications/skill level (included in one study; Robbers, 2009). Furthermore, four studies included items referencing the impact of residence restrictions on employment opportunities (Call, 2017, 2018; Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Hern, 2007). Some studies (k = 4) also included items reflective of general financial difficulties (e.g., being denied a bank account or loan, suffering financially). Related, two studies included items measuring challenges to obtaining higher education (Frenzel et al., 2014; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006b). Last, Harris et al. (2015) sampled treatment providers of juveniles who had sexually offended; thus, items were included that measured school problems (e.g., have had to switch schools, could not attend school, been suspended from school) in place of employment difficulties.

A third theme across the measures was inclusion of items reflective of negative social experiences, such as being treated rudely/negatively in public (k = 6), believing others were avoiding them due to their registration status (k = 2), being treated differently by others (k = 2), ostracism by neighbors/acquaintances (k = 1), feeling uncomfortable due to others staring/pointing/and so on (k = 1), and being ridiculed (k = 1). Other studies included items assessing discrimination experiences, particularly being asked to leave a business or restaurant due to sexual offender status (k = 4). Several studies specifically cited experiences of threats and/or harassment against the individual convicted of a sexual offense (k = 13). Among these, six studies assessed for general verbal threats/harassment (e.g., by neighbors, peers, classmates, adults, coworkers), whereas seven studies included items specifying receiving threatening communications (e.g., letters, telephone calls) and six specifying in-person threats. Other common items assessed physical assaults/attacks/harm (k = 11), property damage (k = 6), and vigilante attacks (k = 1) against the individual convicted of a sexual offense.

Related, many studies included items assessing difficulty with interpersonal relationships due to sexual offender status (k = 13). Several studies assessed for general relationship challenges or loss of friends or close acquaintances (k = 10), spouses/romantic partners (k = 4), or family members (k = 4). Other studies included items assessing difficulty forming new relationships or establishing social ties (k = 3). Consequences against family members and acquaintances were referenced in nine studies. Of these, two studies directly assessed family members of individuals convicted of a sexual offense regarding their experiences with discrimination, harassment, loss, and emotional damage (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). The remaining seven studies included items wherein respondents identified whether family members or close others were threatened, harassed, assaulted, suffered property damage, or suffered emotional or financial harm due to being associated with the individual convicted of the sexual offense.

With regard to differentiation between discrete experiences with collateral consequences and more intrapsychic, affective, or perception-based experiences associated with one’s sex offender status, the majority of studies (k = 11) explicitly distinguished these items within their measure. Terms used to highlight distinct item subsections included, but were not limited to, Practical Consequences versus Psychosocial Impact (k = 2; Levenson, 2008; Levenson et al., 2007), Loss, Threats and Harassment, Housing and Employment/Residence Restrictions versus Emotional and Psychological (k = 2), and Collateral Consequences versus Attitudinal Items (k = 2; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005). Among the remaining studies, four included at least one item (without explicit distinction) assessing some dimension of negative affect (e.g., felt hopeless, felt uncomfortable, emotional harm). Thus, fifteen studies measured some psychological aspect of collateral consequences, including depression/despair/hopelessness (k = 8), shame/embarrassment (k = 8), feeling alone/isolated (k = 7), stress/anxiety (k = 6), fear for safety (k = 6), fear for family’s safety (k = 1), suicidal thoughts (k = 2), or general emotional suffering (k = 2). The remaining four studies exclusively assessed discrete experiences with collateral consequences (e.g., loss, harassment, other aforementioned exclusions from prosocial society).

Another aspect of survey layout that varied across studies was whether or not studies included “subscales” to differentiate between disparate sources of collateral consequences. Twelve studies explicitly defined subsections within their measures to denote areas within which one might experience collateral consequences (e.g., Community, Workplace, Personal, General; Robbers, 2009). Of these, eleven studies explicitly differentiated between discrete collateral consequences experiences and attitudinal or affective items (e.g., Levenson, 2008; Levenson et al., 2007; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005). That is, these measures assessed both discrete or external experiences of collateral consequences (e.g., loss, harassment, discrimination), as well as perceptions, and affect-related or attitudinal responses related to experiences of both collateral consequences and general sexual offender–specific policies. The remaining seven studies were broader in nature in that they tended to include fewer items assessing separate domains of collateral consequences (e.g., one to two items assessing each area of employment and housing difficulties, harassment, discrimination, and emotional suffering). Interestingly, three studies included items assessing experiences with positive collateral consequences (e.g., less access to potential victims; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson et al., 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007).

Of note, no studies explicitly provided an operational/measurable definition of collateral consequences prior to presenting information regarding survey development and execution of the research. Furthermore, no studies utilized definitions and/or verbiage identified in previous scholarship, including formal/informal, primary/secondary, intended/unintended collateral consequences, to separate items within their measures.

Instrument Properties and Results Reported

Few studies overall reported scale properties, despite having developed and utilized novel instruments assessing collateral consequences. Three studies utilized data reduction techniques to reveal principal variables accounting for the largest amount of variance (Call, 2017, 2018; Cubellis et al., 2016). All three studies utilized principal component analysis (PCA), as opposed to factor analysis (FA), though the terms PCA and FA were used fairly interchangeably in the studies. The amount of information provided with regard to the process and outcomes of PCA varied by study. For example, while all studies reported eigenvalues and factor loadings, two studies provided more comprehensive information relative to the final chosen variables (e.g., Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin [KMO], Bartlett’s test of sphericity, anti-image correlation matrix, communalities; Call, 2017, 2018). Interestingly, none of the studies that conducted PCA included samples of individuals convicted of a sexual offense, but rather analyzed samples of law enforcement members, corrections personnel, or treatment providers.

Apart from the aforementioned three studies that conducted some type of FA prior to distributing their instrument, the majority of studies constructed instruments ad hoc, though often mentioning some type of consultation of prior research and survey instruments to guide survey development. These 16 studies predominantly reported their results in descriptive format, that is, reported the frequencies (often percentages) with which the particular item was endorsed within their sample. Fewer studies (k = 3) computed average or scaled scores with Likert-type response data (Call, 2017, 2018; Harris et al., 2015).

As mentioned, study results were primarily documented using descriptive statistics. The majority of studies employed items with dichotomous or Likert-type response scales, and results were reported in terms of the frequency (in percentages) with which the item was endorsed among the targeted sample. Specifically, findings revealed that of the 19 included studies, five studies exclusively reported their results in terms of descriptive statistics. Conversely, nine studies included some basic inferential statistics, most commonly correlational analyses or tests of group differences. Multivariate statistics were included in five studies, most commonly ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. With regard to qualitative data, 10 studies gathered and reported some aspect of narrative response regarding collateral consequences within their results. Despite the large portion of studies that included qualitative data, this information was primarily gathered through open-ended questions and reported after results from the quantitative instruments, rather than incorporated into item development.

With regard to reliability and validity, three studies reported Cronbach’s alphas to demonstrate internal consistency. Specifically, Harris et al. (2015) reported subscale reliabilities, though no other scale properties were reported. Call (2017, 2018) reported subscale reliabilities after conducting PCA. Cubellis et al. (2016) conducted PCA, though did not report a measure of reliability for the resulting 5-item collateral consequences scale. None of the 19 included studies referenced indicators of validity (e.g., construct validity, criterion validity), or how validity may have been assessed in their process of scale development.

Discussion

The purpose of this systematic review was to collect and synthesize existing empirical research that employed a quantitative instrument measuring collateral consequences. Specifically, through a comprehensive literature search, the current study intended to illustrate the need for (a) synthesis of existing scales and items used to assess the experiences of collateral consequences among individuals convicted of a sexual offense, (b) identification of gaps in the current measurement of collateral consequences, and (c) proposal of a unifying, empirically suited conceptualization of collateral consequences. The systematic search revealed a range of studies in terms of the reported process of survey development, items used, and populations assessed. With regard to existing empirical support for the construct and measurement of collateral consequences, it is clear that research in this area is still growing and developing. Nevertheless, notable findings emerged from this review.

The first objective of the current study was to synthesize existing scales and items used to assess collateral consequences. The results revealed a few important themes. First, the majority of items appear to be derivative of a handful of established collateral consequences, first appearing in Tewksbury (2004, 2005). These “original” collateral consequences, and the survey items representing them, include challenges to employment, housing and relationships, as well as discrete experiences of harassment and discrimination in public settings, in addition to attitudinal items (e.g., negative affect, perceived stigma) surrounding one’s status as a sexual offender. Thus, while there appears to be a pool of items on which collateral consequences researchers agree, these items have also been relatively unchallenged with regard to additional items that may access the more nuanced experiences of individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Indeed, many of the included studies relied on previous works to guide survey development, rather than taking a comprehensive approach to item selection that would demonstrate construct validity (e.g., pilot interview data, consulting experts, reviewing law or policy literature). With exception to the studies utilizing qualitative data to develop their surveys (Robbers, 2009), or engaging in more thorough collection of items from multiple previous works (e.g., Call, 2017, 2018) or theoretical literature (e.g., Levenson & Cotter, 2005a), a need exists for a more comprehensive and intentional development of a collateral consequences measure assessing the various domains within which such experiences occur. Further evidencing a need for greater depth/nuance, many of the existing measures referenced broad experiences of “housing loss” or “loss of employment,” though few identified the multiple sources and circumstances under which such losses occur. Last, several studies utilized dichotomous or standard Likert-type responses with items assessing both discrete (i.e., distinct experiences) and continuous (i.e., negative affect) data. Thus, the frequency and intensity with which individuals experienced collateral consequences may not be thoroughly captured by existing instruments.

In addition, while none of the included studies referenced bidimensional definitions of collateral consequences in their introduction or methods sections (i.e., formal/informal, primary/secondary, intended/unintended), many of the studies did include some delineation within their items to reflect the external versus internal aspects of collateral consequences. That is, many questionnaires assessed both social and psychological sanctions (or practical vs. psychosocial impact; Levenson et al., 2007) associated with one’s sexual offender status, though did not expressly present these as intentionally separate conceptual processes, or statistically represent their relation to one another. In addition, some of the item pools referenced experiences with traditionally regarded “formal” collateral consequences (e.g., direct sanctions resulting from Megan’s Law, legal restrictions, court-imposed residence or employment restrictions, pressures from parole/probation agent; Levenson et al., 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), though these items were not presented as “formal,” or separate from the other included items. Nevertheless, a trend toward focused measurement of “informal” collateral consequences was apparent; the majority of the studies referenced items of social and intrapsychic collateral consequences (often in secondary relation to consequences stemming directly from Megan’s Law or residence restrictions), while relatively few items assessed direct experience with legal sanctions (included in Call, 2017, 2018; Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000). This finding highlights a mistranslation between the definitions of collateral consequences offered by the law literature and the representations of collateral consequences in the empirical sociological and psychological research. Interestingly enough, the majority of discussions as to which types of experiences constitute collateral consequences continue to be overwhelmingly found in the law and policy research (e.g., Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Logan, 2013; Uggen & Stewart, 2014), with less input from those researchers who gather empirical data directly from the mouths of individuals who experience such consequences.

