Support partners of registered sex offenders : exploring their experiences, identities, and perceptions.

Abstract

Although it is widely recognized that many convicted criminal offenders experience considerable setbacks in communities that make their lives more arduous, registered sex offenders (RSOs) who live in American society arguably face more challenging impediments. As a result, ensuring their access to social support is especially salient. The notion that social support is particularly relevant to RSOs is perhaps best manifested through a common feature of community-based sex offender treatment programs, where participating RSOs are obligated to forge social relationships with primary support partners. These individuals are an important population to examine, as they purportedly play important roles with respect to helping a particularly stigmatized group of criminal offenders-RSOssuccessfully reintegrate into society as productive, law-abiding citizens. And yet, relatively little is known about individuals who have a social link with and provide social support to publicly identified sex offenders, and no previously identified study has specifically examined support partners of RSOs. Thus, in order to provide critical, informative, and rich knowledge about individuals presumably closest to RSOs, the present study utilizes in-depth qualitative interviews with 38 support partners across two sex offender treatment programs in the South. Analyses focus on v their motivations for serving as support partners, costs associated with such roles, stigma management techniques, and attitudes and beliefs toward sex offender registration and notification (SORN). Contributions to knowledge, limitations, and corresponding policy implications are discussed. vi

Living Arrangements for Sex Offenders in Ohio: Effects of Economics, Law, and Government Assistance Programs

“…In addition, a number of collateral consequences have been identified for SORN. Included among these are that many RSOs rely heavily on supportive family members for stability in the areas of housing, financial, and social support (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Conner, 2015; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). This extension of collateral consequences is supported by our findings showing 35.6% of the respondents currently living with a family member.…”

“…Throughout the literature, sex offenders' housing obstacles have been well documented (see Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006;Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012;Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Rolfe, 2016). Previous studies have also found that family members are treated similarly to the sex offender they house (Conner, 2015;Farkas & Miller, 2007;). Yet very little research has addressed any specific association of sex offenders living with family members.…”

“…One of the primary collateral consequences of SORN is the difficulty of finding housing. For some, living with family members may be the most viable option (Jennings et al, 2012), even though family members are not impervious to the effects of SORN (Conner, 2015; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). For many families and household members of registrants, they also suffer financial, social, and interpersonal consequences of SORN (Farkas & Miller, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009).…”