Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This systematic review examines the perspectives of victim-survivors, family members, and professionals (VFP’s) on the reintegration of men convicted of sexual offenses into the community. A search of 8 databases identified 8,621 potential sources. After screening, 36 studies were included in the review. Papers were included if they used qualitative methods about VFP’s views, attitudes, opinions, and/or perceptions on the reintegration of adult males who have sexually offended, from prison or secure care. The papers were then critically appraised and thematically synthesized. The findings highlighted four key themes: supervision, discrimination, livelihood, and interventions. These themes revealed the complex and multifaceted nature of reintegration, where varying perspectives highlighted a balance between public safety concerns, the potential for rehabilitation, and the profound social and emotional implications for those directly involved with the offenders. The implications for future research, and policy and practice, including support for families, professional training, and advocating for policy reform, are discussed.

Keywords

sex offender family members professionals victim-survivors views opinions reintegration community

Background

The reintegration of men convicted of a sexual offense (MCoSO) into society is complex and controversial and brings forth a wide range of perspectives. Society is constantly confronted with a complex moral dilemma: how to balance public safety with the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration of MCoSO (La Fond, 2005). This convoluted topic can be examined from three distinct and personal viewpoints, each offering unique perceptions and considerations of MCoSO: victim-survivor, family, and professional (VFP) perspectives. The aim of this systematic review is to fully explore the VFP views on the reintegration of MCoSO from prison or secure care into the community.

A growing body of research has examined various facets of the reintegration process for MCoSO, often focusing on recidivism rates, supervision mechanisms, and treatment efficacy (Andrews & Bonta, 2014; J. S. Levenson & Cotter, 2005). Quantitative studies consistently indicate that sex offender-specific policies, such as public registries and residence restrictions, have limited effectiveness in reducing recidivism and may, in fact, exacerbate reintegration challenges through mechanisms of stigmatization and social exclusion (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Vásquez et al., 2008).

Much of this literature remains siloed, centering either on offender rehabilitation or public protection, without adequately integrating the perspectives of those most directly affected by reintegration. Qualitative research has explored professionals’ attitudes toward risk management, supervision, and therapeutic engagement (Day et al., 2014; Gakhal & Brown, 2011), revealing tensions between public protection mandates and rehabilitative aims. However, less attention has been given to how victim-survivors, family members, and frontline professionals experience and understand this process. Each of these groups brings unique concerns, ethical considerations, and lived experiences that influence how reintegration policies are developed, implemented, and perceived (K. F. McCartan et al., 2015).

Victim-survivor perspectives, in particular, remain critically underexplored, with only a limited number of empirical studies addressing their views on offender treatment, risk, and community return (Joyce-Wojtas & Keenan, 2016; Richards et al., 2021). Similarly, familial experiences have often been marginalized or viewed primarily through the lens of offender management, rather than being treated as legitimate subjects of concern in their own right (Brown, 2017; Evans et al., 2023). Professionals, though studied more extensively, span a wide array of roles, from therapists to probation officers to police, each with distinct mandates and attitudes, making it difficult to generalize their views without further synthesis.

Research suggests that when reintegration efforts exclude these stakeholder voices, they risk reinforcing stigma, heightening recidivism risks, and ultimately undermining community safety (J. S. Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Maruna & LeBel, 2002). In contrast, inclusive, multi-perspective approaches, particularly those rooted in restorative justice, trauma-informed practice, and community-based models such as Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), have demonstrated promise in fostering more positive reintegration outcomes (Daly, 2007).

Despite these insights, no prior synthesis has systematically examined how these three key groups, victim-survivors, family members, and professionals, understand and experience the reintegration of MCoSO. This review addresses that critical gap, offering an integrative synthesis that brings together these often-disconnected perspectives to inform more holistic, inclusive, and ethically sound reintegration policy and practice.

Victim-survivor insights: Interestingly, victim-survivors of sexual abuse report more positive attitudes toward and are more supportive of treatment for MCoSOs than individuals who have not been sexually abused (Richards et al., 2023). Victim-survivors also demonstrated less support for community notification laws but the same level of support as others for residence restriction laws (Spoo et al., 2018). Consequently, research (Harper et al., 2017; Rothwell et al., 2021) argues that a more proactive approach should be taken toward sexual offending, thus helping to avoid future victimization and to stop the offender being subjected to destructive labels and harsh restrictions. This includes having a more supportive environment whereby potential MCoSO could seek help for their urges and receive confidential therapy.

However, victim-survivors also have deeply personal experiences of the offense that shape their views on offender reintegration. The process of reintegration may evoke complex emotions, including fear, anger, and a strong desire for justice (Lacey & Pickard, 2015). Their perspectives on offender reintegration often revolve around healing, safety, and the need for meaningful restitution (Joyce-Wojtas & Keenan, 2016). The perspectives of victim-survivors represent a crucial side of the reintegration discussion, embodying both the demands of justice and the potential for restorative processes (Das et al., 2022). Their voices and insights highlight the imperative of creating a system that respects their experiences while working to reduce the risk of reoffending (Wemmers et al., 2023). The complexities of reintegration from a victim-survivor’s standpoint highlights the broader societal need to strike a balance between retribution, rehabilitation, and the imperative of offering victim-survivors a path toward healing.

Familial perspectives: Familial perspectives of MCoSO add a layer of complexity to the reintegration debate. Family members of offenders, particularly those who are close to the offender, grapple with issues of loyalty, support, and personal responsibility (Mills, 2005). Balancing the well-being of the offender with the concerns of the family and the broader community can be a challenge (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). MCoSO’s families often experience social and economic difficulties which is argued to be a result of maintenance of contact, economic impacts, and housing and employment challenges (Brown, 2017). They also commonly experience courtesy stigmatization because of their loved one’s conviction. This can come from informal social networks, the media, the criminal justice system (CJS), and their own misguided self-blame (Evans et al., 2023).

Familial perspectives encompass a wide range of experiences. Some may vehemently advocate for the rehabilitation and reintegration of their loved ones, highlighting the importance of second chances and the potential for change. Others may battle with anger, disappointment, and a sense of betrayal, harboring concerns about the safety of the community (Brown, 2017). The dynamics within families are further complicated by questions about disclosure, secrecy, and the welfare of children who may be directly impacted by the offender’s actions (J. Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009).

Professionals: Professionals who have worked with MCoSO within the CJS, such as psychologists, social workers, and probation officers, bring their own expertise and insights to the reintegration discussion. They tend to hold more positive attitudes toward the potential for offenders’ reintegration and response to treatment when compared to the public (Day et al., 2014). It is argued that having more contact and experience with MCoSO can reduce the tendencies for stigmatization and stereotyping (Gakhal & Brown, 2011).

Professionals working with MCoSO are often tasked with developing and implementing reintegration programs, assessing risk, and providing therapy to offenders. Their views toward MCoSO are shaped by their understanding of the rehabilitative process and the challenges associated with it (Grady & Strom-Gottfried, 2011). These views and their expertise are rooted in research, therapeutic approaches, and a commitment to best practices, with the overarching goal of fostering a safer and more rehabilitative society (Hancock, 2019). Nevertheless, numerous professionals will interact with individuals convicted of sexual offenses in settings beyond their offending environments, where they may be less inclined to address the consequences of the crimes they have perpetrated.

The Present Work

This systematic review aims to synthesize the perspectives of VFP’s regarding the reintegration of MCoSO into the community. While these viewpoints have been studied individually, there is a significant gap in understanding how they intersect and influence each other. By integrating these perspectives, the review seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in reintegrating MCoSO, highlighting the balance between public safety concerns and the goals of rehabilitation.

The review is also crucial for informing policy and practice, as societal attitudes toward sexual offenses and offenders continue to evolve. By examining the diverse views of key stakeholders and those with direct experience of MCoSO’s, this work will contribute to the development of evidence-based strategies that address the complexities of reintegration. This comprehensive approach is essential for creating policies that are both just and rehabilitative, ensuring that the perspectives of all involved are considered in the process of reintegrating MCoSO into society.

Methods

The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023453446), with zero amendments being made since its registration. The review is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines (Shamseer et al., 2015).

Search Strategy

Searches of all databases were conducted in line with the Population/Exposure/Outcomes (PEO) framework for conducting literature searches for the purpose of qualitative synthesis, as this was best suited to the method choice of this review. The PEO framework is specifically designed to guide qualitative evidence syntheses by focusing on the population under study, the exposure or experience of interest, and the outcomes in terms of attitudes or perceptions. This approach is particularly suitable for this review, which aims to understand the nuanced views of victim-survivors, family members, and professionals regarding the reintegration of MCoSO (Mattisson, 2023). Population included victim-survivors, family members of MCoSO, and professionals, Exposure included the reintegration of men convicted of a sexual offense, and Outcome included views, opinions, perceptions, and attitudes. The search strategy can be found in Supplemental File 1. All searches were conducted in August 2023 and re-run in March 2025, with no new papers being found. To ensure all relevant papers were captured, gold standard papers (those which matched the research questions) were searched for and found to ensure the sensitivity of the search.

A total of eight electronic databases were searched; MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Criminal justice abstracts, ProQuest, PubMed, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and CINAHL. Two gray literature databases were also searched; Google Scholar and MEDNAR with the first 10 pages (100 hits) being downloaded, given that they would provide the most relevant outputs (Haddaway et al., 2015). All results were then uploaded to Rayyan, a web-based systematic review tool that facilitates collaborative screening of titles and abstracts. Rayyan allows researchers to blind screen records independently, tag inclusion/exclusion reasons, and resolve conflicts efficiently, thereby enhancing the transparency and reproducibility of the study selection process.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Papers were included if they collectively used qualitative research methods to ascertain VFP’s views, attitudes, opinions, and/or perceptions on the reintegration of adult males who have sexually offended, from prison or secure care. Papers were included if other people’s views were present, such as sexual offenders themselves, if the data from VFP could be extracted. Similarly, papers were included that did not specifically focus on reintegration, if data on reintegration were presented and could be extracted. Only articles published in English were included due to resource constraints for translation and because the review team could only reliably appraise and extract data from English-language sources. Additionally, the papers could be from any country and any year. Only qualitative studies were included as the primary aim of this review was to explore the nuanced and subjective views of victim-survivors, family members, and professionals.

Study Selection and Data Management

Once the duplicates were removed, one reviewer (ET) sifted all the titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A second reviewer (NW) then independently reviewed a randomly selected 20% of the papers. The reviewers had a 98.9% agreement rate (a substantial rate when converted into Kappa statistic) and no discrepancies required a third review.

Those that were identified as potentially relevant then went through the full paper screening process. All papers were retrieved and saved on Microsoft Teams for review. One reviewer (ET) sifted all full papers, and a second and third reviewer (SP, LG) independently double-screened 30%. There was a 73.3% agreement rate between reviewers (moderate agreement rate when converted into Kappa statistic). To address this, all discrepancies were discussed in detail among the reviewers to reach consensus on inclusion. While the papers were not formally re-screened in full, any papers flagged during the discussion were revisited against the inclusion criteria to ensure accuracy. The aim of this process was not to recalculate the agreement rate but to improve consistency in judgment and ensure that all included papers met the predefined criteria. This collaborative review and clarification process enhanced the rigor and reliability of the final study selection.

Data Extraction

A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was developed for the data extraction which captured: authors, publication year, country of study, aim of the research, study design, methods, setting/location of research, sample size, provider viewpoint (VFP), sex offense type, participant demographics, sample positive results, sample negative results, recommendations, and conclusions.

Assessment of Quality

The CASP tool for appraisal of qualitative studies (Singh, 2013) was used for the quality assessment of the included papers. The CASP tool is endorsed by Cochrane and the World Health Organization for use in qualitative evidence synthesis and is considered a relatively good measure of the transparency of research practice and reporting standards (Long et al., 2020). One reviewer (ET) undertook the quality assessment of all included papers, with a second reviewer (LG) checking 20% of the papers. There was a 100% agreement rate between reviewers (perfect agreement rate when converted into Kappa statistic). No papers were excluded at this stage.

Synthesis

To synthesize the extracted data, thematic synthesis was utilized, and the data were line-by-line coded using NVivo 12 software. Thematic synthesis was chosen as it allows a comprehensive understanding of qualitative evidence that can be grouped into common themes, patterns, and variations (Thomas & Harden, 2008). The flexibility of thematic synthesis ensures that no valuable insights are overlooked with respect to each of the included papers. Additionally, thematic synthesis’ structured approach of data coding, categorization, and theme development ensures consistency and transparency in the review process, as well as enhancing the credibility of the review’s findings and conclusions (Nowell et al., 2017). ET completed initial drafts of the synthesis, which were then reviewed by the wider study team where the themes and sub-themes were agreed upon, enhancing the trustworthiness and rigor of the synthesis (Maher et al., 2018).

Results

The initial searches yielded 8,621 records. After de-duplication (n = 3,159 total removed) and title and abstract sifting (n = 5,230 removed), 232 full papers were assessed. In total, 36 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Figure 1). The articles were published between 2006 and 2023.

Figure 1.

PRISMA.

Study Characteristics

The characteristics from the 36 qualitative papers (Bailey et al., 2017a, 2017b; Boone & van de Bunt, 2016; Bows & Westmarland, 2018; Budd et al., 2016; Cassidy et al., 2021; Collins et al., 2010; Connor, 2020; Cresswell, 2020; Cubellis et al., 2018; Day et al., 2014; Evans et al., 2023; Fox, 2017; Gaines, 2006; Hardeberg Bach & Demuth, 2019; Hoggett et al., 2020; Hollomotz, 2021; Kaylor et al., 2022; Kilmer & Leon, 2017; Leon & Kilmer, 2023; J. S. Levenson & Harris, 2024; Lowe et al., 2019; Lowe & Willis, 2018; Masters & Kebbell, 2019; K. McCartan, 2012; Meloy, Boatwright, & Curtis, 2013; Meloy, Curtis, & Boatwright, 2013; Nakpong & Kanyajit, 2021; Nhan et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2014; Richards et al., 2021; Rubenstein et al., 2019; Simmons et al., 2022; Spruin et al., 2018; Ten Bensel & Sample, 2017; Whitting et al., 2016) are presented in Table 1. Eight papers examined the views of family members, two papers looked at the views of victims-survivors, and 26 papers explored professionals’ views (including clinicians/healthcare staff, community supervision officers, correctional staff, judges, mayors, offender managers, police, policymakers, practitioners, probation officers, program facilitators, re-entry stakeholders, volunteers for Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), and university administrators). Of the 1,820 unique participants, 1,142 were professionals, 644 were family members, and 34 were victim-survivors. Thirty-four papers focused on mixed sexual offenses, and two specifically on child sexual abuse. Nineteen papers reported on research from the United States of America (USA), five from the United Kingdom, six from Australia, two from New Zealand, and one each from Ireland, Norway, Thailand, and the Netherlands.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics.

Author, year, location	Methods	Total sample size	Viewpoint
Bailey and Sample (2017a), USA	Interviews	N = 38	Family members
Bailey and Sample (2017b), USA	Interviews	N = 12	Community supervision officers
Boone and van de Bunt (2016), The Netherlands	Interviews	N = 48	Police officers, probation officers, mayors, the offender, and the public.
Bows and Westmarland (2018), UK	Interviews	N = 9	Offender managers
Budd et al. (2016), USA	Interviews	N = 10	Re-entry stakeholders
Cassidy et al. (2021), USA	Data analysis	N = 256	Family members
Collins et al. (2010), Australia	Interviews	N = 4	Clinicians (2× psychologists, 1× psychiatrist, 1× social worker)
Connor (2020), USA	Interviews	N = 38	Family members
Cresswell (2020), Republic of Ireland	Interviews and surveys	N = 59	Program stakeholders (probation officers, gardaí, program facilitators, community volunteers)
Cubellis et al. (2018), USA	Interviews and surveys	N = 101	Law enforcement professionals
Day et al. (2014), Australia	Interviews and focus groups	N = 22	Professionals (7× psychologists, 12× support workers, 3× community corrections officers)
Evans et al. (2023), USA	Interviews	N = 30	Family members
Fox (2017), USA & New Zealand	Interviews	N = 79	Coordinators, correctional staff, and volunteers
Gaines (2006), USA	Interviews and surveys	N = 21	Law enforcement officials
Hardeberg Bach and Demuth (2019), Norway	Interviews	N = 4	Therapists
Hoggett et al. (2020), UK	Interviews and surveys	N = 27	Police staff
Hollomotz (2021), UK	Interviews	N = 22	Professionals (2× support workers, 5× case managers, 4× therapists, 1× nurse, 1× psychologist, 11× community-based profs including social workers, solicitor, care workers, and nurses)
Kaylor et al. (2022), USA	Mixed methods survey	N = 361	Parole and probation officers
Kilmer and Leon (2017), USA	Interviews and surveys	N = 63	Family members
Leon and Kilmer (2023), USA	Interviews and surveys	N = 58	Family members
J. S. Levenson and Harris, 2024, USA	Mixed methods survey	N = 126	Family members
Lowe et al. (2019), New Zealand	Interviews	N = 18	Volunteers
Lowe and Willis (2018), New Zealand	Interviews	N = 18	Volunteers
Masters and Kebbell (2019), Australia	Interviews	N = 17	Sex offender managers
K. McCartan (2012), UK	Interviews	N = 28	Practitioners, police, academics and members of the media
Meloy, Boatwright, and Curtis (2013), USA	Interviews	N = 86	Policy makers and practioners
Meloy, Curtis, and Boatwright (2013), USA	Interviews	N = 61	Policy makers
Nakpong and Kanyajit (2021), Thailand	Interviews and focus groups	N = 60	Police
Nhan et al. (2012), USA	Interviews	N = 12	Judges
Powell et al. (2014), Australia	Focus groups	N = 24	Police
Richards et al. (2021), Australia	Interviews	N = 33	Victims/survivors
Rubenstein et al. (2019), USA	Mixed methods survey	N = 74	University administrators
Simmons et al. (2022), USA	Interviews	N = 21	Counselors and staff, state officials and re-entry program managers, community care providers
Spruin et al. (2018), UK	Interviews	N = 22	Offender managers
Ten Bensel and Sample (2017), USA	Interviews	N = 36	Family members
Whitting et al. (2016), Australia	Interviews	N = 21	Police

Thematic Results

Four main themes were discovered in regard to views on the reintegration of MCoSO; supervision (including the registry, restrictions, parole and probation conditions, policies, and monitoring), discrimination (including labeling, stigma, vigilantism, myth acceptance, and stereotyping), livelihood (including housing, employment, finances, education, and social life problems), and interventions (including interventions, rehabilitation, support groups, and therapy).

Theme 01: Supervision

Three areas looked at the sex offender registry, restrictions, parole and probation conditions, policies concerning this area, and monitoring, with a total of 26 papers.

Familial (n = 8): Family members were highly critical of sex offender registry laws, describing them as overly punitive, stigmatizing, and ultimately ineffective. They believed such policies did little to enhance public safety and instead hindered rehabilitation. As one participant noted, “putting my husband on the list doesn’t mean his chances of going back [to sex crimes] are any less. A person on it is the same as a person off of it” [Support Partner, USA] (Connor, 2020). Compared to the general public, families were more likely to view current practices as unjust and harmful.

Navigating the legal system added further stress, with many expressing confusion and fear about inadvertently breaching complex or changing rules. One parent shared, “If it weren’t for me, my son would have no idea about new laws. . .if he doesn’t know and does something that he’s [not] supposed to do it’s on him” [Parent, USA] (Cassidy et al., 2021).There was also a profound sense of betrayal and disillusionment with the justice system. As a partner reflected, “I was once far more understanding of social justice issues until I was forced to live under the cloud of the registry with my husband” [Partner, USA] (J. S. Levenson & Harris, 2024). The emotional burden often led to breakdowns in family relationships, even among those who initially tried to remain supportive. “I felt horrible when I decided to leave him because I couldn’t live with the life-long punishments he was going to receive when I did nothing wrong” [Partner, USA] (Bailey & Sample, 2017a).

Some family members also coped by downplaying the offense, highlighting the perceived mismatch between the act and the lifelong consequences. “My son has done something wrong. . .but now he’s in the offender registry for the rest of his life, and he can never recover” [Parent, USA] (Bailey & Sample, 2017a).These family members collectively illustrated the complex emotional, social, and legal challenges experienced by family members of MCoSO. They highlighted the need for a more compassionate approach toward both the offender and family member to address the issues surrounding MCoSO management and community safety.

Professional (n = 16): Professionals expressed a wide range of views on the effectiveness and limitations of sex offender registries. Some, particularly in law enforcement, supported registries as tools for promoting accountability and community safety. Others, however, questioned their fairness, resource efficiency, and actual impact.

Concerns were raised about over-inclusion of low-risk individuals, inaccuracies, and the strain on already limited resources: “There’s a lot of people on that register who don’t need to be. . .a lot of resources and time [are] wasted” [Practitioner, Australia] (Day et al., 2014). The limited ability to monitor offenders meaningfully was also noted: “We can knock on the door but if they tell us to go away, end of story” [Police Officer, Australia] (Powell et al., 2014).

Skepticism persisted about registries’ deterrent effect and the false sense of safety they may give the public. “It doesn’t give a true picture of who the sex offender is and it gives the community a false impression of safety” [Practitioner, Australia] (Day et al., 2014). Public misunderstanding of registry functions was a recurring concern: “The general community think. . .being on a register makes you monitored 24/7. . .and that’s not the case” [Police Officer, Australia] (Masters & Kebbell, 2019).

Professionals stressed the need for better support for those on the register, especially around mental health and rehabilitation, noting that policing often takes precedence over care: “There’s no support framework. . .they see being on the register as something they need to police, not help” [Police Officer, Australia] (Masters & Kebbell, 2019).The harmful impact of stigma was also emphasized. Public registers were seen as isolating and counterproductive: “You ostracize people. . .when you publish people’s names. . .If the public was more aware. . .they wouldn’t want one” [Police Officer, Australia] (Powell et al., 2014).

Debates also addressed legislative inconsistencies and the need for risk-based inclusion criteria. “a young adult who’s 20 had sex with a 14-year-old can go on the register. . .we need to be targeting the 40-year-old man because the sad thing is if you’re motivated by having sex with prepubescent children that will never change” [Police Officer, Australia] (Masters & Kebbell, 2019). Some participants also argued that sex offender laws are often reactive, shaped by public outcry after high-profile cases (Meloy et al., 2013). Overall, professionals highlighted the intricate challenges in sex offender management, emphasizing the necessity for enhanced stakeholder collaboration, the delicate balance between community safety and offender rehabilitation, and the limitations of current monitoring systems.

Victim-survivor (n = 2): Victim-survivors generally supported initiatives like CoSA, appreciating their dual role in offering reintegration support to MCoSO while maintaining oversight to reduce the risk of reoffending. The monitoring aspect was seen as essential for community protection: “It’s like a monitoring, but in a nice way. . . it’s taking care of them, it’s making sure that they don’t hurt someone else” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021).Surveillance and accountability were framed positively, not as punitive, but as necessary deterrents. One participant explained, “If you can just disappear. . . you can go back and do whatever you want. But if you know that there’s people there you’re accountable to and you’re being watched. . . it will stop” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021). This reflects a belief in behavioral regulation through structured oversight.

Victim-survivors also valued the preventive role of such programs, particularly when they involved professionals aware of an individual’s risks and needs: “If they’ve got people who know exactly what their triggers are. . . you can sort of keep them on the straight and narrow” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021). Their views combined support for rehabilitation with a desire for protective vigilance. However, the broader impacts of registry restrictions and criminal justice responses were also noted, particularly when victim and offender were in the same family. One participant described the unintended consequences of legal action: “Victim now wishes they never came forward” [USA] (Kilmer & Leon, 2017), highlighting the emotional, financial, and familial toll, especially when the system’s response conflicted with victims’ wishes. In summary, victim-survivors supported programs like CoSA for their role in both supporting offenders and ensuring community safety through monitoring. They valued this dual approach, recognizing that oversight could deter reoffending.

Theme 02: Discrimination

Fifteen papers looked at labeling, stigma, vigilantism, myth acceptance, and stereotyping MCoSO. The papers highlighted issues of stigma, public perception, community responses, media influence, legal frameworks, rehabilitation, and individual perspectives of MCoSO.

Familial (n = 7): The consequences of being associated with a registered sex offender extended well beyond the individual, deeply affecting family members. Partners, parents, and children often faced social ostracization, strained relationships, and long-term disruptions to family life. One partner reflected, “I’m scared of the stigma. . .I want to have children, but it seems cruel to put a child in this situation” [Partner, USA] (Cassidy et al., 2021), highlighting the profound influence on future planning and sense of stability.

Exclusion from communal and familial events was common due to registry-related restrictions, which affected not only the registrant but also their entire family. As one participant described, “We chose as a family not to attend. . .funerals, weddings, vacations” [Partner, USA] (Kilmer & Leon, 2017), underscoring the ripple effect of restrictions. Many families also lived in fear of harassment or violence from members of the public. “There are enough crazy people out there. . .who want to be vigilantes. . .I do worry about that” [Mother, USA] (Evans et al., 2023), one mother shared, pointing to a climate of hypervigilance and insecurity that hindered reintegration efforts.

The emotional burden was often severe, with reports of anxiety, hopelessness, and concerns over suicide. One parent said, “My heart is broken. . .I worry he will kill himself in his motel room” [Parent, USA] (J. S. Levenson & Harris, 2024), illustrating the toll on both the registrant’s and their family’s mental health. Overall, family members grappled with their own identities in the face of societal judgment and the collective label imposed on them due to their association with a registrant. They felt marginalized and unfairly treated despite not having committed any crime themselves, significantly impeding the reintegration of MCoSO into society.

Professional (n = 8): Most professionals acknowledged that men convicted of sexual offenses (MCoSO) face significant public stigma, which poses major barriers to reintegration. This stigma manifested in limited access to employment, housing, and social relationships. As one law enforcement officer put it, “Nobody wants to hire a sex offender, nobody wants a sex offender living next to them” [Law Enforcement Officer, USA] (Cubellis et al., 2018).

Several professionals advocated for public education to challenge myths and dehumanizing stereotypes. A therapist emphasized the importance of shifting public perception: “There isn’t anything different about talking to these people. . .they’re just as much human” [Therapist, Denmark] (Hardeberg Bach & Demuth, 2019).However, some practitioners—particularly in supervision and law enforcement—expressed distrust, viewing MCoSO as manipulative and deceptive, which in turn affected how they engaged with them: “It’s kinda, always gotta stay on your guard then. . .there’s so much deception” [Community Supervision Officer, USA] (Bailey & Sample, 2017a). Such beliefs risk reinforcing isolation and undermining access to support.

There was also skepticism about the effectiveness of rehabilitation, with some professionals subscribing to the view that offenders are unlikely to change: “Once a sex offender, always a sex offender” [Police Officer, Australia] (Masters & Kebbell, 2019). This fatalistic stance coexisted uneasily with the efforts of those working directly in rehabilitation and therapy, who emphasized empathy and humanization. One therapist explained, “You have to manage to like these people. . .sometimes you have to search far and wide for their positive qualities but you will find them” [Therapist, Denmark] (Hardeberg Bach & Demuth, 2019). In summary, professionals acknowledged that MCoSO faced significant stigma, making reintegration challenging. While some advocated for public education to counteract misconceptions, others were skeptical about rehabilitation, seeing MCoSO as manipulative. Despite this, some therapists emphasized empathy and the potential for rehabilitation, urging a more nuanced view of these individuals.

Theme 03: Livelihood

Two areas looked at VFP’s perceptions of housing, employment, finances, education, and social life problems that men face with this conviction, with a total of 16 papers. The papers highlighted several challenges faced by individuals and families affected by sex offender registration policies, including housing instability, financial strain, employment barriers, family disruption, and social stigma. These challenges were perceived to be exacerbated by legal restrictions, discriminatory practices, and the pervasive impact of sex offender policies on various aspects of daily life.

Familial (n = 3): Legal restrictions and widespread stigma severely limited housing options for individuals on the sex offender registry and their families. Registrants were often excluded from entire neighborhoods, while landlords, through background checks or informal discrimination, further narrowed access. As one partner described, “We had to apply to 30+ places. . .the one we ﬁnally got was the only one that didn’t ask for a background check.. . .We pay the rent 15 days in advance” [Partner, USA] (Leon & Kilmer, 2023). Such anxiety and hypervigilance were common, fueled by the constant risk of eviction and exposure. Participants also feared long-term housing instability, particularly in relation to buying a home or securing long-term leases. “Will we be able to buy a home? Will anyone want to sell to us?” asked one partner [USA], reflecting the uncertainty surrounding their future (Cassidy et al., 2021).

These challenges were compounded by financial strain. Employment barriers, due to stigma, background checks, and loss of licenses, led to low wages, precarious work, and limited prospects. “Currently he’s only able to get work through a temp agency for $8.15 an hour. . .He looked into going back to college, but that also requires him to notify the college that he’s a registered sex offender” [Partner, USA] (Kilmer & Leon, 2017). Even when housing was secured, it came at a premium: “The apartment charged him $100 more a month due to his being on the registry” [Partner, USA] (Leon & Kilmer, 2023).Lastly, legal and social constraints created significant disruptions in family dynamics, leading to the separation of partners and parents from their children. The children of registrants often endured harassment or ostracism because of their parent’s status, which detrimentally impacted their social interactions and emotional health. Additionally, family members themselves encountered social isolation and challenges in establishing relationships due to the stigma attached to the registrant’s status and the accompanying restrictions they faced. These cumulative effects profoundly affected the well-being and cohesion of families connected to registrants.

Professional (n = 13): Professionals consistently highlighted housing as a major barrier to the reintegration of MCoSO, particularly for those who were older or had complex health needs. Legal restrictions, stigma, and private landlord reluctance significantly limited viable housing options. As one stakeholder explained, “I was given a map. . .there’s all these red bubbles all over town and there’s just little tiny spots they can be in, it’s a depressing map” [Stakeholder, USA] (Budd et al., 2016).

The risk of homelessness or transience was frequently cited, with concerns that instability could increase the likelihood of noncompliance or reoffending. A caseworker noted, “If they don’t have a place to go. . .they’re gonna go underground. . .but if there were places. . .to have a fair chance at starting their lives back over again” [Caseworker, USA] (Simmons et al., 2022). Professionals called for more sustainable housing pathways to prevent cycles of instability.

Employment was another critical concern. Stigma, legal barriers, and employer reluctance left many MCoSO unable to secure meaningful work. “Who wants to hire a sex offender?” [Stakeholder, USA] (Budd et al., 2016) captured the widespread bias faced by this population. Some practitioners expressed frustration at overly risk-averse systems: “They are being so risk averse that they are making it impossible to get a life” [Practitioner, Australia] (Day et al., 2014).These barriers extended to education, where inconsistent institutional responses further hindered reintegration. “I do not believe we are consistently treating students with criminal history in the same manner” [University Administrator, USA] (Rubenstein et al., 2019), noted one participant, highlighting systemic inconsistencies. Community hostility and social isolation were also noted as compounding factors. Professionals emphasized that without stable housing, employment, and social support, the likelihood of successful reintegration diminishes. As one probation officer [USA] put it, “There’s lack of ties within the community. . .which can make them feel quite isolated once they are released” (Fox, 2017).

Theme 04: Interventions

Two areas looked at interventions, rehabilitation, support groups, and therapy that were offered to MCoSO, with a total of eight papers. This theme revolved around MCoSO rehabilitation and treatment, along with related issues such as community reintegration, and the effectiveness of various approaches.

Professional (n = 7): Professionals offered mixed views on the effectiveness of treatment for MCoSO. While some expressed optimism about the potential for change, “I see that people change, so I’m very optimistic about what we are doing” [Therapist, Denmark] (Hardeberg Bach & Demuth, 2019), others were more skeptical, particularly regarding high-risk individuals. “Can some sex offenders be treated effectively? Absolutely. High-risk offenders? No, probably not” [Practitioner, USA] (Meloy et al., 2013). Across perspectives, motivation emerged as a key factor in treatment success. One therapist emphasized, “The person must be motivated and want to change. . .it doesn’t work if they don’t want it” [Therapist, Denmark] (Hardeberg Bach & Demuth, 2019). This suggests that internal readiness to change may be as critical as the treatment model itself.

There was agreement that effective treatment must be long-term, intensive, and individualized, tailored to risk level and personal needs. As one clinician explained, “Treatment never finishes. . .How do you make that part of how you are, who you are and what you do?” [Clinician, UK] (Hollomotz, 2021). This approach aligns with models of ongoing risk management and identity transformation. Some professionals cautioned against the notion of a “cure,” particularly in cases involving fixed sexual preferences. A judge stated, “All the therapy in the world is not going to make someone be attracted to the same sex” [USA] (Nhan et al., 2012), framing treatment as a tool for behavioral control rather than elimination of desire. Legal and policy considerations also shaped treatment delivery, with debates around mandatory participation and balancing public safety with autonomy. Emphasis was placed on fostering internal motivation through supportive, rather than punitive, environments. “It is all about creating an environment where they don’t feel policed. . .I’ve built something up here that I don’t want to lose” [Community Service Manager, UK] (Hollomotz, 2021).

In summary, while views on treatment effectiveness varied, especially concerning high-risk individuals, professionals largely agreed on the need for sustained, person-centered approaches that emphasize motivation, risk management, and long-term engagement. Victim-survivor (n = 1): Participants expressed mixed and often evolving views about CoSA, reflecting broader tensions around rehabilitation and justice. One participant initially rejected the idea outright; “They should just be all locked up. . .they can’t be rehabilitated,” but later reconsidered, stating, “I think it would be a good thing. . .I think that sounds like a great idea” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021). This shift illustrates the emotional and ethical ambivalence often surrounding offender reintegration.

Support for CoSA was frequently conditional. Victim-survivors emphasized that programs should only benefit those who demonstrated remorse and a genuine willingness to change: “If they’re remorseful and sorry. . .yeah, why not?” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021). Accountability was seen as a key prerequisite for second chances. Many recognized CoSA’s value in providing structure and support for individuals re-entering society, particularly those without family or community ties. However, distinctions were made based on the nature of the offense. While some believed CoSA could be effective for those who committed offenses against adults, others viewed child-related offenses as less amenable to rehabilitation: “For rapists of adults. . .it’s important. [But] with pedophiles. . .rehabilitation is almost impossible” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021).

Participants also wrestled with the perceived trade-off between supporting offenders and addressing victims’ needs. One commented, “Maybe the victims need more support. . .and these people [offenders] should just rot in jail. But. . .I’d like to believe everyone also could have a second chance” [Australia] (Richards et al., 2021), capturing the tension between retributive and rehabilitative impulses. In summary, attitudes toward CoSA reflected a nuanced balance of hope, skepticism, and moral conflict. While some participants were open to rehabilitation under specific conditions, others questioned whether all offenders, particularly those who harmed children, should be eligible for such support.

Discussion

The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively explore the VFP views on the reintegration of MCoSO from prison or secure care into the community. While the term “professionals” is used collectively, we recognize this group includes individuals from highly diverse occupational roles (e.g., police officers, therapists, offender managers). Although these roles were grouped thematically for the purposes of analysis, we identified meaningful variation within this category. For example, therapists and clinicians typically emphasized rehabilitation potential, empathy, and the importance of sustained therapeutic engagement. In contrast, law enforcement officers and community supervision staff more often focused on risk, deception, and public protection, at times expressing skepticism about rehabilitation. A similar pattern of variation was observed among family members. Although this group was discussed collectively, distinctions emerged between parents and partners. Parents often described navigating complex legal requirements, concern for their child’s mental health and future, and a sense of protective advocacy. Partners, by contrast, frequently reported emotional strain, disillusionment with the justice system, and dilemmas around whether to remain in the relationship.

Additionally, findings from victim-survivors should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of studies (n = 2) and participants. While these perspectives are valuable, they are not representative of all victim-survivors and further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base. It may also be worthwhile for future studies to explore whether victim-survivors’ views on reintegration vary depending on their relationship to the perpetrator, whether they were harmed by a family member, partner/ex-partner, acquaintance, or stranger, as such relational dynamics are likely to influence their perspectives on justice, safety, and rehabilitation.

The varying perspectives reflected a balance between concerns for public safety, the potential for rehabilitation, and the social and emotional implications for those directly involved. Four main themes were discussed; supervision, discrimination, livelihood, and interventions, with each providing a comprehensive exploration of the views on reintegration of MCoSO into the community. These themes revealed significant insights of VFP into the challenges and opportunities faced during reintegration, emphasizing the necessity for a collaborative approach to addressing the diverse needs and concerns of all stakeholders involved.

Supervision: The complexities and tensions surrounding the monitoring, supervision, and reintegration of MCoSO were evident across VFP perspectives. Victim-survivors strongly supported monitoring programs like CoSA that blended oversight with support. Research shows that such programs are seen as vital for preventing reoffending (up to 70%–80% compared to matched controls [Clarke et al., 2017]) and protecting the community, providing a balance between accountability and rehabilitation (Wilson et al., 2009). Victim-survivors appreciated the supportive implementation of monitoring, recognizing its role in helping offenders reintegrate without causing further harm. They believed that combining social support with extended carceral control was necessary for effective risk management. Ensuring offenders adhered to parole requirements and attended health appointments were seen as vital for mitigating risks. The endorsement of surveillance by victim-survivors stemmed from a belief in its effectiveness in holding offenders accountable. By maintaining a degree of visibility and oversight, these programs can deter offenders from re-engaging in criminal behavior. This is reflected in the sentiment that accountability through monitoring can significantly reduce the likelihood of reoffending (Richards et al., 2021). This aligns with broader research showing that supportive, community-based responses like CoSA can promote both public safety and offender accountability (K. F. McCartan et al., 2015).

Family members of MCoSO often criticized sex offender registry laws, viewing them as overly punitive and ineffective. The criticisms of sex offender registry laws by family members align with broader literature on the impact of these policies (Brown, 2017; Russell et al., 2021). Research has shown that sex offender registries can lead to significant social and psychological consequences for offenders and their families, including stigmatization, social isolation, and difficulties in reintegration (J. S. Levenson & Cotter, 2005). These negative outcomes often extend to family members, exacerbating their emotional and social challenges (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Studies have also highlighted the limited effectiveness of sex offender registries in reducing recidivism. Meta-analyses indicate that registries do not significantly impact reoffending rates and may, in some cases, increase the likelihood of recidivism due to the social and economic hardships they impose on offenders (Vásquez et al., 2008).

Quantitative evaluations of registration and community notification laws (RCNLs) have similarly raised concerns about their efficacy. Research consistently shows that RCNLs, especially when applied broadly and without individualized risk assessment, have little to no effect on reducing sexual recidivism. In some cases, they may increase reoffending due to social exclusion and instability (Maas, 2011; McGuire et al., 2021; Zgoba & Mitchell, 2023). Prescott and Rockoff (2011), using a national dataset, found that registration had no impact on recidivism, and that notification laws may increase crime by undermining rehabilitation. Similarly, J. S. Levenson and D’Amora (2007) emphasized that while these policies may offer a sense of security, they do not reduce sexual violence and often impair reintegration efforts. These findings challenge the assumption that RCNLs are an effective blanket policy and highlight the need for risk-based approaches and public education about their limitations. This evidence supports the views of family members who criticized these laws as ineffective and counterproductive.

Professionals, including law enforcement personnel and policymakers, offered mixed views on the effectiveness of sex offender registries. There was skepticism about the deterrent effect of registration, with concerns that it may deter victims from reporting crimes and offenders from seeking help. Professionals questioned the fairness and effectiveness of these registries, noting issues with inclusion criteria, stigma, and a lack of flexibility, which is consistent with the wider literature (Vess et al., 2013). Public education on the purpose and limitations of sex offender registries was deemed crucial for combating misconceptions and fostering realistic expectations. Support services and rehabilitation programs for registrants were described as essential but often under-resourced, impacting their mental health and reintegration. Research highlights that effective management of sex offenders requires a balanced approach that includes tailored rehabilitation programs addressing individual needs and providing support for mental health and substance abuse issues (Andrews & Bonta, 2014; Harris et al., 2018; Tewksbury et al., 2011).

In summary, the theme of supervision encompassed a wide range of perspectives, highlighting the need for rigorous monitoring to ensure community safety while also recognizing the importance of rehabilitation and support for MCoSO. Balancing these aspects is crucial for effective reintegration and reducing recidivism, requiring a nuanced and collaborative approach that considers the diverse needs and concerns of all stakeholders involved.

Discrimination: A key finding from this review revealed that those who were in regular contact with MCoSO, such as family members and some professionals, often had a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and potential for MCoSO rehabilitation. The wider literature also shows that direct interactions with offenders or involvement with the CJS can significantly shape individual attitudes toward rehabilitation and punishment, further illustrating the diversity of public opinion (Grady & Strom-Gottfried, 2011; Hancock, 2019).

Family members of MCoSO faced extensive social and emotional challenges due to their association with someone convicted of a sexual crime. The stigma of being related to a registrant affected relationships with extended family, friends, and the wider community, leading to social ostracization and difficulties in maintaining normal social interactions. This social isolation negatively impacted the reintegration of MCoSO, as the wider literature shows, family support is crucial for successful rehabilitation (Fortune et al., 2015). Fear of vigilantism and retribution further exacerbated the stress experienced by families. The emotional toll of societal stigma and isolation also led to severe mental health concerns among family members, including fears of harm and suicide. Research consistently shows that the stigma of sex offender registration extends beyond the individual to their families, leading to social ostracization and emotional distress (Brown, 2017; Farkas & Stichman, 2002). Supportive interventions for families can mitigate these adverse effects and aid in the reintegration process (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Addressing the broader social and emotional needs of families is essential for creating a supportive environment conducive to rehabilitation.

Professionals, including law enforcement officers and therapists, also acknowledge the significant stigma faced by MCoSO and the challenges this posed for reintegration. Law enforcement officers in this review highlighted the societal rejection of MCoSO, reflecting widespread negative connotations. Professionals’ perceptions of MCoSO also hindered reintegration. The belief that MCoSO were manipulative created barriers to accessing necessary support and resources. This perception perpetuates a cycle of mistrust and isolation, as noted by community supervision officers. Such views contributed to the difficulties MCoSO face in re-entering society successfully (Elias & Haj-Yahia, 2017; Harrison et al., 2020). The concerns about manipulation and the need for professional involvement show the importance of specialized training and expertise in the rehabilitation process. Effective rehabilitation requires a multidisciplinary approach that combines psychological, social, and legal interventions to address the complex needs of MCoSO (Laws & Ward, 2011).

Despite these negative perceptions, some professionals emphasize the importance of empathy toward MCoSO. Viewing offenders as human beings with complex backgrounds and struggles rather than as irredeemable monsters was seen crucial for effective rehabilitation. The emphasis on empathy and recognizing the humanity of sex offenders is supported by literature advocating for a balanced approach to rehabilitation (J. Levenson, 2014; Ward & Durrant, 2013). Effective rehabilitation requires understanding offenders’ backgrounds and providing tailored support to address their specific needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2014). Empathy and support from professionals therefore can significantly enhance rehabilitation outcomes and reduce reoffending risks (Millar, 2022).

In summary, discrimination against MCoSO is multifaceted and affects not only the offenders but also their families and the professionals involved in their rehabilitation. Professionals highlighted the importance of public education and empathy in addressing these challenges, advocating for a balanced approach that supports both community safety and offender rehabilitation. Addressing these discriminatory attitudes through comprehensive education and supportive interventions is crucial for the successful reintegration of MCoSO into society.

Livelihood: The theme of livelihood for MCoSO encompassed familial struggles and professional challenges. Each perspective highlighted the significant barriers to stable housing, employment, and social integration, collectively impacting the overall well-being and reintegration of MCoSO into society. Families of MCoSO faced significant challenges due to legal and societal restrictions, particularly concerning housing, employment, and family dynamics. Financial strain was underpinned by limited job prospects and diminished wages, affecting the registrants and their families. The stigma associated with a criminal record, particularly for sex offenses, limited job opportunities and reduced economic stability. Studies highlight that even when registrants seek to improve their situation through education or vocational training, the requirement to disclose their status remains a significant barrier (Porter et al., 2023; Visher et al., 2008). The cumulative effect of these legal and social constraints created significant disruptions in family dynamics. Partners and parents were often separated from their children due to the legal restrictions and the social stigma attached to their status. The disruption of family relationships and the social isolation experienced by family members were found to be significant barriers to successful reintegration, which has also been found in the wider literature (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Brown, 2017; Farkas & Miller, 2007).

Professionals in the field, including offender managers, caseworkers, and stakeholders, emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to address housing, employment, and educational barriers faced by MCoSO. Caseworkers advocated for designated housing to provide stability and reduce the likelihood of reoffending, highlighting the critical role of stable housing in successful reintegration, which aligns with the wider literature (Kirk et al., 2018; Roman & Travis, 2006). Employment barriers were viewed as similarly daunting by professionals, as the stigma and legal constraints linked to their status made it difficult for MCoSO to find jobs. Research shows the reluctance of employers to hire individuals with a criminal record, especially MCoSO, limit economic opportunities and stability (Pager, 2003; Uggen, 2000). Practitioners also criticize the overly risk-averse approach that hampers offenders’ ability to establish functional lives, emphasizing the need for realistic employment opportunities (Visher et al., 2008). Educational barriers also hindered reintegration efforts. The inconsistent treatment of students with a criminal history, as noted by university administrators, further limited the ability of offenders to rebuild their lives through education. Access to education and vocational training is essential for improving the prospects of offenders and supporting their reintegration (Davis, 2013).

In summary, the livelihood of MCoSO was found to be profoundly affected by familial challenges and professional obstacles. Stable housing, employment, and education are critical components for successful reintegration, yet each was hindered by stigma and legal restrictions. Comprehensive solutions, including supportive interventions and balanced policies were seen as essential to addressing these barriers and fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for MCoSO. Recognizing the humanity of offenders and providing tailored support are crucial for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Interventions: Victim-survivors’ perspectives on rehabilitation were complex and often conflicted. Initially, there was strong resistance to the idea of rehabilitation, with a sentiment that MCoSO are irredeemable and should be isolated permanently. This view aligns with high-profile cases and media portrayals that emphasize the risk of reoffending (Jewkes, 2015). However, attitudes shifted upon further consideration of structured support systems like CoSA. Some victim-survivors acknowledged that supportive circles could be beneficial, provided offenders demonstrated genuine remorse and a willingness to change. The emphasis on accountability and the offender’s commitment to reform is crucial, reflecting the importance of tailored interventions based on specific risks and needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2014). The value of social support for reintegration is also well-documented, with community support playing a critical role in reducing recidivism and facilitating successful reintegration (Maruna & LeBel, 2002).

Balancing support and accountability are crucial in offender reintegration, with families and restorative justice programs playing key roles. Studies have shown that victim-survivors report meaningful benefits, such as empowerment, validation, and closure, through restorative justice conferencing, a facilitated meeting between the person harmed and the person responsible, often involving supporters from both sides, though the approach is not universally appropriate. (Marsh & Wager, 2015). Collaborative efforts create supportive environments that also maintain accountability, essential for effective reintegration and community safety. Practices like family group conferencing involve structured dialogs among offenders, victims, and families to discuss the offense and agree on restitution and rehabilitation (Maxwell & Morris, 2006). Such practices empower victims by allowing them to express feelings and receive apologies, often proving more satisfying than traditional punitive measures (Koss et al., 2003). Victim participation in restorative processes varies based on factors like offense severity and victim-offender relationships. Yet scholars caution that while restorative justice holds promise, it may not always align with victim needs or be feasible in all cases, particularly for serious crimes like sexual violence (Daly, 2007). However, restorative justice, focusing on harm repair and relationship restoration, is promising for addressing sexual offenses by promoting rehabilitation and reintegration, supported by victim-survivors seeking meaningful restitution (Joyce-Wojtas & Keenan, 2016).

Professionals working in offender rehabilitation had varied opinions on the effectiveness of treatment for MCoSO. Therapists were optimistic about the potential for positive change through treatment, while other practitioners and judges remained skeptical, particularly regarding high-risk offenders. Treatment effectiveness was also seen as contingent upon the offender’s genuine motivation to change, emphasizing the necessity of intrinsic motivation for successful rehabilitation. Motivational approaches in probation practice have been shown to foster engagement and long-term behavioral change, reinforcing the role of internal readiness in successful reintegration (Taxman et al., 2015). A consensus among professionals, including clinicians, was that long-term, intensive treatment programs tailored to the individual’s risk level and specific needs were essential. This approach resonates with the concept of continuous care in rehabilitation, showing the pertinence of sustained support and intervention (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Maruna, 2007).

Quantitative evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offending, especially when aligned with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. Meta-analyses have found that cognitive-behavioral treatments consistent with RNR principles significantly reduce sexual recidivism. For example, Hanson et al. (2009) found that treated sexual offenders had a sexual recidivism rate of 10.9%, compared to 19.2% in untreated groups. Similarly, Lösel and Schmucker (2005) concluded that well-implemented treatment programs reduce recidivism by approximately 37%. These findings counter popular beliefs that “nothing works” for MCoSO (Mancini & Budd, 2016) and highlight the need for broader education among community members, professionals, and judicial actors about evidence-based rehabilitation outcomes. Improving awareness of these empirical findings among judges, probation officers, and the public is essential to reduce stigma, increase support for treatment-based approaches, and foster a more just and informed reintegration framework.

Legal and policy issues related to MCoSO treatment also emerged from the professionals’ perspectives. Debates about mandatory treatment requirements and the balance between public safety and individual rights were critical considerations. Clinicians discussed the importance of creating an environment that supports rehabilitation without making offenders feel constantly policed. Policymakers highlighted the challenges of implementing comprehensive treatment programs within the constraints of budgets, reflecting broader systemic issues in the correctional system. The emphasis on public safety and appropriate punishment highlights the tension between punitive approaches and rehabilitative efforts in the CJS (Przybylski, 2014). Legal and policy issues around mandatory treatment and the balance between public safety and individual rights are critical areas of debate. The Good Life Model’s emphasis on helping offenders build fulfilling lives aligns with the need to create supportive environments that facilitate rehabilitation (Ward & Gannon, 2006).

In summary, effective rehabilitation should involve balancing support and accountability, emphasizing tailored interventions that address the specific risks and needs of offenders. Structured support systems like CoSA, and sustained professional involvement are essential components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce recidivism and promote successful reintegration. Recognizing the complexity of these interventions and encouraging collaboration among stakeholders are essential for achieving public safety and offender rehabilitation.

Study Limitations

This systematic review has several limitations. First, the reliance on qualitative studies may limit the generalizability of the findings, as qualitative research often focused on specific contexts and small sample sizes. Additionally, the inclusion of studies from various countries with different legal systems and cultural attitudes toward sexual offending may have introduced variability in the findings. Two other limitations of the current study were the lack of detailed demographic information about participants in many of the reviewed papers and the small number of papers looking at victim-survivors. This gap makes it difficult to generalize findings across diverse populations and provide more specific recommendations that are tailored to specific populations. Lastly, while much of the literature focused on general attitudes toward MCoSO, there was a scarcity of research specifically examining the reintegration process and the effectiveness of interventions aimed at changing public attitudes. However, despite these limitations, the value of this systematic review should not be underestimated it provides a comprehensive synthesis of existing research, highlighting important gaps in the literature, and setting the stage for future studies to explore more nuanced aspects of VFP attitudes toward MCoSO and their reintegration.

Implications for Practice

This review highlights the need for tailored, evidence-based approaches when working with MCoSO, as one-size-fits-all strategies fail to reflect the distinct roles and experiences of professionals (e.g., therapists, police, probation). This aligns with research emphasizing hybrid supervision that integrates cognitive-behavioral techniques, strengths-based elements, and risk-responsive engagement to reduce recidivism (Bosker et al., 2020). Practitioners need training that addresses the complex needs of this population and the emotional demands of the work. For example, as previous literature shows, therapeutic staff may benefit from reflective supervision and trauma-informed, strengths-based training, while community supervision and law enforcement require risk assessment training that integrates both actuarial tools and psychosocial insight (Davies & Jones, 2024; J. S. Levenson & Willis, 2019). The review also emphasizes involving families in reintegration, recognizing them as key support systems who face stigma and systemic barriers. Sensitive engagement, including psychoeducation and access to support groups, can help address courtesy stigma, emotional strain, and practical issues like housing and finances (Sample et al., 2018). Finally, coordinated, multi-agency reintegration planning is essential. Integrated care pathways that link mental health, probation, housing, and employment services can reduce fragmentation and better support the holistic needs of MCoSO (Day et al., 2015).

Implications for Policy

This review highlights urgent policy needs which are also reflected in previous literature. First, punitive post-release conditions, especially sex offender registries and residence restrictions, were widely reported to hinder reintegration, increase stigma, and sometimes raise risk by destabilizing housing. Policymakers should review these measures to ensure they are evidence-based, proportionate, and do not undermine public safety (J. S. Levenson, 2018; Tuschick et al., 2024). Second, a public health and rehabilitation-focused approach should complement criminal justice responses. Programs like CoSA, valued by victim-survivors and professionals for promoting accountability and safety, should be expanded with sustainable funding and integrated into national reintegration strategies (K. McCartan et al., 2020). Finally, stigma-reduction efforts, such as public education, are essential to shift societal attitudes from punitive to rehabilitative, especially in areas like housing, employment, and social inclusion, which are critical to reintegration (Tuschick et al., 2024).

Implications for Research

This review revealed important gaps in the literature that should be addressed in future research. Most notably, there is a lack of studies exploring the perspectives of victim-survivors and family members, which echos previous findings (Richards et al., 2023). Future qualitative research should actively seek out and amplify these voices to provide a more balanced understanding of reintegration challenges and opportunities. Longitudinal and intersectional research would also be valuable. Understanding how perspectives and reintegration outcomes change over time, and how factors such as gender, class, and ethnicity intersect with reintegration experiences, could provide more nuanced and actionable insights. For example, Ropes Berry et al. (2020) highlighted how overlapping identities can compound disadvantage and shape reintegration trajectories in distinct ways, reinforcing the importance of intersectional, longitudinal approaches in future research. It is important to note that given the variation in professional roles (e.g., police officers, therapists, probation officers), our ability to provide tailored recommendations was limited. Future research would benefit from subgroup analyses or separate syntheses to develop role-specific guidance. Finally, evaluations of specific reintegration programs (e.g., CoSA, supported housing, family inclusion models) are needed to build an evidence base for effective practice and policy interventions (see e.g., Azoulay et al., 2019).

Conclusion

This systematic review has highlighted the nuanced perspectives of VFP regarding the reintegration of MCoSO into the community. The insights from victim-survivors and family members highlight the growing recognition of the need to involve those with direct experience in shaping policies and practices. Victim-survivors often balance a desire for justice with a nuanced understanding of rehabilitation, demonstrating support for initiatives that provide accountability while fostering a path toward healing and safety. Meanwhile, family members of MCoSO grapple with the social and emotional complexities that accompany reintegration, advocating for policies that are compassionate and supportive of both offenders and their families.

Professionals, who bring a more systemic understanding to the issue, acknowledge the challenges and potential of reintegration, often advocating for evidence-based practices that consider the individual needs and risks of offenders. However, their perspectives also reflect the limitations and stigma embedded in current practices, suggesting a need for policy reform that aligns with the realities faced by those directly affected.

Overall, this review suggests that by incorporating the experiences and insights of victim-survivors, non-offending family members, and professionals, we can develop more effective and compassionate approaches to reintegration that promote both public safety and the rehabilitation of offenders. This shift in focus is crucial for creating policies that are not only just but also deeply informed by the realities of those who live with the consequences of sexual offenses.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251372929 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Review of Victim-Survivor, Familial, and Professional Views on the Reintegration of Men Convicted of a Sexual Offense into the Community

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251372929 for A Systematic Review of Victim-Survivor, Familial, and Professional Views on the Reintegration of Men Convicted of a Sexual Offense into the Community by Emma Tuschick, Shiri Portnoy, Nikki Carthy, Laura Gair, Simon Hackett and Nadia Wager in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Emma Tuschick

Laura Gair

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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.

Data Availability Statement

Please contact the author for the data.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Andrews

Bonta

(2014). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.

Azoulay

Winder

Murphy

Fedoroff

J. P.

(2019). Circles of support and accountability (CoSA): A review of the development of CoSA and its international implementation. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(2), 195–205.

Bailey

D. J. S.

Klein

J. L.

(2018). Ashamed and alone: Comparing offender and family member experiences with the sex offender registry. Criminal Justice Review, 43(4), 440–457.

Bailey

D. J. S.

Sample

L. L.

(2017a). Sex offender supervision in context. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(2), 176–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415572876

Bailey

D. J. S.

Sample

L. L.

(2017b). An examination of a cycle of coping with strain among registered citizens’ families. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2017.1299286

Boone

van de Bunt

(2016). Dynamics between denial and moral panic. Probation Journal, 63(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550516637450

Bosker

Monnee-van Doornmalen

Henskens

van der Plaat

(2020). Effective practices in probation supervision: A systematic literature review. Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.

Bows

Westmarland

(2018). Older sex offenders – Managing risk in the community from a policing perspective. Policing & Society, 28(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1138476

Brown

(2017). An exploration of the challenges families experience when a family member is convicted of sex offence. Howard League, p.233. https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/An-exploration-of-the-challenges-families-experience-when-a-family-member-is-convicted-of-sex-offence.pdf

10.

Budd

K. M.

Burbrink

M. J.

Connor

T. A.

(2016). Team member’s perceptions on a sex offender reentry court’s failure to launch: A pilot study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(3), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1191682

11.

Cassidy

Kabbash

Ronis

S. T.

(2021). A qualitative content analysis of an online support forum for family members of individuals with reported histories of sexual offences. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0012

12.

Clarke

Brown

Völlm

(2017). Circles of support and accountability for sex offenders: A systematic review of outcomes. Sexual Abuse, 29(5), 446–478.

13.

Collins

Brown

Lennings

(2010). Qualitative review of community treatment with sex offenders: Perspective of the offender and the expert. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 17(2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903421282

14.

Connor

D. P.

(2020). Impressions of ineffectiveness: exploring support partners’ attitudes toward sex offender registration and notification. Psychology Crime and Law, 26(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2019.1634199

15.

Cresswell

(2020). ‘Why would you choose to study sex offenders?’: Assisted desistance and reintegration of perpetrators of sexual harm. Irish Probation Journal, 17, 63–86.

16.

Cubellis

M. A.

Walfield

S. M.

Harris

A. J.

(2018). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16667574

17.

Daly

(2007). The limits of restorative justice. In: Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 134–145). Taylor & Francis Group.

18.

Das

Pramanik

Ray

Banerjee

(2022). “The Unheard Voices”: Lived experiences of sexual abuse in male survivors. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 474–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620972912

19.

Davies

Jones

(2024). Trauma informed organisational consultancy and staff supervision in forensic services. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 23(4), 403–414.

20.

Davis

L. M.

(2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. BJA.

21.

Day

Boni

Hobbs

Carson

Whitting

Powell

(2015). Professional attitudes to sex offenders: Implications for multiagency and collaborative working. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 6(1), 12–19.

22.

Day

Carson

Newton

Hobbs

(2014). Professional views on the management of sex offenders in the community. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.887605

23.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

24.

Elias

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2017). Therapists’ perceptions of their encounter with sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(10), 1151–1170.

25.

Evans

Trahan

Laird

(2023). Shame and blame: Secondary stigma among families of convicted sex offenders. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 23(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017391

26.

Farkas

M. A.

Miller

(2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88–92.

27.

Farkas

M. A.

Stichman

(2002). Sex offender laws: Can treatment, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety be reconciled? Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 256–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700204

28.

Fortune

Ward

Mann

(2015). Good lives and the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Positive Psychology in Practice, 1, 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch37

29.

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

30.

Gaines

J. S.

(2006). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and community notification. Police Practice and Research, 7(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614260600825448

31.

Gakhal

B. K.

Brown

S. J.

(2011). A comparison of the general public’s, forensic professionals’ and students’ attitudes towards female sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.540678

32.

Grady

M. D.

Strom-Gottfried

(2011). No easy answers: Ethical challenges working with sex offenders. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-010-0270-9

33.

Haddaway

N. R.

Collins

A. M.

Coughlin

Kirk

(2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One, 10, e0138237.

34.

Hancock

(2019). Clinicians’ attitudes toward sex offender treatment. Walden University

35.

Hanson

R. K.

Bourgon

Helmus

Hodgson

(2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891.

36.

Hardeberg Bach

Demuth

(2019). Therapists’ personal experiences in their work with clients who have sexually offended against children: A phenomenological study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(7), 799–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1592273

37.

Harper

C. A.

Hogue

T. E.

Bartels

R. M.

(2017). Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.011

38.

Harris

A. J.

Levenson

J. S.

Lobanov-Rostovsky

Walfield

S. M.

(2018). Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration and notification: Effectiveness, challenges, and policy priorities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 391–420.

39.

Harrison

J. L.

O’Toole

S. K.

Ammen

Ahlmeyer

Harrell

S. N.

Hernandez

J. L.

(2020). Sexual offender treatment effectiveness within cognitive-behavioral programs: A meta-analytic investigation of general, sexual, and violent recidivism. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 27(1), 1–25.

40.

Hoggett

McCartan

O’Sullivan

(2020). Risk, discretion, accountability and control: Police perceptions of sex offender risk management policy in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20(4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819839747

41.

Hollomotz

(2021). Successful community resettlement of men with learning disabilities who have completed a hospital-based treatment for sexual offending. British Journal of Social Work, 51, 150–169.

42.

Jewkes

(2015). Media and crime. Sage.

43.

Joyce-Wojtas

Keenan

(2016). Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems? Contemporary Justice Review, 19(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2015.1101689

44.

Kaylor

Feinberg

M. K.

Katsman

Allan

Greene-Colozzi

Johnson

Jeglic

E. L.

(2022). Input from the frontlines: Parole and probation officers’ perceptions of policies directed at those convicted of sexual offenses. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 29(6), 900–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1995521

45.

Kilmer

Leon

C. S.

(2017). ‘nobody worries about our children’: unseen impacts of sex offender registration on families with school-age children and implications for desistance. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2017.1299852

46.

Kirk

D. S.

Barnes

G. C.

Hyatt

J. M.

Kearley

B. W.

(2018). The impact of residential change and housing stability on recidivism: Pilot results from the Maryland Opportunities through Vouchers Experiment (MOVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 213–226.

47.

Koss

M. P.

Bachar

K. J.

Hopkins

C. Q.

(2003). Restorative justice for sexual violence. 989(1), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07320.x

48.

Lacey

Pickard

(2015). To blame or to forgive? Reconciling punishment and forgiveness in criminal justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, gqv012, 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqv012

49.

La Fond

J. Q.

(2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders. American Psychological Association.

50.

Laws

Ward

(2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. Guilford Press.

51.

Leon

C. S.

Kilmer

A. R.

(2023). “Secondary registrants”: A new conceptualization of the spread of community control. Punishment & Society, 25(3), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221094255

52.

Levenson

(2014). Incorporating trauma-informed care into evidence-based sex offender treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 20(1), 9–22.

53.

Levenson

J. S.

(2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20, 21–27.

54.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271304

55.

Levenson

J. S.

D’Amora

D. A.

(2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168–199.

56.

Levenson

J. S.

Harris

D. A.

(2024). The ripple effects of post-conviction traumatic stress in people required to register as sex offenders and their families. Sex Abuse, 36(5), 572–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632231191116

57.

Levenson

J. S.

Willis

G. M.

(2019). Implementing trauma-informed care in correctional treatment and supervision. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(4), 481–501.

58.

Levenson

Tewksbury

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

59.

Long

H. A.

French

D. P.

Brooks

J. M.

(2020). Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 1(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320947559

60.

Lowe

Willis

(2018). Looking inside a circle: Volunteer experiences of circles of support and accountability. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 26(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1485521

61.

Lowe

Willis

Gibson

(2019). You do what? A qualitative investigation into the motivation to volunteer with circles of support and accountability. Sexual Abuse A Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217729157

62.

Lösel

Schmucker

(2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 117–146.

63.

Maas

(2011). A quantitative study: Florida law enforcements perception concerning the effectiveness of Florida sex offender registration. Capella University.

64.

Maher

Hadfield

Hutchings

Adam

D. E.

(2018). Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918786362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786362

65.

Mancini

Budd

K. M.

(2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?” Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime and Delinquency, 62(6), 777–799.

66.

Marsh

Wager

N. M.

(2015). Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence: Exploring the views of the public and survivors. Probation Journal, 62(4), 336–356.

67.

Maruna

(2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. Routledge.

68.

Maruna

LeBel

T. P.

(2002). Welcome home? Examining the reentry court concept from a strengths-based perspective. Criminology Rev.

69.

Masters

K. B.

Kebbell

M. R.

(2019). Police Officers’ perceptions of a Sex offender registration scheme: Identifying and responding to Risk. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 26(3), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1506717

70.

Mattisson

(2023). LibGuides: Search, evaluate, write and cite: Framing a Research Question. https://libguides.lub.lu.se/c.php?g=666801&p=4840125

71.

Maxwell

Morris

(2006). Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in practice? Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00449.x

72.

McCartan

(2012). Professionals’ understanding of government strategies for the management of child sexual abusers. Probation Journal, 59(2), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550512438603

73.

McCartan

Death

Richards

(2020). Community-based approaches to sexual offender reintegration. Anrows

74.

McCartan

K. F.

Kemshall

Tabachnick

(2015). The construction of community understandings of sexual violence: Rethinking public, practitioner and policy discourses. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(1), 100–116.

75.

McGuire

Evans

Kane

(2021). Managing sex offenders on licence: Effectiveness of registration and notification procedures. In: Evidence-based policing and community crime prevention (pp.61–97). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

76.

Meloy

Boatwright

Curtis

(2013). Views from the top and bottom: Lawmakers and practitioners discuss sex offender laws. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 616–638.

77.

Meloy

Curtis

Boatwright

(2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455740

78.

Millar

(2022). The stigmatisation of minor attracted persons. The University of Liverpool.

79.

Mills

(2005). ‘Great expectations?’: A review of the role of prisoners’ families in England and Wales. British Society of Criminology, p.7.

80.

Nakpong

Kanyajit

(2021). Sex offender registry system: A challenging task for Thai’s police policy and practice. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2020.1749625

81.

Nhan

Polzer

Ferguson

(2012). “More dangerous than hitmen”: Judicial perceptions of sexual offenders. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 5(1), 823–836.

82.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

83.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

84.

Pager

(2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975.

85.

Porter

C. N.

Haggar

Harvey

A. C.

(2023). Sexual offending and barriers to employability: Public perceptions of who to hire. Current Psychology, 42(32), 28799–28811.

86.

Powell

Day

Benson

Vess

Graffam

(2014). Australian police officers’ perceptions of sex offender registries. Policing & Society, 24(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784299

87.

Prescott

J. J.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 161–206.

88.

Przybylski

(2014). Chapter 7: Effectiveness of treatment for adult sex offenders. Sex Offender Management and Planning Initiative, 1, 125–144.

89.

Richards

Death

Ronken

(2021). What do victim/survivors of sexual violence think about circles of support and accountability? Victims & Offenders, 16(6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1850578

90.

Richards

Death

Ronken

(2023). The views of victim/survivors of sexual violence about perpetrator post-release measures. Criminal Justice Studies, 36(4), 418–437.

91.

Roman

C. G.

Travis

(2006). Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner. Housing Policy Debate, 17(2), 389–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521574

92.

Ropes Berry

Kennedy

S. C.

Lloyd

Veeh

C. A.

Tripodi

S. J.

(2020). The intersectional effects of race and gender on time to reincarceration. Justice Quarterly, 37(1), 132–160.

93.

Rothwell

Fido

Heym

(2021). Perceptions around adult and child sex offenders and their rehabilitation as a function of education in forensic psychology independent of traditionalism and perpetrator sex. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 2, 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100039

94.

Rubenstein

Tabaczyk

O. M.

Jeglic

(2019). Barriers to education: Policies and perceptions of individuals with histories of sexual offenses in Higher Education. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(11), 2038–2049. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19842031

95.

Russell

K. N.

Snider

K. M.

Evans

Marsh

S. C.

(2021). Shame and justice: Partners of individuals on sex offender registries encourage policy reform. CrimRxiv.

96.

Sample

L. L.

Cooley

B. N.

Ten Bensel

(2018). Beyond circles of support: “Fearless”-an open Peer-to-Peer mutual support group for sex offense registrants and their family members. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4257–4277.

97.

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

Shekelle

Stewart

L. A.

(2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015; elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 350, g7647. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26517740

98.

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), n15231–n15254. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211016344

99.

Singh

(2013). Critical appraisal skills programme. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 4(1), 76–77. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500x.107697

100.

Spoo

Kaylor

L. E.

Schaaf

Rosselli

Laake

Johnson

Jeglic

E. L.

(2018). Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders and sex offender legislation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3385–3407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17740537

101.

Spruin

Wood

J. L.

Gannon

T. A.

Tyler

(2018). Sexual offender’s experiences of polygraph testing: A thematic study in three probation trusts. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2017.1378025

102.

Taxman

F. S.

Walters

S. T.

Sloas

L. B.

Lerch

Rodriguez

(2015). Motivational tools to improve probationer treatment outcomes. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 120–128.

103.

Ten Bensel

Sample

L. L.

(2017). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws on fostering collective identity among offenders. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(4), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2015.1131184

104.

Tewksbury

Levenson

(2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(4), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.878

105.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

Payne

B. K.

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

106.

Thomas

Harden

(2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.

107.

Tuschick

Carthy

Wager

Chamberlain

(2024). A qualitative systematic review of the barriers and facilitators of the reintegration of men convicted of a sexual offense from prison or secure care into the community. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 25(5), 3615–3630.

108.

Uggen

(2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500403

109.

Vásquez

B. E.

Maddan

Walker

J. T.

(2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime and Delinquency, 54(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311641

110.

Vess

Day

Powell

Graffam

(2013). International sex offender registration laws: Research and evaluation issues based on a review of current scientific literature. Police Practice and Research, 14(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2012.680719

111.

Visher

Debus

Yahner

(2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releases in three states. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. https://search.issuelab.org/resources/7153/7153.pdf

112.

Ward

Durrant

(2013). Altruism, empathy, and sex offender treatment. International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 8(3-4), 66–71.

113.

Ward

Gannon

T. A.

(2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001

114.

Wemmers

J. A.

Parent

Lachance Quirion

(2023). Restoring victims’ confidence: Victim-centred restorative practices. International Review of Victimology, 29(3), 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221128830

115.

Whitting

Day

Powell

Cortoni

McWhinnie

A. J.

(2016). Police officer perspectives on the implementation of a sex offender community notification scheme. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 18(4), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355716668539

116.

Wilson

R. J.

Cortoni

McWhinnie

A. J.

(2009). Circles of support & accountability: A Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sex Abuse, 21(4), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209347724

117.

Zgoba

K. M.

Mitchell

M. M.

(2023). The effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 71–96.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

A Systematic Review of Victim-Survivor,Familial,and Professional Views on the Reintegration of Men Convicted of a Sexual Offense into the Community

Abstract

Keywords

Background

The Present Work

Methods

Search Strategy

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Study Selection and Data Management

Data Extraction

Assessment of Quality

Synthesis

Results

Study Characteristics

Thematic Results

Theme 01: Supervision

Theme 02: Discrimination

Theme 03: Livelihood

Theme 04: Interventions

Discussion

Study Limitations

Implications for Practice

Implications for Policy

Implications for Research

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251372929 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Review of Victim-Survivor, Familial, and Professional Views on the Reintegration of Men Convicted of a Sexual Offense into the Community

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material