In addressing the second objective of the current systematic review, the need for more systematic definition and measurement of sexual offender collateral consequences is apparent. None of the studies included in the systematic review provided a clear definition of collateral consequences prior to introducing their means of measurement. Furthermore, none of the included studies directly identified the processes by which they developed a conceptualization and/or guiding framework of collateral consequences. While many of the included studies intended to demonstrate the impact of collateral consequences by using sheer numbers (e.g., descriptive statistics; Frenzel et al., 2014; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), rather than enter into a theoretical and definitional examination of what constituted a “collateral” consequence, it is this researcher’s opinion that lack of conceptual underpinnings nevertheless influences the robustness with which one can consider individual findings as well as the overall state of the collateral consequences literature. Furthermore, researchers and psychometricians have warned against lacking conceptual underpinnings in construct and scale development, particularly in forensic and/or correctional context where the implications of statistical misrepresentation may be greater (Rogers, 2008).

Last, based on results from this systematic review, a unifying definition of collateral consequences is proposed to guide measurement. The components of this proposal are threefold and are intended to address the gaps, as well as trends and functional aspects, of the extant empirical literature. First, this researcher proposes a unifying definition that upholds the integrity of the definition of collateral consequences as “collateral” in nature, thus arising separately from direct legal sanction, outside formal operation of law and/or policy. Thus, this proposal promotes the exclusion of direct punishment (e.g., incarceration, fines, subjection to registry and community notification) as well as residence and employment restrictions in the definition of collateral consequences affecting individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Collateral consequences have traditionally been conceptualized by law researchers as collateral in that they are not included in the penal code, enforced by noncriminal justice entities, and civil in nature (Uggen & Stewart, 2014). Accordingly, the collateral or peripheral designation is attached due to the individual being unaware of such punishments at the time of conviction (thus threatening procedural due process; Carpenter & Beverlin, 2011). While it can be argued that offending individuals may have been unaware of these civil punishments prior to conviction (following the logic that these sanctions may be considered “collateral”; Winters et al., 2017), the integrity of the definition may be sacrificed as the limits between direct and collateral consequences continue to blur.

A second related point toward definitional consistency is to maintain the conceptualization of collateral consequences as unintended. Some researchers have adopted the language of intended versus unintended to differentiate between collateral consequences associated with and independent of legal sanction, respectively (Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2007). That collateral consequences are well-referenced in both psychological and law literature has undoubtedly contributed to the inclusion of both intended and unintended sanctions as reflective of collateral consequences. For example, some law researchers consider collateral consequences as arising from informal government and agency policy (Chin, 2017). This researcher proposes a definition of collateral consequences as peripherally imposed and unintended in nature, with the purpose of making the study of collateral consequences more conducive to psychological and sociological examination.

Third, with the goal of furthering understanding of the intra- and interpersonal damages accompanying a sexual offense, this researcher proposes a guiding definition of collateral consequences as predominantly reflecting psychosocial, as opposed to policy-related, impairments. Related to the aforementioned points, the essence of collateral consequences should be reflected by emphasizing the consequences occurring most distal from the punishment itself. Psychological harm such as shame, depression, hopelessness, fear, and hypervigilance, in conjunction with social losses, harassment, and discrimination, highlights tangible collateral damage resulting from the fact of conviction. Even losses to individual or social capital can be considered collateral under this proposed definition, if the circumstances under which these losses occur is explicit and arises from community control and/or pressure (e.g., “Had to move from a home or apartment because neighbors complained that I was a sex offender”; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a). Challenges associated with residence and/or employment restrictions, however, may better reflect an individual’s difficulties in complying with offense- or probation/parole-related stipulations, rather than a collateral consequence.

This conceptualization, while parsimonious in its exclusion of formally imposed sanctions for sexual offenders, allows for more nuance in understanding the inter- and intrapersonal aspects of collateral consequences, particularly those of vital interest to offender outcomes and, subsequently, public safety. A significant portion of included studies had already noted some separation between social (e.g., loss of housing, employment, relationships, or discrimination or harassment) and psychological (e.g., shame, dysphoria, hopelessness, avoidance, other perceptions) items within their included measures of collateral consequences, though the language used to denote these areas varied. It is this researcher’s opinion that, in deference to the collateral nature of collateral consequences, movement away from the often-confounded labels of formal and informal, direct and indirect, and primary and secondary sanctions may help individuate the psychological versus legal understanding of collateral consequences. In its stead, a bidimensional understanding of the social and psychological aspects of collateral consequences progresses the construct of collateral consequences on a natural course (and small deviation) from extant empirical representations of collateral consequences in the psychological literature.

