Spatial Optimization and Geographic Uncertainty: Implications for Sex Offender Management Strategies

Chapter

Abstract

Residence restrictions are increasingly popular policy-based tools for managing the spatial distribution of sex offenders in the USA.

Frequently implemented with limited study or practical guidance, it is likely that spatial uncertainty in many evaluative efforts creates interpretive and policy questions. For example, sex offender locations, prohibited areas, proximity evaluation, and travel uncertainties all have the potential to jeopardize analysis, policy development, and enforcement, but, more importantly, have the potential to raise legitimacy issues and obscure the interpretation of impacts. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the effects of spatial uncertainty in the context of sex offender analysis and management as well as review spatial optimization approaches to support this. This work enables a framework and direction for improving the quality of sex offender analysis and also provides the basis for quantifying certainty relative to data quality.

References

  1. Abler, R. (1987). The National Science Foundation Center for geographic information and analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 1, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]. (2005). ACLU Ask U.S. Supreme Court to review Iowa’s sex offender residency restriction. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/aclu-asks-us-supreme-court-review- Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  3. American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]. (2009). ACLU challenges Miami-Dade County’s 2,500-foot sex offender residency restriction. http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3760 Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  4. Asami, Y., & Isard, W. (1989). Imperfect information, uncertainty and optimal sampling in location theory: an initial reexamination of Hotelling, Weber, and Von Thunen. Journal of Regional Science, 29, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedarf, A. (1995). Examining sex offender community notification laws. California Law Review, 83, 885–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd, S. (2008). Allouez restrictions on sex offenders unchanged. Green Bay Press Gazette. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081222/GPG0101/812220535/1207/GPG01 Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  7. Cayo, M. R., & Talbot, T. O. (2003). Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3, 5.Google Scholar
  8. Chaiken, J. M. (1998). Sex offenders and offending: Learning more from national data collection programs. National Conference on Sex Offender Registries. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. Chajewski, M., & Calkins Mercado, C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, M., & Jeglic, M. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis, K. (2003). California ‘Loses’ 33,000 sex offenders. Associated Press. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/national/main535654.shtml Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  12. Curtin, K.M. & R.L. Church. (2006). A Family of Multiple-Type Discrete Dispersion Models. Geographical Analysis, 38(3), 248–270.Google Scholar
  13. Dangermond, J. (1988). A review of digital data commonly available and some of the practical problems of entering them into a GIS. In W. J. Ripple (Ed.), Fundamentals of geographic information systems: a compendium (pp. 41–58). Bethesda, MD: American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.Google Scholar
  14. Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eakins, P. (2008). Long beach neighbourhood fights to move sex offenders. Press-Telegram. http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_8291281 Last Accessed 01/31/11.
  16. Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI]. (2010). Euclidean distance algorithm. http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=Euclidean_Distance_algorithm Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  17. Freeman, N.H., & Sandler, J.C. (2010). The Adam Walsh Act: a false sense of security or an effective public policy?. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
  18. Goodchild, M. F. (1972). The trade area of a displaced hexagonal lattice point. Geographical Analysis, 4, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodchild, M. F., & Gopal, S. (1989). Accuracy of spatial databases. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Grubesic, T. H. (2010). Sex offender clusters. Applied Geography, 30(1), 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grubesic, T.H., & Murray, A.T. (2004). Assessing the locational uncertainties of geocoded data. Proceedings from the 24th Urban Data Management Symposium. Chioggia, Italy.Google Scholar
  22. Grubesic, T. H., & Murray, A. T. (2008). Sex offender residency and spatial equity. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 1(3), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grubesic, T. H., & Murray, A. T. (2009). Methods to support the evaluation of sex offender laws. Papers in Regional Science, 89(3), 669–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris, A. J., & Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2010). Implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s sex offender registration and notification provisions: a survey of the states. Criminal Justice Research Policy, 21(2), 202–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, C. B. (1997). Geographical information systems and computer cartography. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Larson, R. C., & Stevenson, K. A. (1972). On sensitivities in urban redistricting and facility location. Operations Research, 20, 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leung, Y., Ma, J.-H., & Goodchild, M. F. (2004a). A general framework for error analysis in measurement-based GIS. Part 1: the basic measurement-error model and related concepts. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6, 325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leung, Y., Ma, J.-H., & Goodchild, M. F. (2004b). A general framework for error analysis in measurement-based GIS. Part 3: error analysis in intersections and overlays. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6, 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leung, Y., Ma, J.-H., & Goodchild, M. F. (2004c). A general framework for error analysis in measurement-based GIS. Part 4: error analysis in length and area measurements. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6, 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W. (2005). Geographic information systems and science (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Love, R. F., Morris, J. G., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1988). Facility location: models and methods. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Matson, S. (1999). Sex offender registration: policy overview and comprehensive practices. http://www.csom.org/pubs/sexreg.html Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  33. Mazza, S. (2008). Gardena gets tougher on sex offenders. Daily Breeze. http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9834634 Last Accessed 01/31/11.
  34. 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, 33(2), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, H. J., & Wentz, E. A. (2003). Representation and spatial analysis in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulford, C. F., Wilson, R. E., & Parmley, A. M. (2009). Geographic aspects of sex offender residency restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray, A. T. (2003). Site placement uncertainty in location analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murray, A. T., & O’Kelly, M. E. (2002). Assessing representation error in point-based coverage modeling. Journal of Geographical Systems, 4, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [NCMEC]. (2010). Map of registered sex offenders in the United States. http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  41. Openshaw, S., & Taylor, P. (1981). The modifiable areal unit problem. In N. Wrigley & R. Bennett (Eds.), Quantitative geography: a British view (pp. 60–69). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  42. Peterson, A. T., & Cohoon, K. P. (1999). Sensitivity of distributional prediction algorithms to geographic data completeness. Ecological Modelling, 117, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2001). On the accuracy of TIGER-type geocoded address data in relation to cadastral and census areal units. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15, 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson, L. O. (2003). Sex offender management: the public policy challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinson, A. H., Morrison, J. L., Muehrcke, P. C., Kimerling, A. J., & Guptill, S. C. (1995). Elements of cartography (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas, T. (2005). When public protection becomes punishment? The UK use of civil measures to contain the sex offender. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United States Census Bureau [Census]. (2001). Scale, generalization, and limitations of the cartographic boundary files. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/scale.html Last Accessed 07/31/11.
  49. Verigin, H. (1999). Data quality parameters. In P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems: principles and technical issues. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Winston, W. L. (2004). Operations research: applications and algorithms (4th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  51. Zandbergen, P. A. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1449. Commentary on Duwe, Donnay, and Tewksbury (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2009). Geocoding accuracy considerations in determining residency restrictions for sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 62–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zgoba, K. M., Levenson, J. A., & McKee, T. (2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Laboratory, College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations