Sex Offender Community Notification and Community Stratification

Abstract

Community notification laws have been passed by the federal government and legislature of every state. At the very least, these laws require local law enforcement officials to publicize the personal and residential information of known sex offenders. Although researchers and other social commentators have begun to assess the effects of community notification on targeted sex offenders and on criminal justice practices and practitioners, the potential consequences of the policy for different types of communities have received only scant attention. Using sex offender registry and US Census data for two states (Nebraska and Oklahoma), we examine the relationship between community characteristics and the residential patterns of sex offenders. Findings from mapping and regression analyses suggest a greater concentration of sex offenders in disadvantaged communities than in more affluent communities. To the extent that community notification allows residents of more affluent communities to mobilize resources in order to remove identified sex offenders, it may increase the geographical clustering of these offenders in areas already facing a greater risk and having fewer resources to manage the problem. Implications of findings in terms of "concentrated disadvantage" are discussed.

Examining the Correlates of Sex Offender Residence Restriction Violation Rates

“…Scholarly research has highlighted a positive association between community disadvantage and failure on community supervision Kubrin and Stewart, 2006;Mears, Wang, Hay, and Bales, 2008). Less is known about if and how disadvantage may influence post-release patterns of behavior specifically for sex offenders.Although there is varying evidence on how SORR affect the quality of and context of 6 available housing, there is emerging evidence that the lack of available housing leads to the clustering of sex offenders (Hughes and Kadleck, 2008;Socia, 2013; Socia, 2014b). Further, this same research notes that sex offender clustering is highest in areas of high disadvantage (see also Socia and Stamatel, 2012; Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2008).…”

“…Although there is varying evidence on how SORR affect the quality of and context of 6 available housing, there is emerging evidence that the lack of available housing leads to the clustering of sex offenders (Hughes and Kadleck, 2008;Socia, 2013; Socia, 2014b). Further, this same research notes that sex offender clustering is highest in areas of high disadvantage (see also Socia and Stamatel, 2012; Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2008).…”

A cross-sectional exploration of household financial reactions and homebuyer awareness of registered sex offenders in a rural, suburban, and urban county.

“…Shaw and McKay (1942) argued that neighborhoods 1 that contain greater rates of the "negative" indicators like high rates of poverty, minorities, and population turnover be considered socially disorganized (or disadvantaged) areas, and in turn, susceptible to criminality. Paralleling with the theory's foundation, the presence of RSOs have been associated with communities that contained high rates of concentrated disadvantage (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016, racial/ethnic heterogeneity (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Hipp et al, 2010;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia & Stamatel, 2012), and residential instability (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010; 1 Hereafter, the present study will utilize the terms community and neighborhood to describe two different concepts. Community is in reference to a broader social network of people, and, at times, a larger geographic boundary; whereas, neighborhoods are smaller social-geographic networks of people, with a greater emphasis on a geographic vicinity (The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities, 2016).…”

“…These legal acts of discrimination prompted a variety of adverse effects (better known as collateral consequences) for RSOs. Primary among the collateral consequences faced by convicted sex offenders is their relegation into socially disadvantaged communities (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Gordon, 2013;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006b;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b; see also Yeh, 2015;Sloas, Steele, & Hare, 2012;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015;Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Rolfe, 2016). Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006).…”

“…Some overlap between these two terms may occur, as the present study will also honor the terms used by the scholars cited. Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016. The sex offender literature has suggested that RSOs are relegated (away from affluent communities and) into disadvantaged communities that already have the adversity to overcome systemic socio-ecological issues (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006a, 2006b; see Burchfield & Mingus, 2008).…”