Variation in Criminal Justice Policy-Making: An Exploratory Study Using Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws
Post on 04-Feb-2023
0 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Running Head: VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING
Variation in Criminal Justice Policy Making: An Exploratory Study Using Sex Offender
Registration and Community Notification Laws *
Robert Lytle
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Send all communications to Robert Lytle
Mailing Address: 6001 W. Dodge St., 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE, 68182
Phone: (402) 554-2398 Email: rlytle@unomaha.edu
The author wishes to thank the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of *Nebraska at Omaha for funding my research efforts for this paper. Also, I would like to thank Drs. Amy Anderson, Samantha Clinkinbeard, and Lisa Sample for their advice and feedback regarding this work. Finally, I am very appreciative to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and recommendations on an earlier draft of this paper.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !2
Abstract
Variation in SORCN policies may suggest differences in public fears of sex crimes as
well as differences in state-level policy-making. This study explored the standardization of
SORCN policies across a sample of five Midwestern states. A thematic content analysis showed
that states varied in how registrants were defined, what information was selected for public
notification, and how sex offender laws are maintained. A typology of revisions emerged which
may inform our understanding about policymaking. Ultimately, existing research provides
limited explanations for these results, serving as an impetus for future research on context and
process of criminal justice policy change.
Keywords: sex crime policy, sex offender registration, community notification, mixed methods
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !3
Variation in Criminal Justice Policy Making: An Exploratory Study Using Sex Offender
Registration and Community Notification Laws
Sexual victimization has long stimulated public fear (Jenkins, 1998). One way that
legislators have responded to these fears has been to increase informal and formal monitoring of
the sex offender population using Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification
(SORCN; Sample & Kadleck, 2008). Although the public seems to generally support these laws
(Anderson & Sample, 2008; Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, &
Baker, 2007), existing research on SORCN policies suggests that the public is limited in their
access to and understanding about sex offender registries (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Levenson
et al., 2007; Phillips, 1998) and that raises concerns about the effectiveness of SORCN policies
in reducing recidivism (e.g., Letourneau et al., 2010; Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Zandbergen
et al., 2010). Nevertheless, these polices appear to be successful in assuaging public fears of
sexual victimization (Sample, Evans, & Anderson, 2011), so it may not be surprising that
SORCN laws are present in every state in the US (Sample & Evans, 2009; Terry & Ackerman,
2009). Despite their prevalence across the nation, however, SORCN laws may still vary in their
responses to sex offending, particularly with regard to the ways sex offenders are identified and
monitored from one state to the next. If this were the case, it may suggest public fears vary
across states, at least to the degree that laws reflect public sentiment. Variation in the content of
similar laws across states could serve as an indicator of variation in public sentiment and,
therefore, influence the perception, utility, and effectiveness of laws across states that rely on
citizen involvement to achieve their goals.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !4
One may argue that policy differences may exist across states for many different CJ
policies; however, based on the level of public concern, research attention, and media coverage
noted in the previous paragraph, the stakes may be higher if sex offender policies vary across
states. Among other things, variation in the methods by which the public identifies and monitors
sex offenders may mean that an offender required to register in one state may not be required to
register in a neighboring state. Therefore, as one travels from one state to another, the types of
offender included on the registry, as well as the methods by which citizens may identify and
track sex offenders, may be quite different.
Ultimately, this study attempted to identify whether SORCN policies were standardized
across states over time. An exploratory, sequential mixed methodology research design was used
to answer two research questions. First, does the content of SORCN policies vary across states
over time? Although some research has explored the presence of variation in types of sex
offender law present across states (e.g., Mancini, Barnes, & Mears, 2011), many of these studies
focused on variation in certain types of sex offender law, such as civil commitment, with little
focus on the ways in which content of these laws vary. Further, these studies focus on variation
in sex offender policy across states, overlooking possible variation in these laws within states
over time that may contribute to our knowledge of state-level criminal justice policy-making.
Therefore, the current study will be the first to allow variation in content of sex offender policy
to emerge from the maintenance of statutes over time.
If the content of these policies does vary across states, one possible explanation could
have been that this variation was a function of how often each state revised existing statutes or
added new ones. Therefore, the second question explored in this study was, “Do SORCN
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !5
policies vary in the frequency by which they are revised across states and the type of revisions
made?” Not only may the answers to these questions contribute to the growing literature on
criminal justice policy making, they may also indicate variation in opinion toward sex offender
law, specifically, and sexual victimization more broadly.
Theories of the Policy Process
Policies rarely remain static over time (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009; Kingdon, 1995).
Indeed, policies are constantly being reevaluated and rewritten, a part of what is commonly
called the “policy process” (Lasswell, 1971; Smith & Larimer, 2009). Researchers have offered a
variety of theoretical frameworks to explain policy change, that have been grown from
investigations of policies ranging from nuclear power to child care (e.g., Baumgartner & Jones,
2009; Nelson, 1984). The theoretical frameworks reviewed below provide the basis for my
research questions and were used to inform my understanding of the results in the current study.
Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET; Baumgartner & Jones, 2009) attempts to explain
instability or change in the policy process over time. In the American political system, long
periods of sustained stability in the policy process have been “punctuated” by periods of
significant, rapid change. These punctuations shift the policy process from one period of stability
to another, typically as a result of changes in definitions of social problems. Once a problem has
been redefined and policy changes made to address it, a new political structure is established and
the policy process returns to equilibrium. During stages of equilibrium, policy change occurs
incrementally; that is, policy makers make slight adjustments to existing policy as pressures to
do so within the political environment arise (Lindblom, 1959, 1979; Wildavsky, 1964). For
example, policy revisions during equilibrium may include changes in word choice or small
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !6
alterations to keep up with technological advances. This period of stability continues until the
next policy punctuation. It is this theory that suggests that sex offender registration and
notification laws have not remained static since their original passage, and subsequent changes to
the laws may create variation in their content across states.
Additionally, multiple streams theory (MST; Kingdon, 1995) emphasizes three “streams”
of influence (problems, policy, and politics) related to policy change that operate as separate,
dynamic entities. When two or more of these streams converge, a “policy window” opens in
which rapid policy change becomes possible. To create a favorable environment for
implementation, policy entrepreneurs (i.e., policy actors who are promoting a particular policy
option) must link their policy option to some significant social problem or political discourse
while the policy window remains open. Once this window closes, significant policy change is
unlikely until streams converge again.
Although both PET and MST suggest that policy change is possible and acknowledge the
complexity of such, they suffer from limited predictive power (Smith & Larimer, 2009). In the
case of PET, scholars have conceded that policy researchers would have difficulty obtaining the
information necessary to predict a punctuation (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009). MST also has
problems with the operationalization necessary for statistical tests (Smith & Larimer, 2009). For
example, it is difficult to clearly identify stream convergence without an operational definition
for each stream. Another criticism of these theories pertains to their unit of analysis. Both PET
and MST have focused most of their attention to changes in national policy, raising concerns
about their application to state-level policy processes (Zahariadis, 2007). Despite these
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !7
limitations, these theories provide a framework within which my inquiry and results can be
understood.
Sex Offender Policy
Sex offenses have long been a concern to the American public (Jenkins, 1998). Concern
over rates of sexual victimization(e.g., Bonnar-Kidd, 2010), along with the damaging
psychological and physical consequences to victims (e.g., Gidycz, Orchowski, King, & Rich,
2008; Sarin & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2010; Wilson, 2009), have spawned public demand for
legislative action (e.g., Cohen & Jeglic, 2007; Petrunik, 2002). Legislators have responded to this
demand (Jenkins, 1998; Sample & Kadleck, 2008), as evidenced by the passage of SORCN laws
requiring offenders to provide up-to-date information to authorities regarding their residence,
employment, and criminal history, all of which is currently released to the public (Bonnar-Kidd,
2010; Logan, 2008). Overall, the public generally supports these laws (Anderson & Sample,
2008; Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009; Levenson et al., 2007).
Although SORCN laws currently exist in all 50 states (Sample & Evans, 2009; Terry &
Ackerman, 2009), variation may still exist in the content of these policies, which could have
implications on people’s perceptions of risks of sexual victimization across states. Specifically, if
SORCN policies were passed with the goal of increasing public perceptions of safety (Sample et
al., 2011; Sample & Kadleck, 2008), state-level variation in how residents identify and monitor
sex offenders may affect public fears of sexual victimization.
Existing research on variation in SORCN laws is relatively limited (Adams, 1999, 2002;
Baldau, 1999; Brewster, DeLong, & Moloney, 2012; Mancini et al., 2011). Many of these studies
simply described the current practices of state sex offender registries with little analysis of
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !8
variation in the content of their laws. For example, Brewster and her colleagues (2012) analyzed
the content of state registry websites to assess variation in the websites used to disseminate
information to the public. Similarly, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has published several
reports documenting the size and operation of state sex offender registries in every state (Adams,
1999, 2002; Baldau, 1999), but often data on each state’s registry was collected from surveys of
the state agency responsible for its maintenance (Adams, 1999, 2002; Baldau, 1999). The data
source for each of these studies excluded state statutes, which prohibits examination of the
maintenance of sex offender laws, the types of revisions made to them, or how often they are
revised. Mancini and colleagues (2011) assessed the variation in the number of different sex
offender laws across states, along with differences in certain characteristics of these laws, based
on existing research on their effectiveness. Essentially, variation in SORCN laws in this study
did not emerge from the data. Considering the limited extant research on variation in the content
of SORCN laws, this approach, while appropriate methodologically, likely overlooked how and
when revisions to sex offender laws occur. Further, each of these studies only assessed variation
in current SORCN laws, possibly overlooking variation in these laws within states over time,
which may contribute to our knowledge of state-level criminal justice policy-making. Therefore,
the current study will be the first to allow findings regarding variation in the content of sex
offender policy to emerge from the statutes themselves.
The current study, then, explores the standardization in the content of SORCN policies
across a sample of five states. Specifically, using a thematic content analysis, the first research
question addressed in the current study was, “Do SORCN policies vary in their content across
states?” If variation exists, a possible explanation for variation in SORCN content may be
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !9
differences in the types of revisions of SORCN policies across states, and amount of time
between them. One may argue that states that make frequent or small revisions to SORCN laws
may provide a moving target that makes standardization across states less likely. Therefore, the
second research question addressed in the current study was, “Do SORCN policies vary in the
type and frequency of their revisions across states?” The second research question will be
answered using findings from a thematic content analysis as well as an unconditional multilevel
model.
Currently, theoretical explanations of variation in the content of SORCN laws would
assume that such variation exists, which, until the current analysis, would be an untested
assumption. Therefore, this study’s most important contribution to the field may be to
empirically identify such variation, which could be used to launch research exploring factors and
theories like those mentioned in this reviewer’s comment. Once variation in the content of
SORCN laws has been empirically observed, future researchers can replicate this study with
other CJ policies and compare its findings to identify commonalities and distinctions between
types of CJ policy.
Method
This study employed a sequential exploratory mixed method research design (Creswell,
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). Specifically, my methodology was comprised of a two-stage
process, beginning with a review of all five states’ statutes from which I qualitatively coded
themes that emerged from the data (e.g., Corbin & Strauss, 1990, 1998) in order to determine
variation in content of sex offender laws over time. These data were also used to create a
typology of legislative revisions. While collecting these data, I also noted the dates for policy
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !10
changes, which I quantified to determine if there was significant differences across when states
revise their sex offender laws.
Sampling
For this study, a legislative history of SORCN statutes was prepared for each state in a
purposefully chosen sample of five Midwestern states (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and
Illinois).
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Legislative histories include information about the development of some piece of legislation
from its origin to the present. Given the exploratory nature of this study, an in-depth examination
of five states was preferred over a more cursory nationwide search resulting in only quantitative
data. These specific states were selected purposefully based on their placement in the
Midwestern region of the United States. To the degree that states within the same region share
cultural values, the states included in this study should be culturally similar. However, these
states were also selected to represent differences in the concentration of urban centers within
each state. Specifically, the number of metropolitan areas in the states selected in this sample
ranged from 13 in Illinois to 4 in Nebraska (see Table 1 for information about the states using
data from the most recent US Decennial Census). . Further, the statutes collected from these 1 2
Census data is only collected once every ten years. Although yearly estimates of this data would better describe 1
each state, such estimates that were reliable were not readily available at the time of this study. Further, census data has been used for these purposes in policy research (e.g., Daley & Garand, 2005; Grossback, Nicholson-Crotty, & Peterson, 2004; Shipan & Volden, 2008; Williams, 2003). Therefore, although decennial census data is not optimal, it is an acceptable option at present.
It may be worth distinguishing between convenience and purposive sampling here. Typically, convenience 2
sampling includes sampling strategies wherein participants or cases are included simply because they were present at sampling (e.g., Maxfield & Babbie, 2008). Conversely, any sample that is selected by researchers would not be considered to be a convenience sample. For this reason, I have referred to my sampling strategy as purposive because every U.S. states was available to me at the time of this study; that is, a legislative history could have been applied to any state.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !11
five states produced a large enough sample size to provide more than adequate data to obtain a
qualitative saturation of information and statistical power for the purposes of analyzing
differences in timing, according to generally accepted standards. Although the small sample of
states was clearly a limitation, these states provided enough information to answer the
exploratory research questions addressed in this study.
SORCN statutes from each state were collected using a snowball sampling method. I
began with a LexisNexis keyword search of current SORCN statutes in each state and collected 3
all statutes found in the “history” subsection of the current laws. All five states identified their
SORCN policies using keywords that included some derivation of “registration” or
“notification.” Sampling accuracy was verified by running the same keyword searches in each
state’s legislative website. Electronic versions of any statutes that were not available for viewing
online were requested from the state’s Supreme Court Library.
The total number of SORCN statutes from my sample of states was 94. The majority of
statutes came from Illinois (n = 49), followed by Kansas (n = 15), Iowa (n = 11), Missouri (n =
10), and Nebraska (n = 9). Of the sample of 95 statutes, 82% (n = 78) were specific to the sex
offender registry and 7% were specific to community notification statutes. The remaining 10
statutes included both registration and notification laws. The period within which all statutes
were passed in this sample was 1986 through 2012.
Content in SORCN Policies
This dataset has been used in existing research on state-level policy-making (e.g., Chamberlain & Haider-Markel, 3
2005; White & Ready, 2009; Williams, 2002). Further, many of these studies have also used statutes to form conclusions about policy-making.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !12
To begin qualitative coding, I read each statute reflectively with the goal of identifying
broad categories to represent the ways in which SORCN statutes varied across and within states
(i.e., open coding; Charmaz, 2006; Gibbs, 2007). To guide theme identification during open
coding, I used my general knowledge of existing literature on sex offender laws. Second, I
reanalyzed the statutes to narrow these broad categories into more specific themes (i.e., axial
coding).
One way that states may vary in the content of their SORCN laws could be in the
definition of registry-worthy sex offenders (Jenkins, 1998; Sample & Kadleck, 2008), and
definitions of registry-worthy sex offenders may vary based on the labels used to distinguish
between types of sex offender (i.e., sex offender or sexual predator; Sample, 2001). In addition to
the generic “sex offender” label, distinctions have been made to identify especially dangerous
offenders, such as “sexual predators” (Jenkins, 1998; Sample, 2001). Also, the manner in which
SORCN policy distinguishes between sex offenders may indicate changes in issue definition, a
concept important in existing theories of the policy process (e.g., Baumgartner & Jones, 2009;
Best, 2008; Kingdon, 1995).
The inclusion of juveniles has gathered attention from numerous scholars and has
appeared in the existing literature on sex offenders (e.g., Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, &
Armstrong, 2008; Sample, 2001; Tewksbury, 2005; Vásquez, Maddan, & Walker, 2008), and was
therefore coded when noticed. The explicit inclusion of juveniles in the sex offender registry as
well as their definition of “juvenile” sex offenders was observed in the legislative histories of
Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa (see Results section for more detail).
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !13
Further, each state’s definition of registry-worthy sex offenders also included a list of all
registrable sex offenses. To more easily facilitate qualitative cross-state comparisons, offenses
were distinguished by victim type (i.e., offenses against adults, offenses against children) and
level of contact between offender and victim (Sample, 2001; Sample & Bray, 2006). Distinctions
across sex offenders based on contact and victim characteristics have not only been common in
existing research on sex offenders (e.g., Howitt & Sheldon, 2006; Looman & Abracen, 2010),
they have also factored into risk assessment tools validated for the purposes of predicting sexual
recidivism (e.g., Static-99; Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Lussier, Deslauriers-Varin, & Râtel,
2010).
There were many different types of registrable offenses identified across the five states in
my sample. Similar to previous research (e.g., Jenkins, 1998; Sample, 2001; Sample & Bray,
2006), two categories were initially identified as contact and non-contact crimes in open coding.
Contact crimes included crimes requiring direct, physical contact between offenders and victims,
such as sexual assault, rape, and human trafficking (see Table 2). On the other hand, non-contact
crimes included all other offenses that did not require physical contact between offender and
victim (e.g., possessing child pornography, stalking, and indecent exposure; see Table 3). Each
state included contact and non-contact crimes in their list of registrable offenses.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
In axial coding, these broader groups of offenses were separated into more specific
categories. Contact crimes were further disaggregated into assaultive and non-assaultive crimes.
Assaultive crimes included some element of aggression within the crime’s definition, such as
child sexual abuse or criminal sodomy. Non-assaultive crimes consisted of all other contact
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !14
crimes that did not require physical aggression in the definition of the crime. For example, many
non-assaultive offenses included some unwanted restraint of the child. Many of these crimes
required classification as sexually motivated to justify registration, but did not explicitly require
sexual contact.
Non-contact crimes were separated into four categories: pornography, prostitution,
invasive, and exhibitionism offenses. Pornography and prostitution categories were further
distinguished as being specific to child victims (child pornography and child prostitution) or
being more general in their definitions (general pornography and general prostitution).
“Pornography” offenses included any offenses dealing with pornographic media or material
defined by the state as obscene (e.g., promoting child pornography, furnishing sexual material to
minors). “Prostitution” offenses covered crimes that pertained to selling, paying, or persuading
another person to participate in a sex act (e.g., patronizing prostitution, debauching a minor).
“Exhibitionism” involved crimes in which the offender exposed him- or herself to a victim
without physical contact (e.g., indecent exposure, lewd and lascivious behavior). Finally,
“Invasive” offenses were made up of all other offenses that do not include prostitution or
pornography that invade upon the privacy of others (e.g., stalking, harassment with sexual
motivation).
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Finally, if the length of time offender information was included in public notification
depended on some criteria, that criteria was noted and included in my analysis. Two types of
criteria for length of time on public notification were observed in the SORCN statutes in this
sample. One type was the offender’s risk of sexual recidivism. For example, a risk-based system
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !15
would assign lifetime registration and public notification to offenders who were determined to
have a high risk of recidivism based on some risk assessment tool validated for sex offenders
(e.g., the Static-99; Hanson & Thornton, 2000). The second type was an offense-based system in
which length of time an offender is required to remain on the registry is predetermined by the
offense of conviction (Sample & Evans, 2009).
Amount of Time Between Policy Revisions
To statistically assess the significance of variation in the amount of time between
SORCN statute revisions across states, I coded the month and year of each statute’s passage
during qualitative coding. Then, the difference in months between a statute and its most
immediate predecessor was entered into an unconditional Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM 7;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). More specifically, the number of months between revisions was 4
nested within states (see Table 6 below for the formulas used in this analysis).
Since existing research has not yet established whether variation in the timing of SORCN
exists, the current analysis was intended to simply determine whether or not variation was
present, so no explanatory or control variables were included in this analysis. The timing in the
passage of initial sex offender laws, and changes to them, could be indicative of variation and
changes in public attention to sex offenders within and across states. An unconditional HLM
allowed me to answer my second research question by providing the proportion of variability in
the number of months between revisions within and across states. This analysis also provided a
test of statistical significance for the proportion of variability in time between revisions across
Since this number requires a prior law for comparison, the initial SORCN law for each state was removed from the 4
statistical analysis. This change resulted in five fewer statutes in the statistical model, resulting in a new sample size of 89. Further, some states passed several revisions within the same month. For the purpose of this analysis, then, revisions passed in the same month were only counted as a single revision. This led to a further reduction leading to the final sample size of 67.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !16
states, which is used to methodologically triangulate the qualitative findings regarding the
frequency of SORCN policy revisions across states.
The decision to use an unconditional HLM was not only based on the ability to identify
variation in timing, however. Since time was a factor in this analysis, the assumption of
independence of errors required in OLS models made traditional regressive analysis
inappropriate. Fortunately, HLM relaxes this assumption, allowing for the analysis of time
variables. Therefore, an unconditional HLM was selected to assess the variation in the number of
months between revisions across states.
Results
Variation in the Content of SORCN Laws
Dangerousness of Sex Offenders
One way in which states defined registered sex offenders was the distinction between
sexual predators and sex offenders. Every state in this sample included definitions for both
generic “sex offenders” as well as “sexual predators.” In each state, sexual predators were
considered to be more dangerous than sex offenders. Variation existed across states, however, in
the ways in which the “predator” label was applied. Although every state assigned the label of
sexual predator based, at least in part, on the severity of the crime committed, three states also
required a diagnosis of some “mental abnormality” (MO, KS, IA). Further, only Kansas included
crimes committed against adults, such as rape and criminal sodomy, in their definition of sexual
predators. This clearly suggests that in some states there is a perception that a mental defect is
responsible for increasing the seriousness of sex offenses to predator states, which may imply a
treatment-oriented response for these offenders. Conversely, states that define sex offenders
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !17
without some diagnosis of mental defect may imply a less rehabilitative, more retributive
response.. Moreover, states varied regarding the predatory nature of sex offending, in that one
finds that predators can “prey” on adults, whereas others suggest that predatory status is reserved
for children. If states vary in their definitions of dangerousness in their SORCN laws, might they
also differ in their definitions of sex offenders more generally?
Who Can Be a Registrable Sex Offender?
Three states explicitly included juveniles in their sex offender registries (IA, MO, IL).
Consequently, only adults were included in the sex offender registry in Nebraska and Kansas.
This indicated variation in the definition of registry-worthy sex offenders based on an offender’s
status as an adult. Further, in the three states that registered juvenile sex offenders, there was
variation in the criteria to be considered a “juvenile” sex offender. For example, Missouri only
included juveniles on their sex offender registry if the juvenile had been tried as an adult and the
victim in the case was under 13 years old. In contrast, Iowa required registration for any offender
committing a registrable sex offense over the age of 14 years old. These findings suggest that in
some states, typical sex offenders for which the public should monitor were adults, whereas in
other states, offenders demanding informal surveillance can be of a wider age range.
States also varied in their lists of registry-worthy offenses. All five states had assaultive
contact crimes in their lists of registrable offenses. Further, all five states had registrable offenses
representing both the statutory and sexual assault/rape subcategories of assaultive contact crimes.
Two specific crimes, incest with a minor and kidnapping (non-parent with sexual motivation),
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !18
were present on the list of registrable offenses for all five states, although the definition of a
minor differed across states. Kansas was the only state without a non-assaultive contact crime.
The only category of non-contact offenses represented in all five states was child
prostitution. States varied in their inclusion of other subcategories of non-contact crimes in their
lists of registry-worthy offenses. For example, out of the states in this sample, Kansas was the
not only state that lacked an offense linked to child pornography, but it was also the only state
that had an offense related to non-juvenile prostitution (patronizing prostitution). Additionally,
the only non-contact offenses meriting registration in Nebraska focused on child victims.
Ultimately, states appeared to vary greatly in their selection of non-contact offenses requiring
registration and notification (see Table 4). These results suggest that as citizens move from state
to state, there may be little consistency in the types of non-contact sex offenders they should
informally monitor. Moreover, the results may suggest that some non-contact offenses are not
perceived as problems in some states but are in others. Based on the findings presented here, it
seems clear that my sample of states differed in their definitions of sex offenders; however,
might states also differ in the level to which the public is involved in monitoring these offenders
(i.e., community notification).
[Insert Table 4 about here]
Community Notification Requirements
Another source of variation in the content of SORCN statutes was present in how levels
of public notification changed over time. At the time of this study, all states in this sample made
information for all registered sex offenders public; however, this pattern was not always the case.
Indeed, Nebraska and Iowa began with a risk-based approach to identifying which offenders’
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !19
information to publish. For example, original community notification laws in Nebraska varied
the level of public access to offender information based on sexual recidivism risk assessment.
Specifically, information about low risk offenders was only disseminated to law enforcement,
while moderate risk offenders had their information publicized to schools and other child care
centers as well as law enforcement. Finally, the general public was only provided with
information for high-risk offenders. This method was used in Nebraska for ten years until its
revision to include all offenders in 2010. In contrast, Illinois adopted an offense-based
notification system from the law’s inception. Therefore, although the methods for assigning time
on the sex offender registry were very similar at the time of this study across states, these
methods have varied over time, suggesting that states tailored their notification processes to their
individual populations, likely based on public sentiment, advice of experts, or the simple
adoption of other states’ policy with similar citizen populations.
In summary, there appears to be variation in the definitions of dangerousness and
publicization of offender information across states. One potential explanation for variation in
SORCN content may be differences in the types of revisions of SORCN policies across states,
and amount of time between them. Now I will present results to the second research question
addressed in the current study, “Do SORCN policies vary in the frequency and type of revisions
across states?”
Variation in the Frequency of SORCN Policy Change
Prior to discussing the statistical analysis of the variation in timing of SORCN policy
revision, it seems appropriate to provide evidence of variation in the creation of SORCN policies
across states. The year in which SORCN statutes were first adopted in our sample of states
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !20
ranged over a span of 10 years between 1986 (Illinois) and 1996 (Nebraska). While no
quantitative analysis was conducted to statistically test this variation, the large discrepancy in the
adoption of SORCN statutes remains worth noting for future research.
The results of the unconditional HLM model indicated a significant proportion of
variability in the months between revisions across states (p=.003; see Table 5). More specifically,
11% of the variation in the timing of revisions of SORCN statutes in this study (i.e., for all
states) was attributed to between state variation. Conversely, 89% of the variation in timing of 5
policy change in this analysis was attributed to variation within states. The statistically
significant between-state variation in the time between revisions suggests that state-level factors,
such as political ideology or economic structure (e.g., Brooks & Manza, 2007; Garland, 2001),
have influence over the timing of revisions to SORCN laws. Therefore, this finding may provide
scholars with justification for future research to include state-level factors in exploring
explanations for differences in sex offender legislation across states.
[Insert Table 5 about here]
Findings from the thematic content analysis may be used to elaborate upon the
significant findings in my quantitative analysis (Creswell et al., 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2011).
Some states passed many revisions of their SORCN statutes (Illinois, Kansas), while others
passed fewer revisions (Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri). For example, Illinois passed a majority of the
statutes in our entire sample. This was not simply due to their seven-year head start the state
enjoyed. After its first revision in 1991 (P.A. 87-457), Illinois only had four separate years in
R2’s are computed only for the between-state variance (i.e., Level 2) using the following formula: 5
Between-state variation = (uojNULL - uojFULL)/uojNULL
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !21
which a new revision was not passed (1994, 1996, 2001, and 2003). Further, Illinois passed
multiple revisions within the same year (e.g., 1993, 1995, etc.); in some cases, revisions occurred
in Illinois in the same month, such as P.A. 91-221, P.A. 91-224, P.A. 91-357, and P.A. 91-394 in
July of 2000. Other states, however, passed revisions less often. For example, Missouri only
passed nine revisions over the 17-year lifespan of their registry. Unlike Illinois, Missouri never
revised their SORCN statutes more than once a year. Along with the statistically significant
variation in timing of revisions across states noted in the unconditional HLM above, it was
apparent that some states have been more prolific in their policy change than others. The degree
to which this variation results from new or on-going sex crime panics in some states as opposed
to others remains unknown.
Therefore, the combined results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses in this paper
provide evidence for variation in the frequency of policy change across and within my sample of
states. Considering these differences, however, one may wonder if all of these revisions were
similar. That is, were there different types of SORCN policy change in my sample of states?
Types of Revisions
While many of the findings presented above pertain to variation in the content and rate of
revisions for SORCN law across states, variation in the content of SORCN laws within states
was also observed in the different types of policy changes made over time. For example, in Iowa,
Acts 1999 Chapter 23 indicated that registered offenders who committed a kidnapping or false
imprisonment could only have their information on public notification sites if sexual abuse was
involved in the crime. Several years later, Iowa passed Acts 2009 Chapter 119 which completely
restructured SORCN to approach compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. Existing policy change
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !22
theory indicates that revisions may differ in their scope and impact on existing law. For example,
punctuated-equilibrium theory predicts that a policy’s timeline will consist mostly of small,
incremental changes punctuated by sudden spikes of rapid policy change. Although existing
research has acknowledged that revisions may be qualitatively different, an empirical typology of
revisions, beyond incremental revisions and punctuations from punctuated-equilibrium theory,
has remained relatively unexplored. Therefore, the typology of revisions described below
emerged from the data, providing empirically developed categories.
A Typology of Revisions
This study’s qualitative content analysis produced a typology of revisions based on the
degree to which the revision affected the distribution of resources in the operation of SORCN in
that state, both for criminal justice agencies and the registered sex offenders. Specifically, a
continuum of revision types emerged from the data where each type of revision overlapped with
other types lower on a hierarchy (see Table 6). For example, Iowa Acts 2009 Chapter 119 not
only fit into the highest type (net-widening), it also met the criteria for types lower on the
hierarchy, such as procedural (e.g., registered offenders had to provide fingerprints) and
definitional revisions (e.g., restructured and redefined the list of registrable offenses).
[Insert Table 6 about here]
The first category in this typology is “tinkering” revisions. These revisions changed
words without actually changing the meaning or scope of the content in the law. For example,
P.A. 91-357 in Illinois simply inserted the word “and” in one sentence along with a comma. Also,
Kansas Law 155-10 in 2010 added the word “human” to the existing offenses previously known
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !23
as “trafficking.” In this case, the definition for trafficking did not change, only the name of the
crime.
The next type of revision made changes that altered the meaning of the specific words or
phrases in the content of the law, which I call “definitional” revisions. These revisions
overlapped with tinkering revisions in that the changes focused on specific words or phrases,
however these revisions actually altered the meaning the content of the law. One example is
found in 2010 Laws 147-8 in Kansas, which added unlawful sexual relations with a minor to the
list of sexually violent crimes used to identify especially dangerous offenders. Although the
distinction made in this revision may lead to a difference in the way that affected offenders
interact with the registry (along with the way criminal justice agents interact with these
offenders), the revision itself did not change the operation of the registry outright, which would
make it a procedural revision (see next paragraph). Another example of a definitional revision
would be P.A. 87-457, which was passed in Illinois in 1991. This revision included tinkering in
that some commas and short clauses were removed without affecting the meaning of the existing
law; however, a clarification was made that criminal sexual abuse was only registrable if they
were classified as felonies at the time of the crime.
The third type of revision on this hierarchy includes procedural revisions. These revisions
altered the actions necessary to be compliant with SORCN policy for either criminal justice
agencies or registered sex offenders. An example of a procedural revision for criminal justice
agencies includes Missouri’s HB 424 from 1996, which placed responsibility for maintaining the
sex offender registry with the Missouri State Patrol. Another example of a procedural revision
that affected registered offenders was P.A. 97-565 in Illinois which required all registered sex
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !24
offenders to submit a DNA specimen for the registry. Neither of these revisions expanded the
scope of the their state’s sex offender registry; however, each of these revisions directly changed
the operation of the registry, either for law enforcement or the offenders.
The fourth and final type of revision observed in this analysis increased the purview of
the registry, typically by adding offenses or requiring larger groups of offenders to register or for
which the community should be notified. These revisions, which I will refer to as net-widening
revisions, not only change the operation of their state’s registry, they expand the registry to
include more offenders, requiring greater monetary and time resources. An example of a net-
widening revision would be Nebraska’s LB 285, passed in May 2009. LB 285 changed
Nebraska’s criterion for the length of time registry information was made available to the public
from risk-based to the offense-based system described earlier in the paper. Further, this revision
was applied retroactively, restricted offender interactions with children, shortened deadlines for
registering, required in-person visits to verify information, and added another crime to the
registry. Another example would be Iowa Acts 2009 Chapter 119. This statute revised Iowa’s
SORCN policy to more closely resemble requirements put forth by the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act (AWA). In addition to clarifying definitions of registrable offenses and
changes to information provided to law enforcement by registered offenders, registration was
expanded to new crimes and applied retroactively to anyone who had committed registrable
crimes.
Very few of the revisions included in this study were only tinkering revisions. Only three
states had tinkering revisions in the history of their SORCN law, and only Illinois had more than
one tinkering revision. It was also fairly rare for states to pass definitional revisions. Again, of
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !25
the three states (KS, IA, and IL) that had definitional revisions in their legislative history, Illinois
was the only state to include more than one of these revisions. Every state had procedural
revisions in the history of their SORCN law, with Illinois representing a majority of such
revisions. Finally, net-widening revisions were represented in each state’s SORCN legislative
history (see Table 5).
It is important to note that, although revisions such as tinkering and definitional revisions
may appear to have little impact on the implementation and operation of sex offender registration
and notification, existing theories of policy change have considered such revisions to be
important in the policy process (e.g., Baumgartner & Jones, 2009). Essentially, any changes
made to existing policy, regardless of their anticipated impact, require time and resources from
legislators. From this we may infer that any changes made to existing policy must have been
considered important, for some reason, by the legislators recommending them. Further, if the
content of each revision is deemed to be important by legislators, the variation in the impact of
revisions to SORCN statutes across states may provide insight into the variation in policy
process for SORCN statutes across states. That is, some states may be more open to making
small changes and clarifications in SORCN statutes, while other states only make revisions when
some deficit in the operation of existing SORCN policy is brought to the attention of the
legislators. Unfortunately, such an explanation based on the exploratory information in the
current study will remain speculative until future research can examine the policy process
further.
Discussion
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !26
The current study has identified variation in the content of SORCN statutes across a
purposive sample of five Midwestern states. Specifically, distinctions between sex offenders and
sexual predators, age criteria for sex offender registration, and each state’s list of registry-worthy
offenses varied across states. These findings indicate that some offenders deemed dangerous
enough to merit registration in some states (e.g., juveniles in Missouri, exhibitionism in Kansas)
are not considered as dangerous in others (e.g., juveniles in Nebraska, exhibitionism in
Missouri). Also, early methods by which public notification of sex offender information was
decided differed across states. Indeed, Nebraska and Iowa used risk-based notification systems
early in the history of their notification statutes, wherein only high-risk sex offenders were
included in public notification.
Interestingly, a typology of revisions emerged from the legislative histories of SORCN
statutes within states. This typology provides evidence of within state variation in the substantive
contribution of revisions to SORCN statutes. Generally, this typology distinguished revisions
based on their impact to the operation of the registry. Although many revisions altered the day-
to-day operation of the registry and public notification sites (i.e., procedural revisions), other
revisions seemed to be focused on tinkering with words and clarifying existing language.
One possible explanation for these findings may be that variation in the SORCN content
across states was an artifact of variation in the quality and timing of policy change. If some states
revised their SORCN policies more substantively and less often than others, it may be that these
states varied in their content because they did not keep up with their more prolific state
neighbors. However, it may also be that the variation in timing of SORCN revisions observed in
this study reflected differences in the perceptions of policy change across these states. Indeed,
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !27
states that frequently revised their SORCN laws may have been more inclined to experiment
with new policy options. On the other hand, states that were less active in changing SORCN laws
may have taken a more conservative approach, waiting to see how new policy options performed
in other states before making changes to their own laws. Indeed, the more prolific states in my
sample made revisions that consisted of grammatical clarifications (i.e., tinkering and
definitional revisions) that would do little to alter the operation of the SORCN. The
concentration of such revisions in the most active states may indicate that these states were
situated within a political climate that was more accepting of revisions.
Beyond the explanations examined in this study, another possible explanation of variation
in the content of SORCN laws may come from the moral panic literature (Cohen, 2002). Using
our understanding of moral panics, we may conclude that variation in the content of SORCN
laws observed in this study arose from a similar variation in local and statewide perceptions of a
larger sex crime problem, much of which would be attributed to mass media and political-
cultural climate in each state. One limitation of this explanation, however, would be the
assumption that news reporting will vary across this sample of states. Considering the geographic
proximity of the states in this sample, it may be unreasonable to assume that high-profile sex
crimes would not be disseminated across state lines. Indeed, even existing research has indicated
that much of the media contribution to the current sex crime panic has been situated in
nationwide media attention of high-profile sex crimes (Jenkins, 1998). Therefore, although the
moral panic literature may provide possible explanations for this study’s findings, these
explanations may be limited. Ultimately, future research will be required to better understand the
relationship between variation in SORCN policy and moral panics.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !28
Theories of policy change and the policy process discussed earlier in this paper could also
provide possible explanations for the current study’s findings. For example, the findings in the
current study regarding revisions that made relatively small changes to SORCN laws appear to
fit into the concept of equilibrium as described by Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory (PET;
Baumgartner & Jones, 2009), which suggests incremental changes occur but policies remain
reasonably stable until such time the problem they address has been redefined. Further, for many
states, there appeared to be single, major revisions to SORCN policy (e.g., Nebraska’s LB 285)
spread amongst a longer period of more minor revisions. Brief periods of rapid policy change,
such as that observed for Nebraska’s LB 285, would be predicted in several theories of the policy
process, including PET and the Multiple Streams Framework (Kingdon, 1995). It is possible all
three streams in policy making (problems, policy, and politics) converge in some states but not
others, or converge at different rates or by varying degrees based on some broader state context.
As noted earlier, these theories have been criticized within the policy sciences for their
lack of predictive power (de Leon, 1999; Smith & Larimer, 2009). Also, many of these theories
have focused on explaining policy change at the national level and lack empirical tests for state-
level variation (Zahariadis, 2007). Further, these theories may not be generalizable to criminal
justice policy, especially considering the emotionally-charged nature of such policies (Jenkins,
1998; Jenness & Broad, 1997; Karstedt, 2002; Scarborough, Like-Haislip, Novak, Lucas, &
Alarid, 2010). Nonetheless, these theories can provide a starting point upon which new theory
for criminal justice policy-making may be built in future research. Therefore, future research
may attempt to assess the degree to which differences in SORCN policy, or criminal justice
policy more broadly, fits within existing policy change frameworks.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !29
One final explanation of the variation in both SORCN content and the frequency of
revisions may come from the mechanisms by which SORCN policies spread from one state to
another (i.e., policy diffusion; Rogers, 1995). One of the most common frameworks in policy
diffusion has been the social learning perspective (Brooks, 2007; Gray, 1973; Heclo, 1977;
Jordana & Levi-Faur, 2005; Karch, 2006, 2007; Meseguer, 2004; Walker, 1969; Weisburd,
Mastrofski, McNally, Greenspan, & Willis, 2003; Wejnert, 2002). Within the social learning
approach, policy innovations spread across locations once “adopters” (i.e., the jurisdiction
considering adoption or revision of some innovation) have collected the information needed to
reduce uncertainty about the innovation. Therefore, according to the social learning framework,
the most influential factors early in the policy diffusion process are the sources of information
used by policy makers (Rogers, 1995).
One of many sources of information used by policy makers may be the performance of
some considered policy option in other states (Karch, 2007). Essentially, legislators in one state
may prefer to observe the effectiveness and consequences of some policy option implemented in
other states prior to implementing it in their own state. This perspective has been labeled
“democratic laboratories” by several policy researchers (Karch, 2007). For example, Nebraska
may not have language explicitly including juveniles in their sex offender registry because they
are observing the cost-effectiveness of this policy in other states and consciously chosen not to
adopt it. Therefore, mechanisms of policy diffusion should also be considered in future research
on variation in SORCN law.
Conclusion
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !30
Criminal justice policies, such as SORCN laws, often represent legislative responses to
public fear of crime. In particular, public fears of sexual victimization have been addressed, with
some success, by increasing the monitoring of the sex offender population through the passage of
SORCN laws (Sample & Kadleck, 2008; Sample, Evans, & Anderson, 2011). This study
explored the ways by which SORCN laws varied across states. The differences in how residents
became aware of and monitored sex offenders across states may suggest that public fears of
sexual victimization also varied across states, if variation in laws is a function of public opinion.
Further, variation in the operation of sex offender registries across states may mean that
registered offenders who travel to other states for business or leisure must become familiar with
the laws of their destination state or risk a registry violation, which can be a felony in some
states.
Now that variation in the content of SORCN laws has been empirically observed,
however, future research should begin to identify factors that contribute to this variation.
Existing theories of policy change and the policy process may not be applicable to all types of
policy (Brooks, 2007). Therefore, it is important to be cautious when applying these theories
directly to criminal justice policies generally, especially considering the emotions and fear of
crime typically at the heart of criminal justice policies (Cohen, 2002; Jenkins, 1998; Jenness &
Broad, 1997; Karstedt, 2002; Scarborough et al., 2010).
In addition to its theoretical contributions to how we understand criminal justice policy
change, however, it is also important to identify significant factors in the policy process for
criminal justice policy as well as the settings in which policy is most likely to change. A better
understanding of the policy process can facilitate our ability to anticipate rapid and, perhaps,
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !31
hurried policy change, which may contribute to the passage of policy that is ineffective in
addressing public fears and that distracts law enforcement from true threats to public safety.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !32
References
Adams, D. B. (1999). Summary of sex offender registry dissemination procedures (NCJ
177620). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Adams, D. B. (2002). Summary of state sex offender registries (NCJ 192265). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Anderson, A. L., & Sample, L. L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex
offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.
Baldau, V. B. (1999). Summary of state sex offender registries: Automation and operation, 1998
(NCJ 177621). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd
Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Best, J. (2008). Social problems. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or
recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412-419.
Brewster, M. P., DeLong, P. A., & Moloney, J. T. (2012). Sex offender registries: A content
analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1177/0887403412459331.
Brooks, S. M. (2007). When does diffusion matter?: Explaining the spread of structural pension
reforms across nations. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 701-715.
Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in
democracies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !33
Chamberlain, R., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2005). “Lien on me”: State policy innovation in
response to paper terrorism. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 449-460.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daley, D. M., & Garand, J. C. (2005). Horizontal diffusion, vertical diffusion, and internal
pressure in state environmental policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Research,
33(5), 615-644.
de Leon, P. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of
the Policy Process (Pp. 19-32). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !34
Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In U. Flick (Series Ed.), The SAGE qualitative
research kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., King, C. R., & Rich, C. L. (2008). Sexual victimization and
health-risk behaviors: A prospective analysis of college women. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23, 744-763.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review,
67(4), 1174-1185.
Grossback, L. J., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Ideology and learning in
policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), 521-545.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A
comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
Heclo, H. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Howitt, D., & Sheldon, K. (2007). The role of cognitive distortions in paedophilic offending:
Internet and contact offenders compared. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(5), 469-486.
Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jenness, V., & Broad, K. (1997). Hate crimes: New social movements and the politics of
violence. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The diffusion of regulatory capitalism in Latin America:
Sectoral and national channels in the making of a new order. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 102-124.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !35
Karch, A. (2006). National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American
Politics Research, 34(4), 403-426.
Karch, A. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Karstedt, S. (2002). Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology, 6(3), 299-317.
Kernsmith, P. D., Craun, S. W., & Foster, J. (2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and
sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290-301.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Lasswell, H. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Debajyoti, S., & Armstrong, K. S. (2008). The influence
of sex offender registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 20(2), 136-153.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions and community
protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1-25.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2),
79-88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling: Not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6),
517-526.
Logan, W. A. (2008). Sex offender registration and community notification: Past, present, and
future. New England Journal on Criminology & Civil Confinement, 34, 3-16.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !36
Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2010). Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in sexual
offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(5), 791-807.
Lussier, P., Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Râtel, T. (2010). A descriptive profile of high-risk sex
offenders under intensive supervision in the province of British Columbia, Canada.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(1), 71-91.
Mancini, C., Barnes, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2011). It varies from state to state: An examination of
sex crime laws nationally. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0887403411424079.
Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2010). Research methods for Criminal Justice and
Criminology (6th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Meseguer, C. (2004). What role for learning?: The diffusion of privatisation of OECD and Latin
America countries. Journal of Public Policy, 24(3), 299-325.
Nelson, B. J. (1984). Making an issue of child abuse: Political agenda setting for social
problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Petrunik, M. G. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and
social policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 46, 483-511.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (4th Ed). New York, NY: Free Press.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !37
Sample, L. L. (2001). The social construction of the sex offender. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri, St. Louis). Retrieved from http://http://www.umsl.edu/ccj/pdfs/
dissertation_abstracts/Sample_dissertation_abs.pdf.
Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different?: An examination of rearrest
patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83-102.
Sample, L. L., & Evans, M. K. (2009). Sex offender registration and community notification. In
Richard G. Wright (Ed.), Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions (pp.
211-242). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Sample, L. L., Evans, M. K., & Anderson, A. L. (2011). Sex offender community notification
laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 22(1), 27-49.
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for
policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40-62.
Sarin, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2010). The dangers of dwelling: An examination of the
relationship between rumination and consumptive coping in survivors of childhood
sexual abuse. Cognition & Emotion, 24(1), 71-85.
Scarborough, B. K., Like-Haislip, T. Z., Novak, K. J., Lucas, W. L., & Alarid, L. F. (2010).
Assessing the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood context, and
fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 819-826.
Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of
Political Science, 52(4), 840-857.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !38
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2009). The Public Policy Theory Primer. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Terry, K. J., & Ackerman, A. R. (2009). A brief history of major sex offender laws. In Richard G.
Wright (Ed.), Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions (pp. 65-98). New
York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registries. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-82.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. Census 2010, Demographic Profile Data and 2006-2010
American Community Survey. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/
faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.htm.
Vásquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration
and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Journal of Crime and
Delinquency, 54(2), 175-192.
Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American
Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003).
Reforming to preserve: COMPSTAT and strategic problem solving in American policing.
Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 421-456.
Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !39
White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2009). Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER:
Identifying predictors of suspect death reported in the media. Criminology & Public
Policy, 8(4), 865-892.
Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Williams, J. (2003). Criminal justice policy innovation in the states. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 14(3), 401-422.
Williams, M. R. (2002). Civil asset forfeiture: Where does the money go? Criminal Justice
Review, 27(2), 321-329.
Wilson, D. R. (2009). Health consequences of childhood sexual abuse. Perspectives in
Psychiatric Care, 46(1), 56-64.
Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A.
Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (Pp. 65-92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !40
Table 1. Descriptive information about the sample of states.
!
Note: MSAs = Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 2013; % with Children = Percentage of Families Taking Care of Own Children; % Poverty = Percentage of Families Below the Poverty Line; Party in Power = Political Party in Majority in State Congress in 2010; Governor Party = Political Party of Governor in 2008; Vote for President = Vote in 2008 Presidential Election; * = Nebraska’s legislature is non-partisan, meaning that no statistics were provided regarding political party in the legislature or governorship
State # MSAs% African-American
% Hispanic
% with Children
% Poverty
Party in Power
Governor Party
Vote for President
Nebraska 4 5.4 9.2 29.7 11.8 n/a* n/a* RepublicanMissouri 8 12.5 3.5 28.5 14.0 Republican Democrat RepublicanKansas 6 7.1 10.5 30.4 12.4 Republican Republican RepublicanIowa 9 3.7 5.0 28.4 11.6 Democrat Republican Democrat
Illinois 13 15.4 15.8 30.1 12.6 Democrat Democrat Democrat
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !41
Table 2. Current registrable contact offenses in a sample of five Midwestern states
!
Assaultive OffensesAssaultive Offenses Non-Assaultive Offenses
Statutory Offenses Sexual Assault/Rape
Sexual Assault of a Child Sexual AssaultKidnapping of a Minor (Non-
parent)
Incest of a MinorSexual Assault of a Vulnerable
Adult False Imprisonment of a Child
Child Sexual Abuse Criminal Sodomy Unlawful Restraint
Genital Mutilation of a Female Child Rape
Transportation of a Minor for Sex
Adultery with a Child Unlawful Sexual Relations
Indecent Liberties with a Child Criminal Transmission of HIV
Ritualized Abuse of a Minor Murder w/ Sexual Assault
Sexual Battery of a Child Burglary w/ Sexual Assault
Sexual Abuse of a Corpse
Manslaughter w/ Sexual Motivation
Sexual Abuse
Criminal Sexual Assault
Criminal Sexual Abuse
Penetration of Genitalia/Anus
Custodial Sexual Misconduct
Sexual Abuse of an Inmate
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !42
Table 3. Current registrable non-contact offenses in a sample of five Midwestern states
�
�
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !43
Table 4. Breakdown of registrable offenses in sample of states.
!
Category of OffenseCategory of OffenseCategory of Offense Nebraska Missouri Kansas Iowa Illinois
ContactAssaultive
Statutory X X X X X
ContactAssaultive
Assault/Rape
X X X X XContact
Non-AssaultiveNon-Assaultive X X X X
Non-Contact
PornographyChild X X X X
Non-Contact
PornographyGeneral X X
Non-Contact Prostitution
Child X X X X XNon-Contact Prostitution
General X
Non-Contact
InvasiveInvasive X X
Non-Contact
ExhibitionismExhibitionism X X X
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !44
Table 5. HLM model testing variation in timing of SORCN policies.
!
Model summary:
Level 1 Model
DIFFTIMEij = ß0j + rij
Level 2 Model
ß0j = Ɣ00 + u0j
Mixed Model
DIFFTIMEij = Ɣ00 + u0j + rij
Random EffectStandard Deviation
Variance Component
% of Variance Explained df Chi2 p
Intercept, u0 3.518 12.374 11 4 15.955 0.003
Level 1, rij 9.901 98.036 89
VARIATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY MAKING !45
Table 6. Distribution of Revision Types
!
Note. As this typology pertains to revisions, statutes that created a state’s registration or community notification policy without altering an existing SORCN statute were not included in the typology. Therefore, marginal totals will not equal those reported for the original sample.
State Tinkering Definitional Procedural Net-Widening
Nebraska 0 0 3 4
Missouri 1 0 5 3
Kansas 1 1 5 7
Iowa 0 1 3 6
Illinois 2 6 27 13
Overall 4 8 43 33
top related