In sum, the proposed definition of collateral consequences as collateral, unintended, and psychosocial is meant to guide researchers in isolating the effects of collateral (rather than direct) consequences on important psychological and criminogenic outcomes. This author also proposes an operational definition of collateral consequences based on the attention given to the psychosocial effects of sexual offender policies, as emphasized in the current conceptualization. Specifically, collateral consequences are operationally defined as (a) experiences of discrimination, loss, suppression, or negative affect; (b) originating societally, interpersonally, or intrapersonally; (c) arising as a result of the sexual offender status or policies though independent of law or legal statute (would not be present without subjection to sexual offender policies or label); and (d) unintended either in its basic existence or in terms of duration (lasting past the punishment phase) or severity. For example, receiving harassing telephone calls may be categorized as an incident of discrimination, arising interpersonally, as a result of one’s sexual offender status though independent of law or legal statute, and unintended in its basic existence (not identified as an intended consequence of punishment at the time of conviction).

Study Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications

Findings from the current study should be interpreted in light of a few notable limitations.

First, in accordance with the study purpose, this research focused undividedly on items assessing collateral consequences. Within some of the included studies (Cubellis et al., 2016; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009), other items were present in the study’s instrument addressing individual perceptions of sexual offender policies. While these items were included when they expressly referred to negative consequences affecting the respondent and/or subject (e.g., “I feel I am being unfairly punished by being on the Sex Offender Registry”; Tewksbury, 2005), other items addressing general perceptions (e.g., perceptions of fairness of disclosing various types of personal information to the public such as fingerprints, home address; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a) and/or experiences (e.g., “Does therapy to control stress”; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009) of individuals convicted of a sexual offense were not included as they were outside the scope of the current review. Furthermore, studies assessing individual perceptions of registry-related impacts, though relevant, were also excluded from the current study if collateral consequences were not expressly measured (e.g., Mercado et al., 2008). Future research may consider including all items addressing the perceptions and experiences of individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Expanding the search in this way may uncover and shed light on other collateral consequences associated with a sexual offense conviction, though they may not be expressly labeled as such. Furthermore, an expanded search may be particularly useful when considering gathering data for the purpose of future instrument development.

Second, there is a plethora of research utilizing qualitative analysis to uncover common themes related to the experience of collateral consequences among individuals convicted of a sexual offense. The current study employed a relatively limited scope in exclusively examining quantitative measures, and only those that directly provided their measures within the article text and/or online appendix. Yet some qualitative studies exist that identify interview-derived collateral consequences (e.g., Comartin et al., 2010; Klein et al., 2014; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006a, 2007), which may be useful to include in a future systematic review. Examining both quantitative and qualitative inventories of collateral consequences items may help address the question of content validity, particularly when considering directing future research toward the development of a valid and reliable instrument of collateral consequences. Last, the literature search was limited to articles written in the English language. Although the majority of sexual offender research is conducted and published in English-speaking countries (due in large part to the prevalence of sexual offender–specific policies of Anglo countries), an expanded search may have revealed additional scholarship featuring empirical examinations into collateral consequences (Jones & Newburn, 2013).

