Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-4
Measuring Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Registered for a Sexual Offense: Development of the Sexual Offender Collateral Consequences Measure
Collateral consequences faced by individuals convicted of a sexual offense have been widely referenced in the literature. There is yet to be a systematic examination of collateral consequences affecting individuals, however, due to measurement inconsistencies and the absence of a psychometrically validated instrument. The current study developed and validated a measure of collateral consequences faced by individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Specifically, this study investigated (a) the underlying factor structure of collateral consequences commonly endorsed by individuals convicted of a sexual offense through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedures and (b) reliability and validity indicators of the aforementioned scale. Participants were 218 individuals convicted of and registered for a sexual offense in the state of Texas. Study measures included a pool of 66 collateral consequences items in addition to psychological self-report instruments addressing hopelessness, shame, social well-being, and discrimination. EFA results revealed a two-dimensional construct representing collateral consequences affecting areas of social and psychological well-being. The current measure demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. Limitations and future directions of findings are addressed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2001). Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R): User’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
2.
BaileyD. J.KleinJ. L. (2018). Ashamed and alone: Comparing offender and family member experiences with the sex offender registry. Criminal Justice Review, 43, 440–457.
3.
BaileyD. J.SampleL. L. (2017). An examination of a cycle of coping with strain among registered citizens’ families. Criminal Justice Studies, 30, 158–180.
BeckA. T.WeissmanA.LesterD.TrexlerL. (1974). The measurement of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(6), 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037562
6.
BoerD. P.HartS. D.KroppP. R.WebsterC. D. (1997). Manual for the sexual violence risk-20. The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
7.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risk-need-responsivity model. In McNeillF.RaynorP.TrotterC. (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 19–40). Willan.
8.
BrannonY. N.LevensonJ. S.FortneyT.BakerJ. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900403
BurchfieldK. B.MingusW. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders' experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311375
11.
CallC. (2017). How acceptable are their obstacles to reentry? Attitudes of community corrections professionals toward collateral consequences for sex offenders. Corrections, 2, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1305878
12.
CallC. (2018). The community corrections perspective toward sex offender management policies and collateral consequences: Does contact with sex offenders matter?Criminal Justice Studies, 31, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1393418
ChinG. (2017). Collateral consequences. In LunaE. (Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: Punishment, incarceration, and release (Vol. 4, pp. 371–395). Arizona State University.
15.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
16.
CraunS. W.BierieD. M. (2014). Are the collateral consequences of being a registered sex offender as bad as we think: A methodological research note. Federal Probation, 78, 28–31.
17.
EdwardsW.HensleyC. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X01451006
18.
FrenzelE. D.BowenK. N.SpraitzJ. D.BowersJ. H.PhaneufS. (2014). Understanding collateral consequences of registry laws: An examination of the perceptions of sex offender registrants. Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), 1–22.
19.
GhasemiA.ZahediaslS. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non- statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
20.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
21.
HairJ.AndersonR.TathamR.BlackW. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
22.
HamiltonE. (2020). Toward a focused conceptualization and measurement of collateral consequences: A systematic review. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063220981906
23.
HansonR. K. (1996, November). Coping with culpability [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Chicago, IL, United States.
24.
HansonR. K.TangneyJ. P. (1996). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect—Socially Deviant populations (TOSCA-SD). Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Corrections Research.
25.
HarrisA. J. R.HansonR. K. (2010). Clinical, actuarial and dynamic risk assessment of sexual offenders: Why do things keep changing?Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16(3), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.494772
26.
HarrisA. J. R.WalfieldS. M.ShieldsR. T.LetourneauE. J. (2015). Collateral consequences of juvenile sex offender registration and notification: Results from a survey of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574004
27.
HensonR. K.RobertsJ. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
28.
JeglicE. L.MercadoC. C.LevensonJ. S. (2012). The prevalence and correlates of depression and hopelessness among sex offenders subject to community notification and residence restriction legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9096-9
29.
KaiserH. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
30.
KimJ.MuellerC. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. SAGE.
KriegerN.SmithK.NaishadhamD.HartmanC.BarbeauE. M. (2005). Experiences of discrimination: Validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1576–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.006
34.
KruttschnittC.UggenC.SheltonK. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094481
35.
LanganP.SchmittE.DuroseM. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
36.
LasherM. P.McGrathR. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10387524
37.
LevensonJ. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010802159822
38.
LevensonJ. S. (2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(21), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0
39.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676
40.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271304
41.
LevensonJ. S.D’AmoraD. A.HernA. L. (2007). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.770
42.
LevensonJ. S.TewksburyR. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1–2), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x
43.
LoganW. A. (2013). Informal collateral consequences. Washington Law Review, 88, 1103–1118.
44.
MargroveK. L., SE-SURG (South Essex Service User Research Group), HeydinrychK.SeckerJ. (2013). Waiting list-controlled evaluation of a participatory arts course for people experiencing mental health problems. Perspectives in Public Health, 133(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913912461587
45.
MercadoC. C.AlvarezS.LevensonJ. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208317540
46.
MonjeauC. J. (2011). All politics is local: State preemption and municipal sex offender residency restrictions in New York state. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1569–1596.
47.
NadalK. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193
48.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
49.
O’ReillyM. F. (2018). Collateral consequences of a conviction and circuits of exclusion. In O’ReillyM. F. (Ed.), Uses and consequences of a criminal conviction (pp. 203–255). Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
OsborneJ. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis?Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7275/hb2g-m060
51.
ParentM. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176
52.
PinardM. (2010). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review, 85, 457–534.
53.
PinardM.ThompsonA. C. (2005). Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 30, 585–620.
54.
PrescottJ. J.RockoffJ. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior?The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 161–206. https://doi.org/10.3386/w13803
55.
RobbersM. L. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07312953
56.
RobertsJ. (2008). The mythical divide between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions: Involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 670–740.
57.
SandlerJ. C.FreemanN. J.SociaK. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881
58.
SeckerJ.HackingS.KentL.ShentonJ.SpandlerH. (2009). Development of a measure of social inclusion for arts and mental health project participants. Journal of Mental Health, 18(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230701677803
59.
SpectorP. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. SAGE.
60.
SteedL. (2001). Further validity and reliability evidence for Beck Hopelessness Scale scores in a nonclinical sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971121
61.
SuhrD. D. (2006, March). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the SAS Users Group International, San Francisco, CA, United States.
62.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
63.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson.
64.
TangneyJ. P.StuewigJ.MartinezA. G. (2014). Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508790
65.
TangneyJ. P.StuewigJ.MashekD.HastingsM. (2011). Assessing jail inmates’ proneness to shame and guilt: Feeling bad about the behavior or the self?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811405762
66.
ten BenselT.SampleL. L. (2019). Social inclusion despite exclusionary sex offense laws: How registered citizens cope with loneliness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 274–292.
67.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271704
68.
TewksburyR. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 531–540.
69.
TewksburyR.LeesM. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170500524246
70.
TewksburyR.LevensonJ. (2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.878
71.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 15(2), 215–239.
72.
TewksburyR.ZgobaK. M. (2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders respond to stress, internet restrictions, and the collateral consequences of registration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09339180
73.
TolsonD.KleinJ. (2015). Registration, residency restrictions, and community notification: A social capital perspective on the isolation of registered sex offenders in our communities. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25, 375–390.
74.
UggenC.StewartR. (2014). Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1871–1912.
75.
VuoloM. (2017). Situating the prediction problem within collateral consequences: Communicating risk to employers. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 959–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12327
76.
WakefieldH. (2006). The vilification of sex offenders: Do laws targeting sex offenders increase recidivism and sexual violence. Journal of Sexual Offender Civil Commitment: Science and the Law, 1, 141–149.
77.
WheelockD. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271702
78.
WilliamsB.OnsmanA.BrownT. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–13. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/jephc/vol8/iss3/1
79.
WilsonC.SeckerJ. (2015). Validation of the Social Inclusion Scale with students. Social Inclusion, 3(4), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i4.121
80.
WintersG. M.JeglicE. L.CalkinsC.BlaskoB. L. (2017). Sex offender legislation and social control: An examination of sex offenders’ expectations prior to release. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1299894
81.
WorthingtonR. L.NavarroR. L. (2003). Pathways to the future: Analyzing the contents of a content analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000002239402
82.
WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
83.
ZevitzR. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010600764567
84.
ZevitzR. G.FarkasM. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
85.
ZwickW.VelicerW. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
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.
