Where Registered Sex Offenders Live: Community Characteristics and Proximity to Possible Victims

Abstract

Recent developments in sanctions for sex offenders emphasize use of sex offender registries and residential restrictions in efforts to raise public awareness and keep offenders away from possible victims. One consequence of such efforts is to relegate registered sex offenders to socially disorganized communities. The present study draws on census tract level data from one urban county and assesses whether offenders are likely to be found in socially disorganized communities and in communities with high concentrations of potential victims. Findings show that registered sex offenders are more likely to reside in socially disorganized and disadvantaged communities, but not in locations with large pools of most types of possible victims (e.g., women living alone, children). Residential location is explained in terms of economic factors, not desire to live near possible victims. Implications for current policies and practices are discussed.

Keywords:

• sex offender registries
• residential characteristics
• sex offenders

Notes

¹And, although not assessing locational quality, Turley and Hutzel (2001) report that in West Virginia 49% of registered sex offenders registered for at least four years report moving at least one time, with nearly one in ten (9.8%) moving at least three times.

²The variables used to construct the social disorganization measure are: percent of population age 19 and younger, percent of population white, percent of population with a high school degree, percent of population with a four-year college degree, percent of population living in owner-occupied homes, percent of residents unemployed, percent of residents living at the same address five years earlier, percent of female headed households, percent of families below the poverty line, median household income, and median housing value.

³In some cases we had to subtract the respective county average from the census tract value for particular variables. This depended on the “direction” of the variable regarding social disorganization theoretical assertions. For example, theoretically, tracts with greater percentages of the population that are 19 or younger suggest the tract is more socially disorganized. In these types of cases, the county average was subtracted from each tract's population value. Tracts with positive values had higher proportions of this aged population then the county on average, thus being more socially disorganized on this count. Tracts with negative numbers after this calculation had lower proportions of this aged population than the county on average, thus being less socially disorganized. Conversely, for variables like percent of the population that has a four-year college degree, we subtracted the variable from the county average. In this way, we maintained the positive value/negative value result: tracts with positive values had lower proportions of the population with a four-year degree, thus being more socially disorganized. Tracts with negative values after the calculation had higher proportions of the population with a four-year degree than the county on average, thus being less socially disorganized on this score.

⁴Disability is defined as a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business (United States Census Bureau, 2005).

⁵We checked for multicollinearity and found no problems among the independent variables.