Toward a Focused Conceptualization of Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Who Sexually Offend: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Despite speculation regarding the role of collateral consequences of sexual offender policies in psychosocial and criminogenic outcomes, there has been no empirical analysis in the extant literature examining these links. Lack of conceptual underpinnings and no psychometrically valid measure of collateral consequences has limited study in this area. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the state of measurement in terms of conceptual and operational definitions, populations sampled, domains assessed, items used, and scale properties reported. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. Themes emerged regarding commonly assessed collateral consequences, the misconnect between legal and psychological conceptualizations of collateral consequences, the division between external (i.e., social) and internal (i.e., affective) collateral consequences, as well as a trend toward emphasizing the psychological damages (in addition to discrete experiences of loss) associated with a sexual offense. Findings are discussed, and a unifying definition of collateral consequences is proposed to guide future scale development.

Measuring Collateral Consequences Among Individuals Registered for a Sexual Offense: Development of the Sexual Offender Collateral Consequences Measure

“…Few studies assessing collateral consequences report scale reliabilities (e.g., Call, 2017, 2018; Harris et al, 2015), whereas no studies referenced indicators of validity or how validity may have been assessed in the process of scale development. Similar limitations noted in the current state of collateral consequences measurement included broad/limited response scales (sacrificing nuance), limited information regarding item development, and little discussion regarding definitional or conceptual underpinnings of collateral consequences (Hamilton, 2020). Results from the systematic review of collateral consequences measures highlighted the need not only for psychometrically valid measurement but for a unified conceptualization of collateral consequences with which to guide instrument development.…”

“…A systematic review of the collateral consequences measurement literature, recently conducted by Hamilton (2020), found that studies have primarily reported descriptive data intending to demonstrate the impact of collateral consequences by using sheer numbers (Hamilton, 2020). That is, items tend to broadly target housing restrictions (e.g., “I had to move out of a home I owned”; Levenson, 2008), employment difficulties (e.g., “I lost a job because my boss or coworkers found out I am a sex offender”; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a), interpersonal problems (e.g., “I feel that my close relationships [friendships, family ties] have suffered because I am listed on the sex offender registry”; Klein & Bailey, 2016), and psychological consequences (e.g., “I feel alone and isolated because of Megan’s Law; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a).…”

“…Currently, there are no established collateral consequences measures that have been validated on a sample of sexual offenders (see Hamilton, 2020). Few studies assessing collateral consequences report scale reliabilities (e.g., Call, 2017, 2018; Harris et al, 2015), whereas no studies referenced indicators of validity or how validity may have been assessed in the process of scale development.…”

“…Results from the systematic review of collateral consequences measures highlighted the need not only for psychometrically valid measurement but for a unified conceptualization of collateral consequences with which to guide instrument development. Specifically, the author recommended maintaining the integrity of the definition of collateral consequences as (a) collateral , rather than direct; (b) unintended , rather than anticipated through policy; and (c) psychosocial in nature (Hamilton, 2020).…”

“…Legal conceptualizations tend to highlight sanctions arising from policy or law as collateral consequences, which has remained the norm even in the psychological literature (Kirk & Wakefield, 2018). Thus, a more psychosocially oriented operational definition, building off themes from prior research, defined collateral consequences operationally as (a) experiences of discrimination, loss, suppression, or negative affect (e.g., Frenzel et al, 2014); (b) originating societally, interpersonally, or intrapersonally (Logan, 2013); (c) arising as a result of the sexual offender status or policies though independent of law or legal statute (would not be present without subjection to sexual offender policies or label; O’Reilly, 2018); and (4) unintended either in its basic existence or in terms of duration (lasting past the punishment phase; Uggen & Stewart, 2014) or severity (Hamilton, 2020). For example, having one’s personal information posted by a third-party website may be categorized as an incident of discrimination, arising societally/interpersonally, as a result of one’s sexual offender status through independent of legal statute and unintended in its basic existence (not identified as an intended consequence of punishment at the time of conviction).…”