An Examination of The Effectiveness of Recent Sex Offender Legislation: Are Registration and Notification Policies The Best Strategies?

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES
BERGER 1
An examination of the effectiveness of recent sex offender legislation: Are registration and notification policies the best strategies?
Elizabeth Berger Niagara University
CRJ 650 Policy Paper Dr. E. Brown April 15th, 2013
BERGER 2
Introduction
The rape and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka occurred on July 29, 1994 in Hamilton, New Jersey after she was lured into the home of a neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas. Unbeknownst to the community, Timmendequas was a repeated sex offender who enticed the child into the house by offering to show her a puppy, as explained by various reports in the New York Times. Timmendequas subsequently slammed Kanka on top of a dresser where he proceeded to rape her, suffocate her, and strangle her to death with a belt. The petitioner then placed her body in a wooden toy chest and dumped it in a nearby park. If only I had known that there was a pedophile living on our street, my daughter [Megan] would be alive today, Maureen Kanka explained in an effort to push new, harsher legislation to govern sex offenders. Moral panic ensued as neighbors collected more than 1,500 signatures on petitions urging lawmakers to do more to notify local authorities and residents about sex offenders living in their jurisdictions and neighborhoods. New York Times staff writer Jan Hoffman reported that the grieving Kanka family and their neighbors felt outraged and betrayed that they were not warned about the past of twice-convicted neighbor Jesse Timmendequas. Neighbor Edna Langsdorf weighed in, stating, an innocent childs rights outweigh a criminals rightsposting warnings is a way to extend control beyond the limits of a sentence (Hoffman, 1994, para. 7). These and similar statements combined with the if-only principle became the rationale for the concept of a public registry for sex offenders. Public outrage pushed for the first public registry law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, to be put into effect 94 days after Kankas murder. Two years later, in 1996, President Clinton amended the Wetterling Act with Megans Law, which mandated state implementation of public sex offender registries and included a community notification component (Hoffman, 1994). Since 1996, original legislation has been amended and altered in response to overwhelming public outcry and a desire to monitor offenders after their release.
BERGER 3
Simply put, sex offender registration and notification systems have been implemented in a desperate attempt to keep our children safeor so youve been told. They are meant to create partnerships between the public, government, and the media in order to raise awareness about the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders to keep children and families safe. Meanwhile, the aspect of public shaming and isolation should heighten the sense of risk for potential offenders or reoffenders and therefore increase deterrence. Celebrated cases such as Megan Kankas have been instrumental in the push for punitive and restrictive sex offender policy. In fact, most sex offender laws to date have been emotionally driven, enacted in response to heinous crimes committed by atrocious offenders. However, research has shown that the offenders of such sensationalized cases are not entirely representative of the sex offender population. Current policies are the result of moral panic and an increased fear of child victimization and concepts of stranger danger, despite research showing that the minority of sexual predators are actually strangers to the victim. That being said, current sex offender policy is somewhat flawed because it is fueled by inaccurate assumptions and biased public opinion.
Policy Context: Issues, Challenges, and Possibilities

When moral panic over sex offenders swept the nation in the early to mid-1990s, we saw a dramatic shift in the way the federal government sanctions sex offenders beginning with the Wetterling Act (1994), Megans Law (1996), the PROTECT Act (2003), and finally the Adam Walsh Act (2006) (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). The Wetterling Act was the first federal law that required states to implement and maintain registries of convicted sex offenders, named for abducted eleven-year-old Jacob Wetterling. At this time community notification was discretionary and not yet mandatory. According to Lasher and McGrath (2010), Megans Law was established in 1996 to mandate public notification procedures rather than keep them discretionary. Public notification at
BERGER 4
that time was usually available in the form of a registry website containing information on all registered sex offenders (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). These laws are presently referred to as Registration and Community Notification Laws (RCNLs). The PROTECT Act took requirements a step further by mandating the use of websites per registration and established that an Amber Alert must be issued at the time of a child abduction (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). Title I of the Adam Walsh Act called SORNA, set consequences for states not meeting the minimum standard for registration and notification (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). The Adam Walsh Act also created a threetier classification system meant to diversify sex offenders into degrees of dangerousness, in order to enhance registration and notification procedures, as explained by authors Lasher and McGrath (2010). Despite good intentions, research suggests that sex offense legislation may serve as a form of expressive rather than instrumental justice. In other words, the laws may have been created due to extreme public pressure rather than actual evidence regarding recidivism patterns or public safety. The most controversial policies include mandatory registration of sex offenders, living restrictions, and community notification laws. Empirical review shows that there is a great deal of slippage between the intended goals and the actual outcomes of such legislation. More specifically, they are not only ineffective in controlling crime, but actually may be detrimental partially as a result of labeling and stigmatization.
Punitive and Restrictive Sex Offender Legislation: The New Scarlet Letter Treatment experts claim that recidivism rates for sexual offenders have been greatly exaggerated and are known to depend on a variety of factors, including nature and severity of the offense and how a relapse is measured (Hoffman, 1994). Notification, registration, and residency restriction laws, however, treat all sex offenders alike. Professional psychologist Jerome G. Miller
BERGER 5
shares in a New York Times report, [Megans law] is horrendousno one is out from under this once they get labeled its the new scarlet letter (Hoffman, 1994, para. 9). They were once rationalized by the idea that sex offenders recidivate at a higher rate and that society must be concerned about this in order to protect neighborhood children (Hoffman, 1994). This argument is no longer sustainable when fronted by overwhelming and conclusive evidence that most sexual offenders do not commonly reoffend, and victims of sexual assault are usually not strangers to their attackers. David Finkelhor, University of New Hampshire sociologist explains that there is a small group of compulsive pedophiles that reoffend, but there are many who are adaptable to change when given proper treatment (Hoffman, 1994). Other research has shown that community notification and residency restrictions have not reduced recidivism nor have they increased public safety. Contrary to popular belief, neighborhood awareness has also not improved as a result of such policies, as registries are rarely accessed and most of the information is inaccurate. Additionally, sex crimes have actually decreased since the mid-1990s, but ironically fear of crime has risen to new levels due mostly to skewed visions portrayed in the media. Our policies are founded on the idea that recidivism is high and that sex offenders are strangers, although these claims are not supported by any empirical research to date. Since they are based on flawed assumptions, such policies are not effective in meeting their intended goals. Current sex offender policies may actually create barriers to re-integration, inherently affecting recidivism patterns. This obviously impacts offenders and victims, as well as communities, particularly those overcome with disadvantage where sex offenders tend to relocate. There are fiscal ramifications as well, such as depletion of resources due to required maintenance of current sex offender policies. The financial costs involved would be worthwhile if the advantages were extensive, but there are only small signs of progress as a result. Due to their very nature, the
BERGER 6
benefits of such legislation are not relative to the costs. Given the current state of our economy as well, this is a timely issue necessitating change. Furthermore, there are speculations that such laws carry other negative consequences such as displacing sex offenders to certain neighborhoods where collective efficacy is low and social and physical disorder are high. This exacerbates the problem in these given areas, and puts offenders in places where they are less likely to have ties to the community in which they live and do not have access to legitimate opportunities for success. As a result, offenders experience an increase in strain and a decrease in social bonding, which can indirectly lead to relapse and recidivism. The problem is, once an offender is labeled a sex offender and the entire community is notified, it is hard to shake the label. The offender then follows a so-called self-fulfilling prophecy where he becomes his label and is unable to change and reintegrate into society. In order to reintegrate, an offender needs adequate social supports, good feelings about the future, and other positive stimuli that keep him on the path to rehabilitation. Keeping the above information in mind, it may be worthwhile to consider eliminating registration, notification, and residency restriction laws altogether. Regardless, strict sex offender legislation is apparent throughout the entire United States. They have been around just long enough to gather a decent amount of research on their effectiveness, which is minimal. Now that there is an empirical research base, it is time to take action and figure out which types of punishment will work best, for which offenders, under which circumstances. Prior research suggests that the most effective sentence would rehabilitate sex offenders and help them re-integrate into society; yet still provide them with adequate retribution for their crime without isolating and stigmatizing them. Research on different types and methods of treatment and community sanctions is a work in progress where new information is still being discovered. Research up until thus far is consistent in that treatment seems to have a fairly positive, significant effect on offending behavior.
BERGER 7
Heterogeneity in Offending & the Importance of Classification More importantly though, what is well known at this point is that current notification, registration, and residency restriction policies are ineffective in reducing recidivism. In fact, they actually produce additional collateral consequences in accordance with isolation and stigmatization of the offender. These laws create barriers between offenders and society by forcing them to live in certain areas that are more likely to be disadvantaged, prohibiting them from pursuing decent employment, and ultimately destroying any effort toward rehabilitation. The result is a lack of reintegration, increased recidivism, higher risk for society, and a higher fear of crime. Part of the reason why the registration and community notification laws are not working is because they address sexual offenders as one homogenous group. Freeman and Sandler (2008) as well as other researchers have noted that in terms of sex offender policy, classification systems are important and necessary in management and development of treatment programs for sex offenders. Although Freeman and Sandler (2008) focus mostly on differences between male and female offenders, authors Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) conclude heterogeneity in offending in terms of criminal trajectory and adherence to a modified age-crime curve. The agecrime curve theory suggests that most sexual offenders reach a peak in their criminal career toward middle-adulthood and from that point on, criminal activity tends to decrease. Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) found similar results, debunking the idea that sex offenders are persistent recidivists in need of punitive control. Researchers posit that there are four dynamic offending trajectories exemplified by offenders who differ by offense type, type of victim, age of onset, and versatility and frequency in offending (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). These trajectories all followed some type of age-crime curve, suggesting that different offenders follow separate criminal trajectories that are dynamic rather than linear in nature, according to
BERGER 8
Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010). Additional research is necessary to determine more specific individualized groups of offenders and how they respond to positive or negative stimuli in various ways. In order to improve sex offender policy, we need to consider why, exactly, sex offenders are treated as exceptions in the criminal justice system. It is essential to pinpoint what it is that makes these offenders qualitatively different enough to warrant these policies. It is constantly debated what the best method is to deal with sex offenders as they vary by offense type and severity, type of victim, reason for offending, and the like. Research suggests that we need not treat them as a homogenous group because there is actually heterogeneity in offending, resulting in said sex offender subgroups. Most recent research has looked into the effectiveness of these laws in reducing recidivism, finding them to be fairly ineffective. Research does suggest, however, that certain types of treatment programs may be promising in reducing recidivism and rehabilitating some offenders. The main question remains though, what works for whom, under which circumstances. Knowing the answer to this question can help guide formulation of new sex offender policies. There are also several implications for future research to help achieve these goals. In addition to community notification and registration laws, residency and job restrictions are also common on state and local levels. Registration and community notification laws (RCNLs) produce more negative than positive effects, especially when intrusive strategies are used to disseminate information. Authors Lasher and McGrath (2010) suggest that sex offender registration and notification laws are actually damaging to society because they increase recidivism and decrease aspects of rehabilitation by shifting to a punitive focus. Researchers Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) also suggest that the laws increase risk for recidivism and have several collateral effects on sex offenders including lack of stability and increased negative emotional
BERGER 9
stress. Unfortunately the legislation does not tailor to specific types of sexual offenders, but inaccurately targets them as a homogenous group. Relevant sex offender legislation and policies include registration and notification laws, residency restrictions, civil commitment laws, and other potential treatment options. Areas of key concern include recidivism and public safety, and the main goal of these policies is to decrease sex crimes. Also of recent concern is the idea of treatment, both within prisons and in aftercare, outpatient-style programs. Some have suggested combined sentences of probation and aftercare treatment in order to help offenders reintegrate into society. As offenders are able to reintegrate they are more likely to succeed and are less likely to recidivate. If policies were focused more on treatment and reintegration, there could be a noticeable improvement in public safety. Granted, the effect of treatment can vary by offender, making some offenders more amenable to treatment than others. This research will consider the ways in which policymakers can distinguish sex offenders enough to improve the effectiveness of sex offender legislation, mostly in terms of reducing recidivism and reintegrating offenders into society, while still maintaining public safety without increasing public fear of crime.
Theoretical Perspective: Formal & Informal Social Controls

