Identifying the Sources of Community Corrections Professionals’ Attitudes About Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Abstract

Over the past two decades, a number of different types of policies have been developed to govern sex offenders. Sex offender residence restriction policies have proliferated as part of this growth in sex offender policies. Several studies have focused on how different types of respondents perceive these policies. These studies show that individuals have mixed perceptions about the policies. Less attention has been given to the factors that influence professionals’ attitudes about sex offender residence restriction. In this study, 716 community corrections professionals were surveyed in an effort to identify how they framed their perceptions about residence restriction. Specific attention was given to the impact of demographic factors, education, and perceptions of the fairness and efficacy of sex offender policies. Results show that support for the policies is tied to gender, education, and perceptions of fairness and effectiveness. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

sex offenders residency restrictions

Policies governing sex offenders have proliferated over the past two decades (Cohen & Jeglic, 2007; Levenson & D’Amora, 2007; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Neito & Jung, 2006; Vasquez, Madden, & Walker, 2008). These policies include registration laws, notification laws, electronic monitoring policies, and sex offender residence restriction policies. Three bodies of research have addressed these sex offender policies. First, some studies have evaluated the need/effectiveness of these policies by considering how these policies address the actual dynamics of sex offending (Levenson, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2007; Socia & Stamatel, 2010; Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010). Second, some studies have considered the unintended consequences of these policies for sex offenders, communities, victims, and family members of sex offenders (Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011; Socia, 2011; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009; Wright, 2009). Third, researchers have examined the degree to which different individuals—including members of the public (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Levenson, 2003), professionals working with sex offenders (Levenson, Fortney, & Baker, 2010; Payne & DeMichele, 2011; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012), and policy makers (Sample & Kadleck, 2008)—view and respond to the policies.

A few general findings have arisen consistently from these studies. Based on the actual dynamics of sex offending, researchers have called into question the need for many of the policies (Payne & DeMichele, 2011; Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008; Vasquez et al., 2008; Zgoba, Veysey, & Dalessandro, 2010). Also, researchers have uncovered a litany of unintended consequences that various stakeholders have confronted as a result of the development and implementation of the policies (Tewksbury, 2005; Zevitz, 2004, 2006; Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000; Zgoba, 2011; Zgoba et al., 2010; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee, 2009). As well, researchers have found only mixed support for the policies in studies of citizen samples and professional samples (Datz, 2009; Levenson et al., 2010; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012).

It is not enough to suggest that individuals support or oppose policies; instead, it is important to understand why support for, or opposition to, sex offender policies exist. Missing from past research, however, are studies empirically assessing the factors that produce support for sex offender policies among those who are central to the implementation of the policies, namely, community corrections professionals. To fill this void in the literature, in this study, attention is given to those factors that appear to promote (or inhibit) support for sex offender residence restriction among a national sample of community corrections professionals. Given that this group plays a critical role in the effective supervision of sex offenders residing in the community, determining why community corrections officials view sex offender residence restriction policies positively or negatively will help to identify whether the policies can be effectively integrated into supervision strategies used on sex offenders.

Review of Literature

Sex Offender Policies

Social scientists have long recognized that sex offenders are among the most stigmatized groups of offenders. This stigmatization has resulted in the development of different types of policies that, on the surface, appear to be designed to protect members of the public from sexual victimization. Closer scrutiny of the policies, however, shows that the policies may do very little to safeguard victims from sex assaults (Levenson, Zgoba, et al., 2007; Payne & DeMichele, 2011). Indeed, it is common to hear criminologists suggest that sex offender policies are irrationally formed in an effort to respond to imagined and unrealistic perceptions of sex offenders (Payne & DeMichele, 2011). Those policies that have received the most attention—both from policy makers who developed them and criminologists who have studied them—include notification policies, sex offender registries, and residence restriction policies.

Sex offender registration policies require sex offenders to register with law enforcement when they are released from jail or prison (or while on probation). In theory, these policies exist to facilitate criminal justice officials’ opportunities to monitor sex offenders living in the community. Policies often stipulate that community corrections officials routinely check in on offenders to ensure that they remain crime-free and abide by imposed stipulations. Research shows many community corrections professionals do not actually have a great deal of contact with sex offenders under their supervision (Tewksbury, 2006). Some research shows that these policies have no effect on sex offender recidivism (Sandler et al., 2008; Zgoba, 2011).

Community notification policies stipulate that law enforcement can actively or passively release information about sex offenders to the community. In many cases, such information is released through the use of sex offender registries. Sex offender registries are a relatively modern phenomenon, particularly with the development of the Internet. Virtually all states now provide information (conviction type, address, date of offense) about sex offenders to the public. While the registries are seen as providing an extra level of security for members of the public, they have been criticized for being unresponsive to the actual dynamics of sex offending and for doing more harm than good (Tewksbury, 2005). Research also shows that many individuals who live near sex offenders are not aware of the fact that they live near a sex offender (Craun, 2010).

Residence restriction policies stipulate that sex offenders are unable to reside in certain areas near locations where a large number of children are likely to be present (day cares, playgrounds, schools, etc.). Research on residence restriction has paled in comparison with the widespread use of such policies (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009). Of those few studies that have been done on residence restriction policies, common findings are that the policies (a) make it nearly impossible for offenders to find a place to live (Zandbergen & Hart, 2009), (b) contribute to social disorganization (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008), and (c) are not responsive to the actual dynamics of sex offending (Levenson, 2007).

As noted above, researchers have examined the need for these policies governing sex offenders, the consequences of the policies, and how different groups perceive different types of sex offender policies. Building on this past research, it is important to consider why individuals hold specific types of opinions about sex offender policies. To provide a framework for understanding the source of attitudes about sex offender policies, it is necessary to integrate general studies about punishment attitudes with past research on attitudes about sex offender policies. In doing so, four types of factors can be identified as potentially contributing to support for sex offender residence restriction: demographic factors, education, perceptions of the fairness of sex offender policies, and perceptions of effectiveness of sex offender policies.

Demographic Factors and Support for Punitive Policies

Researchers have long recognized how demographic factors contribute to punishment attitudes (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 2002; Bohm & Vogel, 2004; Boots, Crochan, & Heide, 2003; Cullen, Clark, Cullen, & Mathers, 1985; Rossi & Berk, 1997). While somewhat mixed, research shows that older individuals, Whites, conservatives, and males tend to hold more punitive attitudes than younger individuals, Blacks, liberals, and females (Payne, Gainey, Triplett, & Danner, 2004). The underlying assumption is that individuals’ life experiences, based on their demographic characteristics, contribute to attitudes about punishment. For example, the experience of oppression and prejudicial attitudes has been seen at contributing to more lenient punishment attitudes among Blacks (Payne et al., 2004)

If demographic characteristics contribute to general punishment attitudes, it is plausible to suggest that the same characteristics would potentially influence attitudes about sex offender policies. Consider, for instance, that parents of school age children have been found to be more likely to look at sex offender registries (Kernsmith, Comartin, Craun, & Kernsmith, 2009). Presumably, having children would make parents more supportive of policies that would allow them to review these registries. It remains to be seen whether demographic characteristics, including parental status, contribute to support for other policies such as resident restriction policies.

Education and Support for Punitive Policies

Researchers have also considered how education impacts attitudes about punishment. One study, for example, found that educating about alternative-based sanctions produced support for the sanctions (Gainey & Payne, 2003). Another study found that learning about the death penalty has the potential to change attitudes about the death penalty (Cochran & Chamlin, 2005). Others, however, have suggested that the impact of education on attitudes about punishment may dissipate over time (Bohm & Vogel, 2004).

If education impacts attitudes about punishment, one would expect that education would also impact attitudes about sex offender policies. Some research has supported this assertion. For example, research by Church, Wakeman, Miller, Clements, and Sun (2008) found that knowledge about sex offenders was tied to “more favorable attitudes” about sex offenders. Similarly, another researcher found that the better training individuals had about sex offenders, the more positive attitudes they would have about sex offenders (Nelson et al., 2002). Two other studies found that the less professionals knew about notification laws, the more they supported the laws (Redlich, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012). As Levenson and colleagues (2010) suggested, the less individuals know about topics such as sex offenders, the more they resort to stereotypical images to frame their perceptions about issues. From these studies, one could assume that more education about sex offenders would result in less support for restrictive policies toward sex offenders. Such a question, however, has not been addressed in past studies.

Perceptions of Fairness and Support for Policies

Researchers have also found that punitive attitudes are tied to punishment justifications (Payne et al., 2004). For example, those who are more punitive are more supportive of incapacitation ideals, while those who are more rehabilitative are more supportive of specific deterrence ideals. The basic premise is that attitudes about punishment are tied to perceptions of fairness—if individuals do not perceive laws are fair, they will have less favorable attitudes about the laws.

Questions of fairness are particularly salient when considering support for sex offender policies. Many studies have identified different aspects of sex offender laws that potentially make the laws unfair for offenders, family members, and the community. In general, aggressive sex offender policies such as notification and residence restriction laws have been criticized for hampering reintegration efforts (Levenson, 2007; Tewksbury, 2006). A study by Tewksbury (2006) found that aggressive policies for sex offenders led to “difficulties with housing, ostracization by other residents, harassment . . . and employment difficulties” (p. 2). A survey of 183 sex offenders found that approximately one third of the offenders “had experienced dire events” because of community notification laws (Levenson & Cotter, 2005, p. 2005).

Also related to the fairness of sex offender policies, researchers have examined how the policies impact family members and loved ones of sex offenders. Surveys of 584 individuals who participated in online advocacy and support groups for registered sex offenders found that these individuals experienced stress, shame, social isolation, and other collateral consequences as a result of sex offender policies (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009). Elsewhere, the same authors found that family members experienced ridicule, teasing, and embarrassment as a result of the policies to such a degree that offenders’ efforts to reintegrate were hindered (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). Another study found that family members of sex offenders experienced the following as a result of sex offender policies: emotional/psychological problems, housing/employment problems, economic hardship, stigma, and privacy invasion (Farkas & Miller, 2007).

It seems safe to suggest that individuals who identify these consequences as being unfair would be less supportive of restrictive sex offender policies. While researchers have not identified whether perceptions of fairness of policies are tied to support of residence restriction, researchers have identified a number of concerns about the policies that call their fairness into question. For example, a study of 109 sex offenders found that nearly three fourths of the offenders “suffered emotionally due to residence restrictions” (Levenson, 2003, p. 9). Another study found that an aggressive sex offender restriction policy confined the housing options of sex offenders in Orange County, Florida, to 5% of the available parcels (Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Other researchers have also found that residence restriction greatly limited housing availability for sex offenders (Grubesic, 2010; Grubesic & Mack, 2010; Grubesic, Murray, & Mack, 2008; Levenson, 2003; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2008; Socia, 2011; Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010; Zgoba et al., 2009). This limited housing availability for sex offenders has been linked to homelessness, financial hardship, housing instability, unemployment, and social disorganization (Levenson, 2003; Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengal, 2006; Socia, 2011; Suresh et al., 2010; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008). One would expect that those who see those consequences as unfair would be less likely to support residence restriction.

Perceptions of Effectiveness and Support for Punitive Policies

Just as perceptions of fairness would be expected to increase support for policies, perceptions of effectiveness would as well. In terms of the effectiveness of residence restriction, various authors have framed the discussion by considering the justified need, and the actual need, for the policies in the first place (Grubesic et al., 2008; Kernsmith et al., 2009). Among policy makers, such laws are attributed to the perceived likelihood of sex offenders reoffending (Grubesic et al., 2008).

Some authors have discussed the justified need for these policies within the context of routine activities theory (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006; Walker, Golden, & Van Houten, 2001; Zandbergen et al., 2010). The idea is that by restricting where offenders live, the policies provide a form of guardianship over motivated offenders who would have less access to vulnerable targets.

While routine activities theory may be useful in understanding why the policies were created by policy makers, a review of studies on sex offending in general and residence restriction in particular fails to lend a great deal of support for residence restriction. One group of researchers reviewed the recidivism patterns of every reincarcerated sex offender released from prisons and jails in Minnesota over a 12-year time frame and found that “not one of the 224 sex offenders would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions” (Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008, p. 484). Another study of a sample of sex offenders in Kentucky found that just one half of sex offenders subjected to residence restrictions actually abided by the restrictions in place (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006). Still another recent study of 330 sex offenders from Florida found that living near a school or day care was not related to reoffending (Zandbergen et al., 2010). In effect, the vast majority of research fails to demonstrate support for the need for residence restriction.

Tying education about sex offenders and recognition about the fairness and effectiveness of sex offender policies together, a growing body of research has called into question the need for many of these policies (Levenson, Zgoba, et al., 2007; Payne & DeMichele, 2011). Some have argued that the policies are tied to misconceptions that the public and policy makers have about sex offenders and the dynamics of sex offending (Sample & Kadleck, 2008). While these misconceptions have been shown to exist, whether misconceptions actually contribute to support for the policies is not entirely clear. One way to identify whether misconceptions contribute to the policies is to empirically assess those factors that lead community corrections professionals to support residence restriction.

Identifying why community corrections professionals support residence restriction is an important avenue of research for four reasons. First, understanding the source of punishment attitudes generates understanding about cultures and occupational subcultures. If community corrections professionals support residence restriction for retributive reasons, this would tell us one thing about this occupational group. On the other hand, if their support (or lack of support) is tied to other factors, a different type of understanding would be forthcoming.

Second, it is important to determine whether a disconnect exists between why policies are developed by policy makers and why policies are supported (or not supported) by those called upon to implement the policies. Ineffective application of laws may result in reductions in public safety. In effect, a disconnect between the reasons policies are created and the reasons sex offender policies are supported by practitioners might serve to breed crime rather than prevent it (see Tewksbury & Humkey, 2010).

Third, and somewhat related, it is important to determine whether support for the residence restriction is based on views (including inaccurate ones) about sex offenders. Beyond the ethical issues that arise when professionals support policies based on misguided information (see Vess, 2009), a number of other consequences follow when policies are supported on faulty grounds. Describing the importance of understanding the source of attitudes about sex offenders, Church and colleagues (2008) wrote, “If attitudes are based, at least in part, on myths or misinformation . . . the consequences of such actions can be damaging at individual, community, and societal levels” (p. 251). Put another way, if community corrections professionals support residence restriction for the “wrong” reason, consequences can be devastating for community members, professionals, and society in general.

Finally, community corrections professionals play a central role in the supervision of sex offenders. Indeed, this occupational group is being increasingly called upon to protect the public against sex offenders. They are also being called upon to enforce policies that are not directly tied to the dynamics of sex offending. Because previous research (Datz, 2009) has found that residence restrictions are perceived by community corrections professionals as the most significant impediment to reintegration, it is instructive to examine the factors related to community corrections professionals supporting such policies. Assessing those factors that contribute to support for residence restriction will shed light on what is needed to help community corrections professionals most effectively supervise sex offenders.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

To determine how community corrections professionals perceived sex offender residence restriction laws, we used data gathered as part of a larger study of community corrections professionals. In particular, the authors surveyed members of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA).

The newsletter recruitment solicitation and the emails included links to a 43-item survey that assessed different issues related to sex offenders. In all, 716 community corrections professionals from 45 different states and the District of Columbia completed the survey.¹ Table 1 describes the characteristics of the sample. In general, approximately half were male and half were female. Nearly 85% were White and most held a four-year degree (95%). About three fourths were married and roughly the same percentage had children. These community corrections professionals had an average of 1.6 children, with the mean and mode being 2 children. Regarding political views, nearly 40% identified themselves as somewhat to very conservative, about one third indicated they were moderate/neutral in their political orientation, and 17.1% identified themselves as somewhat to very liberal.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic Characteristics.

Variable	Value
Sex
Male	49.9%
Age (M)	46
Race
White	84.4%
Minority	16.6%
Married
Married/partnered	75.3%
Not married	24.7%
Percentage have children	73.3%
Children (M)	1.6
Median, mode	2.0
Education
Less than a 4-year degree	5.3%
BA/BS degree or higher	94.6%
Length of time working in community corrections in years (M)	15.7
Self-identified political orientation (M) (1 = very liberal, 7 = very conservative)	4.2

Variables Used in the Analysis

Dependent variable

The dependent variable is support for residence restrictions. This measure was assessed through an item on the survey that asked respondents to indicate their degree of support for the following statement: “I would support sex offender housing restriction laws even if there is no scientific evidence that they are effective in preventing victimization.” Response options for this item were strongly agree (4), somewhat agree (3), somewhat disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). Thus, higher values on the dependent variables indicate stronger support for the use of residence restrictions for sex offenders. Nearly 40% of the sample either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Independent variables

We use 12 independent variables in the analysis measuring demographic characteristics (sex, age, race, marital status, number of children, education, years working in community corrections, and political orientation) and perceptions of various sex offender policies that are not related to residence restrictions (perceptions of fairness of community notification laws, views on specific and general deterrence regarding publicly available sex offender registries, and views on recidivism of sex offenders compared with offenders in general).

Specifically, for demographic characteristics, we include respondents’ sex (0 = female; 1 = male), age (actual age in years as self-reported), race (0 = White; 1 = other), marital status (0 = not married [single, divorced, widowed]; 1 = married), number of children (actual number as self-reported), education (0 = less than a BA/BS degree; 1 = BA/BS degree and higher), years working in community corrections (years worked as self-reported), and political orientation (7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = very liberal to 7 = very conservative). Again, Table 1 provides the distribution of the sample across these demographic characteristics.

Turning to the measures of perceptions of community corrections professionals, the perception of fairness variable was assessed as the respondents’ level of support or agreement with the following statement: “I believe the community notification laws in my community are fair.” Views on deterrence encompassed both specific and general deterrence ideologies: “Sex offenders are deterred from offending because of being listed on a publicly available sex offender registry” and “General members of the community are deterred from sex offending because they do not want the humiliation of being listed on a publicly available sex offender registry.” These above variables all had answers options that were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scales indicating views from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Finally, we include a measure assessing the respondents’ views on potential for recidivism of sex offenders compared with offenders in general. This independent variable was assessed as the respondents’ answers to the following question: “How likely is a sex offender to reoffend in comparison with the general criminal population?” Here the answer options included, “much more likely, somewhat more likely, sex offenders and offenders in the general criminal population have the same recidivism rates, somewhat less likely, and much less likely.” Values run from 5 to 1, so that respondents who indicated sex offenders were much more likely to reoffend compared with the general criminal population had higher values on this variable.

Data Analytic Strategy

We utilize ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to analyze the sources of the community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offender residence restrictions. We recognize that there is no agreement among scholars as to when discrete variables become continuous, if ever. However, among those scholars who agree that at some point discrete variables can be treated as continuous in regression analyses (thus permitting the use of OLS regression instead of cumulative ordinal logistic regression [COLR]), the rule of thumb limit seems to be with variables with five or more categories. Recall the dependent variable for this analysis is the level of support community corrections professionals have for residence restrictions—even if there is no scientific evidence that they are effective at preventing victimization. This variable is an ordinal one, with four categories. As such, we initially ran the regression model using COLR techniques, then ran the model using OLS regression techniques to assess whether there were any significant differences in the outcomes. There were no differences in significance of variables or directions of significance. Furthermore, regarding the ordinal independent variables, there were no significant differences among their categories. Therefore, it appears in this case that this dependent variable can be treated as continuous for this analysis, because the outcomes when treating it as discrete and as continuous are identical. Furthermore, because the interpretation of COLR can be awkward and complicated, we elect to present the OLS regression results here for clarity and ease of reading purposes. We test for multicollinearity issues using variable tolerances and find there are no problems.² Finally, the analysis encompasses the 511 respondents who provided answers to all of the survey questions of interest.

Findings

Table 2 visually presents the results of the OLS regression analysis. Recall the independent variables in this model are sex, age, race, marital status, number of children, education, years of experience in community corrections, political orientation, attitudes about the fairness of community notification, the deterrent value of the sex offender registry for sex offenders specifically and for general community members, and views about the relative recidivism rate of sex offenders compared with the general criminal population. Overall, the model provides a moderately good explanation for the sources of community corrections professionals’ views on residence restrictions. In particular, 8 of the 12 variables considered are individually significant predictors of respondents’ levels of support for residence restrictions even when there is no scientific evidence that they are effective in preventing victimization.

Table 2.

OLS Regression Results of Demographics and Perceptions on Community Corrections Professionals’ Degree of Support for Residence Restrictions for Registered Sex Offenders.

Independent variables	B	SE	β	Tolerance
Sex (male)	−.20*	.08	−.10	.86
Age (older)	.01	.01	.03	.51
Race (minority)	−.15	.11	−.06	.97
Marital status (married)	−.09	.10	−.04	.82
Number of children (more children)	.10*	.06	.12	.75
Education (BA/BS degree or higher)	−.38*	.16	−.10	.95
Years working in community corrections (more years)	−.02*	.01	−.14	.53
Political orientation (more conservative)	.12*	.03	.15	.92
Fairness of community notification (stronger belief it is more fair)	.35*	.05	.26	.92
Efficacy of community notification (stronger belief it is more effective)	−.26*	.06	−.12	.87
Sex offenders are deterred from offending (stronger agreement)	.16*	.04	.15	.93
General members of the community are deterred from sex offending (stronger agreement)	.12*	.05	.10	.89
Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate than offenders in the general criminal population (stronger belief)	−.01	.01	−.01	.98
Constant	.67	.37

Note: *α ≤ .05 (using two-tailed tests of significance); F = 12.16 (p < .01); df = 13; N = 511; standard error of the estimation (SEE) = .87; adjusted R² = .20.

To elaborate, as shown in Table 2, the specified model explains approximately one fourth of the variance in respondents’ levels of support for residence restrictions (adjusted R² = .23). In addition, the model, taken as a whole, provides a significant fit to the data (F = 12.16; p < .01). Finally, 9 out of the 12 variables that are individually significant predictors of the level of support community corrections professionals have about residence restrictions are sex, number of children, level of education, years of experience in community corrections, political orientation, views on the fairness and efficacy of community notification, and perceptions of the recidivism rate of sex offenders compared with offenders in general.

Furthermore, five demographic variables are significant predictors of community corrections professionals’ views on residence restriction laws. In particular, men are .20 less supportive than women of sex offender residence restrictions. Technically, this means that male community corrections professionals tend to have .20 lower scores than female community corrections professionals on the 4-point Likert-type scale that assesses views supporting residence restrictions. Statistically, this is a small difference, as .20 is only one fifth of 1 point on the 4-point scale. Nonetheless, this difference is statistically significant as well as being substantively significant. Also, with every increase in the number of children community corrections professionals have, there are .10 corresponding increases in their support for sex offender residence restrictions. Education is also influential as those without college degrees have .38 stronger support for residence restriction. Furthermore, with every increase in the number of years individuals have been working in community corrections, there are .12 corresponding decreases in their support for residence restrictions. Finally, the more liberal community corrections professionals self-identify as, the less supportive they are of residence restrictions for sex offenders (B = .12). In sum, female community corrections professionals with more children, educational levels less than college degrees, shorter tenure as community corrections professionals, and more conservative political views were correspondingly more supportive of residence restrictions for sex offenders.

Moving on to the perceptions measures, four views about sex offenders and community notification are significantly related to community corrections professionals’ views on residence restrictions. Specifically, every unit increase in the level of agreement community corrections professionals have about the fairness of community notification laws are associated with .35 corresponding increases in their levels of support for residence restrictions. However, with each increase in the respondents’ strength of beliefs that community notification laws are effective, there is a .26 decrease in their support for residence restrictions. Moreover, as community corrections professionals’ strength of agreement that sex offenders are deterred from offending because of being listed on a publicly available sex offender registry increases, their levels of support for the use of residence restrictions increase by .16. Finally, those community corrections professionals who believe increasingly more strongly that general members of the community are deterred from sex offending because they do not want the humiliation of being listed on a publicly available sex offender registry have .12 correspondingly higher levels of support for residence restrictions. In short, the more strongly officers viewed community notification as fair, and the more strongly they felt that publicly available sex offender registries deterred both sex offenders and members of the community, the more supportive they were of residence restrictions for sex offenders.

Discussion

When examining the influences on community corrections professionals’ expressed level of support for residence restriction, we find that not only are we able to explain a significant proportion of the variation in such persons’ degree of support, this is possible by referencing both static (demographics) and potentially dynamic factors (perceptions about fairness, effectiveness, and misconceptions). We found that women and those with a greater number of children are more supportive of residence restrictions fits with at least some previous research (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012). It is likely that the more children one has, the more concerned one is with sexual predators living near child congregation locations. Interestingly, prior research has shown conflicting results regarding the impact of parental status on support for sex offender polices. For example, a study of sexual abuse professionals found that gender and parental status did not impact attitudes about notification policies (Levenson et al., 2010). Another recent study found that number of children was influential on parole board members’ views of the efficacy of community notification laws to reduce sexual offenses (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012).

The discrepancy between these prior studies is potentially attributed to two differences between the studies. First, Levenson and colleagues (2010) considered parental status while Tewksbury and Mustaine (2012) and the present study considered the number of children. It could be that being a parent in and of itself (e.g., parental status) does not impact attitudes; rather, being a parent of more children could be different than simply being a parent. Second, these same authors included an assortment of sexual abuse professionals while Tewksbury and Mustaine (2012) and the present study were limited to specific types of professionals (community corrections professionals and parole professionals), which represent criminal justice professionals. In fact, Levenson et al. (2010) found that criminal justice professionals were more supportive of notification policies than mental health professionals were. It is plausible that our gender and parental status differences are attributed to the fact that we used a sample of criminal justice professionals (as did Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012), whereas Levenson et al. used a broader sample of sexual abuse professionals.

We also found that those who were more conservative in their orientation were more supportive of restriction policies. Levenson et al. (2010) also found that conservative ideology was tied to support for notification policies (although Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012, found political ideology not related to the views of parole board members). In addition, we found that those with a fewer years of experience in community corrections were more supportive of residence restriction. It is plausible that number of years in corrections reflects awareness about sex offenders. Indeed, earlier research shows that the more professionals know about sex offenders, the less they perceive the offenders in pejorative ways (Church et al., 2008; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012).

In a similar way, we found that education was tied to support for residence restriction. In particular, those who had more education offered less support for the policies. We also found that support for residence restriction was tied to perceptions of fairness and effectiveness of notification laws. In short, the more community corrections professionals viewed community notification as fair, the more they supported residence restriction. The more they believed notification was effective, the less they supported residence restrictions. On the surface, these two findings may seem to contradict one another. A closer examination of the findings, however, helps to make sense of the differences. Officials who viewed notification policies as fair offered more support for restriction policies, whereas those who viewed notification as less fair offered less support for the policies. This suggests that if one policy is seen as unfair, support for related policies decreases. Alternatively, the more they perceived notification policies as being effective, the less they supported (the addition of) residence restriction. This relationship potentially highlights a discrepancy between notification and residence restriction policies. In effect, some community corrections officials may think that “one sex offender policy” is enough and that adding additional policies—like residence restriction policies—is unnecessary. Collectively, several implications arise from these findings.

First, our findings highlight the need to examine sex offender policies independently. In this context, we use the phrase “policy isolation” to suggest that policies must be considered as specific efforts to address behavior. With sex offenders, the numerous types of policies used to control behavior potentially creates an ambiguous response that confuses professionals and diminishes their ability to effectively respond to sex offenders. While we cannot suggest that notification is more effective than residence restriction, finding that perceptions of effectiveness of one policy limits support for another policy calls to attention the need to consider how different types of policies used to govern similar behavior might counteract with other policies. Researchers have recognized the unintended consequences of sex offender policies for individuals and communities (Levenson, 2003; Payne & DeMichele, 2011; Tewksbury, 2005). It is very possible that specific policies have unintended consequences for other policies.

Second, it is safe to suggest that a need for additional evidence-based practices in responding to sex offenders exists. It is somewhat disconcerting, but not surprising, that a misconception about sex offenders increased support for restriction policies, which have been shown to be both ineffective. The challenge to integrate evidence-based practices into the response to sex offenders is daunting. We found that 40% of our sample would support the policies even if there was no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of residence restriction. Interestingly, Levenson et al. (2010) found that 51% of their sample responded it was partially true (26%) or true (25%) that they would “support sex offender policies even if there is no scientific evidence showing they reduce child sexual abuse” (p. 158). Certainly, greater effort must be devoted to identifying the most effective and appropriate strategies to supervise sex offenders.

A third implication has to do with strategies to build (or reduce) support for sex offender policies. Given that perceived fairness of notification policies was linked to support of residence restriction, those seeking to build support for policies should focus on demonstrating how policies are fair. Conversely, those seeking to diminish support for policies should focus on how policies are unfair for various groups. It is not enough to say that policies are ineffective or not supported by science. Individuals’ support for the policies is not simply tied to scientific effectiveness, but rather it is tied to perceptions of fairness.

Fourth, and somewhat related, policy makers, practitioners, and academics must come to an agreement about ways to determine effectiveness of sex offender policies. To some, effectiveness appears to be tied to the degree to which policies reduce sex offending. To others, it appears that actual reductions in sex offending as a result of policies are irrelevant in determining whether to support sex offender policies. It is plausible that some groups define effectiveness in terms of a policy’s ability to satiate the public’s need for retribution while shaming offenders for their misdeeds (Applegate et al., 2002; Payne et al., 2004). However, one must question the utility of devoting financial resources to ineffective policies that have drastic unintended consequences for individuals and communities.

Fifth, given that both education and misconceptions contributed to level of support, efforts to better educate officials about sex offending seem necessary. Those with more education offered less support for residence restriction, while stronger misconceptions were tied to more support for policy. Education, in general, not necessarily about sex offenders specifically, is the issue here. When pursuing advanced education, it is unlikely any community corrections professional has had lengthy or in-depth education about sex offenders specifically; rather what we see here is the effect of education on critical thinking and analysis. Accompanying education, better training and awareness for individuals once they are working in community corrections may result in less support for the restrictive policies but more support for sex offenders. In turn, officials will be better able to assist offenders in their efforts to reintegrate into society.

Among probation officers, there is recognition of the housing difficulties of registered sex offenders and the role that residence restrictions play in compounding such difficulties (Datz, 2009). In her study of probation and parole officers in Florida, Datz (2009) reports that 78% of officers cited residence restrictions as the number one obstacle for sex offenders in the community. Not only do community corrections officers perceive residence restrictions as a major barrier for sex offenders, but a majority (73.4%) do not believe residence restrictions provide any “real protection” from sex offenders and most (81.7%) also believe that residence restrictions serve to only “give the public a false sense of security.” Coupled with the fact that community corrections officers do not believe there are any significant benefits from residence restrictions, they also identify a range of problems that arise from such policies. The most common reason cited by Datz for sex offenders not being able to return to a home they occupied prior to sentencing is the presence of residence restrictions. Providing access to housing and eliminating residence restrictions are the two most commonly cited issues that community corrections officers believe could assist sex offenders in reintegrating to society.

A final policy implication has to do with the policy disconnect that occurs between policy development and policy implementation when sex offender policies are developed. According to one group of scholars, “policies governing sex offenders are too often developed with little critical thought given to the reality of sex offending” (Payne, Tewksbury, & Mustaine, 2010, p. 586). This becomes particularly problematic when criminal justice officials are called upon to implement policies that are inconsistent with the actual risk and protective factors that are related to sexual abuse. It is even more problematic when officials are called upon to implement policies they either do not support or they support for irrational reasons.

A number of limitations warrant that our findings be approached with caution. First, although our sample includes community corrections professionals from across the United States, the generalizability of the findings is debatable given that the survey was conducted electronically. Also, we did not assess the degree of contact that officials had with sex offenders and we are unable to make any determination about the level of contact the sampling frame might have with sex offenders, though another study of the same population found that nearly 90% (of 228 APPA respondents) “indicated their department having specific policies, programs, and/or procedures targeting sex offenders” (DeMichele, 2007, p. 50). Third, we did not distinguish between specific types of community corrections professionals. Given that research shows that different types of professionals perceive sex offender policies differently, it is plausible that support for residence restriction varies across populations. Finally, our use of an electronic survey does not allow us to know with absolute certainty who completed the online survey. Therefore, it is plausible that there was a significant degree of self-selection in who elected to access and complete the survey, as well as potential bias in responses. If our sample comprises primarily of community corrections professionals who are very highly interested in, experienced with, or somehow predisposed to favor sex offenders, our data could be skewed. As we are unable to compare the characteristics of our sample with the true distribution of characteristics in the population of community corrections professionals, we must acknowledge these possibilities.

The findings of this study lead to a number of questions that arise for future research. Researchers should examine the independent and interdependent effects of specific sex offender policies to determine how effective specific policies are in comparison with other policies. Also, researchers should examine the ties between public retributive emotions and support for different sex offender policies to assess whether the policies primarily exist to satisfy the public. In addition, researchers should consider whether degree of contact with sex offenders influences support for different types of sex offender policies. As well, researchers should explore how to effectively promote evidence-based policies and practices to generate support for practical responses to sex offending. It is through this research that a better connection between policy development and policy implementation will surface.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Ordinal Logistic Regression Results of Demographics and Perceptions on Community Corrections Professionals’ Degree of Support for Residence Restrictions for Registered Sex Offenders

			95% confidence interval
Variable	B	SE	Lower bound	Upper bound
Support for residency restrictions—strongly disagree (DV)	−.307	.956	−2.182	1.567
Support for residency restrictions—disagree (DV)	1.415	.959	−.465	3.295
Support for residency restrictions—agree (DV)	3.444	.968	1.547	5.341
Female	.426*	.187	.059	.792
Age (older)	.005	.012	−.018	.028
Race (White)	.303	.234	−.156	.762
Race (non-White; reference category)	0
Not married	.230	.211	−.184	.644
Number of children (more children)	.237*	.078	.085	.389
Education (BA/BS degree or higher)	−.301*	.127	−.550	−.052
Years working in community corrections (more years)	−.042*	.016	−.072	−.011
Political orientation (more conservative)	.263*	.071	.124	.402
Fairness of community notification—1	−2.177*	1.094	−4.320	−.033
Fairness of community notification—2	−1.286*	.280	−1.836	−.736
Fairness of community notification—3	−.730*	.193	−1.109	−.351
Efficacy of community notification—1	.799*	.385	.045	1.553
Efficacy of community notification—2	.596*	.225	.155	1.037
Efficacy of community notification—3	.003	.236	−.460	.466
Sex offenders are deterred from offending—1	.261	.977	−1.654	2.176
Sex offenders are deterred from offending—2	.583*	.318	−.040	1.206
Sex offenders are deterred from offending—3	.383*	.255	−.116	.883
General members of the community are deterred from sex offending—1	1.148*	.674	−.173	2.468
General members of the community are deterred from sex offending—2	.195	.280	−.354	.743
General members of the community are deterred from sex offending—3	.488*	.239	.020	.957
Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate than offenders in the general criminal population—1	1.204	.319	.579	1.830
Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate—2	1.082	.266	.561	1.604
Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate—3	.981	.251	.490	1.472
Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate—4	.928	.258	.423	1.433

Note: DV = dependent variable. α ≤ .05 (using two-tailed tests of significance); χ² = 173.804 (p < .01); N = 504; df = 24; –2 log likelihood = 1164.169; psuedo R² = .29.

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Brian K. Payne is a professor and chair of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia state university. His research focuses on community corrections, white-collar crime and elder abuse.

Richard Tewksbury is a professor of justice administration at the university of Louisville. His research focuses on consequences of sex offender registration, criminal justice actor’s experiences and perceptions of stakeholders of criminal justice policies.

Elizabeth Erhardt Mustaine is a professor of sociology at the university of Central Florida. Her research spans several areas: violence against women, stalking, criminal victimization, risks for victimization, registered sex offenders, child abuse, locations, sources, and patterns of crime, and publishing in criminology and criminal justice.

References

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

(2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.

Applegate

B. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

(2002). Public views towards crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89-100.

Barnes

J. C.

Dukes

Tewksbury

De Troye

(2009). Predicting the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 21-43.

Bohm

R. M.

Vogel

B. L.

(2004). More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty options. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 307-327.

Boots

D. P.

Crochan

J. K.

Heide

K. M.

(2003). Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 553-565.

Church

W. T.

Wakeman

E. E.

Miller

S. L.

Clements

C. B.

Sun

(2008). The community attitudes toward sex offenders scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 251-259.

Cochran

J. K.

Chamlin

M. B.

(2005). Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 573-584.

Cohen

Jeglic

(2007). Sex offender legislation in the U.S. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 369-383.

Couper

M. P.

(2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.

10.

Craun

S. W.

(2010). Evaluating awareness of registered sex offenders in the neighborhood. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 414-435.

11.

Cullen

F. T.

Clark

G. A.

Cullen

J. B.

Mathers

R. A.

(1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305-331.

12.

Datz

A. L.

(2009). Sex offender residency restrictions and other sex offender management strategies: The probation officer perspective in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Probation and Parole Field Services.

13.

DeMichele

(2007). Probation’s growing caseloads and workload allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.

14.

DeMichele

Payne

B. K.

(2007). Probation officers speak out: Caseload and workload allocation. Federal Probation, 71, 30-36.

15.

Duwe

Donnay

Tewksbury

(2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484-504.

16.

Farkas

M. A.

Miller

(2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 88-92.

17.

Gainey

Payne

B. K.

(2003). Changing attitudes toward house arrest with electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 196-209.

18.

Grubesic

T. H.

(2010). Sex offender clusters. Applied Geography, 30, 2-18.

19.

Grubesic

T. H.

Mack

E. A.

(2010). Sex offenders and residential location. Environment and Planning, 42, 1925-1942.

20.

Grubesic

T. H.

Murray

A. T.

Mack

E. A.

(2008). Sex offenders, housing and spatial restriction zones. GeoJournal, 73, 255-269.

21.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Comartin

Craun

S. W.

Kernsmith

(2009).The relationship between sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 181-193.

22.

Levenson

J. S.

(2003). Policy interventions designed to combat sexual violence: Community notification and civil commitment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 17-52.

23.

Levenson

J. S.

(2007). The new Scarlett letter: Sex offender policies in the 21st century. In Prescott

(Ed.), Applying knowledge to practice: Challenges to the treatment and supervision of sexual abusers (pp. 21-41). Oklahoma City: Wood & Barnes.

24.

Levenson

J. S.

(2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 153-166.

25.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. International Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.

26.

Levenson

J. S.

D’Amora

D. A.

(2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 168-199.

27.

Levenson

J. S.

Fortney

Baker

J. N.

(2010). Views of sex abuse professionals about sex offender notification policies. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 150-168.

28.

Levenson

J. S.

Tewksbury

(2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54-86.

29.

Levenson

J. S.

Zgoba

K. M.

Tewksbury

(2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation, 71, 2-9.

30.

Menard

(1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2008). Registered sex offenders, residence and the influence of race. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6, 65-82.

32.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2011). Residential regulation of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 44-57.

33.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

Stengal

K. M.

(2006). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27, 329-350.

34.

Neito

Jung

(2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices. Sacramento: California Research Bureau.

35.

Oescher

(2002). A survey of counselor attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Mental Health, 24, 54-67.

36.

Payne

B. K.

DeMichele

(2010b). Role of probation and parole officers in the collaborative response to sex offenders. Federal Probation, 74, 23-27.

37.

Payne

B. K.

DeMichele

(2011). Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated consequences of GPS sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 177-187.

38.

Payne

B. K.

Gainey

R. R.

Triplett

R. A.

Danner

J. E.

(2004). What drives punitive beliefs? Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 195-206.

39.

Payne

B. K.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2010). Attitudes about rehabilitating sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 580-588.

40.

Redlich

(2001). Community notification: Perceptions of its effectiveness in preventing child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10, 91-116.

41.

Rossi

P. H.

Berk

R. A.

(1997). Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

42.

Sample

L. L.

Kadleck

(2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.

43.

Sandler

J. C.

Freeman

N. J.

Socia

K. M.

(2008). Does a watched pot boil? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 284-302.

44.

Socia

K. M.

(2011). The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in upstate NY. Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 361-389.

45.

Socia

K. M.

Stamatel

J. P.

(2010). Assumptions and evidence behind sex offender laws. Sociology Compass, 4, 1-20.

46.

Suresh

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

Higgins

G. E.

(2010). Social disorganization and registered sex offenders. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 180-213.

47.

Tewksbury

(2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-82.

48.

Tewksbury

(2006). Sex offender registries as a tool for public safety: Views from registered offenders. Western Criminology Review, 7, 1-8.

49.

Tewksbury

Humkey

(2010). Prohibiting registered sex offenders from being at school: Assessing the collateral consequences of a public policy. Justice Policy Journal, 7. Retrieved from http://www.cjcj.org/files/Prohibiting_Registered.pdf

50.

Tewksbury

Levenson

J. S.

(2009). Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behavioral Science & the Law, 27, 611-626.

51.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61-75.

52.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2008). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims and Offenders, 3, 86-98.

53.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2012). Parole board members’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 413-431.

54.

Vasquez

Madden

Walker

J. T.

(2008). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 175-192.

55.

Vess

(2009). Fear and loathing in public policy: Ethical issues for sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 264-272.

56.

Walker

J. T.

Golden

J.W

Van Houten

A. C.

(2001). The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims. Justice Research and Policy, 3, 15-34.

57.

Wright

(2009). Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions. New York, NY: Springer.

58.

Zandbergen

P. A.

Hart

T. C.

(2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restrictions using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 1-24.

59.

Zandbergen

P. A.

Hart

T. C.

(2009). Final report: Availability and spatial distribution of affordable housing in Miami-Dade county and implications of residence restriction zones for registered sex offenders. American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Greater Miami Chapter and Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Miami, FL.

60.

Zandbergen

P. A.

Levenson

J. S.

Hart

T. C.

(2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical analysis of sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 482-502.

61.

Zevitz

R. G.

(2004). Sex offender placement and neighborhood social integration: The making of a scarlet letter community. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 203-222.

62.

Zevitz

R. G.

(2006). Sex offender community notification and its impact on neighborhood life. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 5, 41-62.

63.

Zevitz

R. G.

Crim

Farkas

M. A.

(2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 375-391.

64.

Zgoba

K. M.

(2011). Residence restriction buffer zones and the banishment of sex offenders: Have we gone one step too far? Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 391-400.

65.

Zgoba

K. M.

Levenson

J. S.

McKee

(2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 91-110.

66.

Zgoba

K. M.

Veysey

Dalessandro

(2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration. Justice Quarterly, 27, 667-691.