“Why Moan About It?” An IPA Analysis of Ex-Core Members’ Experience of a Pandemic Without a CoSA

Abstract

Successful reintegration following prison for those with sexual convictions is a key aim of criminal justice policy. Whilst there is a wealth of research detailing the desistance and reintegration process of current Core Member’s (CMs) within Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), there is limited research that captures the experiences of ex-CMs once the support of the volunteers had ceased. In addition to this, there is limited research that focuses on the impact COVID-19 has had upon those convicted of sexual offences, living within the community following a CoSA. This study aimed to explore these experiences finding that whilst volunteers helped some ex-CMs to form their own support networks, some ex-CMs appeared to rely more upon informal community support. Participants also maintained fears of their past being discovered and thus, avoided transparency, which is valuable for reintegration. In relation to the pandemic, COVID-19 was recognized as having some detrimental effects for ex-CMs, however, positive impacts and adaptability were also discussed. Conclusions drawn from the analysis provide implications for future multi-perspective and longitudinal research.

Keywords

CoSA reintegration desistance COVID-19 social support

Introduction

Desistance from sexual offending has been considered extensively within criminological literature. Whilst many scholars differ upon the reasons behind desistance, most agree that it is dynamic and encompasses a complex process involving the “stopping and refraining” from committing crime; one that is marked by lapses, relapses, and recovery (Farmer et al., 2012; Harris, 2021, p. 6). It is empirically evidenced from differing perspectives. Firstly, the role of social and structural factors in supporting desistance has been explored, detailing the role of social control instruments, including intimate relationships and stable employment (Kras, 2017; Mann et al., 2021). The second explores the internal processes of subjective and cognitive transformation and self-identity changes. Research has discovered that all perpetrators who evidence signs of desisting, engage in a re-biographing of their lives; individuals either actively work to alter who they are, or reinterpret their former criminal self to align with their current obedient identity (Maruna, 2006; Rocque et al., 2016). More frequently, however, an integrated perspective is taken whereby both external factors (e.g., employment) and internal processes (e.g., a sense of agency) are believed to be required to facilitate the change process associated with desistance (McAlinden, Farmer, & Maruna, 2017) . This previous research explores what individuals convicted of sexual offences need upon release to desist from crime, yet there are often barriers to this, which have been extensively evidenced.

Following release from prison, those with sexual convictions commonly struggle with reintegration due to a generally hostile community. They can become quickly overwhelmed upon release, especially those with longer sentences (Fox, 2017). This can reduce coping and social skills, affecting their ability to adapt to less structured environments upon re-integration. van den Berg et al. (2017) highlights how feelings of loneliness and social isolation following their release are often reported with their social networks perceived as deficient. In addition, this social isolation is reported as a prevalent risk factor of recidivism, as it arguably inhibits successful reintegration (Fox, 2017). Extensive research discusses how the internal and external stigmatization felt by those with sexual convictions is particularly acute. This stigmatization can be severely debilitating when it leads to their exclusion from many aspects of citizenship, especially employment, which induces further loneliness and social isolation (Simmons et al., 2022). Circles of Support and Accountability aim to overcome some of these social barriers to encourage the desistance and reintegration of those with sexual convictions.

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA)

The safe reintegration of those convicted of sexual offences presents a challenge for professional institutes, citizens, and perpetrators (Clarke, Warwick, & Völlm, 2017). CoSA is a community-based approach designed to assist the reintegration of individuals with sexual convictions (referred to as Core Members), who lack, or have no, social support upon re-integration (Kitson-Boyce et al., 2019). Maruna (2006) emphasizes how successful reintegration requires moral inclusion, whereby ex-perpetrators are forgiven for their behavior and reconciled back into society, alongside physical resettlement. As outlined above, however, stigmatization and isolation complicate this process for individuals convicted of sexual offences. Whilst sexual offences can rarely be forgiven, CoSA, enables a separation between the individual as a human and the offence they have committed, providing support and guidance to enable safe re-integration, whilst holding them accountable for their offence related behavior (Cesaroni, 2001).

To support this, CoSA volunteers offer expressive, emotional, and social support through pro-social activities with individuals they can confide in. They also provide instrumental support through aiding the Core Member (CM) to seek employment or identify community social groups, all within a relationship of openness, trust, fairness, and accountability (Dwerryhouse et al., 2020; Mccartan et al., 2014). The group is further supported by an “outer circle” of professional members of the criminal justice system, alongside a CoSA coordinator who bridges communications between the inner and outer circle (Lowe & Willis, 2019). A myriad of literature has detailed the importance of a functional, trusting relationship within the inner circle as well as a working alliance between the inner and outer circles to ensure the systematic assessment of suitable CMs, their risks, and needs. Thus, CoSA is positioned as a distinctive solution to common problems facing the community management of individuals with sexual convictions.

The Effectiveness of CoSA

Initial empirical validation highlights CoSA’s efficacy in managing the risk of recidivism for those with sexual convictions. CoSA CMs have been shown to display lower rates of recidivism, including rearrest of any offence and a reduction in sexual recidivism over a 2-year follow up period (Duwe, 2012). A recent RCT by Duwe (2018b) updated preliminary findings by incorporating more participants over a longer follow-up period; those partaking in CoSA lowered their risk of sexual offence rearrest by 88% over an average 6-year period. Only 2% of the total (one CoSA individual), had been rearrested for a new sexual offence, though not reconvicted, compared to the 14% of the total who were reconvicted. Thus, this study supplies more definitive evidence of CoSA’s efficacy in decreasing sexual recidivism. However, even though an RCT is considered as “the gold standard” in treatment evaluation, the author acknowledges that caution is still needed when interpreting the findings. This is due to CoSA being a “low volume” program that relies heavily on community involvement, specifically involvement from volunteers who align themselves with the CoSA statement that no one, including those convicted of sexual offences, is disposable (Duwe, 2018a).

The issue of effectiveness and CoSA success is complex as the re-integration process involves both the assumption of refrain from criminal behavior and the adoption of productive social roles (Listwan et al., 2006). Individuals are expected to contribute to their place of residence through displaying law abiding behavior, working for their own sustenance and exerting civic morality (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2018). Clarke, Brown, and Völlm (2017) state that although compelling evaluations of recidivism reductions are important in establishing CoSA effectiveness, they do not capture the full reality of participating in one. Indeed, psychosocial outcomes should also be considered and represented within evaluations including factors such as psychosocial adaption, relationships, and employment; factors that are strongly linked with recidivism itself (Clarke, Brown, & Völlm, 2017) . In doing this, the reasons why CoSA appears to influence the desistance journey in CMs can be explored.

The early stages of release back into the community are pivotal for crime desistance, especially those with sexual convictions; poor social functioning, loneliness, and social isolation are commonly observed contributors to recidivism (Aresti et al., 2010; Wilson & McWhinnie, 2016). Göbbels et al. (2012) developed an integrative theory of desistance from sex offending (ITDSO), which explains the relationship between psychological, environmental, and social processes underpinning the desistance process required for successful reintegration. The third phase describes the process of re-integration and a maintained commitment to change that is not only adopted but recognized and accepted by others through employment, friendships etc (Göbbels et al., 2012; Hattery & Smith, 2010). Indeed, CoSA is arguably well placed to assist the desistance journey, providing social capital by creating a sense of belonging with pro-social networks (McCartan & Kemshall, 2020).

Impacts of COVID-19 on Desistance

The outbreak of COVID-19, a disease caused by acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), has had detrimental effects upon society (World Health Organization, 2020). COVID-19 invited fast paced changes that affected millions, including extensive precautions of hygiene protocol, lockdowns, and social distancing. Government campaigns to “Stay at Home” arose which induced high rates of social isolation (Public Health England, 2020). This has led to chronic loneliness within all ages, particularly older adults, inducing negative physical and mental health outcomes (Berg-Weger & Morley, 2020).

Crisis often affects the human mind in crucial ways; it escalates anxiety and just like social isolation, it induces adverse outcomes (Banerjee & Rai, 2020). For an already lonely indivdiual, such as those in the community previously convicted of sexual offences, this resulted in even fewer face-to-face interactions. In addition, an increase in the use of online platforms to slow the spread of the virus arguably magnified the digital divide. A 7% of UK households remain without internet access, including some individuals with sexual convictions (Ellis et al., 2020; Webster, 2020). These individuals are often subject to licensing conditions whereby they can only access the internet through community services, which remained closed. In response, CoSA providers made quick adaptations to ensure CMs received support at some level, such as a weekly phone call with one of the volunteers (McCartan et al., 2021). Those ex-CMs who had recently completed their CoSA, however, were required to face the COVID-19 restrictions without the support of the volunteers and were often only partially way through their desistance journey.

As previously noted, social isolation is a key risk factor to recidivism and a barrier to successfully community re-integration for those who have committed sexual offences (Fox, 2017), thus COVID-19 restrictions may have heightened and impacted upon those with sexual convictions. Alongside this, containment measures involved the total or partial shutdown of societies, exposing vulnerable households to sudden income losses and inhibited access to employment, increasing mental health adversities and social isolation (Crayne, 2020; OECD, 2020). Again, for those with sexual convictions who already hold a restricted lifestyle, this possibly hindered access to the requirements deemed essential for their desistance and successful reintegration. It was essential therefore, that this was also explored in the current study, as outlined below.

The Current Study

Whilst previous literature displays an understanding of the desistance and reintegration process of current CMs, there is an absence of research that specifically captures ex-CM’s experiences. This study, therefore, used a qualitative phenomenological approach to explore the CMs’ experiences of social support and re-integration following the dissolution of their CoSA and subsequent voluntary support. In addition, due to the timing of the interviews, and based on the arguments above, it was important to understand the effect COVID-19 may have had on successful re-integration, which is again an area with little evidence base. To achieve this, two key research questions were formulated:

RQ1: To explore the level of social support CMs have available to them once their CoSA has ended?

RQ2: To discuss the impact of COVID-19 on this social support and upon their re-integration into the community generally?

Method

Design

The qualitative method chosen for this research was Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith et al., 1999). IPA allows for the visibility of “the voice of the lifeworld” to reveal how participants make sense and apply meaning to their world (Mishler, 1984, p. 182). Through the underlying theoretical positions of IPA, ex-CMs perceptions of phenomena were explored with the researchers aiming to make sense of their sense making (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). IPA preserves dedication to detail which enabled an inductive analysis of each participant’s experience of re-integration. An ideographic case-study approach does not sacrifice generalizability, but emphasizes the transferability of findings to illuminate the universal (Hefferon & Gil-Rodriguez, 2011).

IPA was chosen over others due to these epistemological underpinnings, which enabled an extensive understanding of ex-CMs experiences of re-integration without the volunteer support to be uncovered.

Participants and Recruitment

Similar to a community CoSA, prison-model CMs are selected due to their recidivism risk and lack of prosocial support on release. However, unlike the more conventional community model, the prion-model was designed specifically for those with intellectual difficulties and/or elderly and therefore considered as most in need of through the gate support. Participation within a prison-model, therefore, commences approximately 3 months prior to release and then continues into the community, with the CM surrounded by the same volunteers for the permanency of support. All the participants had previously been a CM on this model of CoSA, ran by a Midlands based charity and were recruited through opportunity sampling, with the CoSA provider acting as an initial gatekeeper. This aligned with IPA’s paradigm of seeking a homogeneous sample whereby participants embody a specific perspective rather than a population (Smith et al., 2009).

