Variation in Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification (SORCN) policies may suggest differences in public fears of sexual crimes as well as differences in state-level policy-making. This study explored the standardization of SORCN policies across a sample of five midwestern states. A thematic content analysis showed that states varied in how registrants were defined, what information was selected for public notification, and how sex offender laws are maintained. A typology of revisions emerged, which may inform our understanding about policy-making. Ultimately, existing research provides limited explanations for these results, serving as an impetus for future research on context and process of criminal justice policy change.
AdamsD. B. (1999, August). Summary of sex offender registry dissemination procedures (NCJ 177620). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2.
AdamsD. B. (2002). Summary of state sex offender registries (NCJ 192265). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3.
AndersonA. L.SampleL. L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.
4.
BaldauV. B. (1999). Summary of state sex offender registries: Automation and operation, 1998 (NCJ 177621). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BestJ. (2008). Social problems. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
7.
Bonnar-KiddK. K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 412-419.
8.
BrewsterM. P.DeLongP. A.MoloneyJ. T. (2012). Sex offender registries: A content analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403412459331.
9.
BrooksC.ManzaJ. (2007). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
BrooksS. M. (2007). When does diffusion matter? Explaining the spread of structural pension reforms across nations. The Journal of Politics, 69, 701-715.
11.
ChamberlainR.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2005). “Lien on me”: State policy innovation in response to paper terrorism. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 449-460.
12.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
CohenM.JeglicE. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we know?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 369-383.
14.
CohenS. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
16.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
DaleyD. M.GarandJ. C. (2005). Horizontal diffusion, vertical diffusion, and internal pressure in state environmental policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Research, 33, 615-644.
20.
de LeonP. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 19-32.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
GibbsG. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In FlickU. (Series ed.), The SAGE qualitative research kit (pp. 49-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
GidyczC. A.OrchowskiL. M.KingC. R.RichC. L. (2008). Sexual victimization and health-risk behaviors: A prospective analysis of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 744-763.
24.
GrayV. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
25.
GrossbackL. J.Nicholson-CrottyS.PetersonD. A. M. (2004). Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32, 521-545.
26.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
27.
HecloH. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
JenkinsP. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
JennessV.BroadK. (1997). Hate crimes: New social movements and the politics of violence. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
30.
JordanaJ.Levi-FaurD. (2005). The diffusion of regulatory capitalism in Latin America: Sectoral and national channels in the making of a new order. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 102-124.
31.
KarchA. (2006). National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 34, 403-426.
32.
KarchA. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
33.
KarstedtS. (2002). Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 299-317.
34.
KernsmithP. D.CraunS. W.FosterJ. (2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290-301.
35.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
36.
LasswellH. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
37.
LetourneauE. J.BandyopadhyayD.SinhaD.ArmstrongK. S. (2009). The influence of sex offender registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 136-153.
38.
LetourneauE. J.LevensonJ. S.BandyopadhyayD.SinhaD.ArmstrongK. S. (2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 435-458.
39.
LevensonJ. S.BrannonY.FortneyT.BakerJ. (2007). Public perceptions and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 1-25.
40.
LindblomC. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
41.
LindblomC. E. (1979). Still muddling: Not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-526.
42.
LoganW. A. (2008). Sex offender registration and community notification: Past, present, and future. New England Journal on Criminology & Civil Confinement, 34, 3-16.
43.
LoomanJ.AbracenJ. (2010). Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 791-807.
44.
LussierP.Deslauriers-VarinN.RâtelT. (2010). A descriptive profile of high-risk sex offenders under intensive supervision in the province of British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 71-91.
45.
ManciniC.BarnesJ. C.MearsD. P. (2011). It varies from state to state: An examination of sex crime laws nationally. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403411424079
46.
MeseguerC. (2004). What role for learning? The diffusion of privatisation of OECD and Latin America countries. Journal of Public Policy, 24, 299-325.
47.
NelsonB. J. (1984). Making an issue of child abuse: Political agenda setting for social problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
PetrunikM. G. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and social policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 483-511.
49.
PhillipsD. M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
50.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
RogersE. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York, NY: Free Press.
52.
SampleL. L. (2001). The social construction of the sex offender (Doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, St. Louis.
53.
SampleL. L.BrayT. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 83-102.
54.
SampleL. L.EvansM. K. (2009). Sex offender registration and community notification. In WrightR. G. (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (pp. 211-242). New York, NY: Springer.
55.
SampleL. L.EvansM. K.AndersonA. L. (2011). Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 27-49.
56.
SampleL. L.KadleckC. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.
57.
SarinS.Nolen-HoeksemaS. (2010). The dangers of dwelling: An examination of the relationship between rumination and consumptive coping in survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 71-85.
58.
ScarboroughB. K.Like-HaislipT. Z.NovakK. J.LucasW. L.AlaridL. F. (2010). Assessing the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood context, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 819-826.
59.
ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 840-857.
60.
SmithK. B.LarimerC. W. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
61.
TerryK. J.AckermanA. R. (2009). A brief history of major sex offender laws. In WrightR. G. (Ed.), Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions (pp. 65-98). New York, NY: Springer.
62.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registries. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-82.
63.
TewksburyR.JenningsW. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 570-582.
64.
VásquezB. E.MaddanS.WalkerJ. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Journal of Crime & Delinquency, 54, 175-192.
65.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
66.
WeisburdD.MastrofskiS. D.McNallyA. M.GreenspanR.WillisJ. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: COMPSTAT and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 421-456.
67.
WejnertB. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.
68.
WhiteM. D.ReadyJ. (2009). Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER: Identifying predictors of suspect death reported in the media. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 865-892.
69.
WildavskyA. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
70.
WilliamsJ. (2003). Criminal justice policy innovation in the states. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 401-422.
71.
WilliamsM. R. (2002). Civil asset forfeiture: Where does the money go?Criminal Justice Review, 27, 321-329.
72.
WilsonD. R. (2010). Health consequences of childhood sexual abuse. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 46, 56-64.
73.
ZahariadisN. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 65-92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