In proposing a unifying definition of collateral consequences based on a systematic review of the extant literature, it is hoped that research in the area of sexual offender outcomes will advance. Levenson (2018) and Levenson et al. (2016) recently issued a call for increased evidence-based tools to highlight the experiences of sexual offenders with regard to policy reform. In essence, by highlighting the collateral, unintended, and distal nature of these consequences, arguments toward policy reform and the unconstitutionality of registry may be bolstered. Lack of definitional consistency has translated to unguided measurement, which has hindered the study of collateral consequences. Theoretical discussions, however, continue to link collateral consequences to important criminogenic outcomes (Craun & Bierie, 2014; Kirk & Wakefield, 2018; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010; Vuolo, 2017). For example, collateral consequences have been theoretically linked to psychological outcomes for individuals convicted of a sexual offense including shame, hopelessness, and depression, as well as behavioral and criminogenic outcomes, such as offender efforts to reintegrate and desist from future offending (Lasher & McGrath, 2012; Mingus & Burchfield, 2012; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010). Thus, implications of the current systematic review are predominantly research-oriented and include (a) provision of a synthesized item pool to researchers and other interested parties, to orient them to the current knowledge base of collateral consequences, (b) a much-needed guiding conceptualization of collateral (as opposed to direct) consequences that may help focus future research, and (c) movement of the construct of collateral consequences away from legal definitions and toward a greater psychological understanding (to link collateral consequences to theorized psychological and behavioral correlates).

Conclusion

In summary, the above review identified gaps in the empirical collateral consequences literature. To the author’s knowledge, this review provides the first systematic review of research pertaining to the measurement of collateral consequences to date. Within the current review, the predominant argument for improved psychometrics in the measurement of collateral consequences was situated in a direr need for a strong conceptual framework of collateral consequences, separate from the more nuanced interpretations promulgated by the law literature. The current review further provides a pathway by which the study of sexual offender collateral may expand in terms of a more refined psychological and empirical foundation.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-sax-10.1177_1079063220981906 – Supplemental material for Toward a Focused Conceptualization of Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Who Sexually Offend: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-sax-10.1177_1079063220981906 for Toward a Focused Conceptualization of Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Who Sexually Offend: A Systematic Review by Emma Hamilton in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Footnotes

Author’s Note

The author takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analyses, and has made every effort to avoid inflating statistically significant results.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a dissertation grant from the University of Texas at Austin Graduate School.

ORCID iD

Emma Hamilton

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Brannon

Y. N.

Levenson

J. S.

Fortney

Baker

J. N.

(2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900403

Brown

Spencer

Deakin

(2007). The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 46(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00452.x

Burchfield

K. B.

Mingus

(2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311375

Burchfield

K. B.

Mingus

(2014). Sex offender reintegration: Consequences of the local neighborhood context. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9195-x

Call

(2017). How acceptable are their obstacles to reentry? Attitudes of community corrections professionals toward collateral consequences for sex offenders. Corrections, 2, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1305878

Call

(2018). The community corrections perspective toward sex offender management policies and collateral consequences: Does contact with sex offenders matter? Criminal Justice Studies, 31, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1393418

Carpenter

C. L.

Beverlin

A. E.

(2011). The evolution of unconstitutionality in sex offender registration laws. Hastings Law Journal, 63, 1071–1133.

Chajewski

Mercado

C. C.

(2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408320845

Chin

(2017). Collateral consequences. In Luna

(Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: Punishment, incarceration, and release (Vol. 4, pp. 371–395). Arizona State University.

10.

Comartin

E. B.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Miles

B. W.

(2010). Family experiences of young adult sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(2), 204–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538711003627207

11.

Craun

S. W.

Bierie

D. M.

(2014). Are the collateral consequences of being a registered sex offender as bad as we think: A methodological research note. Federal Probation, 78, 28–31.

12.

Cubellis

M. A.

Walfield

S. M.

Harris

A. J.

(2016). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16667574

13.

Edwards

Hensley

(2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01451006

14.

Frenzel

E. D.

Bowen

K. N.

Spraitz

J. D.

Bowers

J. H.

Phaneuf

(2014). Understanding collateral consequences of registry laws: An examination of the perceptions of sex offender registrants. Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), 1–22.

15.

Harris

A. J.

Walfield

S. M.

Shields

R. T.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2015). Collateral consequences of juvenile sex offender registration and notification: Results from a survey of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574004

16.

Higgins

E. M.

Rolfe

S. M.

(2017). “The sleeping army”: Necropolitics and the collateral consequences of being a sex offender. Deviant Behavior, 38(9), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1229947

17.