Five male ex-CMs partook in an initial informative meeting. However, following discussion, one decided not to take part. The final four participants were aged between 36 and 79; two were currently within 18 months of their prison-model CoSA ending and were both assessed as having ID, whilst the other two participants had experienced the dissolving of their CoSA 3 to 4 years ago and were considered elderly. Although, this is an important, yet hard to reach population, the sample size is still small, meaning caution is needed when considering the findings of the research.

Procedure

Prior to data collection ethical approval was sought from the University’s School Research Ethics Committee. Once approved, participants were contacted and invited to take part in the study. Two interviews took place over the phone, whilst the other two on Zoom. Participants were contacted prior to the interview to discuss the information sheet and obtain informed consent. Upon agreement, traceable valid consent procedures were implemented in line with the British Psychological Society (2017) code of ethical practice, in this case verbal consent was recorded on a password protected Dictaphone.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to allow for in-depth conversations with participants and encourage meaningful reflection; they also remain consistent with the idiographic commitments of IPA (Miller et al., 2018; Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). The interview structure followed a funneling technique, consisting of 27 open-ended questions along with more explicit prompts. Establishing rapport was the initial focus, which led to the participants experiences of CoSA and its ending; this set the scene and allowed the researcher to begin probing into novel areas, in line with IPA’s framework (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Subsequently, questions were asked regarding their perceived support networks, their personal aspirations, and their perceptions and experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. Concluding questions surrounded the participants hopes moving forward, which helped define their personal values and ambitions.

On completion, participants were made aware of how to withdraw their data and reminded that absolute confidentiality could not be guaranteed due to verbatim accounts of the interview being published from a small sample. Upon completion of the interview, the participants were debriefed. and advised of the researchers’ details and further confidential support services if they desired them.

Data Analysis

Due to the inability to rigorously test the validity and reliability of qualitative research findings, the current study was required to meet qualitative guidelines set out by Elliott et al. (1999) alongside IPA’s vigorous methodology presented by Smith et al. (2009). This was achieved by the interviews being listened to multiple times and re-read several times to ensure the researcher’s immersion into the data. This ensured IPA’s idiographic principles were adhered to and each transcript was analyzed completely before moving onto the next. The transcripts were read line-by-line which encouraged the emergence of key interpretations and allowing the researcher to engaging in the double hermeneutic process (Schleiermacher, 1998). Emergent themes were firstly noted which enabled connections to arise between themes. These were the refined and a table of themes generated, which was checked a final time against the transcripts to ensure accurate representations were drawn (see table 1).

Table 1.

Superordinate and Subordinate Themes.

Social connectedness
Impact of COVID-19:
“Why moan about it?”

• Comfort and acceptance
• Turning point: transparency
• Personal implications
• Adaptability

Findings and Discussion

The following analysis explores the participants experiences of social support and their reintegration following the ending of their CoSA, alongside a discussion surrounding their experiences of COVID-19. Three superordinate themes were derived from the data: “coping mechanisms,” “social connectedness,” and “impacts of COVID-19: “Why moan about it?” Although, the final two and the subordinate themes within these, provided the most insightful findings in relation to the research questions and thus will be discussed further.

Social Connectedness

The first superordinate theme is defined as representing the participants’ experience of belonging to a pro-social relationship or network, a necessity, believed by many, for successful reintegration and desistance (Weaver & McNeill, 2015). Social reintegration is understood as the pro-social support provided to individuals during their reintegration into the community, to gain freedom, and live crime-free among fellow members of society following imprisonment. This theme highlights the participants’ perceptions of social support, exploring their experiences of acceptance and reintegration. This is broken down into two subordinate themes: Comfort and acceptance and Turning point: transparency.

Comfort and Acceptance

This subordinate theme explores how the perceived availability of a pro-social network and its ability to provide security and trust, is highly valued by the participants. Although the participants had social networks to some extent prior to prison, these were often related to, or enabled, their offending behavior. This is significant as this study was conducted post CoSA, when the support from a pro-social network of volunteers, is no longer there. Their experiences of societal acceptance are explored also, as both aspects are integral for successful reintegration. First displayed by Nathan:

Nathan:

“Oh, my support network is most important to me, it’s [the charity that ran his CoSA]. . .I wanted help from them from the beginning and I still, I still want help now, but no, not so intense as it was years ago. All I know, now all I want to know, is that they’re going to be there if I want them and that’s important to me. That is so important, if, if, if they all disappeared, I wouldn’t like it.”

Nathan illustrates how previously, he needed more help from his support network of volunteers, but now all he requires is that “they’re going to be there” if needed. Here he alludes to the availability of support from the community center ran by the same charity his CoSA was established through. Whilst Duwe (2012) highlighted the significance of a continuation of physical social support upon release, Nathan emphasizes how “important” the presence of perceived support is also from his support network at the community center. Barrera (1986) discusses social embeddedness versus perceived social support; the former refers to being physically connected with others, whilst the latter is concerned with the availability and satisfaction with social support. Perceived pro-social support has a negative impact upon criminality and a positive impact upon well-being and quality of life (Chukwuemeka Mefoh, 2016; Farrington, 2015). Thus, perceived support can act as a coping mechanism and protective factor for Nathan during stressful experiences, contributing toward his desistance and reintegration process when volunteer support is unavailable. For a CM to have the best opportunity for social reintegration post-circle, the volunteers act as a temporary “surrogate” social network to help them build their own (Dwerryhouse et al., 2020). Nathan’s discontentment with the idea of a lack of support could display his reliance upon the charities continued informal support and not his own personal support network.

Neil:

“I: How about your contact with your brother?

No, if anything, it’s got stronger to be honest! We get on better now than we’ve ever done. . .

. . .So just to reiterate, what are your hopes going forward now?

Urm, I hope to get a job, become a productive member of society, and not be looking over my shoulder all the time, and to move forward.”

The reintegration process involves not only the ability to seek support but the acceptance from others. Therefore, Neil’s family acceptance, as highlighted here, may provide him with a foundation for resilience during struggles in aid of his desistance (Kras, 2017). Neil has highlighted that his obtains close relationships with both his mother and brother and considers these to be pro-social members of his support network. A 63% of participants, partaking in a study researching the successful reintegration of former prisoners at least 12 months following their release, echoed this notion and identified family support as the most important factor in abstaining from reoffending and returning to prison. (Visher & Courtney’s, 2007). Neil also communicates his aspirations of becoming a “productive member of society,” he has expressed that his mother contributes to his efforts of finding employment by providing a computer for him to complete job searches. Experiencing social acceptance and support from family can remove potential barriers to reintegration and encourage pro-social behavior; supporting desires to “move forward” and gain security.

Yet interestingly, Neil has mentioned that societal unacceptance is still present. It perhaps holds him back as he does not want to be peering over his “shoulder all the time.” He may still be uncertain of societal perceptions and their impact on his successful reintegration. Although Neil has not reoffended and appears to have maintained a prosocial attitude, Weaver and McNeill (2015) argue that personal change alone is not sufficient in achieving desistance, it needs to be recognized and supported by others. Therefore, if Neil feels fearful within the community his reintegration could be inhibited and trigger a relapse (Edwards & Hensley, 2016). Particularly without the “surrogate” support network of volunteers there to support him.

Elliot also discusses his struggles with societal acceptance with regards to a loss of contact with his brother and sister-in-law:

Elliot:

“I’m very much into socialising with my family. . .I only had my brother when I, urm, when I came out of prison. . .his wife claimed that she didn’t know about my past. . .yet she visited me in prison with him. . . I’ve had no, no contact. . . it doesn’t stop me thinking I’ve done something wrong. . . it does upset me because you know like I say, I don’t have any contact with any of the family now so.”

Here Elliot discusses the unacceptance he has experienced from those within his close support network, alongside his feelings of shame toward his past. Best (2019) postulates that reintegration is not a personal choice, but a complicated process involving the acknowledgement and acceptance of those surrounding Elliot. Therefore, his experience of unacceptance could effectively break the bond between Elliot and the community and ostracize him further (Braithwaite, 1989). Elliot does not appear to know how they perceive his offending behavior: a lack of explanation could make closure harder for him. He mentions how it “upsets” him as he is without “any contact with any of the family now.” This typifies being isolated and increases his risk of failure to desist, as family contact can mitigate the negative effects of segregation from society (Kras, 2019). Social networks mitigate the stressors of reintegration, so experiencing shame and losing contact with family and friends due convictions has been found to reduce chances of successful reintegration (Levenson & Cotter, 2016; Robbers, 2009). Elliot has not been convicted of committing any further sexual offences and has self-reported his desistance from doing so. Yet, a lack of continued social support is concerning, particularly as social isolation has been correlated with a failure to desist and identified as inhibiting the re-integration process, whilst obtaining social capital is considered to be significant in facilitating this (Fox, 2017; Göbbels et al., 2012). Indeed, for all the ex-CM’s, if social networks have not been formed and maintained once the volunteers are no longer there, then questions may be raised surrounding the effectiveness of CoSA. Exploration of many more ex-CMs experience would be required, however, to make this statement for certain.

Turning Point: Transparency

This subordinate theme was prevalent across all interviews. Transparency has been defined as an individual’s ability to share information in regards to their actions, decisions, and communications; this helps ex-CMs to remain accountable and open within relationships, which in turn, promotes desistance, successful reintegration, and ultimately achieves the aims of CoSA. This theme discusses participants experiences regarding a reluctance to unmask their identity and be transparent with members of their social network. It explores how their involvement in CoSA enabled them to be more emotionally open and trusting of the outside world to help them utilize their support network and progress with re-integration. Firstly, highlighted by Evan:

Evan:

“It’s, I think it’s more of a, it’s more of a man thing. How I’ve been brought up in the past is we, as a man, you don’t show your feelings. It shows that you’re weak and that. [yeah]. But it’s okay to show your feelings, it doesn’t make you a weak person. Circles supported me the whole way through. . .they were not judgemental; they were so proactive in helping me. Now I talk about it, it is a lot, lot better. . .if I’m on the low day, I’ll ring my mum up.”

Evan describes his socialization into a family who believed men were considered weak if they displayed their feelings, therefore Evan’s experiences may have had a lasting effect upon his viewpoints and discouraged him to display his own emotions. Dunsmore et al. (1997) propose that parents’ cultural beliefs regarding gendered emotionally expressive behavior influence their children’s self and world schemas in both encouraging and discouraging ways. However, CoSA encouraged Evan out of his comfort zone by encouraging him to engage in open communication, within a safe space, without stimgatization, and maintain accountability for previous and ongoing potentially risky behavior. He has experienced a turning point whereby he has become more emotionally confident and open to vulnerability; he now utilizes open communication with his family. Moral inclusion is essential for successful reintegration and would be beneficial if Evan maintains openness, honesty, and accountability with members of his support network (Maruna, 2006). In addition, if Evan feels he will not be stigmatized for his feelings, he may feel more accepted into society (Ma et al., 2013).

During the re-entry stage of Göbbels et al. (2012) ITDSO, maintenance of social capital is considered significant in facilitating reintegration and desistance. Evan has maintained this following release by improving his attitudes toward utilizing help from members within his support network. Evan’s maintenance of trusting familial relationships means he is seeking social environments that support his new self-views and narrative identity shifts (Swann & Bosson, 2010). Therefore, Evan appears to be on track to both successfully reintegrate and desist from future crime. Contrastingly Elliot explains how he has not been able to obtain transparency previously outlined by Evan:

Elliot:

“I’ve not made any close friends really urm, barring one and even that is a strange relationship because they don’t know. . .you know they need to know about your past. . . they need to know you as a person urm. Because you know, you’re on sort of eggshells otherwise. . .if they find out. . .what would their reaction be?”

