This study explores whether a relationship exists between sale prices and the presence of registered sex offenders in Jefferson County, Kentucky after accounting for observed and unobserved neighbourhood characteristics in accompaniment with property characteristics. The sale prices of single-family properties sold in 2015 were estimated as a function of the characteristics of the property, the housing and population characteristics of the neighbourhood, block group fixed effects and two separate measures of sex offender presence: a) the distance of the nearest registered sex offender to sold single-family properties; and b) the density of registered sex offenders within a half mile distance to sold single-family properties. Registered sex offender distance and density are associated with sale price when controlling for property characteristics and observed neighbourhood characteristics of the property, but these relationships cease to exist when unobserved neighbourhood characteristics are accounted for in the model.
AnackerKB (2009) Big flipping schemes in small cities? The case of Mansfield, Ohio. Housing and Society36(1): 5–28.
2.
AnselinL (2005) Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDa: A Workbook. Urbana, IL: Luc Anselin.
3.
AnselinLCohenJCookD, et al. (2000) Spatial analysis of crime. In: DuffeeDMcDowallDMazerolleL, et al. (eds) Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, pp. 213–262
4.
ArcherWRLingDCSmithBC (2010) Ownership duration in the residential housing market: The influence of structure, tenure, and household and neighborhood factors. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics40(1): 41–61.
5.
BeckVSTravisLFIII (2006) Sex offender notification: An exploratory assessment of state variation in notification processes. Journal of Criminal Justice34(1): 51–55.
6.
BianXBrastowRWallerB, et al. (2013) Neighborhood tipping and sorting dynamics in real estate: Evidence from the Virginia sex offender registry. Social Science Research Network. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338223 (accessed 4 April 2018).
7.
BichlerGBalchakS (2007) Address matching bias: Ignorance is not bliss. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management30(9): 32–60.
8.
BurnellJD (1988) Crime and racial composition of contiguous communities as negative externalities: Prejudiced households’ evaluation of crime rate and segregation nearby reduces housing values and tax revenues. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology47(2): 177–193.
9.
CaudillSBAffusoEYangM (2014) Registered sex offenders and house prices: An hedonic analysis. Urban Studies52(13): 1–16.
CraunSW (2010) Evaluating awareness of registered sex offenders in the neighborhood. Crime & Delinquency56(3): 414–435.
13.
GordonKE (2013) The registered sex offender population as a marker of social disorganization. Journal of Criminal Justice52(5): 527–542.
14.
HughesLABurchfieldKB (2008) Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice?Justice Quarterly25(4): 647–673.
15.
HughesLAKadleckC (2008) Sex offender community notification and community stratification. Justice Quarterly25(3): 469–495.
16.
Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program of 1994, 42 U.S. CBLA. § 14071 (2016). KRS § 17.545.
17.
LarsenJELowreyKJColemanJW (2003) The effect of proximity to a registered sex offender’s residence on a single-family house selling price. The Appraisal Journal71(3): 253–265.
LevensonJSBrannonYNFortneyT, et al. (2007) Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy7(1): 137–161.
20.
LindenLRockoffJE (2008) Estimates of the impact of crime risk on property values from Megan’s Laws. American Economic Review98(3): 1103–1127.
21.
Megan’s Law of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–145, 110 Stat. 1345 (2016).
22.
MeloyMLMillerSLCurtisKM (2008) Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice33(2): 209–222.
23.
MustaineEETewksburyR (2011) Residential relegation of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice36(1): 44–57.
24.
MustaineEETewksburyRStengelKM (2006) Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence?Deviant Behavior27(3): 329–350.
25.
PopeJC (2008) Fear of crime and housing prices: Household reactions to sex offender registries. Journal of Urban Economics64(3): 601–614.
26.
SampleLLKadleckC (2008) Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review19(1): 40–62.
27.
SociaKM (2012) Residence restrictions and the association with registered sex offender clustering. Criminal Justice Policy Review24(4): 441–472.
28.
SociaKM (2016) Examining the concentration of registered sex offenders in upstate New York census tracts. Crime & Delinquency62(6): 748–776.
WentlandSWallerBBrastowR (2014) Estimating the effect of crime risk on property values and time on market: Evidence from Megan’s Law in Virginia. Real Estate Economics42(1): 223–251.
32.
YehS (2015) Revealing the rapist next door: Property impacts of a sex offender registry. International Review of Law and Economics44: 42–60.
