Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to better understand the impact of sex offender registration and notification laws on the family members of registered sex offenders (RSO). An online survey was utilized to collect data from 584 family members across the U.S. Employment problems experienced by the RSO, and subsequent financial hardships, emerged as the most pressing issue identified by family members. The likelihood of housing disruption was correlated with residential restriction laws; larger buffer distances led to increased frequencies of housing crisis. Family members living with an RSO were more likely to experience threats and harassment by neighbors. Children of RSOs reportedly experienced adverse consequences including stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. More than half had experienced ridicule, teasing, depression, anxiety, fear, or anger. Unintended consequences can impact family members’ ability to support RSOs in their efforts to avoid recidivism and successfully reintegrate. Implications for criminal justice policy and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The majority of these cases involved RSOs who are fathers, with the survey respondent being the mother (or other caretaker) of a RSO father’s child. However, there are 4 cases in the data where the RSO is the mother of a child being cared for by the respondent.

References

  • Adam Walsh Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, (2006).

  • Adkins, G., Huff, D., & Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. L., & Sample, L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Online First, doi:0887403408316705v1.

  • Barnes, J. C., Dukes, T., Tewksbury, R., & DeTroye, T. (2008). Predicting the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Online First, doi:10.1177/0887403408320842.

  • Brannon, Y. N., Levenson, J. S., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 19(4), 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 356–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2008). An analysis of sex offender residency restrictions in Newark, New Jersey. Sex Offender Law Report, 9, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46(2), 411–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 484–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Lang, A.-G. (2008). GPOWER version 3.0.10. Germany: Universitat Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, M. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal and formal prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2(2), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, A. E., Dietrich, S. M., Landau, R., Schneider, P. D., Ackelsberg, I., Bernstein-Baker, J., et al. (2002). Every door closed: Barriers facing parents with criminal records. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (1994) Public Law 103–322.

  • Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007a). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007b). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieb, R., & Nunlist, C. (2008). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s Citizens: A ten-year follow-up (No. 08-03-1101). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2008). Sex crimes, children, and pornography: Public views and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 532–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meloy, M. L., Miller, S. L., & Curtis, K. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(2), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20(2), 188–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2008). Retrieved 8/14/08, from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf.

  • Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2008). Demographics of Internet Users. Retrieved 9/12/08, from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_7.22.08.htm.

  • Pokela, J., Denny, E., Steblea, I., & Melanson, F. (2008). Don’t hang up yet: A comparison of online and telephone survey methodologies. Strategic Health Care Marketing, 25(7), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2008). Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior? Retrieved 6/6/08, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1100663.

  • Raosoft. (2008). Sample size calculator. Retrieved 6/13/08, from http://www.ezsurvey.com/samplesize.html.

  • Schulenberg, J. L. (2007). Predicting noncompliant behavior: Disparities in the social locations of male and female probationers. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 25–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2007). Perception of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Levenson, J. S. (under review). Stress and collateral consequences for families of registered sex offenders.

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2008). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims and Offenders, 3(1), 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (in press). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy.

  • Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E., & Stengel, K. M. (2008). Examining Rates of Sexual Offenses from a Routine Activities Perspective Victims and Offenders, 3(1), 75–85.

  • Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., & Waul, M. (Eds.). (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

  • Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma, role transition, and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna, & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 261–293). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime and Delinquency, 54(2), 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Did community notification influence recidivism?. Olympia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2008). The quality of community reintegration planning for child molesters: Effects on sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20(2), 218–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.

  • Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba, K., Levenson, J. S., & McKee, T. (2008). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Online First, doi:10.1177/0887403408322119.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lynn University, 3601 N. Military Trail, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

    Jill Levenson

  2. Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Richard Tewksbury

Authors
  1. Jill Levenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Tewksbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Levenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levenson, J., Tewksbury, R. Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders. Am J Crim Just 34, 54–68 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation