Revisiting Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Does Awareness Differ Across Community Type?

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016820971033
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Revisiting Sex Offender

Registration and Notification:

Does Awareness Differ

Across Community Type?

John C. Navarro

1

, Ethan M. Higgins

2

, and Kristin Swartz

3

Abstract

In recent decades, sex offender registry and notification has become ubiquitous across the United

States. Although researchers have attempted to evaluate the awareness of registered sex offenders,

much of this work has had a nearly unilateral focus on urban communities. In response, researchers

have called for further investigation into whether awareness manifests differently across community

type (suburban and urban). To address this question, we draw from two data sets. The first data set

contains property data for single-family households sold in 2015 from a suburban county in

Illinois and an urban county in Kentucky. The second data set consists of survey responses from

113 suburban and 171 urban county residents within 1,000 feet of the nearest sex offender that was

delivered via a sequential mixed-mode design. In addition, we investigate whether awareness

manifests differently across community type through a number of predictors (e.g., children in the

household, education) and potential theoretical explanations (fear of crime, informal social control,

and social cohesion). We find that community types do have differing levels of awareness and that

varying levels of social cohesion may explain this difference. Implications are also discussed.

Keywords

sex offenders, sex offender registry, community notification, housing, GIS

Over the past few decades, scholars have devoted a considerable amount of empirical attention to

understanding public attitudes toward registered sex offenders (RSOs) reentering their communities

(see, generally, Rade et al., 2016). In turn, a growing literature has begun to investigate the effects of

sex offender registries and notification (SORN) systems in communities (Evans et al., 2015). The

Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994 formalized state-based registries of persons convicted of sex crimes

1

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2

Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, NC, USA

3

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:

John C. Navarro, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, P.O. Box 2296,Huntsville,

TX 77341, USA.

Email: jxn044@shsu.edu

Criminal Justice Review

ª2020 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016820971033

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

2022, Vol. 47(1) 34–52

with their personally identifying information. Additionally, Megan’s Law of 1996 employed various

methods of public notification that distributes information of RSOs and unified them with registries.

These laws together formulate SORN, which provides public awareness on the whereabouts of local

RSOs ranging from 25.6%to 46%according to survey research (Beck & Travis, 2006; Burchfield,

2012; Craun, 2010; Kernsmith et al., 2009; Phillips, 1998; Zevitz, 2003). Existing research indicates

the most informed groups tend to be wo men and parents (Anderson et al., 2 009; Anderson &

Sample, 2008; Boyle et al., 2014; Harris & Cudmore, 2018; Kernsmith et al., 2009), persons with

greater educational attainment (Anderson et al., 2009; Anderson & Sample, 2008; Boyle et al.,

2014), residents with a greater number of nearby RSOs (Craun, 2010), and urban residents

(Anderson et al., 2009; Anderson & Sample, 2008).

Empirical work on notification systems has largely focused on urban communities and residents

(Agan& Prescott, 2014; Andersonet al., 2009; Anderson& Sample, 2008; Bandy,2011; Beck & Travis,

2006; Craun,2010; Kernsmith et al., 2009;Levenson, Brannon, et al., 2007;Zevitz, 2003). One reason

this might be is thaturban residents have a greater likelihoodof being in contact with people in general,

which increases the possible risk of victimization and, in turn, may galvanize a greater desire for

information about local RSOs (Anderson et al., 2009; Brownet al., 2008). Despite this focus on urban

communities, existing legal provisions greatly diminish available residencesfor RSOs in urban areas,

which effectively pushes them outward toward less dense communities(Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;

Socia, 2011;for an exception, seeBerenson & Appelbaum, 2011).For instance, nonurbancommunities

likely differculturally from urban residentswho may rely on neighborsor believe the presence of RSOs

is unlikely,thus, leaving theformal structure of notification via registryas a nonessentialtool (Anderson

et al., 2009; Burchfield, 2012; Craun, 2010). Findings, to date, suggest public interactions with the

registry may differentiate across community type (suburban andurban).

Despite a growing body of research on community awareness of local RSOs, these studies are

limited to metropolitan areas (Bandy, 2011; Beck & Travis, 2006; Craun, 2010; Kernsmith et al.,

2009; Zevitz, 2003) or do not compare awareness across community types (Burchfield, 2012; see

Phillips, 1998). For this reason, scholars have advocated for further investigation into how different

communities react to publicly accessible information on RSOs due to SORN (Anderson et al., 2009;

Burchfield, 2012; Craun, 2010). To address this gap in the literature, this study uses recently

relocated homeowners as a population to explore the awareness of RSOs across community type.

Our research questions are based upon a multicounty and multistate sample of homebuyers who

reside within 1,000 feet of the nearest RSO. Our first research question is to assess whether the

awareness of local RSOs differs between residents of suburban and urban communities. Recent

homeowners are an ideal population to gauge the efficacy of notification as they have recently

located to the area and are more likely to access the registry than renters and long-term residents

(Kernsmith et al., 2009). If awareness manifests differently across community type, there may be

predictors and theoretical constructs that help explain this variance. Thus, we investigate two other

research questions. Our second research question investigates demographic and residential predic-

tors. Our third research question investigates potential theoretical explanations.

Legal Responses to Sex Offenders

Public concern over sexual recidivism has been paralleled by a considerable growth of legislation

that has sought to establish control over sex offenders (Hobbs & Trott er, 2018; Simon, 1998).

Despite recent research that demonstrates sex offender recidivism is lower than commonly believed

(Alper & Durose, 2019; Letourneau et al., 2010), preventative controls are far-ranging, commonly

including castration laws, sex offender driver license notation requirements, lifetime supervision,

civil commitment, residency restrictions, community notification, and sex offender registries

(Mancini et al., 2011). These policies are not without controversy. They are often argued by scholars

35

Navarro et al.