Here Elliot discloses his lack of a social network and that he still worries about transparency within future relationships. Through transparency, Elliot could be more trusting of others and comfortable seeking support. This would reinforce his desistance efforts and endorse his practical pro-social identity whereby he will be accepted by others, aiding his re-integration process (Göbbels et al., 2012). Transparency is something that Elliot values within relationships, as he states that relations “need” to be informed of him as an individual; without being transparent, he may feel uptight and not want to seek support and engage in honest conversations as ultimately, it appears he is weary of what reaction he may receive. Whilst he acknowledges the salience in open communication, Elliot has not “unmasked” his former identity to those around him, which potentially limits his ability to successfully reintegrate (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006).

However, Elliot has signified that he prefers less contact with fewer individuals. He later stated that he “preferred” his “own company” than with others. Eysenck’s (1967) theory of personality, details how Elliot’s traits of reservation and preference of spending time alone are perhaps characterizable of introversion. Introverted individuals typically need to maintain privacy and perceive the request of personal information as an invasion of this (Stone, 1986). Therefore, it is disputable how far Elliot has engaged in a social network and further, it is harder to be transparent and gather the acceptance of others for reintegration when individuals hold introversion characteristics. This can raise questions as to where this leaves ex CMs who display tendencies of introversion in relation to how their desistance and level of reintegration is perceived by authorities.

Impact of COVID-19: “Why Moan About It?”

The second superordinate theme, emerging throughout the analysis, was the impact of the pandemic on ex-CMs. Their struggles were detailed alongside a prevalent theme throughout all interviews of adaptability toward their new reality; they held perceptions of “why moan about it?”

Personal Implications

This subordinate theme allowed for a greater understanding of how COVID-19’s rapid onset impacted the re-integration process of ex-CMs’. Social support, access to services, and mental health adversities were all explored. Firstly, Evan discusses his experiences of his mental well-being during COVID-19:

Evan:

“I felt down. . .I did suffer with mental health. . .I’ve had it for a bit but not told nobody, and it all come out, I tried self-harming. . .Without the gym and my mental health it weren’t good, it were just making me wanna sleep so I didn’t sit there dwelling on stuff.”

Evan describes how the “Stay at Home” message brought about due to COVID-19, worsened his pre-existing struggles with his mental health. Evan’s CoSA finished a month prior to COVID-19’s onset meaning that, alongside the mental health problems commonly reported during reintegration from prison (Listwan et al., 2006) there were also the social distancing restrictions in place. The impact these measures have had on individuals’ routines has, arguably, created a rapid increase in loneliness, social isolation, and self-harm (Elbogen et al., 2021). Indeed, routine is fundamental in reducing stress and increasing motivation, as well as maintaining good mental health (Onken et al., 2002). Evan, however, could not implement his usual exercise regime and resorted to sleep to stop “dwelling on stuff,” which exacerbated his vulnerability to mental struggles and subsequent well-being. This may have impacted upon his re-integration journey, particularly as social isolation has been correlated with a failure to desist and identified as inhibiting the re-integration process (Fox, 2017). Contrastingly, Elliot discusses how COVID-19 helped his mental health:

Elliot:

“I think it helped, (laughter) dare I say it, it helped me. . . from a urm, mental health issue. You know, I, I didn’t like going out because there’s too many people you know, on the busses and crowds. . .I felt really anxious. . .. Uh, during COVID I no choice but to be in and I actually got through. . .you know, felt really comfortable with that.”

Elliot discusses how before the pandemic, going out worsened his mental health, yet COVID-19 restrictions have provided him with comfort and an “excuse” not to go out. Extensive literature discusses mental and physical health decline during lockdown and further, CMs have described an increase in anxiety due to COVID-19 thus, Elliot’s experiences may contradict existing evidence (Berg-Weger & Morley, 2020; Mccartan et al., 2021). Furthermore, when businesses started opening again, Elliot mentioned how he “got off the bus, saw them and got back on.” This signifies how his anxiety may worsen when the world normalizes again, which could be detrimental to his reintegration process. The effect of COVID-19 upon social isolation is concerning as CoSA aims to equip CMs to form and maintain their own support network: this is essential for successful reintegration. Elliot’s preference of lockdown suggests he did not feel socially isolated, but comfortable with his lack of support network. This links with the debate outlined earlier regarding the “success” of a CoSA. One of the underpinning beliefs of CoSA is that no one should be alone, however, if an individual prefers to live isolated from a social network, then one could question whether the suitability criteria of CoSA was met or whether the preference post-CoSA is due to self-protection from continuing shame.

Despite this is vital to consider the importance of this within Elliot’s reintegration process, as it could be confused with social isolation. The assumption that introverts have experienced COVID-19’s psychological impact less severely than extraverted individuals is informed and aligns with Elliot’s experiences (Wei, 2020). Moreover, Neil explains how COVID-19 affected his level of social support:

Neil:

“Urm, I think not seeing my mum and my brother very often, was a bit of a challenge. . .I was used to seeing them a couple of times a week and having to just leave the food on the doorstep or not go in. Uh, that was a bit of a challenge.”

Neil discussed how since his release his family have accepted him and play a significant role within his support network. COVID-19 restrictions have been associated with increased social isolation which is commonly cited to hinder the desistance and re-integration process (Banerjee & Rai, 2020; Fox, 2017). Neil found his inability to spend time with his family a “challenge.” This is like Nathan’s experience; his common room was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions, which he found “annoying” as it was where he socialized with friends. Desistance and successful reintegration for those with sexual convictions requires the ability to socialize, gain acceptance, and to seek support from their social networks (Göbbels et al., 2012). Therefore, whilst COVID-19 stopped face-to-face socializing, Neil still spoke to his mum “every day on the phone” and thus, support from significant individuals did not waver. Nathan had similarly discussed how all his “support networks are always there on the phone” and thus, both participants demonstrated that whilst physical support was limited, support was always there if they needed it. Face-to-face contact is the preferred method of support; it would be expected that when the world returns to normality, the reinstation of face-to-face contact will benefit their reintegration.