Jeglic

E. L.

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(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9096-9

18.

Jones

Newburn

(2013). Policy convergence, politics and comparative penal reform: Sex offender notification schemes in the USA and UK. Punishment & Society, 15, 439–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474513504801

19.

Kirk

D. S.

Wakefield

(2018). Collateral consequences of punishment: A critical review and path forward. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092045

20.

Klein

J. L.

Tolson

Collins

(2014). Expressing strain: A qualitative evaluation of the testimonies of female sex offenders. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 2(1), 119–147.

21.

Kruttschnitt

Uggen

Shelton

(2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094481

22.

Lasher

M. P.

McGrath

R. J.

(2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10387524

23.

Levenson

Tewksbury

(2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 54–68. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x

24.

Levenson

J. S.

(2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010802159822

25.

Levenson

J. S.

(2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(21), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0

26.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676

27.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271304

28.

Levenson

J. S.

D’Amora

D. A.

Hern

A. L.

(2007). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.770

29.

Levenson

J. S.

Grady

M. D.

Leibowitz

(2016). Grand challenges: Social justice and the need for evidence-based sex offender registry reform. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 43, 3–38.

30.

Levenson

J. S.

Hern

A. L.

(2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59–73. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3818/JRP.9.1.2007.59

31.

Liberati

Altman

D. G.

Tetzlaff

Mulrow

Gøtzsche

P. C.

Ioannidis

J. P.

… Moher

(2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

32.

Logan

W. A.

(2013). Informal collateral consequences. Washington Law Review, 88, 1103–1118.

33.

Mercado

C. C.

Alvarez

Levenson

(2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208317540

34.

Mingus

Burchfield

K. B.

(2012). From prison to integration: Applying modified labeling theory to sex offenders. Criminal Justice Studies, 25(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2012.657906

35.

Pinard

(2006). An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review, 86, 623–690.

36.

Pinard

(2010). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review, 85, 457–534.

37.

Pinard

Thompson

A. C.

(2005). Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 30, 585–620.

38.

Robbers

M. L.

(2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07312953

39.

Roberts

(2008). The mythical divide between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions: Involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 670–740.

40.

Rogers

(2008). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In Rogers

(Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 14–35). Guilford Press.

41.

Tewksbury

(2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68, 30–33.

42.

Tewksbury

(2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271704

43.

Tewksbury

(2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531–540.

44.

Tewksbury

(2012). Stigmatization of sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 33(8), 606–623.

45.

Tewksbury

Lees

M. B.

(2006a). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170500524246

46.

Tewksbury

Lees

M. B.

(2006b). Sex offenders on campus: University-based sex offender registries and the collateral consequences of registration. Federal Probation, 70, 50–56.

47.

Tewksbury

Lees

M. B.

(2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706286915

48.

Tewksbury

Levenson

(2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.878

49.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 15(2), 215–239.

50.

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(4), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09339180

51.

Travis

(2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In Mauer

Chesney-Lind

(Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). New Press.

52.

Uggen

Stewart

(2014). Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1871–1912.

53.

Vuolo

(2017). Situating the prediction problem within collateral consequences: Communicating risk to employers. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 959–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12327

54.

Wacker

J. G.

(2004). A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.002

55.

Wakefield

(2006). The vilification of sex offenders: Do laws targeting sex offenders increase recidivism and sexual violence. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, 141–149.

56.

Wheelock

(2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271702

57.

Wheelock

Uggen

(2005). Race, poverty and punishment: The impact of criminal sanctions on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequality. The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist, 23–47.

58.

Winters

G. M.

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

Blasko

B. L.

(2017). Sex offender legislation and social control: An examination of sex offenders’ expectations prior to release. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1299894

59.

Zevitz

R. G.

Farkas

M. A.

(2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

60.

Zgoba

K. M.

Levenson

McKee

(2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408322119

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB