U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Community Corrections Professionals' Views of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification and Residency Restrictions

NCJ Number
237612
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 75 Issue: 3 Dated: December 2011 Pages: 45-50
Author(s)
Richard Tewksbury; Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine; Brian K. Payne
Date Published
December 2011
Length
6 pages
Annotation
A national sample of community corrections professionals was surveyed to determine respondents' attitudes toward sex offenders, sex offender registration and community notification (SORN), and accompanying residency restrictions for sex offenders.
Abstract
The study found that community corrections professionals' attitudes are moderately supportive of both SORN and residency restrictions for sex offenders, believing that they are effective in preventing reoffending; however, the large majority of respondents did not perceive that either known sex offenders or potential sex offenders are deterred by SORN policies. This suggests that reasons other than deterrence underlie respondents' general support for these policies. Their favorable view of these policies for sex offenders may be due to the opportunities such policies provide for community corrections professionals to engage in enhanced, structured supervision of sex offenders. The 43-item survey contained questions designed for this study. The survey items were pertinent to the respondent's views on SORN and residency restrictions for sex offenders. In order to enlist participation in the survey, all members of the electronic mailing list of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and recipients of the APPA newsletter were invited to complete the online survey. A total of 716 community corrections professionals completed the online survey. Respondents worked in 45 States and the District of Columbia and were evenly split between males and females. The authors note that it is likely that the respondents did not represent a random sample of community corrections professionals. Also, some attitudes may not have been accurately captured by the survey questions. The authors believe that although the current findings must be generalized with caution, the study provides a good exploratory evaluation upon which future research in this area should be built. 4 tables and 26 references