In order to develop an effective policy approach, it is essential that policymakers and practitioners consider the theoretical basis underlying the issues. Both formal and informal social controls and social bonding theories have several implications for deductive sex offender research and policy formulation. Strain theory has also received a decent amount of support in explaining sex offender behavior thus far. In addition, some research has shown minor support for deterrence paradigms as well as theories regarding the age-crime curve.
BERGER 10
For starters, authors Lasher and McGrath (2010) claim that if offenders have more social support and informal social controls, they are less likely to recidivate. Researcher Michelle Meloy (2005) examined sex offenders on probation, revealing evidence for the power of both informal and formal social controls. Her study found that an increase in probation conditions was correlated with a decrease in recidivism (Meloy, 2005). This negative relationship between number of probation conditions and recidivism shows that social controls are an important mechanism to govern sex offender behavior. Meloy (2005) also believes it is possible that offenders are deterred by punishments of violating probation, showing slight support for deterrence theory. Researchers Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) suggest that the laws increase risk for strain and recidivism, having several taxing effects on sex offenders including lack of stability and increased negative emotional stress. Meloy (2005) also found some evidence for strain theory, reporting that an increase in drug use is correlated with an increase in recidivism rates. Drug use is commonly used as a coping mechanism for those experiencing high levels of strain, which may also lead to reoffending (Meloy, 2005). Not surprisingly, residential instability, drug abuse history, unemployment history, and prior felony record were all related to probation failure and increased chances of general recidivism while on probation (Meloy, 2005). This is not surprising because residential and employment instability lead to fewer social controls and an increase in strain, which is most likely the cause for drug use for many of these individuals. Meloy (2005) also confirmed the influence of informal social controls, as those who were committed to an intimate partner and who had a higher number of behavioral and treatment conditions were more likely to succeed on probation. Strain theory and social control theory were both prominent in Socias (2011) article on residency restrictions as well. She explains that residency restrictions carry several adverse effects, including displacement of offenders to poverty stricken areas. Areas with fewer restrictions have
BERGER 11
more affordable housing, but it is still difficult to find available housing (Socia, 2011). Offenders do not have access to public transportation nor employment opportunities and therefore have less access to legitimate avenues to success. This produces several collateral effects, including an increase in strain and a lack of formal social controls (Socia, 2011). Socia (2011) also explains that most sex offenders are lacking informal social controls, as many do not develop loving relationships with anyone due to overwhelming stigma and isolation. The areas where sex offenders tend to relocate are usually overcome with poverty, where employment opportunities are few and wages low, creating a very unsupportive social environment (Mercado, Alvarez & Levenson, 2008). Consistent with social controls theory, research suggests that housing instability, job instability, poor social supports, and negative attitudes are correlated with sexual recidivism. It is on that ground that Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) make the connection that sex offender legislation, particularly residency restrictions, negatively impact offender re-entry. This in turn decreases their social ties, support, and stability while simultaneously increasing the risk for recidivism. When viewed in this sense, sex offense legislation feeds a revolving door of violence. Wood and Riggs (2009) also found that child molesters are less likely to have formal and informal social controls. Significant findings were that the child molester group was on average, more likely to have a lower income, lower education level, and less likely to be married (Wood & Riggs, 2009). This is consistent with prior research that sex offenders as a whole are more likely to have academic problems and fewer intimate relationships. In terms of specific attachment style, child molesters were more likely to have a fearful or preoccupied attachment style while nonoffending males possessed more secure attachment styles (Wood & Riggs, 2009). This shows support for social control and social bonding as well as strain theories.
BERGER 12
When formal and informal social controls and strain are dominant in explaining sex offender behavior, it is important for released sex offenders to create new social bonds so they can reintegrate without being ostracized from society (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). If an offender does not have these social controls, he is at higher risk to recidivate as various researchers have shown. Many sex offenders can succeed in treatment if given proper resources and social supports, so this is also important to consider in policy formulation (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). Probation may be an accurate middle ground between total social control and no social control. Freeman and Sandler (2008) found that the number of prior supervision violations and offenders age at the time of arrest were both negatively correlated to sexual recidivism. In other words, the younger a person was, the less likely he was to re-offend. This shows some support for social controls theory, the age-crime curve theory, and a small amount of support for deterrence theory. Interestingly enough, probation researcher Meloy (2005) also provided support for the agecrime curve theory, finding that age is negatively correlated to sexual recidivism. The assumptions and theoretical knowledge behind these paradigms may be influential in creating successful policy. Researchers Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) also found that there are four separate, dynamic paths to offending all follow some type of age-crime curve. Authors concluded that although most offenders take unique nonlinear paths to reoffending, most of them experience an exponential decrease in offending after a certain age, peaking approximately around age 35 (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Research has also shown some evidence for strain, age-crime curve, and deterrence theories. Formal and informal social control and social bonding theories have received the most support in their ability to explain sex offender behavior. These theoretical paradigms are important to keep in mind when formulating policy. It may be possible that certain theories are more applicable for certain offenders. Most importantly, responses to any method of punishment or treatment will
BERGER 13
continue to vary by offender as research has shown. Future research in this area is necessary for improved policymaking.
Empirical Review & Effectiveness

