Variation in Criminal Justice Policy-Making: An Exploratory Study Using Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws

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: [email protected]

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: 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.


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


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


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


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 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


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


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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).


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


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.


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


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),


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).


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’


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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,


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.


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.


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


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,


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


Table 3. Current registrable non-contact offenses in a sample of five Midwestern states

�

�


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


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


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

Variation in Criminal Justice Policy-Making: An Exploratory Study Using Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws

Documents