Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 175–192 | Cite as

Sex Offender Residency and Spatial Equity

Article

Abstract

Recent legislation at the local, state and federal levels has mandated spatial restriction zones around sensitive facilities, such as schools, daycares and public parks, to minimize the exposure children have to convicted sex offenders. A potential byproduct of this legislation is the clustering of offenders in certain areas outside restriction zones. Accordingly, efforts are now being directed toward ensuring an equitable spatial distribution of exposure to convicted sex offenders. In particular, laws are being enacted or resurrected to thwart such clusters. The question addressed in this paper is what approaches can be used to assist planners and public officials in the further development of policy for mitigating community impacts associated with the spatial distribution of sex offender residences. We review and develop methodologies for use in assessing and managing residential impacts. Application results suggest that these modeling approaches can provide insight for policy development useful to local and regional governments.

Keywords

Sex offenders Dispersion Restriction GIS Spatial analysis 

References

  1. 538 US 1 (2003). Connecticut Department of Public Safety et al. v. Doe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated. (2003). URL: http://supreme.justia.com/us/538/1/index.html.
  2. 538 US 84 (2003). Smith et al. v. Doe et al. URL: http://supreme.justia.com/us/538/84/case.html.
  3. Avila, J., Harris, M., & Francescani, C. (2007). Misguided Measures. ABC News. URL: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=2931817.
  4. Bacon, B. (2007). Sex offender faces life in prison for being homeless. ABC News. URL: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3454688.
  5. Bain, B. (2007). Suffolk placed sex offenders at Westhampton range. New York Newsday. URL: http://www.easthampster.com/newsopinions/506/.
  6. Barnes, J. C., Dukes, T., Tewksbury, R., & De Troye, T. M. (2008). Analyzing the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review. doi:10.1177/0887403408320842.
  7. Bowen, W. M., Salling, M. J., Haynes, K. E., & Cyran, E. J. (1995). Toward environmental justice: Spatial equity in Ohio and Cleveland, 85(4), 641–663.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J. (2007). Sex offenders pushed to ‘burbs. Cincinnati Enquirer. URL: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/NEWS01/705010422/1056/COL02.
  9. Camerson, S. (2004). Space, risk and opportunity: The evolution of paid sex markets. Urban Studies, 41(9), 1643–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2008). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, country, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review doi:10.1177/0887403408320845.
  11. Chaudhry, S. S. (2006). A genetic algorithm approach to solving the anti-covering location problem. Expert Systems, 23(5), 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colorado Department of Public Safety [CDPS] (2004). Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community. URL: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom.
  14. Cowan, D., Gilroy, R., & Pantazis, C. (1999). Risking housing need. Journal of Law and Society, 26(4), 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curtin, K. M., & Church, R. L. (2006). A family of location models for multiple-type discrete dispersion. Geographical Analysis, 28, 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cutter, S. (1995). Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, J. A., Gates, R. J., & Murray, A. T. (2008). Estimating carrying capacity for sandhill cranes using habitat suitability and spatial optimization models. Ecological Modelling, in press.Google Scholar
  18. Duncan, D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 484–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erkut, E., & Neuman, S. (1990). Comparison of four models for dispersing facilities. INFOR, 29, 68–85.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, J. B., Maggi, K., & Romm, J. (2006). Scales of environmental justice: Combining GIS and spatial analysis for air toxics in West Oakland, California. Health and Place, 12(4), 701–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flint, J. (2006). Maintaining an arm’s length? Housing community governance and the management of ‘problematic’ populations. Housing Studies, 21(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grineski, S., Bolin, B., & Boone, C. (2007). Criteria air pollution and marginalized populations: Environmental inequity in metropolitan phoenix, AZ. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grubesic, T. H., Murray, A. T., & Mack, E. A. (2007). Geographic exclusion: Spatial analysis for evaluating the implications of Megan’s Law. Social Science Computer Review, 25(2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office (2006). Hamilton County Sheriff's Office Records Division Registered Hamilton County Sex Offenders. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.hcso.org/PublicServices/SexOffenders/sexoffenders.aspx (September 22).
  26. Hanson, R. K., Morton, K. E., & Harris, A. J. R. (2003). Sexual offender recidivism risk what we know and what we need to know. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 154–166.Google Scholar
  27. Haynes, K. E., & Machunda, Z. B. (1987). Considerations in extending shift-share analysis: Note. Growth and Change, 18(2), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hildebrand, G., & Mace, A. (1950). The employment multiplier in an expanding industrial market: Los Angeles County, 1940–1947. Review of Economics and Statistics, 32, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. HLR [Harvard Law Review] (2004). Making outcasts out of outlaws: The unconstitutionality of sex offender registration and criminal alien detention. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2731–2752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes, A. (2004). Minneapolis neighborhoods home to clusters of released sex offenders. Minnesota Public Radio. URL: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/02/05_hughesa_offenders/.
  31. Jacobson, J. O., Hengartner, N. W., & Louis, T. A. (2005). Inequity measures for evaluations of environmental justice: A case study of close proximity to highways in New York City. Environment and Planning A, 37, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kilgannon, C. (2006). Threats of violence as homes for sex offenders cluster in Suffolk. The New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/nyregion/09offenders.html?ex=1318046400&en=2f8d3bef1198ae47&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
  33. Kilgannon, C. (2007). Suffolk County to Keep Sex Offenders on the Move. New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/nyregion/17sex.html.
  34. Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  35. Levenson, J. S. (2006). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law Report, 7(3), 46–47.Google Scholar
  36. Levenson, J. S. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  38. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levenson, J. S., & Hern, A. L. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice and Research Policy, 9(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Logan, W. A. (2003). Sex offender registration and community notification: Emerging legal and research issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 337–351.Google Scholar
  41. Lujan, D. (2003). Amendment to H.B. 2332. Arizona State Senate. URL: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/summary/s.2332jud_strikermemo.doc.htm.
  42. Mac Donald, H. (1994). Big Brother HUD. City Journal. URL: http://www.city-journal.org/article02.php?aid=1378.
  43. Mack, E., Grubesic, T. H., & Kessler, E. (2007). Indices of industrial diversity and regional economic composition. Growth and Change, 38(3), 474–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maloney, J. (2006). Anger at sex offender cluster. New York Newsday. URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/nylisex274907930sep27,0,1038388.story?coll=ny-linews-utility.
  45. McKey, D. (1975). The ecology of coevolved seed dispersal systems. In L. E. Gilbert, & P. H. Raven (Eds.), Coevolution of plants and animals (pp. 159–191). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  46. Meloy, M. L., Miller, S. L., & Curtis, K. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice. doi:10.1007/s12103-008-9042-2.
  47. MDC [Minnesota Department of Corrections] (2003). Level three sex offenders residential placement issues: 2003 report to the legislature. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  48. Minhe, J., & Sunil, T. S. (2005). Regional assessment of environmental equity through GIS-based clustering and non-parametric statistical testing: A case study of Dallas County, Texas, USA. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 5(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moon, D. I., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1984). An analysis of network location problems with distance constraints. Management Science, 30(3), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murray, A. T. (1999). Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. Forest Science, 45, 45–52.Google Scholar
  51. Murray, A. T., & Davis, R. (2001). Equity in regional service provision. Journal of Regional Science, 41(4), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mustain, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2008). Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States. URL: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf.
  54. Norman-Eady, S. (2007). Sex offenders’ residency restrictions. State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Report 2007-R-0380. URL: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm.
  55. Papayanis, M. A. (2000). Sex and the revanchist city: Zoning out pornography in New York. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Philips, R. (2007). Trailer park becomes ‘paradise’ for sex offenders. CNN. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/trailer.sexoffender/.
  57. Reardon, S. F., & O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological Methodology, 34, 121–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson, L. O. (2003). Sex offender management: The public policy challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30(4), 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
  61. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2008). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims and Offenders, 3(1), 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wenny, D. G. (2000). Seed dispersal of a high quality fruit by specialized frugivores: High quality dispersal? Biotropica, 32(2), 327–337.Google Scholar
  63. Wong, D. W. S. (1993). Spatial indices of segregation. Urban Studies, 30(3), 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction law using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zarrella, J., & Oppmann, P. (2007). Florida housing sex offenders under bridge. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/.
  66. Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Geographical SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations