Protecting the Public’s Health Through Successful Reentry for Sex Offender After Incarceration

Abstract

This paper describes the post-incarceration reintegration experiences of military veterans convicted of sex offenses and identify potential interventions to ease reintegration for this population. Participants were a convenience sample of 14 veterans who were on sex offender (SO) registries and 21 community stakeholders involved in supporting persons during re-entry. Subjects were identified purposively and through snowball sampling, in Massachusetts. We employed semi-structured qualitative interviews of participants, followed by analysis including process mapping to identify barrier and facilitation points. We used both a grounded thematic approach and a priori codes, guided by the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations. We found re-entry barriers include older age, stigma, lack of social support, inadequate information about sexual offense levels, limited housing options and access to mental health treatment to reduce sexual impulses, and re-entry information tailored to SOs. Re-entry facilitators include access to SO treatment, knowledge about services, self-efficacy, ability to self-advocate, and social support. Interventions to aid successful re-entry include pre-release counseling and classes tailored to SO needs, re-entry planning including housing resources, sexual deviance treatment, and referral to legal counseling to assist with altering assigned SO level. Specific needs and resources unique to veterans should be integrated into reentry plans. Convicted SOs often lack information and assistance to prepare for life after release, putting them at increased risk of homelessness, emotional difficulties, and financial hardship. Failure to recognize the unique needs of this population, and to leverage resources, creates a public health risk as it increases the likelihood that SOs will recidivate. Veterans who are SOs have unique resources available to them through the Veterans Administration such as SO treatment and peer-support specialists. Nevertheless there are additional steps that could be beneficial, such as timely provision of information, creating more opportunities for treatment, and providing more housing options.

Pathways for VA and community stakeholder management of military veterans with sexual offenses: Sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates and risk factors in military veterans released from California sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment.

“…In addition, many community agencies that partner for housing services with the VA have exclusion policies that prevent serving those with sexual offense histories. These include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as Grant and Per Diem community partnerships with nonprofits offering transitional housing (Simmons et al, 2018; Sreenivasan et al, 2019).…”

Reset for systematic action: Removing VA barriers to housing and treatment for military veterans with sexual offenses.

“…Providing treatment to manage deviant sexual impulses among veterans with sexual offenses is an important target for risk reduction and successful community reintegration not offered by the VA. Simmons et al (2018) identified access to sex offender treatment as an important facilitator for community reentry. Specifically, military veterans with sexual offenses identified a need to have access to sex offender-specific treatment that would help to address their sexual impulses.…”

Public Perception of Men Who Have Committed Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Offences Against Children

“…These public attitudes not only affect the well-being of people with sexual convictions due to internalized stigma ( Tewksbury, 2012 ), they also influence legislation and policies, such as the implementation of sex offender registries and residency restrictions ( Kernsmith et al, 2009 ; Mancini et al, 2010 ), therapeutic efficacy ( Beech & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005 ), public vigilantism ( Cubellis et al, 2019 ), jury decisions ( Vidmar, 1997 ), and the successful societal reintegration of people with sexual convictions ( Clark, 2007 ; Willis et al, 2010 ). Further, it has been argued that problems in each of the above can increase the likelihood of recidivism ( Freeman, 2012 ; Simmons et al, 2021 ). Thus, it is important that these negative attitudes are understood more deeply.…”