Community re-entry and the path toward desistance: A quasi-experimental longitudinal study of dynamic factors and community risk management of adult sex offenders

Abstract

A successful community re-entry is a step toward desistance from sex offending. The re-entry phase is critical because it can trigger dynamic risk factors that can lead to a re-offense. In that context, community risk management is seen as pivotal to moderate the impact of community re-entry and associated stressors. The current study, therefore, examines the dynamic factors associated with a successful community re-entry, taking into account the type of community supervision offenders were subjected to. This prospective longitudinal study is based on a quasi-experimental research design where offenders (n=169) were subjected to different types of community supervision (intensive supervision versus regular probation services). Community re-entry outcomes were assessed through the presence of technical violations and/or a new criminal offence. Cox proportional hazards showed that offenders with negative community re-entry outcomes were younger, at-risk of sexual violence, under intensive community supervision, and had more negative social influences and self-regulation deficits. Of importance, intensive community supervision significantly moderated the impact of negative social influences but negatively impacted those with self-regulation deficits. The study provides evidence that dynamic risk factors are important during re-entry and may operate differently under different supervisory conditions.

Desistance from sexual offending: Do the mainstream theories apply?

“…Successful community re-entry and social reintegration is a key step on the path to desistance from sexual offending (Göbbels, et al, 2012;Lussier and Gress, 2014). There is a need, therefore, to develop "a dialogue" between desistance research and public protection frameworks which reflect the discourses of both "control" and "change" (Weaver, 2014), with in-built capacities for expanding the pro-social self identities of sex offenders.…”

“…From a policy perspective, the major implications of this research involve bridging this gap between what has variously been termed ‘imagined’ (Soyer, 2014) and ‘authentic’ desistance (Healy, 2014) for sex offenders and in overcoming the social context which may hinder desistance trajectories by ‘delimit[ing] the range of future possibilities’ (King, 2013b: 317; see also Serin and Lloyd, 2009). Successful community re-entry and social reintegration is a key step on the path to desistance from sexual offending (Göbbels et al, 2012; Lussier and Gress, 2014). There is a need, therefore, to develop ‘a dialogue’ between desistance research and public protection frameworks which reflect the discourses of both ‘control’ and ‘change’ (Weaver, 2014), with in-built capacities for expanding the pro-social self-identities of sex offenders.…”

Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings

“…In fact, there is theoretical reason to believe that SORNA may increase the risk of offending by alienating sex offenders (Levenson & Cotter, 2005); increasing their likelihood of experiencing harassment (Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2009); and decreasing their ability to find housing or employment (Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). These negative impacts of community notification policies are especially significant in light of new findings which suggest that exposure to more negative social influences increases the risk of recidivism (Lussier & Gress, 2014) and that employment decreases the risk of reoffending among juvenile sex offenders (Van den Berg, Bijleveld, Hendriks, & Mooi-Reci, 2014).…”

“…The majority of sexual assaults are committed by known acquaintances, not strangers who one would need to find on the registry (Planty, Langton, Krebs, Berzofsky, & Smiley-McDonald, 2013;Snyder, 2000). Furthermore, many community notification laws treat sexual offenders as a homogenous group, when in fact they differ in important ways, including their individual levels of recidivism risk (Lussier & Gress, 2014;Sample & Bray, 2006). Finally, requiring sex offenders to register with the state for long periods (or a lifetime) implies that they are stable in their offending over time and cannot be rehabilitated, though empirical evidence does not support these assumptions (Hargreaves & Francis, 2014;Lussier & Blokland, 2014).…”

Evaluating Restorative Justice Circles of Support and Accountability: Can Social Support Overcome Structural Barriers?

“…Against this backdrop, social support has been found to mediate some of the effects of these collateral consequences (Hochstetler, DeLisi, & Pratt, 2010;Maruna & Toch, 2005). In a recent study by Lussier & Gress (2014), adult sex offenders were more likely to successfully complete community supervision when they had positive, as opposed to negative, social influences.…”