For the most part, research suggests that community registration and notification laws are not successful in reducing recidivism, and therefore not actually improving public safety like they should be. Additionally, there are numerous negative and unforeseen consequences of such legislation that may act as detriments to society. Recently up-and-coming on the policy agenda is the idea of treatment, both inpatient- and outpatient-style programs. Other options include combined sentences of probation with an aftercare component to alleviate stress and help offenders become members of society after upon release. If policy were to shift towards treatment and reintegration, there could be a considerable decrease in recidivism and an improvement of public safety. Treatment is a very complex issue and how one responds to treatment can vary from offender to offender, but research has shown it can make a difference. This research will consider the ways in which policymakers can distinguish sex offenders in a variety of ways; specifically enough to improve the effectiveness of sex offender legislation, mostly in terms of reducing recidivism and reintegrating offenders into society, while still maintaining public safety without increasing public fear of crime. Recidivism, Release Planning, and the Importance of Reintegration Lasher and McGrath (2010) posit that registration and notification laws have little, if any, effect on sex offender recidivism. Despite this, there are still significant social and psychological impacts of such legislation on sex offenders (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were used to show differences between types of community notification strategies and the relative magnitude of the negative social and psychological consequences they
BERGER 14
imposed on offenders. Essentially, Lasher and McGrath (2010) found that negative social impacts are correlated with more intrusive methods of community notification strategies, and over half the participants reported that notification procedures interfered with their recovery. Consistent with themes throughout research, the final claim was that community notification and registration procedures produce a chain effect beginning with unintended consequences such as job loss, disruption of residence, and depletion of social supports; which then leads into an overall lack of social controls and a huge increase in strain, ultimately ending in increased risk of sexual recidivism by the offender (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). Another chain effect caused by notification is associated with the labeling and stigmatization that comes with it; leading to de-evaluation and discrimination that shapes offender behavior through self-depreciation and the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is ultimately known to undermine ones motivation to change and engage in treatment (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). Later on, researchers Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) will discuss how motivation to change in treatment is essential to improving treatment outcomes and reducing recidivism. Ultimately, future research must look at the magnitude of the relationship between negative social consequences and increased recidivism. This will help determine whether the negative collateral effects are justified for public safety benefits relative to the costs (Lasher & McGrath, 2010). Lasher and McGrath (2010) also suggest that programs providing social support and mitigating the impact of negative stigma and isolation of offenders may be helpful in alleviating the unintended consequences and therefore allow them to reintegrate into society. Given what prior research says, shifting the focus to a rehabilitative model should help reduce recidivism while also increasing public safety. Residency restrictions have produced similar outcomes. Recidivism patterns and risk factors can be quite dynamic and depend on perplexing interrelationships between various stimuli. A 2008 article published in the Journal of Interpersonal
BERGER 15
Violence by researchers Naomi Freeman and Jeffery Sandler (2008) controlled for gender in an examination of recidivism patterns and risk factors. As more women are entering the criminal justice system as sex offenders, it is becoming pertinent to focus on classification, supervision, and management of female offenders (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). The authors speculate that recidivism risk factors are similar for males and females, yet there may be a lower detection rate of female sex offenders due to overwhelming societal myths and low reporting rates among victims. Researchers used matching to create groups of male and female sex offenders that were similar in terms of age at the time of the offense, race, supervising agency, and geographical region of residence. By systematically matching the groups in this fashion, Freeman and Sandler (2008) were able to experimentally control for demographic factors. Main group differences between males and females were assessed using chi-square and multivariate analysis (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). Potential risk factors were controlled for in determining predictors of re-arrests using Cox regression. Additionally, interaction terms were placed between predictive variables in order to visualize differences in effect size per gender (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). Recidivism was the main dependent variable and was measured on two levels: re-arrest for any nonsexual offense and rearrest for any register-able sex offense. Potential risk factors acted as independent variables, including race, measures of prior criminal history and individual offense characteristics, and relevant victim information (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). Freeman and Sandler (2008) concluded that males and females take different, nonlinear paths to sexual offending. For example, males were more likely to have prior drug and violent felony arrests, sexual offenses, prior incarceration terms, and prior supervision violations. There were no between-group differences in terms of race or age of time at offense (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). Males were more likely to recidivate both for nonsexual and sexual offenses, but there was no difference between groups in terms of the length of time to re-arrest. Also, the number of prior
BERGER 16
supervision violations and offenders age at time of arrest were both negatively correlated to sexual recidivism (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). This shows some support for the age-crime curve theory as well as deterrence. Conversely, Freeman and Sandler (2008) found that number of prior sexual offenses and child victims were both positively related to sexual offense re-arrest. As Wood & Riggs (2009) discuss later on, this could be due to cognitive distortions regarding adult-child sex that are psychologically present in the personalities of many repeated child molesters. Interestingly enough, child molesters are one clear example of heterogeneity in offending, as consistent throughout other research. Sexual recidivism is fairly low for both males and females, suggesting that the magnitude of the problem is not as massive as the media makes it appear. The numerous gender differences in terms of offense characteristics adds further support to the idea that it is important and necessary to classify sex offenders into sub-categories (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). The authors suggest that others must continue to investigate differences between males and females in order to develop better risk assessment tools, improved classification schemes, and ultimately using this information to identify treatment needs and build more effective methods of treatment and supervision. Others argue that rehabilitation of offenders is essential in order to reduce recidivism because it allows them to reintegrate and live pro-social lives. Authors Scoones, Willis and Grace (2011) conclude that environmental opportunities, resources, and supports are important to end criminal behavior. Unfortunately, risk assessments currently are designed with much emphasis on identifying individual deficits including deviant sexual arousal, high sexual preoccupation, poor problem solving skills, and the like. Scoones, Willis, and Grace (2011) do not believe this is the best method, and propose that risk assessment procedures take a strengths-based approach, emphasizing relevant environmental factors in regards to release planning.
BERGER 17
More importantly, it is important for released sex offenders to create new social bonds so that they can sufficiently undergo lifestyle change processes without the stigma and isolation (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). If an offender cannot form these social bonds, he is at higher risk to recidivate, as various other research studies have shown. In essence, sex offenders who are goaldirected still need adequate resources, social supports, and opportunities in order to succeed without recidivating. If these social supports are not going to be available to them, it should be considered in the initial risk assessment to help decide who is released from confinement and when (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). Another option would be to devise treatment and reintegration programs tailored to outcomes from release planning mechanisms, to provide offenders with adequate social support so they are no longer a risk to society. Researchers Scoones, Willis and Grace (2011) examined recidivism patterns of convicted offenders, measuring recidivism by all convictions post-release and incorporating an average time to failure for each re-conviction. Three risk assessment procedures were examined, including release-planning methods using statistical coding protocols, static risk level, and dynamic risk level as measured by an overall deviance score. The sample was drawn from men having completed a 32-week prison-based treatment program with a final sample size of 196. Hierarchical Cox regression was used to determine whether release planning increased predictive validity when controlling for dynamic and static risk levels (Scoones, Willis, & Grace, 2011). Overall, the authors found that release planning may improve accuracy of sex offender risk assessment, which should in turn help reduce recidivism. There were no significant correlations between release-planning coding protocol and static risk level, suggesting that a strengths-based release-planning approach may add significant predictive validity in addition to the static risk measures (Scoones, Willis, & Grace, 2011). Total release-planning scores and sexual recidivism were also significantly related, supporting the claim
BERGER 18
that better planning including reintegration variables is related to lower levels of recidivism. Nonetheless, static-99 score and overall deviance score were considerably predictive of recidivism as well (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). In general, reducing recidivism requires coordinated efforts between stakeholders including clinicians, other professionals, and the community. They need not be isolated and restricted due to sex offender legislation. In a broader context, Scoones, Willis, and Grace (2011) recommend that policymakers plan for post-release accommodation, social support, employment, and the presence of personally meaningful goals. The Punitive Model and its Detrimental Impact on Reintegration Environmental factors are also at issue for University of Albany graduate Kelly Socia (2011). In an essay published for the journal of Criminology and Public Policy, Socia (2011) discusses some undesirable policy implications of residency restrictions. Consistent with other literature thus far, Socia harmonizes that residency restrictions cause sex offenders to cluster in socially disorganized communities, putting the public in more jeopardy than ever before (Socia, 2011). Since sex offense legislation is formed on the basis of flawed logic and assumptions, Socia (2011) argues that residency restrictions have not been successful in achieving what they originally sought out to, creating a great deal of slippage between goals and outcomes. As a result, they are not helpful in reducing recidivism and do not increase public safety or improve fear of crime (Socia, 2011). As if the ineffectiveness was not enough, Socia (2011) points out that residency restrictions impose several other unintended consequences. Socia (2011) conjectures that restriction laws are the result of a widespread fear of crime sweeping over the public regarding victimization of children. Her main hypothesis is based on the assumption that certain neighborhoods have different socioeconomic conditions and that sex offenders are disproportionately likely to relocate there as a result of residency restrictions (Socia, 2011). By comparing three neighborhood types in terms of restriction level (less than 33%, 33%-
BERGER 19
66%, and more than 66%) and their relative characteristics that are relevant to sex offender re-entry (i.e., social disorganization, housing affordability and availability), Socia (2011) used ANOVA testing to find that housing values are lower in areas of less restriction than areas with high restriction. More specifically, sex offenders may be displaced to poverty-stricken, rural areas with less access to treatment facilities, employment opportunities, and public transportation options (Socia, 2011). These areas are overcome with social and physical disorder but collective efficacy is fairly low, which is probably why residents do not fight to keep sex offenders out in the first place. The offender then becomes isolated in a place where he is less likely to form bonds with the community and is more likely to experience strain due to a lack of worthwile avenues to success (Socia, 2011). Socia (2011) explains that with all these extralegal factors present, relapse is a serious concern. An article by authors Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) agrees that such legislation negatively impacts reintegration efforts. First, the authors point out that rates of sexual recidivism are actually quite low, contrary to what the media purports. In a broader context, legislation has this overarching goal of achieving public protection and community safety, but they are built upon such defective logic that they do not meet their goals. Furthermore, they impede successful reintegration and ultimately increase risk for recidivism, spurring the cycle of violence (Mercado, Alvarez & Levenson, 2008). It is safe to say that moral panic over sex offenders has officially become an epidemic, as illustrated by the fact that notification laws are already enacted in all fifty states and have recently been strengthened by the Adam Walsh Act in 2006. The preconceived notion is that a higher percentage of community notification and residency restrictions can negatively impact employment, housing, and social relations which may inadvertently affect reintegration and overall, recidivism. Using statistical analyses in combination with 137 surveys about tier II and III sex offenders perceptions and attitudes, authors Mercado,
BERGER 20
Alvarez and Levenson (2008) were able to determine differences between tier II and tier III offenders as well as differences between offenders who were in treatment at the time versus those who were not. The dependent variables included their attitudes regarding the collateral effects of registration and notification laws as well as residency restrictions (Mercado, Alvarez & Levenson, 2008). This is important because as authors Barrett, Wilson and Long (2003) suggest, sex offender attitudes are relative to their motivation to change which could affect ones success in treatment and recovery, ultimately having an encouraging impact on recidivism and a detrimental effect upon public safety. To most the effects are unnoticeable, but they are enormous and life changing to the few that are constrained by them. Megans Law alone caused nearly one-quarter of sex offenders to lose their homes and jobs due to notification policies, while two-thirds actually reported they felt socially isolated (Mercado, Alvarez & Levenson, 2008). Residency restrictions also tend to deprive sex offenders of housing options, as discussed in Socias (2011) article. Explicitly, offenders are forced to move into disadvantaged communities with little available housing simply because these areas have fewer restrictions. Overall, the authors found that sex offenders were just as likely to be subject to a residency restriction regardless of their prior sexual conviction history. Similar to what other research has said, they too claimed that Megans Law resulted in job loss for more than half of the participants, while many also reported being forced to relocate for some reason (Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008). Authors also declare that vigilantism is common, with nearly half the participants reporting having experienced instances of physical threat and assault. In essence, the notification policies lead to a lack of social control characterized by housing instability and a lack of employment which in turn increases recidivism (Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008). This idea is consistent with other research thus far, specifically Meloys (2005) article highlighted in the next section. One
BERGER 21
recommendation from Mercado, Alvarez, and Levensons (2008) research is that policies should be tailored to type of sex offender rather than treating them all alike. A Rehabilitative Model: Probation, Treatment and Other Options Probation is another option for some released sex offenders, but it has not been widely used nor widely researched. Researcher Michelle Meloy (2005) looks at recidivism patterns and potential risk factors for sex offenders on probation in article published for Criminal Justice Policy Review. She chose to look specifically at sex offenders on probation because recidivism is a very complex issue that varies considerably with so many intervening factors. As already discussed, Meloy (2005) states that previous legislation is based on aspects of deterrence and rational choice paradigms although research does not support this theoretical perspectives strength in appropriately explaining sex-offending behavior. From a social control standpoint, the author wishes to examine if formal social controls (i.e., probation) are effective in reducing recidivism and whether probation would be an appropriate sentence for these individuals (Meloy, 2005). Most importantly, Meloy (2005) is interested in knowing why some sex offenders succeed on probation while others fail. Meloy (2005) believes that systematic evaluation on the impacts of current sex offender legislation is necessary. Sex offenders on probation are an especially more common group although rarely studied. Using a combination of official statistics and self-report data, Meloy (2005) computed Pearson correlations and logistic regressions to determine predictors of recidivism while controlling for independent variables measuring demographics, informal social controls, and measures of deterrence. Dependent variables were recidivism; including one binary measure of whether the defendant succeeded on probation as well as three categories of recidivism measuring total number of recent offenses, number of recent nonsexual offenses, and number of recent sexual offenses (Meloy, 2005). Meloy (2005) found support for social bonding, strain, and age-crime relationship theories based on the variables significantly related to recidivism in her analysis.
BERGER 22
One promising avenue of change is to shift the panels from a punitive society to one embracing rehabilitation and treatment. In meta-analyses by authors Losel and Schmucker (2005) as published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, they found that most studies confirmed the benefits of treatment. Some are more effective than others, but all were specifically designed toward sex offending (Losel & Schmucker 2005). This is consistent with other research, suggesting that targeted treatment is commonly more effective than generalized treatment. This is an important issue now because media has fueled the debate, feeding a society of people that are already highly concerned about their public safety, particularly when sex offenders are living in their communities (Loser & Schmucker, 2005). Punitive legislation has existed for approximately between one and two decades, and there is now enough research to conclude that registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws are ineffective in fulfilling their purposes. Treatment though, is a relatively new and promising approach where more research is necessary to determine the magnitude of its outcomes. According to Losel and Schmucker (2005), treatment is an important aspect of preventive policy. It has been proven that treatment groups have lower rates of sexual recidivism, with hormonal and cognitivebehavioral treatment methods showing more success overall (Loser & Scmucker, 2005). They computed a meta-analysis of 66 studies total, including both US-centric studies and international studies. Inter-rater reliability was strong; arriving at a level of 91% after two researchers coded the dataset separately. Various regression techniques were utilized to examine the treatment group in comparison to the control group, specifically in recidivism measures at the aggregate level (i.e., subgroups of treatment versus no treatment). Recidivism was categorized into three types; sexual, violent, and general, while rate and odds ratios were computed and averaged together to measure a final effect size (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Researchers found that the treatment group recidivated sexually
BERGER 23
fifty percent less than the non-treatment group, a 37% reduction from the base rate. On violent and general recidivism, there was a 44% and 31% reduction from the treatment to the control group, respectively (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Physical treatment such as surgical castration and hormonal medication appear to be more effective than psychosocial methods, but cognitive behavioral therapy follows closely behind. Additionally, studies of physical treatment are confounded with some methodological errors that decrease the validity of results and can also be controversial for ethical reasons (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). The takeaway from Losel and Schmuckers (2005) research is that programs designed specifically for sex offenders, also known as targeted treatment, are the most effective and therefore should be a more significant bedrock of sex offender legislation. Even after controlling for all independent variables, a cognitive-behavioral orientation in treatment still added significantly to explained variance over and above other criterions (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). This effect on sex offender recidivism is significant and promising, so our policies should be courted in this direction. This is not surprising though, given other research on this topic. For example, McReynolds and Sandler (2012) explain that sex offenders often suffer from mental abnormalities that are typically associated with cognitive dysfunctions. Furthermore, authors Woods and Riggs (2009) discuss attachment theory in relation to these abnormalities, claiming that sex offenders do possess cognitive deficiencies as a result of insecure attachment which contributes to their offending behavior. In sum, it appears as though cognitive behavioral treatment should be fairly effective for offenders confounded with cognitive difficulty. Given what has been discussed about the heterogeneity within sex offenders, future research is necessary to determine who may be more or less responsive to cognitive-behavioral techniques. The onset and maintenance of sexual crimes can be affected by a variety of factors, particularly in terms of cognitive distortions as discussed above by researchers Losel & Schmucker
BERGER 24
(2005). Researchers Wood and Riggs (2009) explain that these cognitive distortions are usually related to various attachment styles in connection with the offenders view of self, others and the future. Wood and Riggs (2009) study focused primarily on child molesters, claiming that as a group they are more likely to have cognitive distortions than other offenders. These distortions ultimately result from underlying beliefs about ones self, victims, and the surrounding world, leading one to engage in self-statements that rationalize or neutralize their offending behavior (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Authors believe that interactions with early attachment figures such as parents and family affect the developmental trajectory of ones attachment system and therefore have a significant effect on the progression of ones brain chemistry and functions. Prior research has shown that child molesters are typically plagued with parental neglect and poor family relationships throughout their childhood history, increasing their likelihood of developing negative working models contributing to insecurity in attachment relationships (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Insecure attachment styles are known to cause cognitive distortions about relationships and sex and are highly associated with hostility and de-evaluation of others. With that in mind, Wood and Riggs (2009) looked at three types of attachment styles (secure, fearful, and preoccupied) and a binary measure of child molester status in relation to two scales measuring whether the individual possessed cognitive distortions regarding adult-child sex as well as negative perceptions about himself, others, and the future. Child molesters were used as the target group while non-offending males comprised the comparison group. Wood and Riggs (2009) utilized four scales measuring the following: view of self, experiences in close relationships, the cognitive triad encompassing negative perceptions of ones self, others, and the world, and cognitive distortions related to justification of adult-child sex. This experiment used chi-square and MANOVA tests to determine true differences between the groups.
BERGER 25
Significant differences between the two groups showed that the child molester group was, on average, more likely to have a lower income, lower education level, and less likely to be married (Wood & Riggs, 2009). This is consistent with prior research as well as informal social control and strain theories that sex offenders as a whole are more likely to have academic problems and fewer intimate relationships. In terms of specific attachment style, child molesters were more likely to have a fearful or preoccupied attachment style while non-offending males possessed more secure attachment styles (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Both fearful and preoccupied attachment styles are characterized by negative views of self, which are typically associated with higher levels of anxiety and dependency in close relationships. Non-offending males or those with secure attachment styles reported fewer negative perceptions about self, others, and the future and possessed fewer cognitive distortions for adultchild sex (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Not surprisingly, Wood and Riggs (2009) research also explains that child molesters as a group tend to possess a uniform level of cognitive distortion regardless of attachment style, while fearful and preoccupied attachment styles remained correlated with cognitive distortions among the non-offending group. Perhaps, these negative views of the world apparent in the child-molesting group are an effect of community registration and notification laws. Sex offenders may view their future as a compilation of negative events that prevent and limit their happiness as a result of the isolation, stigma, and joblessness typically resulting from current legislation (Woods & Riggs, 2009). This research study implies that there may be a relationship between negative views of the future and a sense of lacking control. Future research should examine whether there are individual trajectories of insecure attachment categories that differ in terms of perceptions regarding the future as limited, or in terms of parental bonding and upbringing (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Additional research is also
BERGER 26
needed to determine the effect that parental bonds play in the development of adult attachment style and how these attachment constructs converge with child molesting behavior (Wood & Riggs, 2009). As a whole, it does appear that child molesters possess cognitive difficulties, suggesting that cognitive-behavioral therapy may be helpful in assisting them into reintegration and a life without recidivism. This is consistent with other research on the topic, suggesting that treatment for this category of offenders may in fact be a viable option. Other studies have looked into treatment in terms of civil commitment, but research on this topic is not extensive. For starters, McReynolds and Sandler (2012) evaluated the validity of New York States sex offender management and treatment act by studying whether candidates for civil confinement are chosen appropriately based on their actual recidivism risk level. Civil management laws have dual purposes that are intended to treat the offender and protect the public (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Prior research suggests that individuals suffering from true mental abnormalities are more likely to be recommended for civil management because these irregularities are supposedly what fuels their sex offending problems (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). The authors also explain two possible types of civil management, including both outpatient and inpatient maneuvers. The outpatient program is similar to a strict, intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) program while the inpatient, civil confinement is more treatment-oriented and is reserved for the most dangerous offenders (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Given what Meloy (2005) says about the effectiveness of probation on only certain offenders, this split-option may be a viable choice to take. Prison-based treatment programs have also been on the rise and their effectiveness has only partially been evaluated. The process used for screening offenders for civil confinement appears to target those who are at a higher risk for re-offending, according to researchers McReynolds and Sandler (2012). Out of those who were referred to a psychiatric evaluation, those who were not fully recommended for
BERGER 27
civil confinement only differed in the fact that they did not have a mental abnormality, suggesting that this is a significant factor in determining civil confinement. McReynolds and Sandler (2012) used matching to create a comparison group for a sample of offenders reviewed under the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA). Offenders were matched on the most important, strongest predictors in the review process and the cohort was used to examine any signs of recidivism. Official statistics such as offending histories were used to obtain the data for this study, and stepwise regression was used to identify the most influential variables for SOMTA review outcome. McReynolds and Sandler (2012) then used chisquare tests, t-tests, and logistic regression to determine any true differences or similarities existing between the groups. By using psychiatric exam referral as a binary, main dependent variable in this analysis, the authors were able to isolate risk factors associated to outcome regardless of whether or not the offender had a mental abnormality (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). The dependant variable of the cohort group was one-, three-, and five-year rates of various types of recidivism. Logistic regression analyses also allowed McReynolds and Sandler (2012) to control for several independent variables including important prediction variables in the SOMTA review process as well as several demographic variables and offense-related factors. Overall, the findings showed that those not referred to a psychiatric exam at all tended to be younger with a less extensive criminal history and a lower static-99 score (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Those making it to the psychiatric exam but still not ultimately recommended for civil confinement had no differences in age or static-99 score compared to those who were fully referred, the only difference appeared to be a significant mental abnormality present in those fully recommended (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Offenders matched in the SOMTA cohort having received a psychiatric exam also recidivated at a higher rate, suggesting that the SOMTA process is
BERGER 28
accurately identifying the higher risk offenders. More importantly, civil management is likely improving public safety and reducing sexual victimization, as those referred to a psychiatric exam but not civilly confined were referred to civil management similar to an outpatient program. As McReynolds and Sandler (2012) state, the ultimate end of these outpatient programs has not been fully evaluated, so this is a suggestion for explication during future research. The authors also point out that offenders with no prior history commit the majority of sex offenses, meaning that prevention should also remain an important component of policy (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Important predictors of psychiatric exam included static-99 score, male victim, prior convictions, and age. Interestingly enough, prior violent felony convictions actually decreased the odds of a psychiatric exam by 28% (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). Perhaps, this is due to the heterogeneity within offending and varied groupings of offender type and estimated risk levels. As Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) discuss in an article about offending trajectories, these could be the people with criminal careers who typically grow out of offending as they age. Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) begin their article by explaining an additional flaw in U.S. sex offender policies, essentially that they assume a linear path to reoffending. Consequentially, age is not computed as a predictor in actuarial risk assessments despite research that there is a slightly negative connotation between age and sexual recidivism. On occasion, some risk assessment tools adjust for younger offenders based on evidence that offenders in their twenties and thirties are more likely to recidivate (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). That being said, most recidivism studies are subconsciously yet disparately capturing characteristics of that age group because they are most likely to reoffend. The issue here is the recurring aspect of heterogeneity within reoffending. Without further ado, Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault
BERGER 29
(2010) looked into individual effects of aging over time while finding and controlling for four separate trajectories of offending. The longitudinal retrospective study identified 250 males convicted of a sexual offense that had been in prison for at least two years, encompassing mostly child molesters and fewer aggressive rapists. Approximately two-thirds of the sample included offenders over the age of 36, so that there could be a larger emphasis on older offenders (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). The age categories included groupings of 12-17, 18-23, 24-29, and 30-35, with data obtained based on availability; including official statistics for the latter three and self-report data for the first grouping (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Dependent variables included total number of convictions for any crime, four aspects of criminal activity (general, property, nonsexual/violent, and sexual), five aspects of criminal activity in adulthood (age of onset, total number of charges, variety of crime type, and specialization to a particular offense), and victim information (number of victims, age, and gender). Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale, and Amirault (2010) found four potential offending trajectories they labeled very low rate, late-bloomers, low-rate desistors, and high-rate chronics; characterized by a stable, low offense rate over time, a peak of criminal activity in early to mid-30s, an increase in criminal activity in early adulthood, and those with the highest number convictions and a peak in early adulthood, respectively. Between-group differences were assessed for various trajectory groups using ANOVA (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Researchers found moderate support for social control, career criminal, and age-crime curve theories. Important arguments from this research study include not only the relative effect of age in offending but also the heterogeneity as shown through the various offending trajectories. The highrate chronics were the most qualitatively different group on several instances. Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) found that on average, this group had the earliest age of onset (mid-20s),
BERGER 30
was more likely to offend in general and had an overall higher number of prior nonviolent offenses. Individuals in this group tended to specialize in property crime but were more criminally versatile and committed crimes of all natures (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). High-rate chronics were also more likely to have adult, female victims with their first sexual offense occurring while in their mid-30s. This was a very small group of offenders, whose patterns generally followed an age-crime curve relationship, suggesting that this is probably a small group of violent offenders who commit large amounts of varying types of crime (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). This is consistent with other research that there is a small group of offenders who may recidivate. The offending trajectory of the so-called low-rate desistors, as coined by researchers, was similar to that of the high-rate chronics and followed the general trend of the age-crime curve (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Their offense patterns were frequent and versatile, beginning with nonsexual nonviolent crimes, which lead to violent crimes, and eventually shifting to sexual crimes as the offending trajectory began to slow down. The third offending trajectory, characterized as the late bloomers, began their criminal careers as nonsexual nonviolent offenders, but later began to specialize in sexual crimes (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Although not all victims of this grouping were male, this group had more male victims when compared to the other groups. The very low-rate group had an overall low level of criminal involvement and the average age of onset was around mid-40s. This group was significantly more likely than the others to commit crimes against multiple victims, particularly children (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Not surprisingly, individuals in this group were also significantly more likely to be employed and this group was the largest, encompassing 56% of the sample. This clearly disproves the notion that all sex offenders recidivate at a high rate. The most criminally active groups included the high-rate chronics and the low-rate desistors, both of which reached their peak
BERGER 31
of offending in early adulthood and are thus at a lower-than-perceived risk of re-offending (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). The late bloomers seem to be at higher risk of re-arrest, which makes sense given their progressive specialization in sexual crimes (Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale & Amirault, 2010). Actuarial risk assessment tools may be leading to false estimations of recidivism risk due to offender aging and dynamic rather than linear paths to recidivism, as Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010) explain. One implication for future research would be to examine cognitive or psychological factors for late bloomers and high-rate chronics individually and assess what, specifically, could be influencing their offense patterns or specialization to sexual crimes. This could be imperative in building and constructing treatment programs, both in the community and in prison. The outcome of one prison-to-community treatment program for adult sex offenders is examined and reported by authors McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, and Hoke in a 2003 article published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Authors believe that the classic prison experience can have detrimental effects on recidivism, particularly for sex offenders because they hold a low status and more often experience harassment and abuse while incarcerated. Research on the efficacy of treatment has increased and become more prevalent in recent years, and most studies show at least some marginal improvements (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). The particular program studied in this analysis is cognitive behavioral and relapse-prevention oriented; which has proven to be more effective, according to Losel and Schmucker (2005). The prison-tocommunity treatment program included both inpatient and outpatient treatment, while aftercare was similar to outpatient with some probationary supervision, similar to the sample examined in Meloys (2005) article. Based off of research discussed thus far, the outcome of this prison program already looks promising.
BERGER 32
The sample used in this study included 195 adult male sex offenders who had been referred to the prison-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program and was reserved for individuals convicted of a sexual offense who had spent four years or more in incarceration (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke, 2003). The interesting thing about this study is that participants were classified by type so that heterogeneity within offending could be examined. The four groups controlled for were rapists, noncontact sexual offenders, the incest category, and child molesters. The treatment versus non-treatment groups did not differ significantly in terms of risk assessment, so there is validity that the groups were evenly matched. Additional inter-rater reliability strengthened the reliability of this sample (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). The main dependant variable for this study included measures of three types of recidivism, including new sexual charges, new violent charges, and any other new charges. Between-group differences were assessed for the non-treatment, some-treatment, and completed-treatment groups, controlling for offender type, risk assessment scores, and an indeterminate versus determinate sentence structure (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Despite having similar risk assessment scores, researchers (2003) found that the six-year sexual re-offense rate for the completed-treatment group showed more than a 24% decrease when compared to the other groups, and this effect was magnified when an after-care treatment component was included. There were no between-group differences in terms of violent or general recidivism, suggesting that targeted treatment for sex offenders is the most effective in reducing sexual offending but could possibly be broadened. Ironically, McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke (2003) found that participants having completed treatment were considered higher risk in the community and their likelihood of having correctional aftercare supervision was also increased. Additionally, this group tended to have longer sentences on average, and the average time between
BERGER 33
the minimum and maximum sentences was likely to be a larger range (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). This is important to note because the earning of good time may have served as primary motivation for such prisoners to complete treatment, and there may be additional variables confounding the results. Nonetheless, given the lower rates of recidivism of the treatment group suggests that sex offender treatment completion should be an important consideration when determining whether to release an offender back into the community. Additionally, the longer an offender was involved in some type of aftercare treatment component, he was less likely to offend (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Similar to results discussed throughout other studies, community-based combinations of outpatient treatment and probation appear to be successful maneuvers overall. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal length of a community supervision program for offenders of varying risk level and treatment need (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Although the targeted treatment seems like the best approach, future studies could examine ways in which cognitive-behavioral therapy could be broadened to increase the impact on sexual offenders who do not specialize in sexual offending. Another important thing to note is ones progression in treatment can be rather dynamic and ever changing on numerous levels, making it very hard to measure. There are other internal, dynamic risk factors lying beneath the surface that most research has failed to look at, such as an offenders individual motivation to change and other personal attitudes regarding offending and personal growth (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke, 2003). This presupposed notion has been confirmed in a 2003 Canadian study published in Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment by researchers Barrett, Wilson and Long (2003). Understanding the dynamic process of motivation to change is important because there are several implications for treatment design and implementation to develop accurate policies and
BERGER 34
improve treatment outcomes overall. Canadian researchers Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) posit that motivation, albeit dynamic, complex, and multidimensional, is one of the key components of the rehabilitation process. Unfortunately, there is a general lack of understanding of motivational patterns, causing treatment to sometimes be denied to dangerous offenders who may actually be amenable to change (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Authors carefully studied this motivational component by obtaining individuals scores on five different motivational measures. Behavioral and attitudinal indicators acted as a measure of dynamic nature of motivation throughout the process as well as the level of active participation in a change program. The Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) rated offender progress in a multifaceted dimension, utilizing 12 subscales designed to measure relapse prevention, non-relapse prevention, and additional motivational dimensions (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Treatment outcome was measured in five categories ranging from successful, to sex-related or non-sex related suspicions, to new sexual offense or new non-sexual offense (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Data collection methods included official reports at four stages during the treatment: pre-assessment, post-assessment, community assessment report, and a follow-up report after twelve weeks of being released. Offenders were also divided into three groups: pedophiles, non-pedophilic child molesters, and sexual aggressors or rapists (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Risk to re-offend and type of community-based treatment were also controlled for. Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) explain that risk assessment was categorized on a range of one to three, one being low risk and three being high risk, while the two groups of community-based treatment simply included those in structured programs at local hospitals versus those involved in relapse-prevention maintenance programs. Statistical tests found five significant subscales of motivation, including disclosure of personal information, participation in treatment, motivation to change, admission of guilt, and acceptance of personal responsibility. MANOVA testing revealed that stage of treatment has a
BERGER 35
considerable effect on the variables mentioned above, including potential statistical interaction in regards to overall treatment outcome (Barrett, Wilson and Long, 2003). Chi-square tests and correlations were used to determine differences in treatment outcomes across types of offender or in terms of demographic or motivational subscales. The first post-assessment illustrated marginal increases in all five motivational measures for all groups of offenders. This effect was most substantial in the child molester group, but the effect faded slightly by the time of the first community assessment (Barrett, Wilson, & Long, 2003). The child molester group still had higher motivational levels at this point, which continued to increase throughout the twelve-week community treatment. Pedophiles and rapists also maintained their motivational levels throughout the twelve-week period, but did not reach level attained upon postassessment (Barrett, Wilson and Long, 2003). Both acceptance of personal responsibility and guilt [as measured at community assessment only] were significantly correlated to treatment outcome, while other motivational variables approached significance. Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) maintain that although motivational scores were not significant predictors at any other stages of treatment, the offenders age, risk assessment scores, and prior criminal history were significant throughout all stages. General conclusions were that motivation is certainly a dynamic variable that underwent the most change upon community release. Authors Barrett, Wilson and Long (2003) concluded that there may be statistical interaction between stage of treatment and motivational levels, but this cannot be confirmed without further research. The period from institutional post-treatment to midcommunity release found the most substantial decreases in motivational levels, insinuating that there may be even more environmental factors affecting treatment outcome. Potential spurious factors that could be considered in relation to this include life-related stressors such as unemployment, conflicted relationships, and financial problems (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003).
BERGER 36
This finding is all but expected, as it is consistent with other theoretical foundations such as strain and social control theories. Authors have concluded that an offenders motivation to change is the dynamic variable in all respects and therefore is likely influenced by internal, external, or otherwise alliance variables. Acceptance of guilt and personal responsibility were also positively related with treatment success, showing that both are important components of treatment that should be held in high regard (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). The most important conclusion is that current policy is not working because it isolates the offender and simultaneously presents him with decreased social control mechanisms and increased strain. Rather, new policies need to focus on creating alliances with offenders and assisting them throughout their change process. Authors Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) support this notion because their research suggests that a community-based, integrated sex offender management protocol including probation and treatment components produce more successful outcomes of change and lower recidivism among participants. Despite the inclusion of Canadian data in this study, the connections between it and other U.S.-centric research increases validity and reliability. Wilson, Barrett, and Long (2003) also point out that the Canadian sex offender population has lower recidivism rates overall, suggesting that the pre-existing combination strategy of community supervision and treatment is a more effective policy. Researchers also explain that rapists appear to be a qualitatively different type of offender characterized by younger age, a more varied and extensive criminal history, more psychopathic personality and behavioral tendencies, and a more criminal orientation overall (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Most importantly, sexual aggressors and rapists should be examined as a separate group, as they are more likely to be violent and do not seem to specialize in any one type of crime. This is consistent with other research, as specifically highlighted above by Canadian authors Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010). The reasons for this are unknown due to a lack of
BERGER 37
research on the subject, but the results of this study show that their needs are currently not being met in the criminal justice system by means of institutionalization or treatment (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Three overarching factors related to risk include sexual deviance, criminality, and antisocial attitudes of beliefs; these should be examined individually for the rapist category. These findings are consistent with other research that there is heterogeneity within the broad sex offender category. Despite the wide array of research on this topic, there are several limitations that social scientists are constantly plagued by. Unfortunately, randomization is difficult to obtain in this type of research due to legal and ethical reasons. As a result, it is difficult to form true experiments with unbiased, matched control or comparison groups (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Participants are predominately male and middle-aged with victims that are overwhelmingly children and/or females. Most studies also do not differentiate by type of offender, so it is difficult to assess the true heterogeneity within the sex offender category. Operationalization of several variables is also quite different from study to study. For example, recidivism can be measured as a conviction, while others measure it as a re-arrest, and the like. Data sources are also variable across studies because some utilize official data while others also include self-reported measures. When official statistics are used, underreporting is also a common issue as many rapes and sexual assaults are not on any official record. Self-reported measures are also subject to methodology errors due to varied wording of questions and categorization of responses, and potential response bias (Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008). When studying residency restrictions, the determination of housing affordability is also a subjective measure (Socia, 2011). Another problem typically arising in these types of studies is the inability to determine causal relationships due to potential confounding variables.
BERGER 38
When examining treatment options, one common limitation is that the earning of good time or conditional release is often contingent upon participation in such a program, which could bias the results. Others are eliminated due to alcohol or drug use, nonparticipation, or assaultiveness (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Some participants simply drop out, making it harder to maintain internal validity (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Essentially, formation of groups is never truly random due to ethical and legal reasons. Studying civil confinement can also be tricky for similar reasons. For those who are civilly confined, it is difficult to determine their chance of reoffending because they are typically held for a long period of time (McReynolds & Sandler, 2010). Historical matches were also hard to obtain because it excludes any offenders that may have been incarcerated, who were probably higher risk anyway (McReynolds & Sandler, 2010). Unfortunately, the lack of randomization and inability to eliminate spuriousness plagues most research in social sciences because of legal and ethical reasons. Another downside to studying treatment outcomes include the lack of study of certain dynamic factors, including but not limited to motivation to change, impulsivity, attitudes regarding offending, and involvement in drug use (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). These are often confounding variables in treatment and there has not been much research on independent dynamic risk factors, so the effects are virtually unknown. Additionally, it is always difficult to control for varied operationalization or potential ambiguity of variables across studies; including measures of recidivism, treatment outcome or success, relative motivational levels, and the like (Wilson, Barrett & Long, 2003). It is also important to control for different types of intervention, such as prison-based treatment as compared to community-based treatment or supervision (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). It is difficult to disentangle the effects to view each individually. Future research should focus on separating offenders by type in order to promote better release planning and prediction.
BERGER 39
Recommendations & Conclusion

Current sex offender legislation such as registration and notification laws and residency restrictions are ineffective and produce several lasting consequences on offenders and society as a whole. There is a very small amount, if any, measurable advantageous contributions from such laws, despite the expenditures being spent on them. The recommendation based on policy review and prior research is to repeal notification laws, registration requirements, and residency restrictions. There are other ways to govern sex-offending behavior and obtain adequate retribution and rehabilitation that are more beneficial to society at a lower cost. Researchers Scoones, Willis, and Grace (2011) discussed the importance of social supports for sex offender reintegration. Initial risk assessments should plan on providing offenders with adequate social supports so that they can successfully desist from offending Based on the outcome of a release planning mechanism, an offender can be categorized into appropriate treatment programs. If programs are tailored per offender and provide a decent amount of social control, then it will make said offenders a lower risk to society (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). It is important that policymakers plan for post-release accommodation, social support, employment, and the presence of personally meaningful goals (Scoones, Willis & Grace, 2011). Sex offenders need to be encouraged rather than put down, so it is important to focus on strengths rather than weaknesses in order to increase their participation in risk assessment. If an offender is actively participating in treatment and risk assessment, he probably has motivation to change to a certain degree. Other research has shown that motivation to change is important in reducing recidivism, although it is a dynamic process that similarly depends on environmental factors (Barrett, Wilson, & Long, 2003). Such environmental factors should be taken into account upon post-release in order to strengthen their social bonding, improve reintegration and allow them to live pro-social rather than socially-destructive lives.
BERGER 40
Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) also imply that policies should be tailored to individual types of sex offenders rather than treating them as a homogenous group. More specifically, the researchers found no difference between tier II and III sex offenders and their subjectivity to residency restrictions, inherently signifying that laws are applied broadly rather than singling out the higher-risk individuals (Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008). Sex offenders are a more heterogeneous group than commonly believed, and this should be accounted for in future policymaking. There is a growing body of research on the efficacy treatment, which will be necessary to make any true conclusions. Research thus far suggests that it treatment is promising and should be pursued in the future. It is possible that a shift to a rehabilitative model could be instrumental in creating sound policies that are not only systematically effective, but also cost-effective. In terms of treatment style, it is hard to say which one is best at this point. The meta-analysis by researchers Losel & Schmucker (2005) shows that cognitive behavioral treatment has proven the most effective, followed by hormonal medication methods, followed by cognitive-behavioral therapy. Methodology was somewhat flawed, however, so more research on these individualized treatment methods is necessary (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). It appears as though cognitive behavioral treatment should be fairly effective for offenders confounded with cognitive difficulty, as many of the above researchers have discussed (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Given what has been said about the heterogeneity within sex offenders, it is necessary that future research examines offenders by type and characteristics of prior background and offense in order to determine which types will be more or less responsive to certain preventive or reintegration techniques. Some offenders differ in terms of parental bonding and upbringing and likewise attachment styles, as researchers Wood and Riggs (2009) examined. Finding that child molesters have different attachment styles when compared to other offenders, the authors directed future research to examine
BERGER 41
whether individual trajectories of insecure attachment categories exist. If these trajectories are apparent, future research should examine whether they differ in terms of perceptions regarding the future as limited, or in terms of parental bonding and upbringing (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Additional research is also needed to determine the effect that parental bonds play in the developmental of adult attachment style and how these attachment constructs converge with child molesting behavior (Wood & Riggs, 2009). Secure adult romantic attachment can be a protective factor against negative perceptions of the world as cognitive distortions regarding adult-child sex, but causation is hard to determine due to several confounding variables including nature of the crime, number of victims, and childhood history (Wood & Riggs, 2009). There is a serious necessity to determine the origin of links between child molester status and the other variables discussed in order to improve the effectiveness of treatment. Civil management and confinement is one treatment option that is likely improving public safety and reducing sexual victimization, but still may not be ethical on several grounds. Ultimate detainment depended upon a three-step process beginning with a psychiatric exam. Those referred to a psychiatric exam but not civilly confined were referred to civil management, which is similar to an outpatient program. As McReynolds and Sandler (2012) state, the outcome of these outpatient programs has not been fully evaluated, so this is a direction to take for future research. Additionally, the public safety gains of actual civil confinement are somewhat unknown up until this point because most offenders have not yet been released so their behavior cannot be studied (McReynolds & Sandler, 2012). However though, it does cost an enormous amount ($175,000) to house one patient per year. More cost-benefit analyses are necessary to determine if the public benefits are worth the high costs. Furthermore, it would be helpful to find out if we can achieve the same goals through a cheaper, out-patient program that allows offenders to remain in the community (McReynolds &
BERGER 42
Sandler, 2012). Given what Meloy (2005) says about some offenders being amenable to treatment while on probation, it may be a successful policy option. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal length of a community supervision program for offenders of varying risk level and treatment need (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Although the targeted treatment seems like the best approach, future studies could examine ways in which cognitive-behavioral therapy could be broadened to increase the impact on sexual offenders who do not specialize in sexual offending. This would be more helpful in reducing recidivism among the high-rate chronic group as discussed by researchers Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale, and Amirault (2010). By placing lower-risk offenders in community-based programs that work to reduce sexual recidivism, we can achieve public safety at a much lower cost and generate a huge savings for society (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston & Hoke, 2003). Ways to increase and maintain program enrollment should be considered as well in order for a broadened impact. General conclusions were that motivation is certainly a dynamic variable that underwent the most change upon community release. Barrett, Wilson, and Long (2003) also found that the needs of sex offenders are currently not being met in the criminal justice system by means of institutionalization or treatment (Barrett, Wilson & Long, 2003). Three overarching factors related to risk include sexual deviance, criminality, and antisocial attitudes of beliefs; these should be examined individually for the rapist category. Research should focus on separating rapists and violent offenders from others in order to promote better release planning and prediction. The heterogeneity of sex offenders is also important when determining an appropriate sanction. It is imperative that we examine more treatment programs and facilities, differentiating by sex offender type. It is important to know what types of sanctions or treatment options would be more successful in rehabilitating certain offenders while concurrently reducing recidivism. This is a
BERGER 43
critical issue because in order to fully achieve these goals, an offenders reintegration into society is essential, not optional. Additional research is necessary to move to the next step. The criminal justice system is in need of more research on treatment options and outcomes, controlling for type of offender. In the past, sex offenders have been treated as a homogenous group but they are actually rather heterogeneous in terms of offending. It is necessary that child molesters, rapists, sexual offenders, and overall violent criminals be differentiated and controlled for in future research studies so we can compare and contrast their behavior in relation to theoretical perspectives. By examining their recidivism patterns separately and determine what helps each subgroup rehabilitate, we will know what types of treatment and/or punishments are appropriate for which offenders. This will improve policy by decreasing the slippage between intended goals and empirical outcomes of sex offender legislation. Further research is needed specifically in the areas of civil commitment and management, surgical castration, and treatment approaches as a whole. These are relatively new areas of interest so research is still a bit lacking. Based on research thus far, it appears as though treatment may be helpful in rehabilitating offenders and helping them to reintegrate into society. By reintegrating them, there is less of a stigma so offenders are more likely to achieve in society. If they were kept in a type of probation-like outpatient program upon their prison release, this could help to provide offenders with adequate social support and treatment as well as formal restrictions on their behavior to achieve some type of retribution. This will help the community as well, because sex offender recidivism will most drop as a result, and public safety will increase. Additionally, it is well known that many sex offenders are themselves victims of sexual abuse at some point in their life. That being said, if recidivism decreases, there are fewer and fewer victims that are at risk of offending, so we should see a more exponential decrease in sex crimes over time. Sex offender behavior is often shaped by aspects of social control and strain theories. That being said, retribution,
BERGER 44
rehabilitation, and reintegration are important and could be achieved by a combined jail and probation sentence, complete with prison treatment programs followed up by community outpatient aftercare programs. There are several implications from the above research. Firstly, notification, registration, and residency restriction laws do not reduce recidivism or increase public safety. Rather, they have actually had detrimental effects on offenders because they cannot reintegrate and thus pose a higher risk for the community. One problem is that these laws are blanket laws addressing all offenders as one homogeneous group despite all research that points to heterogeneity in offending. The light at the end of the tunnel is that research shows promising results regarding certain types of treatment programs. The crux to developing these treatment programs is finding out what works best for whom, under which circumstances. As of now, the most promising approach is a brief sentence with prison treatment followed up by a probation sentence combined with a community aftercare program. This would punish the offender but still allow him to reintegrate, reducing recidivism and saving money on incarceration. Granted, this would probably only work for some offenders while others are better left incarcerated. Determining the difference between these two groups is a very complex, pressing implication for future research. In sum, there are many directions of future research that are necessary in achieving these goals. Research has found the most support for social controls theory and social bonding (both formal and informal), followed by strong evidence for strain theory, some for the age-crime curve, and a small amount of support for deterrence theory. These are important to take into consideration when formulating policy. Research has shown that outpatient-style treatments combined with a probation-like component may be the most effective for most offenders. If the therapy style is cognitive-behavioral, research has consistently shown that child molesters possessing cognitive difficulties that spur their offending behavior will be most amenable. Hormonal medication methods
BERGER 45
are better for individuals who as a result of inabilities to control their sexual arousal. This is probably a narrow group of offenders that may be similar to the specialized, low-rate desistors as discussed by Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale and Amirault (2010). Some offenders may still be better off with a longer prison sentence, civil confinement, or a combined sentence of jail and some time on probation. The most important thing to keep in mind is that this varies by offender and must be taken into account when formulating policy. Future research in this area is necessary for improved policymaking.
REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES References
BERGER 46
Barrett, M., Wilson, R. J., & Long, C. (2003). Measuring motivation to change in sexual offenders from institutional intake to community treatment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(4), 269-281. Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism patterns and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1394-1413. Hoffman, J. (1994, August 4). New law is urged on freed sex offenders. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2010). 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. Losel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 117-146. Lussier, P., Tzoumakis, S., Cale, J., & Amirault, J. (2010). Criminal trajectories of adult sex offenders and the age effect: Examining the dynamic aspect of offending in adulthood. International Criminal Justice Review, 20(2), 147-168. McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J. A., & Hoke, S. E. (2003). Outcome of a treatment program for adult sex offenders: From prison to community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(1), 3-17. McReynolds, L. S., & Sandler, J. C. (2010). Evaluating New York states sex offender management and treatment act: A matched historical cohort analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(2), 164-185. Meloy, M. L. (2005). The sex offender next door: An analysis of recidivism, risk factors, and deterrence of sex offenders on probation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(2), 211-236.
BERGER 47
Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(2), 188-205. Scoones, C. D., Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2011). Beyond static and dynamic risk factors: The incremental validity of release planning for predicting sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(2), 222-238. Socia, K. M. (2011). The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in upstate NY. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(12), 351-389. Wood, E., & Riggs, S. (2009). Adult attachment, cognitive distortions, and views of self, others, and the future among child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(3), 375-390.

An Examination of The Effectiveness of Recent Sex Offender Legislation: Are Registration and Notification Policies The Best Strategies?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Examination of The Effectiveness of Recent Sex Offender Legislation: Are Registration and Notification Policies The Best Strategies?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

Elizabeth Berger Niagara University

CRJ 650 Policy Paper Dr. E. Brown April 15th, 2013

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

Policy Context: Issues, Challenges, and Possibilities

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

Theoretical Perspective: Formal & Informal Social Controls

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

Empirical Review & Effectiveness

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

Recommendations & Conclusion

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES References

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION POLICIES

You might also like