Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Sex Offenders on Licence: Effectiveness of Registration and Notification Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Based Policing and Community Crime Prevention

Abstract

This chapter addresses the question: what general approaches and specific methods can be applied by the police in the safe supervision and monitoring of convicted sex offenders on licence conditions to avoid relapse and re-offending? A Rapid Evidence Review was undertaken. Fifteen electronic databases were searched yielding a total of 5076 unique records. These were systematically screened by 2 reviewers using agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seventy-one were downloaded for detailed review. No studies fully met the search criteria. The retained studies were placed in six groups: the effects of registration, community notification or the 2 combined (42 studies); probation and parole supervision (8 items); residence restrictions (7 items); electronic monitoring (6 studies); re-integration of sex offenders into the community (5 studies); and polygraph testing (3 studies). It was difficult to discern how much additional public safety was gained by the use of registration laws. Few studies have found any specific deterrence effects and a majority show no difference. Community notification can increase and lower fear and have adverse consequences for offenders and non-offending relatives. Residence restrictions for the most part had unanticipated negative consequences. The findings highlight the need for multi-agency liaison and collaboration in sex offender management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, M. A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2010). Collaborative supervision strategies for sex offender community management. Federal Probation, 74, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. L., & Sample, L. L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, G. S., & Freeman, B. C. (2011). Examining GPS monitoring alerts triggered by sex offenders: The divergence of legislative goals and practical application in community corrections. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. C., Dukes, T., Tewkesbury, R., & De Troye, T. M. (2009). Analyzing the impact of statewide residence restriction law on South Caroline sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L., Gelb, K., Spiranovic, C., Warner, K., Roberts, L., & David, J. (2020). What does the public think about sex offender registers? Findings from a national Australian study. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1805813

  • Beck, V. S., & Travis, L. F., III. (2004). Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, V. S., & Travis, L. F., III. (2006). Sex offender notification: An exploratory assessment of state variation in notification processes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilby, C., Brooks-Gordon, B., & Wells, H. (2006). A systematic review of psychological interventions for sexual offenders II: Quasi-experimental and qualitative data. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasko, B. L., Jeglic, E. L., & Mercado, C. C. (2011). Are actuarial risk data used to make determinations of sex offender risk classification? An examination of sex offenders selected for enhanced registration and notification. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 676–692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, D. P., Eher, R., Craig, L. A., Miner, M. H., & Pfäfflin, F. (Eds.). (2011). International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Theory, practice and research. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct. (6th ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J. A., & Askew, L. N. (2019). Time-series analyses of the impact of sex offender registration and notification law implementation and subsequent modifications on rates of sexual offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 65(11), 1483–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannon, Y. N., Levenson, J. S., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. N. (2007). Attitudes about community notification: A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse, 19, 369–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, M. P., DeLong, P. A., & Moloney, J. T. (2012). Sex offender registries: A content analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 695–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks-Gordon, B., Bilby, C., & Wells, H. (2006). A systematic review of psychological interventions for sexual offenders I: Randomised control trials. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17, 442–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulman, P. (2013). Sex offenders monitored by GPS found to commit fewer crimes. National Institute of Justice Journal, 271, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2014). Sex offender reintegration: Consequences of the local neighbourhood context. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, M. F., & Dickinson, C. (2009). Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 941–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Citizen coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, M., Brown, S., & Völlm, B. (2015). Circles of support and accountability for sex offenders: A systematic review of outcomes. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215603691

  • Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., & Beech, A. R. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing risk in sex offenders: A practitioners’ guide. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubellis, M. A., Walfield, S. M., & Harris, A. J. (2018). Collateral consequences and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: Law enforcement perspectives. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 1080–1106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, J. A., Khan, O., Ferriter, M., Huband, N., Powney, M. J., & Duggan, C. (2012). Psychological interventions for adults who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007507.pub2

  • Doren, D. M., & Yates, P. M. (2008). Effectiveness of sex offender treatment for psychopathic sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 234–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, E. K., & Aos, S. (2009). Does sex offender registration and notification reduce crime? A systematic review of the research literature. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46, 411–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 520–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewkesbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographical analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbogen, E. B., Patry, M., & Scalora, M. J. (2003). The impact of community notification laws on sex offender treatment attitudes. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 207–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, I. A., Findlater, D., & Hughes, T. (2010). Practice report: A review of e-Safety remote computer monitoring for UK sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E. & Völlm, B. (2018). The utility of post-conviction polygraph testing among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 30(4), 367–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. N., & Cubellis, M. A. (2015). Coping with stigma: How registered sex offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 593–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friendship, C., Mann, R. E., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 744–759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, C. A., Wilson, D. B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). A quantitative review of the effects of sexual offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannon, T. A., Keown, K., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2007). Increasing honest responding on cognitive distortions in child molesters: The bogus pipeline revisited. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-006-9033-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannon, T. A., Wood, J. L., Pina, A., Tyler, N., Barnoux, M. F. L., & Vasquez, E. A. (2014). An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 178–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gies, S. V., Gainey, R. Cohen, M. I., Healy, E., Duplantier, D., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., Bobnis, A., & Hopps, M. (2012). Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS technology: An evaluation of the California Supervision Program. Final report. Bethesda, MD: Office of Research and Evaluation, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, M. D., Edwards, D., & Pettus-Davis, C. (2015). A longitudinal outcome evaluation of a prison-based sex offender treatment program. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215585731

  • Grubin, D. (2008). The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubin, D., Kamenskov, M., Dwyer, R. G., & Stephenson, T. (2019). Post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(2), 141–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. J., & Cudmore, R. (2018). Community experience with public sex offender registries in the United States: A national survey. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(3), 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & Hanson, R. K. (2003). The Dynamic Supervision Project: Improving the community supervision of sex offenders. Corrections Today, August, 60–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. S. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s federally mandated sex offender classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Walfield, S. M. (2018). Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration and notification: Effectiveness, challenges, and policy priorities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 391–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, V. (2007). Reconviction analysis of Interim Accredited Programmes Software (IAPS) data. Research Development Statistics, National Offender Management Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, L. A., & Burchfield, K. B. (2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice? Justice Quarterly, 25, 647–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, L. A., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender community notification and community stratification. Justice Quarterly, 25, 469–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W. G., & Ben-Shakar, B. (2019). Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 86–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., & Tewkesbury, R. (2012). A comparative longitudinal analysis of recidivism trajectories and collateral consequences for sex and non-sex offenders released since the implementation of sex offender registration and community notification. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 356–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L. (2006). Sex offenders on federal community supervision: Factors that influence revocation. Federal Probation, 70, 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, S., Allison, M., Toop, C., & Martin, E. (2020). Sex offender registries: Exploring the attitudes and knowledge of political decision-makers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 478–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H., Wood, J., Westwood, S., Stout, B., Wilkinson, B. Kelly, G., & Mackenzie, G. (2010). Child Sex Offender review (CSOR) public disclosure pilots: a process evaluation - 2nd edition. Research report 32. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H., Dominey, J., & Hilder, S. (2012). Public disclosure: Sex offenders’ perceptions of the pilot scheme in England. Compliance, legitimacy and living a “Good Life”. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernsmith, P. D., Comartin, E., Craun, S. W., & Kernsmith, R. M. (2009). The relationship between sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konopasek, J. E. (2015). Expeditious disclosure of sexual history via polygraph testing: Treatment outcome and sex offense recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 194–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsoglou, K. N., & Oswald, M. (2020). Not ‘Very English’ – on the use of the polygraph by the penal system in England and Wales. The Journal of Criminal Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018320976284

  • Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender registration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 6–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D. R., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2008). Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (2010a). Do sex offender registration and notification requirements deter juvenile crimes? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 553–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (2010b). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on deterrence of adult sex crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E, J., Levenson, J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. & Armstrong, K. S. (2010c). Evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification policies for reducing sexual violence against women. Final Report. National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E. J., Harris, A. J., Shields, R. T., Walfield, S. M., Ruzicka, A. E., Buckman, C., Kahn, G., & Nair, R. (2018a). Effects of juvenile sex offender registration on adolescent well-being: An empirical examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E. J., Sandler, J. C., Vandiver, D. M., Shields, R. T., Nair, R. (2018b). Juvenile registration and notification policy effects: A multistate evaluation project. Final Technical report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, E. J., Shields, R. T., Nair, R., Kahn, G., Sandler, J. C., & Vandiver, D. M. (2019). Juvenile registration and notification policies fail to prevent first-time sexual offenses: An extension of findings to two new states. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(7), 1109–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S. (2018). Sex offender management policies and evidence-based recommendations for registry reform. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0884-0

  • Levenson, J., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., & Tewkesbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., Amore, D. A., & Hern, A. L. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, P., & Gress, C. L. Z. (2014). Community re-entry and the path towards desistance: A quasi-experimental longitudinal study of dynamic factors and community risk management of adult sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, P., & Mathesius, J. (2019). Not in my backyard: Public sex offender registries and public notification laws. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice / Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale, 61(1), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, K. B., & Kebbell, M. R. (2019). Police officers’ perceptions of a sex offender registration scheme: Identifying and responding to risk. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(3), 396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurelli, K., & Ronan, G. (2013). A time-series analysis of the effectiveness of sex offender notification laws in the USA. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 24, 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCartan, K. (2013). From a lack of engagement and mistrust to partnership? Public attitudes to the disclosure of sex offender information. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 15, 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, E. H., Verschuere, B., Merckelback, H. L. G. J., & Crombez, G. (2008). Sex offender management using the polygraph: A critical review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 423–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mercado, C. C., Jeglic, E., & Markus, K. (2011). Sex offender management, treatment, and civil commitment: An evidence based analysis aimed at reducing sexual violence. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mews, A., Di Bella, L. & Purver, M. (2017). Impact evaluation of the prison-based core Sex Offender Treatment Programme. Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. (2014). Rape: Sex crime, act of violence, or naturalistic adaptation? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2013). An overview of sexual offending in England and Wales. Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2015). Multi-agency public protection arrangements: Annual report 2014/15. Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewkesbury, R. (2011). Residential relegation of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. (2018). Sexual offending: Victimization and the path through the criminal justice system. Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omori, M. K., & Turner, S. F. (2012). Assessing the cost of electronically monitoring high-risk sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 873–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, K. G., Bales, W. D., & Bloomberg, T. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 61–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmiotto, M., & MacNichol, S. (2010). Supervision of sex offenders: A multi-faceted and collaborative approach. Federal Probation, 74, 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent, G., Guay, J.-P., & Knight, R. A. (2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: One size doesn’t fit all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 188–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R. (2002). Does Megan’s Law Work? A theory-driven systematic review. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., & DiMichele, M. (2010a). The role of probation and parole officers in the collaborative response to sex offenders. Federal Probation, 74, 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., & DiMichele, M. (2010b). Electronic supervision for sex offenders: Implications for work load, supervision goals, versatility, and policymaking. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 276–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., & DiMichele, M. (2011). Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated consequences of GPS sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, R., & Muller, J. (2010). The containment approach to managing defendants charged with sex offenses. Federal Probation, 74, 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polizzi, D. M., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentky, R. A., & Burgess, A. W. (1990). Rehabilitation of child molesters: A cost-benefit analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 108–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Journal of Law and Economics, 54, 161–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzel, L. R., & Carbonell, J. L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 401–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosky, J. W. (2013). The (f)utility of post-conviction polygraph testing. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosky, J. W. (2016). More polygraph utility: A comment on Jensen, Shafer, Roby and Roby (2015). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(10), 1956–1970.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J., Wilson, N., Kilgour, G., & Reynolds, N. (2014). Balancing efficiency and accuracy: Guidelines for the psychological assessment of extended supervision orders for child sex offenders in New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 284–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, J. C., Letourneau, E. J., Vandiver, D. M., Shields, R. T., & Chaffin, M. (2017). Juvenile sexual crime reporting rates are not influenced by juvenile sex offender registration policies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2008). Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema, 20, 10–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2017). Sexual offender treatment for reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2017:8. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.8