Adaptability

Despite the personal implications for each participant, a key theme illustrated across every interview was an adaptability to COVID-19, and toward their new “reality.” All participants held unconcerned views toward prevalent topics involving the ability to seek employment and attitudes toward their aspirations. Firstly, Neil discusses his experiences of seeking employment during the pandemic:

Neil:

“I’ve been on restricted access for such a long time. . .it didn’t really change anything or, or bother me urm, simply for the fact that, I you know, I couldn’t go and use the computer. . .I couldn’t do what they wanted me to do. Urm, for with regards to jobs.”

Neil clarifies here how COVID-19’s fast-paced changes did not “bother” him. Whilst its sudden onset had a detrimental effect upon human life, those convicted of sexual offences are already subject to licensed restrictions; the pandemic “didn’t really change anything.” Neil is unemployed but still seeking work; a key phase within Göbbels et al. (2012) ITDSO discusses how successful reintegration involves the availability of employment. Employment has been correlated with desistance but is ironically difficult for those with sexual convictions to obtain due to employer discrimination and poor levels of education (Brown et al., 2007). During COVID-19, many public places, including libraries, were closed and those with internet restrictions due to sexual convictions were unable apply for jobs. However, whilst Neil acknowledges this added restriction, he accepts that he “just couldn’t” do anything regarding employment. This resonates with McCartan et al’s. (2021) findings as CMs expressed optimism regarding COVID-19 as they stated they were used to restriction whilst in prison and that it will “pass over.” Although COVID-19 did not “bother” Neil, it could prolong his reintegration.

Evan:

“It was hard because obviously I got to do job search um with universal credit. . .but when the pandemic come down, it were a lot harder to. . .find jobs because I couldn’t go to the library to use the internet access. . .but it, it’s not stopping me looking for work, I do want to find a job. . .I want to stay in work, I want to be in full time work. It was just hard trying to find a job.”

As discussed above, Evan states how COVID-19’s forcible shutting of many public places, suspending those with sexual convictions ability to apply for jobs within communal settings, made seeking employment much more difficult. Although Evan discusses how despite this, his desire to gain employment has not waned due to the pandemic and he has accepted his “new reality.” Whilst he describes his experience of seeking employment to be “hard,” he maintains the aspiration to move forward; he appears to be motivated to become a pro-social member of society. Thus, whilst COVID-19 has impacted Evan’s physical ability to acquire employment, which could negatively impact his successful reintegration, it has not influenced his motivation nor desire to gain employment and he has adapted to the new circumstances. Simmons et al. (2022) explain how those with sexual convictions perceive a gap within society, whereby they feel daunted by the prospect of reintegration. However, following COVID-19, Evan has adapted, and still wants to become more integrated into society and possess the “moral inclusion” required for reintegration (Maruna, 2006). Nathan also displayed an adaptability regarding his attitudes toward reaching his aspirations:

Nathan:

“My motivation, my attitude to helping people hasn’t changed at all. The COVID, the Covid just stops you going places and doing things as much as you used to [yeah] but your mind is still there to help people. . . I love helping people and If I can’t help . . . it’s very sad.”

Nathan has demonstrated his newfound openness; despite COVID-19’s restrictions, he wants to help individuals and his aspiration “hasn’t changed at all.” This reinforces how much he values helping others in society, just as CoSA did for him. Goals and aspirations give meaning to life; literature states how individuals experience improved well-being and sense of fulfilment when they create personally significant aims (Emmons, 2003). CoSA helps CMs to set positive but realistic goals for the future as it is a contributor to desistance. Nathan’s ability to set and fulfil his aspirations is aligned partially within the third phase of Göbbels et al. (2012) ITDSO. He has sustained a commitment to become a pro-social member of society however, COVID-19 has prohibited this, hindering his ability to be recognized and accepted by others. Through setting pro-social aspirations, Nathan has continued to utilize skills from his CoSA without the presence of the volunteer’s support, and has not allowed COVID-19 to affect his attitudes toward these aspirations that contribute to desistance (Farmer et al., 2015). He displays how he feels “sad” that he cannot help others, which reinforces his willingness to give back to society and engage in altruism, which is imperative for the successful reintegration of those with sexual convictions (Kitson-Boyce et al., 2019). This adaptability was found regardless of how long the ex-CMs had been within the community for. It would be interesting, therefore, to consider a wider sample to truly establish the presence of adaptability during the pandemic.

Further Discussion

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the evidence base surrounding the experiences of ex-CMs following the ending of their prison-model CoSA, as they reintegrate the community without the support of the volunteers. The study aimed to:

To explore the level of social support CMs have available to them once their CoSA has ended?

To discuss the impact of COVID-19 on this social support and upon their re-integration into the community generally?

Regarding the first aim, participants knew where and when to seek pro-social support, but it was apparent that not all participants had formed their own stable support networks, such as friendships or relationships with family, impacting upon re-integration. Most participants valued perceived pro-social support and its availability. However, findings uncovered how some appeared to rely on the charity’s informal community support, which is not intended to replace a CoSA, instead of forming their own personal pro-social connections. Whilst the volunteers have helped some ex-CMs to form their own support networks, these have not been evidenced as particularly extensive and this does not include everyone. This is perhaps indicative of the limited success CoSA had in facilitating ex-CMs to access prolonged pro-social networks, ones in which could have been invaluable during their experience of COVID-19.

The majority of ex-CMs had experienced acceptance from family relations and others, which aided pro-sociality and their “moral inclusion,” but unacceptance was still present and, in some cases, the extent of these relations was inconsiderable. Whilst all participants understood the significance of being open and maintaining accountability, they all held prevalent fears of society discovering their past and avoided transparency, which could be detrimental to reintegration. Further research is now required to explore the experience of ex-CMs on a much greater scale to establish the extent to which they are able to establish their own pro-social network on completion of a CoSA, thus replacing the social capital that the volunteers provided.

While mental health struggles and a lack of face-to-face contact were discussed, COVID-19 did have positive impacts for the participants and induced a collective demonstration of adaptability, highlighting irregularities when speaking back to existing literature. The ex-CMS could relate to this widespread restriction due to their time imprisoned and displayed resilience toward the pandemic. COVID-19 did inflict restriction to reintegration by impacting employment opportunities, but this was described as no more detrimental than license conditions already constraining this. Participants’ attitudes toward maintaining change and working toward their aspirations also did not wane therefore, further research looking at the relationship between CoSA and resilience would be beneficial to see if this is stable over time. Longitudinal research would also be useful to discover both ex-CMs’ and CMs’ experiences of the world reopening after COVID-19 and how far they could reintegrate back into society within “normal” circumstances. Whilst many remained flexible and adapted to COVID-19 restrictions, it would be invaluable to discover whether this has been maintained.

Limitations

Whilst understanding the experiences of ex-CMs enabled a rich and holistic interpretation to contribute to the evidence base, the participants’ accounts only display a snapshot of their experiences. Qualitative research of this nature relies on respondents’ accuracy; however, it can sometimes incorporate social desirability bias and compromise the strength of conclusions.

Furthermore, whilst within qualitative research face-to-face interviews are considered the “gold standard,” restrictions under COVID-19 guidelines did not allow these to take place (Saarijärvi & Bratt, 2021). However, the use of telephone and video interviews were more accessible and flexible for both the researcher and interviewees and cost-effective in consideration of travel expenses etc. Ultimately, the methods enabled the voices of those with sexual convictions to be heard and the researcher was able to obtain in-depth insight of their experiences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of the current study allowed for comprehensive insight into ex-CMs experiences when the support of the volunteers had ceased and further informed of the consequences of this upon their journey of desistance and successful reintegration. Whilst the findings are insightful, future research is not required to further explore ex-CMs reintegration journey.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Rosie Kitson-Boyce

References

Aresti

Eatough

Brooks-Gordon

(2010). Doing time after time: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of reformed ex-prisoners’ experiences of self-change, identity and career opportunities. Psychology, Crime and Law, 16(3), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802516273

Banerjee

Rai

(2020). Social isolation in Covid-19: The impact of loneliness. SAGE.

Barrera

(1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922627

Berg-Weger

Morley

J. E.

(2020). Loneliness and social isolation in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for gerontological social work. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 24(5), 456–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1366-8

Best

(2019). Pathways to recovery and desistance. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTVPWHFPP.6

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

British Psychological Society. (2017). Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research

Brown

Spencer

Deakin

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

Cesaroni

(2001). Releasing sex offenders into the community through “circles of support” A means of reintegrating the “worst of the worst.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v34n02_06

10.

Chukwuemeka Mefoh

. (2016). Psychological well-being in awaiting-trial inmates: The roles of loneliness and social support. Social Sciences, 5(5), 64. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20160505.11

11.

Clarke

Brown

Völlm

(2017). Circles of support and accountability for sex offenders: A systematic review of outcomes. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 446–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215603691

12.

Clarke

Warwick

Völlm

(2017). Circles of support and accountability: The characteristics of core members in England and Wales. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2003

13.

Crayne

M. P.

(2020). The traumatic impact of job loss and job search in the aftermath of COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S180. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000852

14.

Dunsmore

J. C.

Halberstadt

A. G.

Barrett

(1997). The communication of emotion: Current research from diverse perspectives. Jossey-Bass.

15.

Duwe

(2012). Can circles of support and accountability (COSA) Work in the United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212453942

16.

Duwe

(2018a). Can circles of support and accountability (CoSA) significantly reduce sexual recidivism? Results from a randomized controlled trial in Minnesota. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 25, 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9325-7

17.

Duwe

(2018b). Minnesota circles of support and accountability (MnCoSA) at 50: Updated results from a randomized controlled trial. www.doc.state.mn.us

18.

Dwerryhouse

Winder

Bladgen

Lievesley

(2020). Conceptualising success and failure in circles of support and accountability. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 55, 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101492

19.

Edwards

Hensley

(2016). 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

20.

Elbogen

E. B.

Lanier

Blakey

S. M.

Wagner

H. R.

Tsai

(2021). Suicidal ideation and thoughts of self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of COVID-19-related stress, social isolation, and financial strain. Depression and Anxiety, 38(7), 739–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/DA.23162

21.

Elliott

Fischer

C. T.

Rennie

D. L.

(1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related ®elds. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.

22.

Ellis

W. E.

Dumas

T. M.

Forbes

L. M.

(2020). Physically isolated but socially connected: Psychological adjustment and stress among adolescents during the initial COVID-19 crisis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 52(3), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000215

23.

Emmons

R. A.

(2003). Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life. In Keyes

C. L. M.

(Ed.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 105–128). American Psychological Association.

24.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1967). Personality and extra-sensory perception. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 44(732), 55–71.

25.

Farmer

Beech

A. R.

Ward

(2012). Assessing desistance in child molesters: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 930–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511423255

26.

Farmer

McAlinden

A.-M.

Maruna

(2015). Understanding desistance from sexual offending: A thematic review of research findings. Probation Journal, 62(4), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550515600545

27.

Farrington

(2015). Circies of support and accountability: The role of social support in preventing sexual offender recidivism [Doctorate]. University of Birmingham, 229.

28.

Fox

K. J.

(2017). Contextualizing the policy and pragmatics of reintegrating sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574711

29.

Göbbels

Ward

Willis

G. M.

(2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003

30.

Harris

D. A.

(2021). Desistance from sexual offending. Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01219-3

31.

Hattery

Smith

(2010). Prisoner reentry and social capital. The long road to reintegration. Lexington Books. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BbC-AAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Prisoner+reentry+and+social+capital:+The+long+road+to+reintegration&ots=R9mSKs-W-D&sig=s3qVaJG65dZHU52uphytcyJvmiA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=employment&f=false

32.

Hefferon

Gil-Rodriguez

(2011). Reflecting on the rise in popularity of interpretive phenomenological analysis. The Psychologist, 24, 756–759.

33.

Kitson-Boyce

Blagden

Winder

Dillon

(2019). “This time it’s different” preparing for release through a prison-model of CoSA: A phenomenological and repertory grid analysis. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(8), 886–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218775969

34.

Kras

K. R.

(2017). Informal social control of sex offenders: The family and other forms of support. In Sanders

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sex offences and sex offenders. (pp. 415–436). Oxford University Press.

35.

Kras

K. R.

(2019). Can social support overcome the individual and structural challenges of being a sex offender? Assessing the social support-recidivism link. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(1), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18784191

36.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2016). The effect of Megan’s law on sex offender reintegration. 21(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676

37.

Listwan

S. J.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. US Courts.

38.

Lowe

Willis

(2019). Maintaining an effective circle: Volunteer experiences of operational aspects of circles of support and accountability. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(3), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18794279

39.

M. H.

Bogaerts

Vogelvang

(2013). Circles of support and accountability: How and why they work for sex offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(4), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.808526

40.

Mann

Devendran

P. N.

Lundrigan

(2021). ‘You’re never really free’: Understanding the barriers to desistance for registered sexual offenders in the community. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 21(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819853861

41.

Maruna

(2006). Who owns resettlement? Towards restorative re-integration. British Journal of Community Justice, 4(2), 23.

42.

McAlinden

A. M.

Farmer

Maruna

(2017). Desistance from sexual offending: Do the mainstream theories apply? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(3), 266–283.

43.

McCartan

Kemshall

(2020). The potential role of recovery capital in stopping sexual offending: Lessons from circles of support and accountability to enrich practice. Irish Probation Journal, 17, 87–106.

44.

McCartan

Kemshall

Westwood

Solle

Mackenzie

Cattel

Pollard

(2014). Circles of support and accountability (CoSA): A case file review of two pilots. Ministry of Justice.

45.

McCartan

Taylor

Kitson-boyce

Rossoni

Hoogeveen

Claes

Wilson

R. J.

(2021). The impact of COVID-19 on circles of support and accountability. Circles Europe.

46.

Miller

R. M.

Chan

C. D.

Farmer

L. B.

(2018). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: A contemporary qualitative approach. Counselor Education and Supervision, 57(4), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12114

47.

Mishler

E. G.

(1984). The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews (Vol. 3). Greenwood Publishing Group.

48.

OECD. (2020). Housing amid covid-19: Policy responses and challenges (Issue July). https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=135_135322-lju8yj5sib&title=Housing-Amid-Covid-19-Policy-Responses-and-Challenges&_ga=2.160984249.506044928.1624207715-1592046342.1624207715

49.

Onken

S. J.

Dumont

J. M.

Ridgway

Dornan

D. H.

Ralph

R. O.

(2002). Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders? A national research project for the development of recovery facilitating system performance indicators (pp. 161–162). Heal Program.

50.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Czasopismo Psychologiczne Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/cppj.20.1.7

51.

Public Health England. (2020). Stay at home: Guidance for households with possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection (Issue 13 August 2020). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection

52.

Robbers

M. L. P.

(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

53.

Rocque

Posick

Paternoster

(2016). Identities through time: An exploration of identity change as a cause of desistance. Justice Quarterly, 33(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.894111

54.

Saarijärvi

Bratt

E.-L.

(2021). When face-to-face interviews are not possible: Tips and tricks for video, telephone, online chat, and email interviews in qualitative research. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(4), 392–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURJCN/ZVAB038

55.

Schleiermacher

(1998). Hermeneutics and criticism and other writings. Cambridge University Press.

56.

Simmons

Kim

Hyde

Lemon

T. L.

Scharer

K. E.

McInnes

D. K.

(2022). Protecting the public’s health through successful reentry for sex offender after incarceration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17–18), NP15231–NP15254. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211016344

57.

Smith

J. A.

Jarman

Osborn

(1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Murray

Chamberlain

(Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp. 218–240). SAGE.

58.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2003). IPA chapter four (pp. 53–80). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119975144.ch9

59.

Smith

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6, 346–347.

60.

Stone

D. L.

(1986). Values regarding control over information, and perceptions of invasion of privacy1. Relationship Between Introversion/Extraversion, 62, 371–376.

61.

Swann

Bosson

(2010). Self and identity. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 589–628). John Wiley & Sons. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/psy_facpub/1174

62.

Tewksbury

Lees

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

63.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2018). Introductory handbook on the prevention of recidivism and the social reintegration of offenders. Criminal Justice Series 11.

64.

van den Berg

Beijersbergen

Nieuwbeerta

Dirkzwager

. (2017). Sex offenders in prison: Are they socially isolated? Sexual Abuse, 30(7), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217700884

65.

Visher

C. A.

Courtney

S. M. E

. (2007). One year out: Experiences of prisoners returning to Cleveland. Urban Institute. http://justice.urban.org

66.

Weaver

McNeill

(2015). Lifelines desistance, social relations, and reciprocity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(1), 95–107

67.

Webster

(2020). Virtual health care in the era of COVID-19. The Lancet (London, England), 395(10231), 1180–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30818-7

68.

Wei

(2020). Social distancing and lockdown: An introvert’s paradise? An empirical investigation on the association between introversion and the psychological impact of COVID19-related circumstantial changes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 561609. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.561609

69.

Wilson

R. J.

McWhinnie

A. J.

(2016). Circles of support & accountability: The role of the community in effective sexual offender risk management. In Phenix

Hoberman

(Eds.), Sexual offending (pp. 745–754). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2416-5_31

70.

World Health Organization. (2020). Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it (pp. 4–7). https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it