Are the Collateral Consequences of Being a Registered Sex Offender As Bad As We Think? a Methodological Research Note

Home , Sex offender registry

June 2014 28 Are the Collateral Consequences of Being a Registered Sex Offender as Bad as We Think? A Methodological Research Note

Sarah W. Craun David M. Bierie United States Marshals Service

SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT of sex crime rates.) Likewise, the literature shows sex offenders, they expressed fears about the offender registries, research has explored vari- that ex-convicts in general face myriad obsta- perceptions of their neighbors. Tewksbury ous facets of their implementation and effects, cles to reintegration, including stigma that and colleagues extended this study by con- including harmful collateral consequences of limits employment or housing. It is important sidering the views of female sex offenders. registries on sex offenders. Researchers have to understand whether the registry itself is Female offenders surmised that there would consistently found that sex offenders report generating the collateral harms that research- be both positive and negative experiences as registries have detrimental effects on their ers have documented in the lives of returning they attempted to reintegrate back into their lives (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Levenson sexual offenders. In other words, do registered communities, but they did not see their con- & Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, sex offenders experience distinct harms above cerns as “pressing or significant” (Tewksbury, 2007; Robbers, 2009). In fact, even when and beyond those generated by being a parolee Connor, Cheeseman, & Rivera, 2012, p. 459). authors recently found a deterrent effect of or residing in a disorganized community? However, when sex offenders retrospectively registries on sex offenders, they still suggested Second, the literature to date is generally assessed their prerelease worries about being that registries be revised or limited due to based on self-report surveys or interview on the registry, most admitted that their fears the “significant harm to the reintegration methodologies in which researchers explicitly about community acceptance and targeting efforts of ex-arrestees” (Park, Bandyopadhyay, tell the sex offender that the registry and col- had been overstated; they did not experi- & Letourneau, 2014, p. 206). This critical lateral consequences of the registry are the ence these forecasted negative experiences attitude in the literature toward sex offender focus of the study. Broad literature exists that in their communities (Burchfield & Mingus, registries is in part tied to the pervasiveness suggests such priming can lead to both selec- 2008). Thus, while it appears prisoners experi- of studies documenting harm resulting from tion bias (which subjects agree to participate) ence some level of emotional discomfort and the registry in the eyes of registrants and their and a tendency of subjects to overstate what anxiety when thinking about their registration families. Collateral harms include harassment they believe researchers are looking for (con- requirement, in many cases those concerns or victimization, social isolation, difficulty firmation bias). To understand the true scope never materialize. finding employment, and difficulty finding of harm caused by sex offender registries, it is Researchers have also examined post- housing. Thus, even when research demon- crucial to understand the impact of the regis- release offenders to assess how the registry strates a benefit to the registry, scholars have try above and beyond these potential sources impacts the lives of those who reside in the argued that the costs are even greater (Park et of bias. community and interact daily with their al., 2014). neighbors. In one study, only about five per- Current Research on Collateral Although this empirical research has cent of sex offenders in New Jersey reported Consequences of Sex Offender provided significant insight into potential high levels of stress from being on the registry; Registries drawbacks of registration, the explorations most had a normal level of stress (Tewksbury have exhibited two limitations—each of which Researchers have examined the collateral con- & Zgoba, 2010). In another study that used may serve to overestimate the harm of the sequences of registries on sex offenders’ lives a sample from Kansas and Oklahoma, regis- registry. First, researchers studying registries at various stages, from those still in prison tered sex offenders reported modest levels of have not used comparison groups of other to those living in the community. Tewksbury stress due to their listing on the sex offender ex-convicts or other residents who live in the (2012) conducted in-depth interviews of 24 registry (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011a). same neighborhoods as sex offenders. (As incarcerated sex offenders to determine their Subjects reported more stress when they reviewed below, the literature suggests that fears about life after being released. While experienced direct sanctions or felt they sex offenders tend to migrate toward socially most respondents reported that they had not were being watched by those around them disorganized areas with higher than average internalized society’s negative views about (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011a). Overall, high June 2014 COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION 29 levels of stress were not commonly reported; as ex-convicts or by the nature of the com- & Stengel, 2006). This is, of course, a pattern rather, a low to moderate level of stress was munities in which they lived. If accurate, similar to that observed among parolees in the standard (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011a; the difficulties and stigma sex offenders face general (Hipp, Turner, & Petersilia, 2010; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010). should also be experienced by other types of Kubrin & Stuart, 2006). This pattern is par- Beyond mental stress, however, registered offenders as they attempt to reestablish lives ticularly important because of the broad sex offenders described concrete conse- in the community following prison. and consistent literature showing that these quences of being on the sex offender registry. The literature has been fairly consistent in areas pose a higher risk of disorder and vic- Levenson and colleagues (2005; 2007), along documenting that parolees experience stigma timization for residents and their families with Robbers (2009), found that a substantial and structural disadvantage resulting in (Bursik, 1988; Rose & Clear, 1998; Sampson number of sex offenders reported they had collateral consequences similar to those docu- & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942), as lost their job due to the discovery of their mented among sexual offenders (Petersilia, well as problems for other quality of life fac- status as a sex offender. Furthermore, between 2009; Travis & Visher, 2005), as do the families tors, such as stress, depression, and isolation 5 percent and 10 percent of registered sex of those returning home from prison (Uggen, (Wilson, 1987). offenders reported being physically assaulted Wakefield, & Western, 2005; Wildeman & or injured, and 18 percent had their property Wakefield, 2014). The broad and far-reaching Suggestions for Future Research damaged (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson collateral consequences for general offenders The work performed to date has provided a et al., 2007). Nearly half reported losing a released to the community are attributed to strong foundation for understanding the per- friend due to being discovered as a registered processes similar to those found in the sexual spective of registered sex offenders. However, sex offender (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011a). offender literature. That is, one’s status as an the methodologies employed to date have dem- Burchfield and Mingus (2008) conducted in- ex-inmate is often public or hard to hide. onstrated two consistent limitations. In this person interviews with sex offenders in the Like sexual offenders, for example, general section, we provide suggestions for expanding community about their experiences while on parolees often have to signify their status on the methodology for collateral consequences the registry. Some stated that they had trouble applications for employment and housing and research to address these two potential sources finding employment; however, they admitted may be revealed as an ex-criminal by other of bias. Two primary suggestions for future this could be due to their ex-convict status and public symbols of status (e.g., ankle monitors work include: 1) surveying sex offenders was not necessarily attributable to their place- or visits by parole officers). Collateral harm without the researchers admitting knowledge ment on the sex offender registry (Burchfield to the general parolee population has been of the participants’ past sexual crimes, and 2) & Mingus, 2008). tied to structural impediments (e.g., hous- using comparison groups of other offenders or Lasher and McGrath (2012) conducted a ing or employment restrictions) alongside other residents in the community. review of studies on the social and psycho- informal sanctions (e.g., a marriage penalty as Surveying offenders without acknowl- logical impact of community notification on described by Uggen et al., 2005) that emerge edging their registration status may provide sex offenders. Across these studies, 8 percent because one’s status as an ex-offender is gener- additional insight into how sex offenders of all participants reported being physically ally fairly obvious and stigmatized. reintegrate into their communities. To date, assaulted or injured and 14 percent report It remains unclear whether sexual offend- researchers have informed offenders that having their property damaged; 44 percent ers experience stigma more often or to a larger they are being surveyed because of their sex reported being threatened or harassed by degree than the general population of return- offender status; in other words, the offenders neighbors (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). Beyond ing inmates. However, the few studies that are specifically told they are being sampled criminal acts, between 40 percent and 60 exist today suggest there may be important because of their stigma. This sets the context percent of participants reported negative psy- similarities. Mingus and Burchfield (2012), for all the questions that follow—the respon- chological consequences such as feeling lonely, for example, found that sex offenders reported dent is fully aware that his or her appearance isolated, embarrassed, and hopeless (Lasher an average score of 3.87 out of 5 on a stigma on the sex offender registry is the reason for the & McGrath, 2012). Again, the methodologi- scale. This is roughly similar to the finding outcomes on the survey questions. This prim- cal approaches used in the reviewed research reported by Winnick and Bodkin (2008), ing may influence how sex offenders answer studies do not allow the reader to differentiate in which general ex-offenders reported an the survey questions (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, between the negative ramifications of being average score of 4.15 out of 6 on the stigma Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Salancik, 1984; an ex-convict or living in a disorganized com- scale. Although suggestive, conclusions on Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Studies that community from those brought on by the registry this question remain speculative until more municate they are focused on the subjects’ or environmental conditions. studies have been conducted. Regardless, the experience on the registry could generate bias larger point here is that the theoretical and in responses in at least two ways. Many could Comparisons to Other Former Offenders empirical literature on the existence and path- see this as an opportunity to help eliminate the Much of the previous work that focuses on way to collateral consequences for sexual registry (e.g., perhaps if they can explain how sex offenders implicitly assumed that the offenders on the registry and general reentry terrible it is their responses will help efforts to negative interactions these offenders might population remains strikingly similar. limit the registry). Second, survey instruments encounter in the community were due to The literature is also clear in showing that which include a list of items on potential prob- the public nature of the sex offender registry. sexual offenders have a tendency to reside in lems that may be caused by the registry could Unacknowledged in these studies was the areas of social disorganization and disadvan- be priming subjects to report problems—to plausible possibility that these integration tage (Hipp, Turner, & Jannetta 2010; Mustaine generate confirmation or social desirability difficulties could be explained by their status & Tewksbury, 2011b; Mustaine, Tewksbury, bias (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007). This may be 30 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 78 Number 1 magnified if questions on a survey list myriad offender status. The same logic holds true if to collateral consequences will provide more potential harms. At the least, priming toward a comparison group shows that sex offenders persuasive evidence to policy makers of this a negative account of life when the survey are equally as isolated as other residents in fact than extant research, along with helping topic is one’s experience on the sex offender their neighborhoods. Comparison groups are to identify effective strategies to minimize dif- registry is more likely than when a survey’s even more vital when one considers that sex ficulties with reintegration. outward purpose was to measure satisfaction offenders tend to live in socially disorganized with one’s life in his or her community. areas (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b), where References Not only may priming bias responses, but crime is higher and social connections tend Ackerman, A. R., & Sacks, M. (2012). Can it may lead to higher non-response rates. The to be limited (Sampson & Groves, 2009). general strain theory be used to explain strong majority of previous survey research It therefore would not be surprising if other recidivism among registered sex offenders? had response rates of less that 20 percent residents of the community experienced the Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 187-193. (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Mustaine & same difficulties that registered sex offenders Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered Tewksbury, 2011a; Tewksbury & Zgoba, are attributing to the registry. sex offenders’ experiences with local social 2010), and some that were less than 10 Future research must expand to provide capital and social control. Criminal Justice percent (Ackerman & Sacks, 2012; Jeglic, a more comprehensive picture. One way and Behavior, 35(3), 356-374. Mercado, & Levenson, 2012). This is lower that this might be accomplished is through Bursik, R. (1988). Social disorganization and than national average-response rates in mail mail surveys. Although obtaining a sufficient theories of crime and delinquency: Prob- survey data, which hover currently around 45 sample size of both offenders and neighbors lems and prospects. Criminology, 26(4): percent (Shih & Xitao, 2008). It is plausible for such a survey requires some work, it is 519-51. that these low response rates are in part due possible. Craun and Freisthler (2008) applied Craun, S. W., & Freisthler, B. (2008). Using tax to sex offenders not wanting to participate a combination of mapping and mail surveys to parcels to select a location-based sample: in a survey that focused on the past crimes reach neighbors of registered sex offenders. A An illustration that examines residents’ they committed. similar technique could be employed to survey awareness of sex offenders in neighborhoods. Evaluation Review, 32(4), 315-334. Beyond proposing that researchers surrep- neighbors and sex offenders under the guise of Hipp, J. R., Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (2010). titiously survey sex offenders, we also suggest a community safety or neighborhood satis- Parolee recidivism in California: The effects the use of comparison groups to provide an faction survey. By comparing registered sex of neighborhood context and social service opportunity to determine how similar sex offenders to others in the neighborhood (or to agency characteristics. Criminology, 48(4), offenders are to others in their neighborhoods other convicted felons in the same communi- 947-979. or to other ex-offenders. Without a com- ties), valid comparisons could be made on Hipp, J. R., Turner, S., & Jannetta, J. (2010). Are parison group it is not possible to attribute items such as crime experienced, employment sex offenders moving into social disorgani- negative experiences, such as vandalism or instability, social isolation, and mental health zation? Analyzing the residential mobility depression, to being on the registry with issues, which would lead to a more informed of California Parolees. Journal of Research in any degree of confidence. For example, a understanding of registry consequences. Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 558-590. survey mailed to registered sex offenders in New research using the ideas discussed Jeglic, E. L., Mercado, C. C., & Levenson, J. S. (2012). The prevalence and correlates of New Jersey contained questions about their here may find that sex offenders still report depression and hopelessness among sex experiences of being a sex offender, such as: worse outcomes than those in the comparison offenders subject to community notification “My property has been damaged by someone groups. However, relying on the self-report and residence restriction legislation. Ameri- who found out I am a sex offender” (Jeglic, of offenders who are asked to attribute expe- can Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 46-59. et al., 2012, p. 51). Levenson and Cotter riences due to their registry status leads to Kubrin, C. & Stewart, E. (2006). Predicting who (2005) assessed offenders’ level of agree- unnecessary uncertainty and potentially reoffends: The neglected role of neighbor- ment with the statement “I feel alone and exposes the analysis to bias.1 Correcting for hood context in recidivism studies. Crimi- isolated because of Megan’s Law” (p. 58). A these two methodological limitations in future nology, 44(2):165-97. registered sex offender may attribute an act research will allow for a stronger foundation Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The of vandalism or social isolation to his or her of knowledge from which policy makers impact of community notification on sex of- appearance on the registry, but a comparison and practitioners can draw to develop evi- fender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International group of neighbors and other ex-felons from dence-based policies and interventions for Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara- the same community would allow for a bet- the successful reintegration of sex offenders. tive Criminology, 56(1), 6-28. ter understanding to determine if vandalism Unless research corrects for these two sources Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect and social isolation are common within the of bias, the field will continue to have a difficult of Megan`s Law on sex offender reintegra- neighborhood. If researchers simply asked, time convincing policy makers of the magni- tion. Journal of Contemporary Criminal “My property has been damaged” and a tude of the problems posed by the registry. If Justice, 21(1), 49-66. similar percentage of registered sex offenders the registry is truly causing harm, and that Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. L. and neighborhood residents reported damage harm is significant and independent of these (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on com- to their property, it would present a differ- methodologies, then measuring the registry munity re-entry for sex offenders. Behav- ent story about the impact of registries and effect independent of these other pathways ioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 587-602. illustrate that registered sex offenders may be 1 In fact, future research could test this supposition personalizing crimes and incorrectly attribut- by determining how answers differ between those ing normal neighborhood crimes to their sex informed of the reason for their selection versus those sex offenders who are not. June 2014 COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION 31

Mingus, W., & Burchfield, K. B. (2012). From Rose, D. & Clear. T. (1998). Incarceration, social Tewksbury, R., & Zgoba, K. M. (2010). Percep- prison to integration: applying modified capital, and crime: Implications for social tions and coping with punishment: How labeling theory to sex offenders. Criminal disorganization theory. Criminology 36(3), registered sex offenders respond to stress, Justice Studies, 25(1), 97-109. 441-79. internet restrictions, and the collateral Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2011a). Salancik, G. R. (1984). On priming, consistency, consequences of registration. International Assessing informal social control against and order effects in job attitude assessment: Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara- the highly stigmatized. Deviant Behavior, With a note on current research. Journal of tive Criminology, 54(4), 537-551. 32(10), 944-960. Management,10, 250–254. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2011b). Resi- Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examina- questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, dential relegation of registered sex offend- tion of the need–satisfaction models of job 133(5), 859. ers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, Travis, J. & Visher, C. (2005). Prisoner Reentry 36(1), 44-57. 22, 427–456. and Crime in America. New York, NY: Park, J.H., Bandyopadhyay, D., & Letourneau, Sampson, R., & Groves, W. (1989). Commu- Cambridge UniversityPress. E. (2014). Examining deterrence of adult nity structure and crime: Testing social- Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). sex crimes: A semi-parametric intervention disorganization theory. American Journal of Work and family perspectives on reentry. In time-series approach. Computational Statis- Sociology, 94(4), 774-802. Travis & Visher (Ed.), Prisoner Reentry and tics & Data Analysis, 69(0), 198-207. Shaw, C. & Henry, M. (1942). Juvenile De- Crime in America. New York, NY: Cam- Petersilia, J. (2009). When Prisoners Come linquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: bridge University Press. Home. New York, NY: Oxford University University of Chicago Press. Wildeman, C. & Wakefield, S. (2014). Children Press. Shih, T.H., & Xitao, F. (2008). Comparing of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & response rates from web and mail surveys: the future of American inequality. New York, Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), NY: Oxford University Press. biases in behavioral research: a critical 249-271. Wilson, W. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: review of the literature and recommended Tewksbury, R. (2012). Stigmatization of sex of- The inner city, the underclass, and public remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, fenders. Deviant Behavior, 33(8), 606-623. policy. University of Chicago Press. 88(5), 879. Tewksbury, R., Connor, D. P., Cheeseman, K., & Robbers, M. L. P. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Rivera, B. L. (2012). Female sex offenders’ Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. anticipations for re-entry: Do they really International Journal of Offender Therapy know what they’re in for? Journal of Crime and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5-28. and Justice, 35(3), 451-463.