What Works (or Does Not) in Community Risk Management for Persons Convicted of Sexual Offenses? A Contemporary Perspective

Abstract

Contemporary data from the United States show that rates of sexual offending and reoffending have been in steady decline for decades. Nonetheless, nonprofessionals continue to view sexual violence as a community safety issue fraught with risk and uncertainty. The past 30 years have been witness to considerable research and practice in the assessment, treatment, and risk management of persons who have sexually offended. Gains have also been made in regard to prevention and citizen education. Modern day technologies include actuarial risk assessment instruments, measures of criminogenic need and treatment progress, refinements to treatment processes, and the establishment of evidence-based models. Legislative authorities in the United States and elsewhere have also attempted to affect risk in the community with, perhaps, lesser degrees of success. This article reviews current policies and practices, with a specific focus on what happens when offenders are released to the community (e.g., how public policies intended to track offenders and/or restrict their movements can negatively affect community reintegration). Comprehensive approaches to community sexual offender management are examined in addition to suggestions of unique approaches intended to ensure citizen buy-in and engagement.

Comparing perceptions of individuals who sexually offend against children versus adults.

“…In some U.S. states, Level 3 registrants are also subjected to global positioning system monitoring (Bishop, 2010). Research has found that registries hinder the community reintegration of individuals with sexual offense convictions because they may face discrimination when this information is publicly available, making it difficult for them to find work and housing (Leon, 2011; Levenson et al, 2016; Wilson & Sandler, 2021). Additionally, research suggests that these tiers do not align with these individuals’ relative recidivism risk (Zgoba et al, 2016).…”

Restorative and responsive human services

“…Measures such as registration, residency restrictions, electronic and global position satellite (GPS) monitoring, and strict community management policies have been implemented in an effort to contain the risk posed by individuals who have engaged in sexual violence. However, research has not clearly demonstrated the efficacy of such measures (see summary in Wil son & Sandler, 2018), suggesting that other, more creative approaches to increasing public safety may be required. 1 It is against this backdrop that we promote the use of Circles of Support and Accountability.…”

“…1. Additionally, most of these measures are applied wholesale to a majority of persons convicted of sexual offences, with little consideration of the risk and need principles, the result being that any effects are perhaps obscured by inappropriate implementation (Wilson & Sandler, 2018). 2.…”

“…However, no matter how much popular attention sexual violence commands, there are still far too few suggestions for what to do about it. Over the past 30 or so years, forensic and correc tional practitioners have been quietly making gains in establishing effective methods of assessing, treat ing, and managing the risk posed by individuals known to have engaged in sexually abusive conduct (see Wilson & Sandler, 2018), but these advancements are all but unknown outside of the professional community that developed them. As Wilson and Sandler note, this is due in part to the tendency for research or scholarly commentary to be published in obscure scientific journals or books, which often amounts to "preaching to the choir."…”

“…Efforts to address sexual violence have been varied over time, but have tended to focus on contain ment of identified persons who have offended through largely retributive measures (e.g., mandatory minimum sentences, sex offender registries, and residency restrictions, among others). Although few, if any, of these measures have been demonstrated to reduce sexual recidivism (see review in Wilson & Sandler, 2018), there is a general perspective that anything that makes life difficult for someone who has sexually offended is something worth implementing. Some of this perspective is likely rooted in his torical distaste and disregard for "ex-cons" generally, but it would be our submission that these strongly emotional responses are heightened when that released individual has a history of sexual offending.…”