Although sex offender registration and notification policies have occupied an increasingly prominent place on state and federal crime control agendas, much policy discourse has occurred amid a dearth of reliable and relevant national data. This article presents the results of a study designed to broaden knowledge about the registered sex offender (RSO) population and the content of the nation’s sex offender registries. The authors analyze state-level RSO populations across several dimensions, including levels of public Internet disclosure, RSO residential status, supervision status, and assigned risk levels. Findings suggest significant interstate variation across these dimensions, and indicate that the nation’s RSO population is considerably more diverse and complex than commonly portrayed in the media and in policy debates. Implications for federal and state policies aimed at reforming the nation’s sex offender registries are discussed.
AckermanA. A.HarrisA. J.LevensonJ. S.ZgobaK. (2011). Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. International Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 34, 149-159.
2.
AdkinsG.HuffD.StagebergP. (2000). The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Department of Human Rights.
3.
AndersonA. L.SampleL. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.
4.
BandyR. (2011). Measuring the impact of sex offender notification on community adoption of protective behaviors. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 237-263.
5.
BruellC.SwattM.SampleL. (November, 2008). Potential consequences of sex offender residency restriction laws: Housing availability and offender displacement. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, St. Louis, MO.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. (Report No. NCJ 198281). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
California Sex Offender Management Board. (2010). CASOMB recommendations report, January 2010. Retrieved from http://www.casomb.org/reports.htm
8.
ChajewskiM.MercadoC. C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 44-61.
9.
DuweG.DonnayW. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46, 411-446.
10.
DuweG.DonnayW. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 520-536.
11.
FortneyT.LevensonJ. S.BrannonY.BakerJ. (2007). Myths and facts about sex offenders: Implications for practice and public policy. Sex Offender Treatment, 2(1), 1-17.
12.
FreemanN.SandlerJ. (2010). The Adam Walsh act: A false sense of security or an effective public policy initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 31-49.
13.
HansonR. K.BussiereM. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
14.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
15.
HarrisA. J.Lobanov-RostovskyC.LevensonJ. S. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 503-519.
16.
HarrisA. J. R.HansonR. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. (Report No. 2004-03). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
17.
KernsmithP. D.ComartinE.CraunS. W.KernsmithR. M. (2009). The relationship between sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 181-193.
18.
LetourneauE.LevensonJ. S.BandyopadhyayD.SinhaD.ArmstrongK. (2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 435-458.
19.
LevensonJ. S. (2009). Sex offense recidivism, risk assessment, and the Adam Walsh Act. Sex Offender Law Report, 10(1), 1-6.
20.
LevensonJ. S.BrannonY.FortneyT.BakerJ. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1-25.
21.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.
22.
LevensonJ. S.D’AmoraD. A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The Emperor’s New Clothes?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168-199.
23.
LevensonJ. S.D’AmoraD. A.HernA. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602.
24.
LevensonJ. S.HarrisA. (2011). 100,000 sex offenders missing . . . or are they? Deconstruction of an urban legend. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403411415398
25.
LevensonJ. S.LetourneauE.ArmstrongK.ZgobaK. (2010). Failure to register as a sex offender: Is it associated with recidivism?Justice Quarterly, 27, 305-331.
26.
LiebR.NunlistC. (2008). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens: A ten-year follow-up. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
27.
MearsD. P.ManciniC.GertzM.BrattonJ. (2008). Sex crimes, children, and pornography: Public views and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 532-650.
28.
MercadoC. C.AlvarezS.LevensonJ. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188-205.
Red BirdB. (2009). Assessing housing availability under Ohio’s sex offender residency restrictions. Columbus: Ohio State University.
31.
SampleL. L.StrevelerA. J. (2003). Latent consequences of community notification laws. In DeckerS. H.AlairdL. F.KatzC. M. (Eds.), Controversies in criminal justice (pp. 353-362). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
32.
SandlerJ. C.FreemanN. J.SociaK. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14, 284-302.
33.
ScibelliP.LevyL. (2011). Sex offender registration and homelessness: Should homeless registrants be held to a different standard?Sex Offender Law Report, 12, 51-53.
34.
StoneD. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
35.
TewksburyR. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30-34.
36.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-82.
37.
TewksburyR.LeesM. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334.
38.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. (2011). Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form Submitted for Ernie Allen. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, submitted February15, 2011. Retrieved on June 7, 2012 from http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/AllenTruth.pdf
39.
VasquezB. E.MaddanS.WalkerJ. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 175-192.
40.
ZandbergenP.HartT. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1-24.
41.
ZevitzR. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193-208.
42.
ZevitzR. G.FarkasM. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
43.
ZgobaK.LevensonJ. S.McKeeT. (2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 91-110.