  • Scoones, C. D., Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2012). Beyond static and dynamic risk factors: The incremental validity of release planning for predicting sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 222–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Severson, M., & Pettus-Davis, C. (2013). Parole officers’ experiences of the symptoms of secondary trauma in the supervision of sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 5–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sloas, L. B., Steele, P. D., & Hare, T. S. (2012). Geographical access to treatment for sex offenders under community supervision in Kentucky. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 294–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia, K. M. (2012). The efficacy of county-level sex offender residence restriction in New York. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 612–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia, K. M. (2015). State residence restrictions and forcible rape rates: A multistate quasi-experimental analysis of UCR data. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia, K. M., & Stamatel, J. P. (2010). Assumptions and evidence behind sex offender laws: Registration, community notification, and residence restrictions. Sociology Compass, 4/1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00251.x

  • Spruin, E., Wood, J. L., Gannon, T. A., & Tyler, N. (2018). Sexual offender’s experiences of polygraph testing: A thematic study in three probation trusts. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(1), 12–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. C. (2017). Community perceptions of a public sex offender registry introduced in Western Australia. Police Practice and Research, 18(3), 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewkesbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewkesbury, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 570–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, T. (2011). The registration and monitoring of sex offenders: A comparative study. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programs? Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., Chamberlain, A. W., Jannetta, J., & Hess, J. (2015). Does GPS improve recidivism among high risk sex offenders? Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for high risk sex offender parolees. Victims & Offenders, 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.953236

  • Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. F., McGovern, S. K., Poey, E. L., & Otis, K. E. (2004). Treatment effectiveness for male adolescent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis and review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13, 281–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitting, L., Day, A., & Powell, M. (2016). Police officer perspectives on the implementation of a sex offender community notification scheme. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 18(4), 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitting, L., Day, A., & Powell, M. (2017). An evaluation of the impact of Australia’s first community notification scheme. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(3), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R., Hockenhull, J. C., McGuire, J., Leitner, M., Barr, W., Cherry, M. G., Flentje, R., Quinn, B., Dundar, Y., & Dickson, R. (2013). A systematic review of risk assessment strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: Update 2002-8. Health Technology Assessment, 17(50), 1–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, D. T. (2008). Application of the clinical polygraph examination to the assessment, treatment and monitoring of sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 5, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, D. T., Sosnowski, D., & Middleton, D. (1999). The use of the polygraph in the community supervision of sex offenders. Probation Journal, 46, 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2009). Assessment of community reintegration planning for sex offenders: Poor planning predicts recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 494–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. J., Stewart, L., Stirpe, T., Barrett, M., & Cripps, J. E. (2000). Community-based sex offender management: Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. J., Alleyne, E. O., Ciardha, C., & Gannon, T. A. (2020). An Evaluation of Polygraph Testing by Police to Manage Individuals Convicted or Suspected of Sexual Offending. University of Kent, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. G. (Ed.). (2015). Sex Offender Laws: Failed policies, new directions (2nd ed.). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, P. A., Levenson, J. S., & Hart, T. C. (2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 482–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba, K. M. (2011). Residence restriction buffer zones and the banishment of sex offenders: Have we gone one step too far? Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba, K. M., & Bachar, K. (2009). Sex offender registration and notification: Limited effects in New Jersey. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba, K. M., Veysey, B. M., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27, 667–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    James McGuire

  2. Institute for Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Emily Evans

  3. Centre for Health and Justice, University of Nottingham, Notttingham, UK

    Eddie Kane

Authors
  1. James McGuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eddie Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McGuire, J., Evans, E., Kane, E. (2021). Managing Sex Offenders on Licence: Effectiveness of Registration and Notification Procedures. In: Evidence-Based Policing and Community Crime Prevention. Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76363-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation