Are Sex Offenders Moving into Social Disorganization? Analyzing the Residential Mobility of California Parolees

Abstract

This study focuses on the relationship between returning offender residential mobility and neighborhood structural factors characteristic of socially disorganized neighborhoods. It utilizes a unique dataset that combines information on parolees released in the state of California during the 2005-06 time-period with their geocoded addresses to view the types of neighborhoods they are moving to. We find that sex offenders are entering neighborhoods with more concentrated disadvantage and residential instability upon re-entry from prison and upon subsequent moves. This effect for sex offender status is particularly strong for whites and Latinos, leading them into more socially disorganized neighborhoods. We also find that sex offenders are more likely to enter neighborhoods with more minorities as measured by Latinos and African Americans, and less likely to enter neighborhoods with more whites.

A cross-sectional exploration of household financial reactions and homebuyer awareness of registered sex offenders in a rural, suburban, and urban county.

“…However, the supposed claims of sex offender registration and community notification are incongruous with the scholarly literature, which has suggested that the efficacies of these legislative procedures are questionable (Agan & Prescott, 2014;Letourneau et al, 2010;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011;Sperber, Lowenkamp, Carter, & Allman, 2010;Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010;Zevitz, 2006 (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Colombino, Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic, 2011;Maguire & Singer, 2011;Nobles et al, 2012;Prescott & Rockoff, 2011;Socia, 2012b;Sperber et al, 2010). These legal provisions mandated upon RSOs have not achieved their purported claims, and discriminatory acts against RSOs reinforced by sex offender policies have encouraged their relocations into disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or rural communities (Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010;Mustaine et al, 2006aMustaine et al, , 2006bSloas et al, 2012;Socia, 2012a;Tewksbury et al, 2016).…”

“…The literature has consistently demonstrated that RSOs tend to reside in unfavorable living conditions (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Gordon, 2013;Hipp et al, 2010;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine et al, 2006aMustaine et al, , 2006b, 2011bSocia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh et al, 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006Tewksbury et al, 2016;Tewksbury et al, 2007). Responses by community members to RSOs in their areas have resulted in disapproval of their presence, as evident of depressed home selling prices (Bian et al, 2013;Caudill et al, 2014;Larsen et al, 2003;Linden & Rockoff, 2008;Navarro & Rabe-Hemp, 2017;Pope, 2008;Wentland et al, 2014;Yeh, 2015).…”

“…One such sect of stigmatized persons includes criminal offenders given their linkage as being social deviants, especially registered sex offenders (RSOs). In support of this argument, offenders who have committed sex crimes experience stigma that is above and beyond those without the sex offender label (Hipp, Turner, & Jannetta, 2010;Rade, Desmarais, & Mitchell, 2016;see Tewksbury, 2012;Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Some registered sex offenders have self-imposed an isolated lifestyle that is then exacerbated by the stigma associated with their sex offender status (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008).…”

“…These legal acts of discrimination prompted a variety of adverse effects (better known as collateral consequences) for RSOs. Primary among the collateral consequences faced by convicted sex offenders is their relegation into socially disadvantaged communities (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Gordon, 2013;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006b;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b; see also Yeh, 2015;Sloas, Steele, & Hare, 2012;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015;Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Rolfe, 2016). Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006).…”

“…Shaw and McKay (1942) argued that neighborhoods 1 that contain greater rates of the "negative" indicators like high rates of poverty, minorities, and population turnover be considered socially disorganized (or disadvantaged) areas, and in turn, susceptible to criminality. Paralleling with the theory's foundation, the presence of RSOs have been associated with communities that contained high rates of concentrated disadvantage (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016, racial/ethnic heterogeneity (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Hipp et al, 2010;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia & Stamatel, 2012), and residential instability (Clark & Duwe, 2015;Hipp et al, 2010; 1 Hereafter, the present study will utilize the terms community and neighborhood to describe two different concepts. Community is in reference to a broader social network of people, and, at times, a larger geographic boundary; whereas, neighborhoods are smaller social-geographic networks of people, with a greater emphasis on a geographic vicinity (The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities, 2016).…”