Skip to main content

Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders

Abstract

Identifying the residential locations of registered sex offenders is a major concern for contemporary policy makers and communities. The present study seeks to identify whether registered sex offenders’ residential locations at time of arrest differ from their current addresses, if registrants move whether they tend to move to more or less socially disorganized neighborhoods, as well as what factors are associated with moving to more or less socially disorganized areas. Data are analyzed for 271 registrants on 11 measures of community social disorganization variables. Findings indicate that registrants already residing in socially disorganized areas were less likely to have a downward movement to more socially disorganized areas. Also, those who resided in less socially disorganized areas initially were more likely to have downward movement to socially disorganized areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Burton, V. S., Jr., Cullen, F.T., & Travis, L.F. III. (1987). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state statutes.Federal Probation, 51(3), 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Colorado Department of Public Safety. (2004).Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davies, A., & Dale, A. (1995).Locating the stranger rapist. London: Home Office Police Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M.R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration.Prison Journal, 81(1), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goffman, E. (1963).Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harding, D. J. (2003). Jean Valjean’s dilemma: The management of ex-convict identity in the search for employment.Deviant Behavior, 24 (6), 571–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lauritsen, J. L., & White, N.A. (2001). Putting violence in its place: The influence of race, ethnicity, gender, and place on the risk for violence.Criminology & Public Policy 1(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levenson, J.S., & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin, D. (2002). Spatial patterns in residential burglar: Assessing the effect of neighborhood social capital.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(2), 132–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003).Level three sex offenders residential placement issues. St. Paul, MN: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K.M. (in press). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence?Deviant Behavior.

  12. Nielsen, A., & Martinez Jr., R. (2003). Reassessing the alcohol-violence linkage: Results from a multiethnic city.Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 445–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olivares, K. M., Burton, Jr. F.S., & Cullen, F.T. (1996). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state legal codes 10 years later.Federal Probation, 60(3), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ouimet, M. (2000). Aggregation bias in ecological research: How social disorganization and criminal opportunities shape the spatial distribution of juvenile delinquency in Montreal.Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Peterson, R. D., Krivo, L.J., & Harris, M.A. (2000). Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local institutions matter?Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(1), 31–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pettiway, L. (1982). The mobility of robbery and burglary offenders: Ghetto and nonghetto spaces.Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18(2), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips, P. D. (1980). Characteristics and typology of the journey to crime. In Daniel E. Georges-Abeyie and Keith D. Harries (Eds.)Crime: A spatial perspective (pp. 167–180) New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pogrebin, M., Dodge, M., & Katsampes, P. (2001). The collateral costs of short-term jail incarceration: The long-term social and economic disruptions.Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(4), 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A.R., & Jones, P.R. (1999). Distance decay reexamined.Criminology, 37(2), 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhodes, W. M., & Conly, C. (1981). Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In P.J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.)Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schmid, C. (1960). Urban crime areas: Part II.American Sociological Review, 25(5), 655–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Swartz, C. (2000). The spatial analysis of crime: What social scientists have learned. In V. Goldsmith, P. Maguire, J.H. Mollenkopf & T. Ross (Eds.),Analyzing crime patterns, frontiers of practice (pp. 33–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders.Federal Probation, 68(3), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G.E. (2005). What can be learned from an online sex offender registry site?Journal of Community Corrections, 14(3), 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (in press-a). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences.Sociological Spectrum.

  27. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (in press-b). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Manuscript submitted for publication

  28. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E.E. (in press). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions.Criminal Justice Studies.

  29. Turley, E., & Hutzel, L. (2001).West Virginia sex offender study. Charleston, WV: Division of Criminal Justice Services. Retrieved November 8, 2005, from: http://www. wvdcjs.com/publications/.

  30. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). American Fact Finder. Available at: http://factfindder. census.gov/home

  31. U.S. Census Bureau. (2005).Glossary: Census Tract. Available at: http://factfinder. census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

  32. Walker, J.T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A.C. (2001). The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach.Justice Research and Policy, 3(2): 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Warren, J., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R., Cummings, A., Gibbs, N., & Trumbetta, S. (1998). Crime scene and distance correlates of serial rape.Journal of Quantitative Criminology 14(1), 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. White, R. C. (1932). The relation of felonies to environmental factors in Indianapolis.Social Forces, 498–509.

  35. Zevitz, R., & Farkas, M.A. (2000a).Sex offender community notification: Assessing the impact in Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth E. Mustaine Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R. & Stengel, K.M. Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. Am J Crim Just 30, 177 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885890

Download citation

Keywords

  • Census Tract
  • Residential Location
  • Social Disorganization
  • Collateral Consequence
  • Residential Change