Relying on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A Qualitative Study of the
SORN in Nebraska and the Challenges of Law Enforcement in Enforcing the Law.
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
by
RICHARD W. HOLTER
San Diego, California
May 2018
ii
Approval Page
Relying on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A Qualitative Study of the
SORN in Nebraska and the Challenges of Law Enforcement in Enforcing the Law
By
Richard W. Holter
Approved by:
Certified by:
10/3/2018
Dean of School: Dr. Kelly Walters, Ph.D.
Date
Abstract
Sex Offender Registration information is only effective if it is enforced and it is unknown
if SORN is adequately enforced by local law enforcement and if SORN protects victims.
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to understand these phenomena better.
Following Yin’s case study design procedures with 13 law enforcement and ten subject
matter experts in a semi-structured interview, this researcher addressed the four research
questions addressing validation of SORN data; challenges in enforcement; improvements
recommended; and SORN’s use in protecting current victims. The study’s sample size
was small making it difficult to generalize beyond the participants.
Additionally, securing data from all participants was difficult due to resource limitations
of the participating agencies. Limitations aside, there were consistent findings in themes.
The lack of resources found law enforcement more reliant on the information provided by
the offenders with enforcement varying by size of the agency due to resources.
Participants cited the one-size-fits-all approach of SORN exasperating the lack of
resources, requiring them to supervise all offenders, rather than just the highest risk
offenders. Very little in terms of SORN programs, other than VINELink were cited as
beneficial to victims of sex offenders. It would be desirable to strengthen resources, so
agencies could consistently conduct compliance checks according to the participants.
Additionally, state coordination and management of the process would be desirable.
Research that replicates this study with a larger sample and potentially interviewing the
protected class of sex offenders could prove valuable in enhancing the literature on this
important topic.
iv
Acknowledgments
This four-year journey has not been without its challenges, none of which could
have been overcome without my faith in God, the support of my wife, Jan, and my
daughter, Tara, who suffered through my absences from family activities while I
continued my long-term relationship with my laptop. I probably never would have
pursued my doctorate after completing my Masters in 2013 if it had not been for the
encouragement of Jan, who probably knows me better than I know myself. It is she who
I relied on when my frustrations with changes in topics, changes in chairs, and conflicting
feedback made me consider being content with my master’s and stopping the journey.
Her encouragement and understanding were unfaltering, cementing what I already knew
in my mind her role as my lifelong partner, confidante, and love of my life. Thank you,
Jan and Tara!
My close and extended family encouraged me as did friends and co-workers.
Thank you, Jeff, Shannon, Natalie, and Mason for understanding why my body was often
in the basement in front of my laptop when it would have liked to have been with you
enjoying our time together. I especially am thankful for the understanding and
encouragement my vice-president, Tim Jacoby, showed me during a critical period of my
dissertation. My dissertation work sometimes caused me not to be as engaged and
present with my employer as I would have normally been and would have liked to have
been.
I often find myself wondering if I would have taken this journey if it had been of
a traditional nature, driving to campus and attending scheduled classes at an even greater
burden to my family and employer. The answer would probably be an unequivocal “no.”
v
I must, therefore thank Northcentral University for providing me this opportunity with a
unique learning platform that offered an attainable, yet challenging degree path. I must
also thank all my instructors along the way who offered me great encouragement as well.
Finally, I need to thank my original chair, Dr. Patrick McNamara, who got me on the
right path, and most importantly my current chair, Dr. James Jones, who with my
committee, including Dr. Gabrielle Suboch, and Dr. Marie Bakari were there to lead me
across the finish line. Dr. Jones’s calming encouragement could not have come at a
better time as I was very much prepared to give up on my dream when his encouragement
entered the picture, renewing my faith in myself.
I hope that this dissertation will make you all proud of the role you had in
ensuring I completed it and took another step towards realizing my dream before my 60th
birthday, my goal as part of my lifelong learning plan. Thank you for being there!
Thank you for caring! Thank you for encouraging!
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iv
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 8
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 9
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 12
The Basic Issue: Stopping Recidivism ...................................................................... 12
Reducing Recidivism .................................................................................................. 19
Treatment to Reduce Recidivism of Sex Offenders ................................................... 20
Evolution of Sex Offender Registration and Notification .......................................... 22
Registration and Notification Effect on Recidivism ................................................... 22
Residency Restrictions ................................................................................................ 26
Effectiveness of the Registry ...................................................................................... 31
Protecting the Victims from their Offenders .............................................................. 38
What People Think of Sex Offenders and the Registry .............................................. 39
Usefulness of Community Notification ...................................................................... 44
Living with the Registry ............................................................................................. 47
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 3: Research Method............................................................................................. 53
Research Methods and Design .................................................................................... 54
Population ................................................................................................................... 55
Sample......................................................................................................................... 55
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................. 56
Study Procedures ........................................................................................................ 59
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 61
Quality and Validity.................................................................................................... 64
Assumptions................................................................................................................ 65
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 65
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 66
Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................... 66
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 69
vii
Trustworthiness of the Data ........................................................................................ 70
Results ......................................................................................................................... 74
Evaluation of the Findings. ......................................................................................... 76
Summary. .................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ...................................... 102
Implications............................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................. 113
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 118
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 120
References ....................................................................................................................... 124
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 135
SORN Agency Validation of Check-In .......................................................................... 135
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 136
SORN Law Enforcement Agency 3-Year Compliance Effort ........................................ 136
......................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 137
Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 138
Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix F...................................................................................................................... 140
Appendix G ..................................................................................................................... 141
viii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Explanation of data collection process .............................................................. 63
ix
Table of Tables
Table 1. Participants…………………………………………………………...................73
Table 2. Themes for Phase I .............................................................................................77
Table 3. Registration Check-In..…………………………………………………………78
Table 4. 3-Year Compliance …………………………………………………………….80
Table 5. Participants’ Sex Offenders…………………………………………………….81
Table 6. Phase I General Responses…………………………………………………..…94
Table 7. Phase II Themes……………………………………………………………...…98
Table 8. Phase II General Responses………………………………………………...…102
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
Sexual offenses are a serious problem in the United States. It is estimated that
300,000 women are raped, 3.7 million approached for unwanted sex, and 900,000
children are abused with approximately 9% of them being sexually abused each year
(Bonnar-Kidd, 2010). Amado, Arce, and Herraiz (2015), in a review of 78 studies, found
that the effects of child and adolescent sexual abuse were profound with such victims
having a 70% greater probability of suffering from psychological injury, depression, and
anxiety (Amado, Arce, & Herraiz, 2015).
The psychological risk is only one part of the perceived threat of the sex offender
by the public. Another part of this perception is based on the perceived high recidivism
rate with the Center for Sex Offender Management (2010) finding that the clear majority
(72%) of the respondents interviewed in their survey of 1,005 respondents believed that
at least half of convicted sex offenders would commit more crimes in the future. Onethird of those surveyed even believed that 75% or more will continue to commit crimes.
Sixty-percent believed that those crimes would be of a sexual nature (Center for Sex
Offender Management [CSOM], 2010).
This perception of the general public contradicts many of the current findings.
Hanson, Harris, Helmus, and Thornton (2014) found that the serious risk of continued
sexual crime decreased significantly over a ten-year period that sex offenders were in the
community and remained free of criminal offenses. The authors concluded that
monitoring and intervention should be most prevalent in the first few years after the
offender is released back to the community (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014).
2
Piquero, Farrington, Jennings, Diamond, and Craig (2012) used longitudinal data from a
cohort of London males to find that less than 3% of the males were convicted of 13 sex
crimes through age 50. None of the sample offenders had any carryover of their sex
crimes from juvenile to adults (Piquero, Farrington, Jennings, Diamond, & Craig, 2012).
Consistent with public perceptions and with disregard to many of the research
findings, it is horrific events that have been the call to arms for legislatures to act.
Nebraska’s sex offender registry law, not unlike other state registry laws, came about
because of the tragic case of Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old girl from Hamilton, New
Jersey, who was raped and murdered by Jesse Timmendequas on July 29, 1994.
Tragically, the facts showed that Timmendequas was a thirty-three-year-old convicted
child molester living with two other sex offenders as a neighbor to Megan’s family, who
was completely oblivious to the danger (Corrigan, 2006). Megan’s law was actually the
modification of the Jacob Wetterling Sexually Violent Offender Act, established in 1994,
requiring all 50 states to have registration programs for violent sex offenders. Jacob
Wetterling was an 11-year-old boy who was returning home with his 10-year-old brother
and an 11-year-old friend on their bicycles in Minnesota after renting a video at a
convenience store. They were confronted by a masked man with a gun who took control
of the boys and asked their ages. He then told Jacob’s brother and friend to run away and
not look back, or they would be shot. Jacob was never found, and it was discovered that
sex offenders had, without the knowledge of law enforcement, been sent to live in
halfway houses in Jacob’s neighborhood (Parent’s for Megan’s Law, 2016).
Nebraska took its first response to the public outcry to do something after these
tragic cases with Nebraska State Statute 29-4002. The statute, first passed in 1996,
3
established the legislative intent as “state policy should assist efforts of local law
enforcement agencies to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders to register
with local law enforcement agencies as provided by the Sex Offender Registration Act”
(Sex Offender Registration Act, 1996/2002). The secondary purpose of the act is found
in the true intent of Megan’s Law and its predecessors, which was to provide for the
publication of the registration data so that victims and citizens could protect themselves
from child predators by knowing where they live, work, and attend school. This
additional information would then reduce recidivism in theory as everyone would know
who the potential predators were in the area (Parent’s for Megan’s Law, 2016). The
response to the federal laws was for states to create sexual offender registration and
notification procedures [SORN].
In Nebraska, Information captured during registration includes legal name and
aliases, date of birth and alias dates of birth, social security number, address of residence
or temporary or habitual residence, name and address of any employer, name and address
of any school, license plate number and description of vehicles along with any storage
locations, operator’s license number, copies of professional licenses. Additionally, all
remote communication device identifiers, telephone numbers, physical description,
access to criminal history, a current photograph, fingerprints, DNA sample, all email
addresses and other digital communication identifiers are captured. The offender must
report any changes in the information within three (3) working days after the change (Sex
Offender Registration, 2010). Also, 15-year registrants are required to report in person
every twelve months to the sheriff of the county where they live; 25-year registrants are
required to report every six months; and lifetime registrants are required to report every
4
three months following their birth month (Sex Offender Registration, 2010). The
registration for lifetime and 25-year registrants continues full-term while those in the 15year category can petition the court for relief after registering for ten years (Logan, 2015).
Initially, upon passing of the laws, there was a great deal of federal grant money
to help in enforcing the laws, according to Frederick R. King, Assistant General Counsel
for the Nebraska State Patrol, the agency administering the SORN program in Nebraska.
Many local agencies used this money to ensure compliance with the state law. That
money soon went away, however, and local law enforcement agencies were left to their
own devices to enforce SORN (F. R. King, personal communication, June 20, 2016).
Statement of the Problem
The problem that this study addressed is that it is unknown if SORN is being
adequately enforced by local law enforcement given responsibility for SORN.
Improvements in SORN enforcement and practice will be difficult to achieve in the
absence of information concerning current enforcement levels. Existing data suggest that
enforcement of SORN is irregular and ineffective (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008;
Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2012; Craun, Simmons, &
Reeves, 2014; Duwe, 2015). SORN enforcement is not assigned to any one agency and
is left to the ability of the local law enforcement agencies to handle SORN provisions.
Finally, at the time of the study, no regulatory agency ensured that the information
contained in the registries was accurate and verified. Once one determined if law
enforcement, was effective, in its views, at enforcing SORN, the question remained as to
whether or not those who used SORN understood how it could be used to protect victims
of sex offenders. This study was not an attempt in any manner to evaluate the SORN
5
program either globally or in Nebraska; however, was instead aimed at obtaining the
insights of the professionals who were intimately involved in the program in enforcement
and utilized SORN to institute programs to help victims and protect the public.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to understand better how law
enforcement and subject matter experts view the problem of SORN and its enforcement
and how better results could be obtained from the efforts they made in addressing the
problem.
Thirty-two randomly selected law enforcement executives and practitioners who
enforce the registration laws in Nebraska were to be directly interviewed to determine
what processes they used to validate offender compliance, how often they validated, and
the challenges they faced in doing so. The interview data was to be triangulated with
information from the agency and Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) as to their compliance
efforts since enactment of the law in 2006 and information from databases from the
Nebraska State Patrol Sex Offender website. An evaluation and profile of compliance
efforts and results were then to be developed for enforcement of SORN in Nebraska,
most importantly identifying difficulties in enforcement that could be remedied by the
State of Nebraska. Additionally, a no-less important part of the study in Phase II involved
interviewing select subject matter experts in SORN to evaluate its effects on the victims
of sex offenders and what programs may be in place to serve victims in Nebraska and
five other states, to include: Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Minnesota, and Iowa.
6
Research Questions
The horrific events that lead to the push for registration and notification laws
across the United States form the basis as to why the questions being researched were so
important. The family of Megan Kanka, Jacob Wetterling and other victims of child sex
offenders advocated these laws so that no other family would have to go through what
they went through (Parent’s for Megan’s Law, 2016). As stated previously, the purpose
of this study was to understand better how law enforcement and subject matter experts
view the problem of SORN and its enforcement and how they can obtain better results
from the efforts they made in addressing the problem. Following Yin’s (2009) case study
design procedures (Yin, 2009), this researcher addressed the four research questions:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
Nature of the Study
This study was a qualitative case study of the sex offender registry in the state of
Nebraska and which directly interviewed law enforcement officials who carry
responsibility for monitoring sex offenders in this state.
7
The chosen qualitative design method triangulates data from the sex offender
registry available on the internet, data available from Nebraska local and state law
enforcement agencies as to their compliance efforts, and qualitative interviews of law
enforcement officials in Nebraska and subject matter experts in six states. The design
addresses the research questions from both a data perspective and interviews with the
actual law enforcement officials who utilize the data to enforce sex offender registration
laws. It also identifies the challenges encountered in enforcing compliance with the law
and ways the laws or enforcement can be improved from a law enforcement perspective
as well as from the perspective of the victim.
Following Yin’s (2009) procedures (Yin, 2009), this researcher investigated the
compliance efforts of Nebraska law enforcement agencies from their compliance records
since the creation of Nebraska’s SORN law in 1996. The Nebraska State Patrol’s sex
offender registration and notification website was also being researched to compare
enforcement efforts against the number of registrants and absconders. Additionally, this
researcher gathered from the local law enforcement agencies on their enforcement and
validation efforts through interviews conducted to determine what, if any obstacles, they
face and how the program can be improved to be more effective.
The method chosen of methodological triangulation or using multiple methods to
gather and to validate data, is based on Webb et al. (1966) and their belief that two
independent measurement processes yield greater reliability on the results. It is important
to keep in mind that there can be greater reliability placed on the results, but those results
are not unquestionable, as the proposition remains that all the methods being used may
have been flawed (Webb et al., 1966). In the case of this study, the data to be examined
8
is either accurate, or it is not accurate. The subject lives at the address provided, or the
subject does not. They have checked in with the sheriff’s department, or they have not.
Little interpretation of that data is needed. The enforcement and compliance efforts
varied among the law enforcement agencies based on numerous factors, which the
researcher discovered in the study. On the other hand, the interviews provided varying
perspectives based on the experiences of the interviewees that may or may not support
the results of the data collection validation of the reporting and notification websites.
Interviews with subject matter experts provided an evaluation of how the Nebraska
SORN laws are being used to prevent victims from being re-victimized. This evaluation
was compared to SORN laws in Texas, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa and any
programs that might be in place in those states to use the laws to protect current and past
victims.
Significance of the Study
This study was not an attempt in any manner to evaluate the SORN program
either globally or in Nebraska; however, was instead aimed at obtaining the insights of
the professionals who are intimately involved in the program in enforcement and utilizing
SORN to institute programs to help victims and protect the public. This unique
qualitative study offered insights into the views of the law enforcement professionals who
enforce SORN as well as from the subject matter experts from six different states who
work with SORN to provide services to victims of sex offenders and support them. The
study included a rigorous interview-based check of the compliance efforts of the numbers
and information currently archived at SORN in Nebraska. Compliance studies were
conducted by grant recipients early in the implementation of the Nebraska sex offender
9
registration law according to Fredrick R. King; however, the grants have long expired,
and individual law enforcement agencies have been tasked with the responsibility for
enforcing SORN within their jurisdictions (F. R. King, personal communication, June 20,
2016). This study filled the gap in some of that knowledge by examining the views of
those professionals who work with SORN and offer opportunities for them to provide
their suggestion as to what works and what does not work. The review of the ability of
SORN to protect victims from being revictimized provided potential new ways to
improve Nebraska SORN laws, extending the study by the Consortium for Crime and
Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha. (2013) and make the laws more
valuable to the citizens of Nebraska. Law enforcement, as well as legislators, can use this
information to shore up the enforceability and value of SORN laws.
Definition of Key Terms
Absconders: Absconders are fugitive sex offenders who have not complied with
the conditions of sex offender registration and notification and whose location is
currently unknown (Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2014).
GPS: GPS or global positioning satellite technology is used by some states to
monitor the whereabouts of sex offenders. These often consist of a passive or
active device that is strapped to the offender’s ankle, alerting authorities to the
offender’s location or when the offender goes outside a pre-determined geo-fence
(Omori & Turner, 2015).
Pedophilia: Pedophilia “is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with
children who are generally age 13 years or younger. Pedophiles are usually men
and can be attracted to either or both sexes” (Psychology Today, 2017)
10
SORN: SORN or sexual offender registration and notification for this research
will include both data reported to law enforcement and data reported on public
websites notifying the public of a sexual offender.
Summary
This study identified the value of a qualitative study to obtain the views of
professional law enforcement officials in Nebraska who enforce SORN as well as the
subject matter experts in six states who use SORN to help protect and support victims.
There exist questions as to the capability of law enforcement in Nebraska to ensure
compliance of sex offenders with SORN laws. There exist great gaps in the literature as
to the efforts being made by law enforcement in Nebraska to ensure compliance of
offenders with the SORN laws and as to what challenges law enforcement faces in
enforcing those laws. One law enforcement officer lamented the data is only as reliable as
the most recent compliance check (J. Downey, personal communication, July 13, 2016).
One way to find out the challenges and concerns was to ask those law enforcement
professionals who enforce SORN throughout Nebraska.
Following Yin’s (2009) procedures (Yin, 2009), this doctoral candidate
investigated the compliance efforts of Nebraska law enforcement agencies from their
compliance records since the creation of Nebraska’s SORN law in 1996. The Nebraska
State Patrol’s sex offender registration and notification website was also researched to
compare enforcement efforts against the number of registrants and absconders. Addition,
information was gathered from the local law enforcement agencies on their enforcement
and validation efforts through interviews conducted to determine what, if any obstacles,
they face and how the program can be improved to be more effective.
11
.
Additionally, interviews of multiple subject matter experts in Nebraska, Texas,
Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa provided insight as to the value of SORN to
protect and serve victims of sex offenders and how to possibly improve the law to
provide this capability. Following Yin’s (2009) case study design procedures (Yin,
2009), this researcher was then able to address the four research questions:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
12
Chapter 2: Literature Review
A specialized database search of criminal justice databases, including Gale
Criminal Justice Collection, LexisNexis Academic, and ProQuest Criminal Justice,
utilizing Roadrunner and search of the keywords of sex offender laws and recidivism
produced 6,460 hits that were limited to full text and scholarly journals in the last ten
years. Limiting those to just journals reduced the number to 5,659 articles. Adding in
the keyword compliance reduced that number to 1,488 articles. Further narrowing of the
focus of the proposal resulted in the inclusion of forty-four scholarly articles that provide
a solid research foundation taking in opposing viewpoints on the topic of sex offender
registration and notification and compliance with the sex offender registration and
notification laws.
The Basic Issue: Stopping Recidivism
One cannot rationally discuss sex offender registration and notification and the
research accomplished in the area without first addressing the real crux of the problem,
which is the sexual victimization of women and children and the risk from the offenders.
Bonnar-Kidd (2010) noted that there are approximately 900,000 children abused each
year, with about 9% of those being sexually abused each year. Bonnard-Kidd (2010)
analyzed what the current state of the laws was and how they resulted from the horrific
cases of children being victimized. These cases resulted in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children Act and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, requiring the first
registration of sex offenders by giving their names and addressed to local law
enforcement. In 1996, Megan’s Law came into being, amending the Wetterling Act,
requiring states to establish systems for notifying the public by making photographs,
13
names and addresses of offenders available directly to the public over the Internet and
other modes of notifying the community. In 2007, the Adam Walsh Protection Act
(AWA) was federally enacted to streamline the federal notification requirements and
require all states to have notification law enacted consisted with the AWA by 2009,
which was then extended to 2010 due to states being unable or unwilling to comply
(Bonnard-Kidd, 2010).
Although these laws were enacted to reduce the perceived high recidivism of sex
offenders, Bonnard-Kidd (2010) feels the laws may have been an overreaction to the
actual threat posed. Quoting studies in New York. Arizona, and Ohio, the author argues
how the rate of recidivism among sex offenders is very low, also noting the cost to the
states to enforce such laws (Wang, 2014) and that the impact of such laws on recidivism
in the past fifteen years (at the time of the study) makes the impact of the laws
inconsequential (Bonnard-Kidd, 2010).
The Center for Sex Offender Management (2010) found that the media spurred
much of the over sex offenders. Their 2010 public opinion poll, undertaken with a grant
from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, found that 74% of their 1,005 respondents reported that
what they knew about sex offenders they predominantly learned from the news media,
which included the belief that at least 50% of adult sex offenders re-offend (Center for
Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2010). Similar results were found in a study of
news outlets in Australia in 2005, finding the number of sensationalistic reports increased
with the introduction of the Serious Sex Offender Monitoring Act. This finding resulted
in the authors cautioning about basing policy and legislation on news reports rather than
scientific evidence (Ducat, Thomas, & Blood, 2009).
14
Kielsgard (2014) takes that one step further, writing about “Myth-driven state
policy” (Kielsgard, 2014, p. 247), citing the belief by the public that pedophiles are
incurable, and their recidivism is high, despite scientific evidence showing to the
contrary. He cited a 2003 study by the U.S. Dept. of Justice of 9,691 violent sex
offenders released in 1994. The study found that compared to non-sex offenders, sex
offenders had a lower recidivism rate overall. Only 3.5% of sex offenders were reconvicted for sex crimes (Kielsgard, 2014, p. 247).
Bench and Allen (2013) examined the idea of recidivism using a longitudinal
analysis of 389 convicted sex offenders, predicting recidivism at approximately 70%
accuracy. Their findings found, similar to many studies before them (Bani-Yaghoub,
Fedoroff, Curry, & Amundsen, 2010; Jennings, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2012; Langan,
Schmitt, & Durose, 2003), that most sex offenders are not convicted of sex offenses after
their release from prison (Bench, Allen, 2013).
Blatier, Sellon, Gimenez, and Paulicand (2012) examined the recidivism of child
sex offenders as compared to other rapists and non-sexual offenders in 2007 and found
that the recidivism rate of child sex offenders who victimized children under fifteenyears-of-age was less than sex offenders of adults and children greater than that age. The
study of sixty sex offenders and thirty non-sexual offenders was undertaken among a
French population. Although the recidivism was lower for child sex offenders, the results
would be relatively equal to adult sex offenders if the offender had previous sex offenses.
Both were found to have recidivism less than non-sexual offenders (Blatier, Sellon,
Gimenez, & Paulicand, 2012). Not only is the age of the victim an important indicator of
the risk of recidivism, Rice, and Harris (2014) found that the age of the offender when he
15
or she committed his or her first index offense was as good at predicting both sexual
crime and violent crime recidivism. Age at time of release was found to be the least
important indicator (Rice & Harris, 2013). Ahearn (2014), contrarily, makes the point
that recidivism and victimization must be highly underreported as it is estimated that only
28% of sex crimes are being reported and only 31% of those reported crimes end up
being cleared by arrest, resulting in the recidivism only being calculated on a small
percentage of arrestees (Ahearn, 2014).
Cain, Sample, and Anderson (2017) examined SORN and the female offender in
their examination of data from the 2012 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey, in
which 954 surveys were received from the random sample. They wanted to know public
opinion as to whether the public felt that female offenders should be included in SORN
and whether they would take any protective action if they knew a female sex offender
lived in their community. They found that a significantly large number of Nebraskans
felt that women who convict sex crimes should be included in the registry and most did
not see the difference in severity in sex crimes committed by women versus those
committed by men. Males and people over 50 years-of-age did not consider woman as
much of a threat and indicated they wouldn’t take protective actions if one were in their
community. However, woman and those with minor children in the home would be more
likely to take preventative action (Cain, Sample, & Anderson, 2017). Bader, Welsh, and
Scalora (2010) looked at the recidivism rate of 57 female sex offenders in Nebraska.
Using criminal data as well as data from social services agencies, they found that ten
women were criminally charged for a later sexual crime, but six other women were found
to have contact with social services agencies. This broader consideration of recidivism
16
caused the researchers to conclude that women may be repeating crimes at a higher rate
than one thought (Bader, Welsh, & Scalora, 2010)
An even more controversial aspect of registration of sex offenders comes when
the offenders are the same class of society the laws are designed to protect: children.
Children may be sentenced as sex offenders after a conviction for child pornography for
sexting a picture of their naked body to another student. Stupid? Yes. Is it criminal? I
think not. Miller (2013) argues even more fervently that juveniles who commit such
crimes or even more serious sex crimes may not increase the risk of becoming lifelong
sex offenders. The law, in most instances, gives juveniles extra leniency and
understanding when they commit other crimes that would be serious if committed by
adults, but in the case of sex crimes, that leniency is lost in favor of more stigmatizing
punishment such as sex offender registration (Miller, 2013). Carpenter (2014) makes a
compelling argument along with Sterling (2015) against the impact of requiring
registration on children and how it may be challenged under the Constitution as “cruel
and unusual punishment” (Carpenter, 2014, p. 793; Sterling, 2015). Treatment
professionals who treat juveniles who offend sexually support Carpenter’s (2014) view.
They cite that they believe overwhelmingly that youths subject to SORN were more
likely to have negative mental health outcomes than those that were not under SORN and
that the real problem is the notification aspect due to the public shaming of the youth and
the impact on his or her mental health. Providers were not as concerned about youth
recidivism (Harris, Walfield, Shields, Letourneau, 2015). Stevenson, Smith, Sekely, and
Farnum (2013) argue that the educated public already questions whether a juvenile
convicted sex offender understands the repercussions of his or her actions and more
17
likely believe that sexual offender registration and notification is ineffective when the
offender is a juvenile. They believe further educating the public has the likelihood to
result in the application of more effective treatment for children who commit sex crimes,
which has the potential to prevent future sex crimes (Stevenson, Smith, Sekely, &
Farnum, 2013).
Should deterrence be one of the objectives of registering adolescent sex offenders,
a small study of 53 young adults who were mostly unaware that children under the age of
18 can be registered as sex offenders and even more unaware of what kind of behavior
might result in that registration. This study was small and consisted of 79% young
female adults, so the results are difficult to universalize. However, it does give rise to the
consideration as to how valuable registration is as a deterrent to criminal sexual conduct
by youth if they have no idea as to what repercussions their behavior could result
(Stevenson, Najdowski, & Wiley, 2013).
Kasewater, Woodworth, Logan, and Feimuth (2016) offer a somewhat different
perspective of those examining the threat of sex offenders. Historically, society has
painted sex offenders with the same broad paintbrush as having high recidivism and
posing a serious threat to children as being unable to be rehabilitated. They noted that
some studies show a 5-year recidivism rate for this group to be at 7% or less and a 10year rate of between 6 and 22%. They note that a group of offenders with a high
propensity for sexually reoffending have a 5-year sexual recidivism rate of 41% and a 10year rate of 70%. Clinicians have labeled these offenders as “high risk” to distinguish
them from the general population of sex offenders. The researcher explored the
18
similarities between 92 of the highest-risk male sex offenders in Canada. Thus, they
identified three classes of offenders:
Class 1 high-risk sexual offenders, known as “coercive child molesters,” were
likely to have pedophilia and their index sexual offenses were typically
committed against a victim known to them.
Class 2, termed “sexually sadistic rapists,” includes high-risk sex offenders who
have been diagnosed with sexual sadism. These offenders used sadistic violence
in their index offense and had a very high probability of weapons use. More often
than not, the victims of the index offense were unknown to the offender.
The index crimes of Class 3 high-risk sexual offenders, labeled “stranger
focused,” were always committed against a stranger and, although weapons were
occasionally used, there was a low occurrence of sadistic violence and sadism.
Although pedophilia and sexual fantasies of children were absent from these
offenders, some had a history of committing previous child molestations
(Kaseweter, Woodworth, Loagan, & Freimuth, 2016, pp. 127-28).
This contrast gives a strong argument that not all sex offenders are created equally
although many of our laws have treated them as if they had. Some researchers have
argued that the impact on children is too great not to take some action. Amado, Arce, and
Herraiz (2015), for example, found in their meta-study of seventy-eight other studies that
not only children suffered the physical injuries of their abuse, they were also found to
have a 70% more probable chance of suffering from symptoms of depression and anxiety,
resulting in long-term effects from their abuse (Amado, Arce, & Herraiz, 2015). Bierie
(2016) examined the existing research and came to a different conclusion than some
19
researchers. He found three benefits of sex offender registration not widely discussed: 1)
The evidence shows that sex offenders are much more likely to commit a sex crime than
the public; 2) The implementation of registries results in decreased sex crime; and 3) The
information obtained by the police during registration has helped solve crimes and
prevented sexual crimes from occurring (Bierie, 2016). So, if the risk is so great, has sex
offender registration and notification affected recidivism at all, or for that matter, does
the literature show” that anything affects recidivism
Reducing Recidivism
Ackerman and Sacks (2012) used General Strain Theory to try to explain
recidivism in a group of surveyed sex offender registrants in Nebraska, Kansas, and
Montana. Their mailed survey of 6,174 registered sex offenders in December 2008
resulted in 246 surveys being submitted. The questions asked demographics and about
strain, anger, and recidivism resulting from their inclusion as registered sex offenders.
The respondents reported greater sexual offenses related to recidivism than had been
reported in previous studies. The effect of strain on sexual recidivism, however, was
minimal but it did play a part in all criminal recidivism. The authors believed that the
anger of being included on the registry might outweigh the benefit gained from the
registry and notification process and recommend that governments look at more
evidence-based methods to reduce recidivism. The authors admitted their sample was
low, and it was also potentially biased, but they are not the only ones to question whether
registration and notification increases recidivism rather than decreases it
Age of onset and prior victims of abuse have also been studied to try to determine
if there was an effect on recidivism. Nunes, Hermann, Malcom, and Lavoie (2012)
20
examined 462 adult males who had been imprisoned in Canadian federal prisons and
compared recidivism of those who had been the victims of sexual abuse before age 16
and those who had not. Their study found that the victim offenders had more indicators
showing an interest in pedophilia and if they were victimized by a male the interest was
even stronger. Such victims who had been abused by a female abuser were found to be
more likely to commit a sexual offense again than those victimized by a male. A closer
relationship between the offender and their abuser (familial) predicted higher sexual
recidivism (Nunes, Hermann, Malcom, & Lavoie, 2013).
Treatment to Reduce Recidivism of Sex Offenders
One method one must consider when examining methods to reduce recidivism is
the treatment of the offender. The idea that treatment is even an option is not without
controversy. Mancini and Budd (2016) found that much of the public does not accept
treatment, believing that sex offenders are not treatable. Even though research is to the
contrary, the public has grabbed onto this belief caused by “irrational cognitive
processes” (Mancini & Budd, 2016, p. 794).
Knighton, Murrie Boccaccini, and Turner (2014) found that belief is highly
apparent in examining jurors in sexually violent predator trials, even after being highly
vetted during the jury selection process. The jurors were found to believe that even a
slight 1% chance of reoffending is “likely to re-offend” and subject to civil commitment
(Knighton, Murrie, Boccaccini, & Turner, 2014, p. 302).
Various treatment programs have been examined by researchers to determine the
impact the programs have on recidivism. Intensive supervised probation for sex
offenders was examined by Buttars, Huss, and Brack (2016) with intensive supervision,
21
rehabilitation treatment centers, and standard probation not providing any significant
difference in the propensity for recidivism among 885 sex offenders under probation
supervision in the Midwestern state Department of Corrections from 2002 to 2007. The
authors did conclude, however, that intensive supervision was at least as effective as the
other treatments programs and may even be more effective. This belief was, however,
tempered with the idea that polygraphs were the best contributor to predicting recidivism
and the program was more expensive than the other programs (Buttars, Huss, & Brack,
2016).
As part of the treatment programs, Powell, Day, Benson, Vess, and Graffam
(2014) examined the use of interviews by police officers of registered sex offenders as a
method to identify risk and what were the perceptions of police officers. The study of 24
police officers in Australia examined three police jurisdictions. The officers expressed
three distinct advantages they enjoyed when conducting mandatory follow-up home visits
of registrants and interviewing the offenders. The first major advantage was it gave them
the opportunity to explain the registration process more thoroughly and correct
misunderstandings. Secondly, it provided the officers the opportunity to find out things
that could help in managing the offender and identify potentially new offenses. The third
major benefit officers identified is that it established an atmosphere of trust where the
officer could help the offender transition back into society and not re-offend. All of the
officers supported the interviews as an important component of the registration process
(Powell, Day, Benson, Vess, & Graffam, 2014). No studies were identified where this
process was used in the United States.
22
Evolution of Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Sex offender registration laws grew out of tragedy, trying to reduce the potential
threat of recidivism posed by sex offenders. The laws we have today don’t necessarily
resemble the original laws that hit the books. In his study of five Midwestern states,
Lytle (2015) examined this evolution. Nebraska was late coming to the drawing board.
Adopting its laws in 1996, almost ten years later than Illinois in 1986 and, up until 2010,
Nebraska classified sex offenders by risk and only reported the highest risk sex offenders
to the general public. Many other states did the same thing, with Zgoba, Miner,
Levenson, Knight, Letorneau, and Thornton (2015) finding existing state classification
systems outperformed the mandated Adam Walsh Act tiered response system consistently
in their study of four randomly selected states(Zgoba et al., ). Nebraska made other
significant changes that Lytle (2015) characterized as “net-widening” which applied their
new offense-based classification system retroactively and acted to restrict the offenders
access to children, enacted verification requirements and added the offense of failure to
register (Lytle, 2015).
Registration and Notification Effect on Recidivism
It has long been held that sex offenders or pedophiles were incurable and could
not help but to continue to victimize children. It is not difficult to connect the link
between this belief and the strong public support for sexual offender registration and
notification laws. Recent studies have counteracted that argument and caused even those
professionals who had espoused that condemning diagnosis in the 1990s and earlier to
come out publicly and admit that their statements were based on faulty research or no
research at (Mancini & Budd, 2016; Platt, 2013).
23
In their longitudinal study of sex offenders before and after the implementation of
SORN in New Jersey, Tewskbury, Jennings, and Zgoba (2012) found that SORN was not
an effective deterrent to recidivism of sex offenders, much as studies of other researchers
before them (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008; Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010). Duwe
(2015) found mixed evidence between studies when evaluating the effects of different
approaches on Minnesota’s sex offender recidivism rate with high-risk offenders, subject
to broad notification of the community under their classification system having their
sexual recidivism rate significantly reduced by notification while those subjected to
limited notification having limited impact on their recidivism by community notification
(Duwe, 2015).
Although Koon-Magnin (2015) found that support for registration and notification
laws is high, just as Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker (2007) had done eight years
prior, regardless of whether there is any scientific proof that such laws reduce the
incidence of recidivism, it is important to examine the literature for that proof (KoonMagnin, 2015). Prescott and Rockoff (2011), in their study of 300,000 sex offenses in 15
states, found in their study that registration and notification may help reduce recidivism
and the larger the registry, the better the impact is on the crime rate. Their findings
seemed to show an averaged sized registry reduces the incidence of crime by about 1.21
sex crimes per 10,000 people. The impact is limited to local victims known to the
offender as they found no evidence that there was an impact on crimes against strangers
(Prescott & Rockoff, 2011).
Payne and DeMichele (2011) took the idea of registration and notification to its
more restrictive process of GPS monitoring and found that process not only to have
24
unanticipated consequences but likely did not alter the ability of the offender to re-offend
as it only limited the offender’s ability to move and monitored the offender’s location. It
did not restrict his or her ability to groom victims and use subterfuge and other methods
found to be used by sex offenders to bring the victim to the offender without the offender
being restricted by the GPS (Payne & DeMichele, 2011). Turner, Chamberlain, Jannetta,
and Hess (2015) later examined the results from California’s GPS pilot program for high
risk sex offenders and found that parolees who were monitored using GPS were less
likely to fail to register as a sex offender than other sex offender parolees and somewhat
less likely to abscond from parole (Turner et al., 2015). Omori and Turner (2015), on the
other hand, examined the costs of GPS monitoring of sex offender paroles and found that
the GPS group cost an average of $4,600 per year more than a comparable parolee
supervised without GPS. They also asserted that GPS was exaggerated in its capabilities,
indicating that it gave real-time movement of the offender. Due to latency, this is usually
not true as there is a delay of some length of time in what is reported as the movement of
the offender. Despite these questions, GPS continues to be used as a strong tool for
supervision of sex offenders (Omori & Turner, 2015).
Konopasek (2015) even looked at the use of a polygraph examination to predict
recidivism and found that, although it did help in ensuring treatment completion, the
polygraph and its resulting full disclosures had no statistically significant effect on
recidivism (Konopasek, 2015). Most of the literature shows that there is no scientific
evidence of registration and notification influencing recidivism, as Koon-Magnin (2015)
and Levenson et al. (2007) had earlier discovered (Koon-Magnin, 2015; Levenson et al.,
2007).
25
Ackerman and Sacks (2012) found in the results of their survey of 3,506 sex
offenders in the Midwest that General Strain Theory could explain an increase in general
recidivism of registered sex offenders. They attributed the increase due to the strain
caused to the offender by the registration requirements and their names being on a public
list, resulting in unemployment, lack of housing, public abuse and other negative
consequences (Ackerman and Sacks, 20012; Burchfield and Mingus, 2008; Levenson and
Cotter, 2005) much as Spraitz, Frenzel, Bowen, Bowers, and Phaneuf (2015) found later
in their study of the Adam Walsh Act in Pennsylvania (Spraitz, Frenzel, Bowen, Bowers,
& Phaneuf, 2015).
Prescott (2012) went even further and stated based on the study that the author
conducted, that “no evidence registration alone deters individuals from engaging in sex
crime. In fact, the estimated impact of a new (empty) sex offender registry on the
frequency of sex offenses is positive, although too small and imprecisely measured to be
reliable” (Prescott, 2012, p. 53). Ackerman, Sacks, and Greenberg (2012) found through
the examination of crime data that SOR laws, civil commitment laws and the elimination
of parole did not affect dramatically reducing the rates of forcible rapes (Ackerman,
Sacks, & Greenberg, 2012). Regardless of the data suggesting the ineffectiveness of
many public policies designed to reduce further victimization, some communities have
taken registration to the next level in enacting laws regulating where the offenders may
live.
26
Residency Restrictions
In recent years, there has been a move to impose residency restrictions as to
where sex offenders can reside—more exactly—where they cannot live. Anderson,
Sample, and Cain (2015) looked at public opinion as to where the registered sex offender
should be permitted to live. Using data from Nebraska telephone surveys during
February of 2008 and August of 2008, a total of 5,901 telephone numbers were sampled
with 4,743 being households. Eleven percent of the sample was eliminated for having a
ring but no answer after 15 attempts. Thirty-eight percent of the sample completed the
survey for a final sample of 1,811 Nebraska residents 19 years or older. The respondents
were asked about their opinion as to the then current law prohibiting sex offenders from
living within 500 feet of any school or daycare center. Sixty percent of respondents
reported that 500 feet were not far enough while 31.3% reported that 500 feet were about
right. When asked about how far was enough, 14% indicated that one mile was the
correct number, 16.1% more than a mile, and 11.3% wanted them somewhere far away.
Fifty-six percent reported that less than one mile would work. About two percent went to
the extreme suggesting jail, death, or castration (Anderson, Sample, & Cain, 2015).
The question is though how many of the sex offenders commit their offenses near
a public park, daycare or school so does restricting sex offenders from living near such
areas work to prevent recidivism? In a study of 1,557 adult male sex offenders released
from a New Jersey prison (2011) examined whether offenders who find their victims at
these locations where children frequent had a different recidivism rate than other
offenders. They found that only about 4.4% of the offenders met victims in locations that
would have been impacted by child safety zones under residential restrictions and 67%
27
met their victims in private locations. They did find, however, that those that met their
victims in those public areas controlled by residential restrictions were much more likely
to recidivate with a new sex crime. They also found another significant pattern with
offenders who victimize children. They show differences in patterns compared to those
who victimized adults. The child sexual predator was more likely to have committed his
offense in a residence (75%). Their results did not support the effectiveness of reducing
recidivism through residential restriction (Colombino, Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic,
2011). Duwe (2015) concluded it was social and relationship distance was a factor in sex
offender registration and targeting of victims, and not geographical distance (Duwe,
2015). Additionally, one should look at the Internet when one discusses child sex
offenders as Jones, Mitchell, and Finkelhor (2012) did in an online survey, finding that
approximately 19% of children between the ages of 10 and 17 had received a sexual
solicitation while on the Internet in 2000, which declined to about 9% by 2010 (Jones,
Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2012). Although the numbers have decreased, this grooming of
children and arranging for meeting and victimizing them later defeats residency
restrictions completely.
Stucky and Ottensmann (2016) looked at how the basis of residence restrictions
may be flawed from the beginning. They wanted to know if sex offenses increased
around the areas sex offenders lived. Looking at crime statistic reported by the
Indianapolis Police Department, Indiana, the researchers examined 1,000 x 1,000 ft. grid
cells and the sex offenses occurring within each of these cells. Their study found that sex
offenders living in the cells were not a significant and consistent predictor of the
incidence of sex offenses occurring in the grids. Of course, one must keep in mind that
28
this study was limited in that it was done in one Midwestern city (Stucky and
Ostensmann, 2016). Huebner, Kras, Rydberg, Bynum, Grommon, and Pleggenkuhle
(2014) had similar results in their study of two states and their implementation of
registration requirements. In Michigan and Missouri, there was on a small effect on
recidivism after implementation of residency restrictions, with one state declining and
one increasing, causing one to doubt the effect that residency restrictions would have as a
tool to decrease recidivism (Huebner et al., 2015). Using criminal arrest histories in
Jacksonville, FL to examine a residence restriction of 2,500 feet that was recently
enacted, Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin (2012) found that there were no significant
changes in the trending of sex crimes over a period when compared to non-sex crimes.
There was also no meaningful change in recidivism ((Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin,
2012).
Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, and Harris (2015) had earlier wondered if residency
restrictions were causing more homeless sex offenders ostensibly because offenders
could not find suitable housing outside restricted zones. The examination of transient sex
offenders in Florida found that sex offender registration requirements contribute to sex
offenders becoming homeless – at least in Florida (Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, &
Harris, 2015). Mustaine (2014) had earlier asked what the collateral consequences were
of residency restrictions and found that many sex offenders were unable to find suitable
housing and found themselves living in the less desirous neighborhoods within the
community. The examination also found that the areas where they had to take up
residence did not provide the necessary services to the sex offenders to help them from
reoffending (Mustaine, 2015). One must look carefully at the impact of residency
29
restrictions and consider its application towards only the highest risk sex offenders even
if the data shows it does not work, as the public outcry for residency restrictions is not to
be ignored (Huebner et al., 2015).
The value of residency restrictions has been questioned because of technology.
With the Internet, one can access potential victims anywhere in the World, and Borden
(2017) brought forth another potential danger with drones. His review of potential North
Carolina sex offender registration that is designed to prohibit or restrict the use of drones
by registered sex offenders adds more to the dialogue on the value of residency
restrictions as well as the continuing desire to make sex offenders pariahs of society. He
discusses the potential for prohibiting registered sex offenders from purchasing, owning,
or possessing drones as an integral part of sex offender restrictions. He proposes the
alternative of connecting drones with GPS tracking devices. The concern, of course, is
sex offenders would have the opportunity to follow and target potential victims from the
sky without the knowledge of the victim, making them unable to protect themselves. His
narrative provides examples of such conduct already occurring. His conclusion, which is
difficult to argue, should one believe that sex offenders are a continuing harm, was that
laws are often made after someone becomes victimized severely but with this legislation,
the legislature would be proactive (Borden, 2017).
Although the value of residence restrictions has been questioned as shown
previously, there still seems to be strong public support for the approach. Budd and
Mancini (2016) examined this perception that residency restrictions work, referring to it
as “crime control theater” (Budd & Mancini, 2016). They conducted research to resolve
three hypotheses:
30
Hypothesis 1: If respondents use the media as a primary source of knowledge
about sex offenders, they will be more likely to think residence restrictions are
effective.
Hypothesis 2: If respondents are Catholic, they will be more likely to think
residence restrictions are effective compared with non-Catholics.
Hypothesis 3: If respondents are parents of minor children they will be more
likely to think residence restrictions are effective compared to respondents who
are not parents of minor children (Budd & Mancini, 2016, p. 364).
They tested their hypothesis using public opinion data from the Center for Sex
Offender Management (CSOM), which is a public agency that is a source of information
about sex crimes and sex offender policy. They conducted a public opinion poll during
February and March of 2010, polling 1,005 respondents through a random digit dialing
telephone poll. They found that Catholics and parents of minor children were more likely
to see residence restrictions as being effective in reducing recidivism and protecting
children. The researchers were surprised to find that hypothesis 1 was not proven as
those that used news media as a source for their knowledge about sex offenders did not
necessarily support residence restrictions. Also, an interesting narrative was discovered
whereas those believing and having been indoctrinated in the premise of stranger danger
were found more likely to believe in the effectiveness of residency restrictions in
reducing the threat from sex offenders. The researchers concluded that residency
restrictions were just another example of crime control theater legislation, driven by a
fearful public with moral background and certain socioeconomic groups without real
31
regard to the effectiveness of the legislation in addressing the problem it purports to
address (Budd & Mancini, 2016).
Levenson (2016) called residence restrictions a “failed social experiment”
(Levenson, 2016, p. 8), noting that nothing has been shown that they protect children or
reduce sexual offender recidivism. She offers recommendations to reform residence
restriction laws, including replacing them with anti-loitering laws or zone where sex
offenders are prohibited from being present without a legitimate reason and support
programs like Circles of Support and Accountability due to their effectiveness in
providing offenders a support network that improves their reintegration into society
(Levenson, 2016).
Since the value of registration and notification laws, including residency
restrictions, are questionable per some of the literature as has been expounded upon in
this paper, how much less valuable is a notification if the information in the registry is
not accurate because law enforcement cannot verify compliance? That is a question
explored in the next section.
Effectiveness of the Registry
Sex offender registration and notification laws grew out of the tragedy of others in
hopes that there would be a benefit to society in reducing victimization. Studies have
found that benefits and detriments are coming from sex offender registration laws. The
link between the decrease in the number of rapes and the expansion of sex offender laws
in many states since the 1990s has been found to be ambiguous (Murelli & Ronan, 2013).
One issue that continues to affect the effectiveness of the state sex offender
registries is the issue of who is on the registry. State laws classify crimes in various
32
manners and determine what crimes that a person is convicted will end up with their
name on the registry. There are many examples of these strange-on-their-face inclusions
on sex offender registries. A man who was convicted of skinny-dipping in a hotel pool
ended up on the registry along with a mother who allowed her fifteen-year-old daughter
to engage in sexual relations. Adult incest, pandering and prostitution, public urination
and sexting have resulted in the dangerous offender being required to register as a sex
offender. Even consensual sex between teens relatively the same age has resulted in the
Romeo and Juliet teens being required to register (Platt, 2013). Some argue that the socalled “Romeo and Juliet” relationships when there are similarly-aged juveniles having
sexual relationships are at risk of being arrested and labeled sex offenders. Bierie and
Budd (2016) counter that argument with a 20-year study of NIBRS criminal offense data.
They found that statutory rape was rarely reported (fewer than 5% of sex crimes) and the
Romeo and Juliet incidents were even rarer (Bierie & Budd, 2016).
It is important to understand who the registered sex offenders are. In Nebraska,
the Consortium for Crime and Justice Research (2013) found the typical Nebraska
registered sex offender to be a while male older than 26-years-of-age who had victimized
a female that he knew age 12 to 17. Although the acquaintance was the most common
victim (56.1%), the second most common victim was a member of the offender’s family
(34.4%) and the least common was the subject of stranger-danger, the stranger (16.8%).
Fondling was the major reason for their inclusion on the registry. They are mostly
classified as Tier 3 or the most serious classification, requiring lifelong registrations.
Violence and the possible use of a weapon were present in almost 25% of the offenses
they committed, with serious injury resulting in only a few. Their 2-year recidivism rate
33
was found to be 2.6%, and their 1-year rate was 1.7%. Rates of recidivism were affected
by the type of offense and were higher if the offense included child pornography or
fondling. When comparing the most serious classification of offenders [Tier 3] offenders
were nearly 14 times more likely to commit another offense compared to the least serious
offenders [Tier 1] (Consortium for Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska Omaha, 2013).
These examples of over-inclusiveness are countered by examples of underinclusiveness of registries. About 90% of sex crimes are committed by someone the
victim knows, including members of the family, clergy, teachers, and others who are
charged with their care. These crimes often go unreported for years, and the perpetrators
are never charged and end up on a sex offender registry. Children are taught stranger
danger early in elementary school while the person that may harm them is the person
presenting the class or protecting them on a day-to-day basis from the stranger (American
Psychological Association, n.d.; Platt, 2013; Worley & Worley, 2013)
Prescott and Rockoff (2011) found registration laws impact a community
positively by reducing the frequency of reported sex offenses; however, notification laws
were found to begin to increase the number of sex offenses occurring more than 1.57%.
Maddan, Miller, Walker, and Marshall also found community notification ineffective
using a criminal history study in Arkansas (Maddan, Miller, Walker, & Marshall, 2011).
SORN was also found to cause the unintended consequence of the sex offender beginning
to specialize after getting out of prison, but that specialization was in drug offenses and
not sex offenses (Prescott & Rockoff, 2011; Jennings, Zgoba, Donner, Henderson, &
Tewksbury, 2014).
34
Maurelli and Ronan (2013) examined how effective sex offender notification laws
have been in reducing the incidence of forcible rape since their inception, using data from
all 50 states of the United States from 1960 to 2008. Decreases in the forcible rape rate
were found in 17 of the states following the passage of their registration and notification
laws. Because states implemented notification laws at different times, the researchers
could eliminate general societal change because the results were obtained. Why these 17
states were reduced, and 32 others had no effect. The authors offered that it was possible
that the findings came about due to a combination of factors, including SORN having the
desired effect for offenders. Differences in the state laws of each of the states and how
they implemented notification procedures may have also played a part (Maurelli &
Ronan, 2013). Dierenfeldt and Carson (2017) narrowed the study somewhat to only ten
states that had similar versions of Jessica’s Law that Florida had: California, Florida,
Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin. Data were obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports [UCR] for 2000 to
2011. Their findings suggested a null relationship between the implementation of
Jessica’s Law and reported forcible rape (Dierenfeldt & Carson, 2017).
Although the reasons for the registration of sex offenders appear sound on their
face, how effective and reliable is the execution of policies of registration? Harris,
Levenson, and Ackerman (2014) examined some of the important issues surrounding sex
offender registration and notification policies by surveying the agencies responsible for
the administration of the registration policies in the various states of the United States in
2010. Responses were received from 42 of the 50 states and 2 U.S. territories; however,
two states (Delaware and South Carolina) expressed that they would not participate, and
35
the six remaining did not respond. The study provided insight into the differences and
similarities between the states regarding registration and notification. Most states were
found to allow public access to the information of more than 90% of their registrants.
Some states did classify their registrants and provided information to only a subset of
their total registrants (Harris, Levenson, & Ackerman, 2014).
Another notable finding they made was about two-thirds of the registrants were
“active” registrants who were out in public, while the others were either serving time,
deported, deceased, living in another state, or on the run. The potential for registrants
living elsewhere was cause for concern as it may mean that registrants were being
counted in more than one state and inflating the number of registered sex offenders
nation-wide (Harris, Levenson, & Ackerman, 2014).
The findings also bring forward another concern, which is the missing and
absconded individuals on the registries. In this study, the authors identified 28,678 cases
of individuals having that designation. Complicating this was some states identified
anyone as missing who did not comply with the registration status, whereas other states
refined the definition to limit it to active unsuccessful attempts were made to locate the
offender. Homeless and transient registrants was also a variation in the states with almost
75% of jurisdiction indicating they tracked them in their registrations (Harris, Levenson,
& Ackerman, 2014). Levenson, Sandler, and Freeman (2012) had earlier determined
potential risk factors for who was likely to fail to register and found that general deviancy
and criminality were the driving motivations for those who failed to register and not
primarily sexual deviance. Parole and probation were found to influence reducing the
chance that the offender would fail to register or commit a non-sexual crime. Criminal
36
supervision was found to not affect sexual recidivism (Levenson, Sandler, & Freeman,
2012). Interestingly though, sexual offenders were found to abscond more from
supervision rather than from registration (Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2014).
Additionally, the portrait of the fugitive sex offender is one of a younger minority
offender whose victims were adults – not children (Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris,
2014). A study of the movement of fugitive sex offenders found that 37% fled to a
familiar area in their address file, 65% lived with friends or family when they were
caught, and 50% went more than 370 miles from their home residence (Bierie & Detar,
2016).
Craun, Simmons, and Reeves (2011) looked at the effectiveness of the registry
using a different perspective than others: from the viewpoint of the victim of a sexual
assault. They examined the case files of an urban sexual assault resource center,
concentrating on those clients who were seen for a forensic exam, counseling or
advocacy in 2006. They discovered the name of the offender and searched the name in
the sex offender registry of the resident state of the offender and the two nearest
neighboring states. The objective was to identify whether or not the offender was on a
sex offender registry at the time of the victimization. They found only 3.7% of the 566
fully identified offenders had a previous history of a sex crime as shown by their
registration as a sex offender. This sample was a rather small population to consider.
However, the researchers are comfortable with their data. They assert that one of the
main reasons for the registries was to keep track of known sex offenders and prevent
them from reoffending. The small percentage of previous sex offenders, according to the
researchers, meant that the registry was not very effective at preventing sexual offenses
37
from occurring (Craun, Simmons, & Reeves, 2014). The counter-argument can be made,
however, that the registry did as it was supposed to do and kept the registered sex
offender from reoffending. If the sexual assault perpetrators had been on the registration,
the argument would have been made that the registry did not work as it did not keep the
registered sex offender from reoffending. This examination of the registry does cause
some questions as to the threat posed by those on the registry. The research was also
done in Nebraska, which is the selected state that is the subject of the proposed research.
The Consortium for Crime and Justice Research of the University of Nebraska at
Omaha (2013) completed a research report on sex offender registration in Nebraska. In
that report, they noted the problems with their data sets that they used, which included
data from the Nebraska Sex Offender Registry. Much of the data in the registry was not
clear, especially as to dates. In the area of recidivism, they also found that recidivism
was lower under the old Nebraska classification law that made use of psychological risk
profiling and tiered each offender according to risk. Only the highest risks were reported
on the Sex Offender Registration and Notification sites to the public, thus the offenders
did not face the same level of social outcast, difficulty with employment, difficulty with
housing and other social stigmas that they do under the current law that utilizes clear cut
offense classifications that are all reported on notification sites. Their study was
conducted before Nebraska changing to an offense-based registration system in which all
categories of sex offenders were reported to the public.
38
Protecting the Victims from their Offenders
Registration and notification, the two parts of the law, should work together to
protect the victims. As the Consortium for Crime and Justice Research noted,
Whatever the form of the registry or the method of classification, the public would be
best served if the registry was promoted as a tool for providing information about people
we know, not just strangers. The most common threats to offend and to re-offend in
Nebraska are sex offenders who victimize acquaintances. The primary threat is NOT the
stereotypical stranger lurking in the bushes (Consortium for Crime and Justice Research,
University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013).
Prescott (2012) concluded:
An average-size registry decreases crime by approximately 1.21 sex offenses per
year per 10,000 people, a 13 percent reduction from the sample mean. This drop
in the sex crime rate benefits local victims (neighbors and acquaintances, as well
as family members, friends, and significant others); there is no evidence that
registration affects the frequency of sex offenses against strangers (Prescott, 2012,
pp. 54-55).
Lovell and others (2017) examined who are the victims of serial sex offenders
using previously unsubmitted DNA results to identify victims and relate them. Their
findings in the county encompassing Cleveland, Ohio were that over 25 percent of the
offenders victimized strangers and acquaintances, friends, and family members alike
(Lovell et al., 2017). Mogavero and Kennedy (2017) looked at the offending patterns of
270 incarcerated sex offenders and found that 48.9% of the victims were family members
of the offender, and 39.3% were acquaintances of the offenders, with only 11.9% being
39
strangers to the offenders (Mogavero & Kennedy, 2017, p. 423). This study, consistent
with previous studies (Colombino et al., 2009; Duwe et al., 2008; Minnesota Department
of Corrections, 2007), identified the argument that those critical of SORN have used.
Detractors have stated that having residence restrictions and registering sex offenders
does nothing to protect the victims of sex offenders if they are already relatives and
acquaintances and have become members of the inner circle of the victim. How well law
enforcement, policymakers, and counselors understand this information undoubtedly
impacts how SORN can be used to protect victims.
What People Think of Sex Offenders and the Registry
Criminal justice professionals often have different views of the effectiveness of
SORN policies. These officials become intimate with the policies and familiar with their
effect on the offenders. Mustaine, Tewksbury, and Connor (2015) examined these
phenomena in their survey of 208 law enforcement officers, 77 prosecutors, 76 prison
wardens, 80 parole board members, and 716 community corrections professionals. The
instruments used were a 43-item survey that was custom designed for this study as well
as the 18-item Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders scale. Law enforcement
officers and prosecutors were found to be the most negative and cynical of the criminal
justice professions regarding their views about sex offenders and sex offender policies.
(Mustaine, Tewskbury, Connor, & Payne, 2015). These views contrasted with the
beliefs of state parole board members who predominantly felt that sex offender
registration, and community notification were not effective in reducing sex offenses and
more than one-quarter considered community notification laws unfair (Tewksbury &
Mustaine, 2012). A study in Australia also found that practitioners who worked directly
40
with the offenders in the community felt largely the same way (Day, Carson, Newton, &
Hobbs, 2014).
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors were more likely to lobby for more punitive
policies. It was interesting to note that education had an impact on those views, in that
when the education of the official advanced, their views as to the fairness and
effectiveness of community notification and residency restriction laws decreased
(Mustaine, Tewskbury, Connor, & Payne, 2015).
Harris, Lobanov-Rostovsky, and Levenson (2015) also did some work on what
law enforcement officials thoughts about SORN, using an online survey administered as
a second phase to a set of interviews conducted with 105 law enforcement professionals
in five states and two tribal jurisdictions in 2014. The survey was administered with the
assistance of a marketing and survey firm in which 11,761 police chiefs and sheriffs were
targeted through email and asked to participate in the survey, which was followed up by
three waves of further solicitation. Of the almost 12,000 officials solicited, 1,485 agreed
to participate providing a response rate of 15.7%. A sample of 1,247 completed the
entire survey with representation from 49 states, excluding Hawaii, and from the District
of Columbia. The extensive survey provided a great deal of information as to how
officials felt about SORN and what strategies were used. The survey found that the top
three strategies used to notify the public about sex offenders in the jurisdiction were the
use of the notification website, email outreach, and social media (Harris et al., 2015, p.
5). The officials felt the two main purposes of the SORN process was to keep tabs on sex
offenders (83.1%) and share information between agencies (72.9%), with only 68.4%
believing the primary purpose was to inform the public of sex offenders. Probably most
41
enlightening was that only 44.9% of the officials felt the primary purpose was to reduce
recidivism (Harris et al., 2015, p. 6), which was one of the major stated reasons for the
enactment of SORN laws.
The officials also overwhelmingly felt that their state’s registration was very
effective or somewhat effective at fulfilling the top two stated objectives 90%, and 92.8%
of the time respectively (Harris et al., 2015, p. 8). Regarding issues with the registry, the
law enforcement officers were most concerned about monitoring transient and homeless
sex offender (95.1% having some level of concern) as well as being concerned that the
more of the offenders should be under formal supervision by probation or parole (93.1%).
Only 84.3% felt that there were too many offenders to have the resources to monitor
effectively (Harris et al., 2015, p11). Although most officers reported an only minimal
concern, 79.5% had some degree of concern of the registry causing adverse effects on the
family of the offender, 74.2% were concerned at all about the difficulty the offender has
in maintaining stable employment, and 72.4% about the offender’s ability to maintain
stable housing. Seventy-five percent were concerned about the potential for recidivism
resulting from the negative effects of the registration process on the offender (Harris et
al., 2015, p. 14). In regard to what the officials would do to improve the effectiveness of
SORN, 77.2% felt that refining the classification system to better distinguish the risk to
the community and 71.4% felt that the ability to modify the registration requirements
based on risk over time would make SORN significantly or somewhat more effective
(Harris et al., 2015, p. 17).
Regarding compliance, law enforcement official surveyed found the scenario that
there was a deliberate attempt to evade detection. They found 50.8% reporting it is most
42
common or somewhat common while being unaware of the registration requirements was
reported in about 31.8% of the cases and being apathetic or indifferent to the
requirements in about 53.3% of the cases for the most common scenario (Harris et al.,
2015, p. 19). When asked about their opinion as to which strategies to make the highest
priorities, law enforcement official surveyed cited, in order, expanding probation and
parole supervision (94.1%), expanding the penalties for non-compliance (93.4%), more
aggressively prosecuting non-compliance (92%) (Harris et al., 2015, p. 28). This
research, conducted under a federal grant, has great relevance when considering the
research being proposed and did include semi-structured interviews in Phase I.
The views of legislators across the United States were examined using a semistructured interview guide by Meloy Curtis, and Boatwright (2013). They enlisted 61
states senators and representatives in their voluntary study that last 12 months. When
asked about their state’s laws, more than 65% believed that their laws helped deter sex
crimes from occurring. Nearly 20% disagreed with the belief that their state laws helped
deter future sex crimes. Nearly half (49.5%) of the legislators felt that sex offender
treatment worked to prevent or reduce sexual violence. However, 25% did not believe
treatment increased public safety. Almost half (55%) believed that their sex offender
laws were working as intended while 19.7% did not know how well their laws were
working. As to the reason for their state’s sex offender laws, 67% of legislator believed
that increasing public safety was the most important goal, followed by ensuring sex
offenders are treated (21%) and tracking sex offenders (8%) (Meloy, Curtis, &
Boatwright, 2013).
43
College students were another source of information accessed by Wiersma and
Siedschlaw (2016) in their survey of 101 college students enrolled in two Introduction to
Criminal Justice courses. Sex offenders should receive the maximum penalties allowed
by law according to 84.15% of the students. However, only 36.63% believed that sex
offenders should wear electronic monitoring equipment. Polygraphs should be required
for sex offenders in the opinion of 66.33% of the students. The death penalty was not on
the table for 10.89% of the students. Just over seventy percent (71.28%) of the students
believed that sex offenders should have to include their online identities in their registry,
but just over half (54.45%) think that offenders should have their computers restricted. A
final interesting statistic based on the results was that over two-thirds (68.32%) had never
accessed the sex offender registry (Wiersma & Siedschlaw, 2016).
One cannot discuss SORN and its benefits without considering the costs
associated. State legislators have referred to it as an “unfunded mandate” (Wang, 2014)
as states are forced with changing their state classification systems and adopting the
federal system without any federal funding and the threat of losing federal criminal
justice funds if they fail to do so. California’s specialized board dealing with the topic
recommended that the state not comply with the Adam Walsh Act as the loss of federal
funding would be less than the money it would take to implement it. A Texas Senate
study found that it would cost $38.7 million to comply and would only lose about $1.4
million if they lost federal funds. Wang (2014) notes that the federal government can
help states in their review as to the cost/benefit of implementing registration and
notification by increasing the penalty in criminal justice funds, providing more funding or
modifying some of the requirements that impact the states’ budgets the most (Wang,
44
2014). The motivation to fight sex offenders is there but has Congress put the dollars to
the fight or are they relying on the states? Gaines (2006) earlier, was interested in the
perceptions of law enforcement to SORN and undertook a study to look at the topic in
2001 with respondents from several jurisdictions in Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Over half of
the respondents indicated that they had on-going difficulty with getting compliance from
offenders. The researcher also found predominantly negative views of sex offenders
across the board with law enforcement professionals showing no empathy for how
registration requirements affected the offender personally. Respondents also reported
that, although the community was overall satisfied with the role of law enforcement in
registration and notification, staffing and funding challenges exist in some of the agencies
that impacted their ability to monitor compliance (Gaines, 2006).
Usefulness of Community Notification
The laws that have been put into place as has been discussed thus far have
addressed both the need for registration as well as the need for community notification.
How important is the community notification aspects of SORN? What if it is built and no
one comes? In other words, the community notification platform is put into place, and no
one uses it for what it was intended? This concern is a question worth exploring. Boyle,
Ragusa-Salerno, March, Passannante, and Furrer (2014) did just that in New Jersey, using
a 20-item random digit dial telephone survey of 1,016 residents. They found that 51% of
their respondents knew about the New Jersey Sex Offender Internet Registry and 17%
had accessed the site. Interestingly, 68% reported that they took some time of measure to
protect them and their families based on the information contained in the community
45
notification. Most importantly, 85% of the respondents who had been among that 17%
who had reported accessing the registry at least once, also reported feeling safer having
obtained the information they viewed on the community notification website (Boyle,
Ragusa-Salerno, Marcus, Passannante, & Furrer, 2014).
Harris and Cudmore (2016) also looked at the experience of the community with
community notification in a stratified national survey of 1,000 U.S. adults. They wanted
to find out what were the national rates, patterns, and correlates of sex offender
registration information, the differences between those who use the registry once and
those who used it many times, and how did those who used the information use it. They
found that 45% indicated that they had accessed their state’s registry, and 55% had never
accessed the registry. Many 59.6% of the users and 26.8% of the total sample had
reported using the registry only one or two times, 24.0% (10.8% of the total) reported
accessing three to five times, 16.4% (7.4% of total) admitted accessing more than five
times. The reasons for use varied between 74% reporting accessing out of curiosity, 38.2
for family safety and 18.2% for personal safety. Presented with a variety of potential
protective actions, 60.4% of those who used the registry and 82.4% of those who used it
more than five times, reported having taken at least one action to protect themselves
based on the information obtained (Harris & Cudmore, 2016). This study was similar to
previous studies (Boyle, Ragusa-Salerno, Marcus, Passannante, & Furrer, 2014), finding
that the registry has limited use and more than half of the public had never accessed it. It
also showed that the relatively few that did access it more than once did so to obtain
information to protect themselves. Narrowing the focus to Nebraska, another study is
available.
46
In a Nebraska study, Sample, Evans, and Anderson (2012) found in their
telephone sampling of 1,811 adult Nebraska residents that 69.2% had never accessed the
sex offender registry with 59.4% stating they did not access the information as they had
no interest in it. Those 30.8% who reported they had accessed the SORN data online
indicated they did so for safety (56.5%), curiosity or personal interest (28.7%) or job
requirements (10.4). Twenty percent of the citizens reported though they received the
information from other sources used for community notification, including word-ofmouth, door-to-door visits, and community notifications (Sample, Evans, & Anderson,
2012). It was built, and they did not come in overwhelming numbers.
Freeman (2012) examined the effectiveness of community notification from a
different perspective. She looked at the rate of rearrest for those subject to community
notification requirements as compared to those who were not subject to community
notification results. Using a sample of 17,165 male sex offenders in New York State, she
found that those subject to community notification were rearrested for sex offenses twice
as quickly as those that were not under the auspices of community notification and 47%
quicker for nonsexual offenses. The author proposed three possible reasons for this. The
first was the increased visibility to law enforcement because of being on a registry
resulted in quicker detection of crimes. Secondly, community notification causes the
community to let down their guard and increases the ability of the offender to target
victims. The third possible explanation may be that the stigma of being advertised to the
community had a negative impact on the ability of the offender to reintegrate (Freeman,
2012). It is this stigma that is only part of the experience of the offender as is discussed
in the next section.
47
Living with the Registry
It is only fair to examine the views of the sex offenders who live under the rules
of the registry as well as those who enforce the registry. Ackerman, Sacks, and Osier
(2013) did just that using a total of 60 survey responses obtained in Nebraska, Kansas,
and Montana. When examining the view of sex offenders, one can picture offenders who
are resoundingly male and white, with an average age of mid-forties, and surprisingly
often not from the community. Also, about 90% of the offenders had minor victims with
70% of those victims below the age of 14 (Ackerman, Sacks and Osier, 2013). The 2013
study found that most of the registrants had no problem with SORN but wished that it
was more discriminately applied rather than painting everyone with the same brush.
Twenty-one percent of those surveyed were particularly upset about having to spend the
rest of their lives on the registry, considering it unfair. Hopelessness was prominent in
18.3% of those surveyed, feeling as if their lives were over. This study was a very small
sampling and response rate for the distribution of 3,506 surveys, so it is difficult to apply
the results universally. However, the researchers believed that the study was
representative of the views of most registered sex offenders (Ackerman, Sacks, & Osier,
2013). Evans and Cubellis (2015), in their detailed interviews of 20 registered sex
offenders discovered that sex offenders become labeled and then experience a process of
socialization in which they take on all the negative perceptions that society has put on
them. This phenomenon causes them to form a new identity where they fulfill the
stigmatization that becomes part of their lives. They become excluded from society and
48
begin to gravitate towards one another as the only ones that understand them. This
exclusion usually results in additional problems as the terms of the correctional
supervision usually prohibits contact with another offender (Evans & Cubellis, 2015).
There is also a belief that sex offenders experience many obstacles and collateral
consequences when they begin their reentry into society. Call (2016) examined the
opinions of community corrections professionals through a voluntary, confidential, set of
electronic surveys administered over a 4-week period. Through a final sample of 284
participants, Call (2016) found that the professionals believed that sex offenders were up
against a variety of collateral consequences resulting from their sex offender management
policies. They were found to believe that the offenders experienced these difficulties
more often than the public believed it. The detrimental effect on the offender may have a
detrimental effect on the community as a whole, making the offender more likely to reoffend if the offender cannot secure housing, find a job, develop friends and support
systems, and go into depression (Call, 2016). One way that registered sex offenders dealt
with the feelings of isolation and worthlessness that came with the stigma of being listed
on a registry and advertised to the community was to use social media. Bensel and
Sample (2016) examined the use of social media by 112 registered sex offenders in the
community and no longer subject to correctional supervision. They found that the use of
social media “facilitated the acquisition of basic needs, offered information about legal
requirements to which registrants must adhere while in the community, facilitated online
group therapy, and helped create bridging and maintained social capital, and in some
cases bonding social capital as well” (Bensel & Sample, 2016, 16). This raises the hair
on the back of some people as they fear the sex offender interacting with potential
49
victims over Facebook, chat rooms and other Internet sites, however researchers found
that only 2% of convicted Internet offenders went on to commit a contact sexual offense
and 3% committed a new offense related to child pornography (Bensel & Sample, 2016).
It is not only the registered sex offender that has to live with the registry. Their
neighbors also must live next door to the offender, knowing that they are a registered sex
offender. Beshears (2017) looked at this through the eyes of 20 participants in Arkansas,
finding that having a sex offender living next door resulted in the participant having to
take extra precautions, which might include locking the doors when they didn’t before or
not allowing their children to play in the yard. The sex offender’s lifestyle might be
affected but so does the lifestyle of those who reside near him or her (Beshears, 2017).
Residents in Lincoln, Nebraska found that nearby sex offenders had an impact on their
home values, reducing those values by up to 4 points. Additionally, it was found that
potential homeowners perceived a greater risk of crime if there is a nearby sex offender
(Yeh, 2015).
Some states have bought into the public fear of sex offenders and legislated fear.
In Missouri, sex offenders are not permitted to celebrate Halloween and must avoid all
contact with children on that day, prohibited from leaving their homes from 5 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on the day without cause and must sign their home that there is no candy or
treats at the home. Florida sex offenders have special notations on their driver’s license
that indicate they are a sex offender for everyone to see when they must present their
identification. Wisconsin, Ohio, and Alabama proposed sex offenders having a special
license plate indicating that a sex offender owned the vehicle. Legislation was not the
only concern, however. Vigilantism has often been the result. Forty-seven percent of
50
registered sex offenders in Kentucky in one study reported being harassed because of
their status. Ten percent of offenders in Connecticut and Indiana reported being
physically assaulted and half feared for the own safety or those of their family members.
Family members have also felt the pressure with 86% of the family members of sex
offenders feeling stressed due to SORN laws and 49% fearing for their safety. The
notification laws have also been used for vigilantes to seek out and kill registered sex
offenders in the community with two in Maine being shot and killed in 2006 by a killer
having no connection to the offenders and two being killed in Washington by a vigilante
posing as a federal agent. These are just a few of the many assaults and murders that sex
offenders have been victimized by killers citing the best interest of the public (Wagner,
2011).
Compliance with SORN
Interestingly, very little literature was found that examined the compliance efforts
of law enforcement to enforce registries. No such information regarding such research
was found for the Nebraska registry, which provides the impetus for the current proposed
study in examining the efforts of Nebraska law enforcement in enforcing compliance
with SORN and what obstacles law enforcement must overcome.
Montgomery (2015) wanted to examine what demographic variables, i.e.,
conviction, race, age, and gender might play a part in whether an offender complies with
the registration in Tennessee. The researcher randomly selected 400 offenders from each
of the state’s four districts. He proposed four hypotheses in which he believed the lower
level Tier I offenders were more likely to comply than the higher risk Tier III offenders.
Black offenders were less likely to comply than offenders of other races. Middle-aged
51
offenders were less likely to comply than other age groups, and male offenders were less
likely to be in compliance than female offenders. All his hypotheses were supported by
the research conducted, giving a profile of the most likely violator of SORN in
Tennessee: A higher risk, black, middle-aged man (Montgomery, 2015).
Registration as a sex offender is the law. What kind of outcome can one expect
regarding the criminal recidivism of an offender that fails to register? This question was
asked by Zgoba and Levenson (2012). Studying and comparing two groups of sexual
offenders: one of 644 who failed to register after release from prison and one of 481 who
registered as a sex offender during the same period of time as the first group, the
researchers tried to determine whether or not failing to register was an indicator of the
potential for reoffending. They found that it was not a precursor of recidivism with no
significant difference between the groups. They did find that those offenders who failed
to register were more likely to have assaulted an adult female victim (Zgoba & Levenson,
2012).
Summary
The review of the literature identified a great deal of literature regarding
recidivism of sex offenders, but very little research was identified around the reliability of
sex offender registration and law enforcement compliance efforts. It did not, however,
identify current research that investigated the reliability of data being reported on sex
offender registries and public notification sites. Additionally, the challenges that law
enforcement faced did not have a great deal of research shown. This gap in the literature
supported that there was a potential problem with sex offender registration and
notification laws. If they are not enforceable due to lack of resources by law enforcement
52
and that, according to the literature, there was some question as to how effective sex
offender and notification laws are at reducing recidivism, the implicit desire of the laws.
Many studies addressed recidivism and the lack of impact that sex offender
registries and residency requirements have had on ensuring that there are not repeat
offenses, or even more prominent that recidivism was overstated in the first place
(Mancini & Budd, 2016; Platt, 2013; Dierenfeldt & Carson, 2017; American
Psychological Association, n.d; Colombino, Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic, 2011; Duwe,
2015; Stucky and Ostensmann, 2016). Additional studies examined the actual
effectiveness of the registries as to whether they were used by anyone (Boyle, RagusaSalerno, Marcus, Passannante, & Furrer, 2014; Harris & Cudmore, 2016; Sample, Evans,
& Anderson, 2012). Much literature also existed in regard to the impact of registration
on the lives of the registered sex offender, hampering his or her reintegration into society
through stigmatization, harassment, discrimination, isolation, and scorn (Ackerman,
Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011; Evans & Cubellis, 2015; Call, 2016; Bensel &
Sample, 2016). The study endeavored to address the gap as to law enforcement role and
success in enforcing compliance with the SORN laws, specifically in Nebraska, however
with nation-wide implications.
53
Chapter 3: Research Method
The problem that this study addressed is that it was unknown if SORN is being
adequately enforced by local law enforcement given responsibility for SORN.
Improvements in SORN enforcement and practice will be difficult to achieve in the
absence of information concerning current enforcement levels. Existing data suggested
that enforcement of SORN is irregular and ineffective. SORN enforcement is not
assigned to any one agency and is left to the ability of the local law enforcement agencies
to handle SORN provisions. Finally, at present, no regulatory agency ensures that the
information contained in the registries is accurate and verified. Once one determines if
law enforcement, is effective, in its own views, at enforcing SORN, the question remains
as to whether or not those who use SORN understand how it can be used to protect
victims of sex offenders. This study was not an attempt in any manner to evaluate the
SORN program either globally or in Nebraska; however, was instead aimed at obtaining
the insights of the professionals who are intimately involved in the program in
enforcement and utilizing SORN to institute programs to help victims and protect the
public.
Following Yin’s (2009) case study design procedures (Yin, 2009), this researcher
was then able to address the four research questions:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
54
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
Research Methods and Design
Following Yin’s (2009) procedures (Yin, 2009), this doctoral candidate
investigated the compliance efforts of Nebraska law enforcement agencies from their
compliance records since the creation of Nebraska’s SORN law in 1996. The Nebraska
State Patrol’s sex offender registration and notification website was also researched to
compare enforcement efforts against the number of registrants and absconders.
Additional information was gathered from the local law enforcement agencies on their
enforcement and validation efforts through interviews conducted to determine what, if
any obstacles, they face and how the program can be improved to be more effective.
The method chosen of methodological triangulation, or using multiple methods to
gather data, is based on Webb et al. (1966) and their belief that two independent
measurement processes yield greater reliability on the results. It is important to keep in
mind that there can be greater reliability placed on the results, but those results are not
unquestionable, as the proposition remains that all the methods being used may have been
flawed (Webb et al., 1966). In the case of this study, the data to be examined is either
accurate,or it is not accurate. The subject has registered or has not. Little interpretation
of that data is needed. On the other hand, the interviews provided varying perspectives
based on the experiences of the interviewees that may or may not support the results of
the individual agency’s efforts to enforce compliance with SORN.
55
Population
The law enforcement agencies in Nebraska’s 93 counties and the Nebraska State
Patrol formed the sampling frame out of the population of all law enforcement agencies
in the country. for this study. Additionally, the Nebraska State Patrol’s sexual offender
registry of almost 7,000 offenders was used to identify the offenders that Nebraska law
enforcement agencies have the responsibility for monitoring for compliance. In Phase II
of the study, subject matter experts in Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota,
and Iowa on the topic of SORN and its impact on victims were identified through
randomly selecting five participants for each of the population of six states (n=30). They
were randomly selected from a generated sampling frame of 30 subject matter experts
compiled for each state from authors of literature reviews and other experts, including
state law enforcement executives, prosecutors, legislators, academic professionals, human
services professionals, and victim advocates. The randomly selected participants were
asked to participate in an in-person or telephonic interview.
Sample
Using a random number generator, the researcher randomly selected 32 counties
from an alphabetical list of 93 Nebraska Counties and interviewed the Sheriff or one
designated SORN investigator from 12 of the selected counties who agreed to participate
(n =approx. 12). Additionally, an official responsible for administering SORN on behalf
of the Nebraska State Patrol was interviewed. SORN compliance efforts for the past three
years were also requested from the sample agencies and compared with the internet
posted list of registrants under the supervision of the sample law enforcement agencies.
The researcher sent each of the agencies selected to participate in the study a letter
56
requesting the authorization of the chief executive for the agency to participate in the
study (See Appendix D). The researcher had previously spoken to several chief
executives of agencies who had expressed an interest in participating in the study.
The sample of approximately 33% of the counties in Nebraska was a strong
proposed sampling that would give a strong universality of the results in Nebraska that
can be applied to other states in the United States.
In Phase II of the study, Subject matter experts in Nebraska, Texas, Florida,
Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa on the topic of SORN and its impact on victims were
identified through randomly selecting five participants for each of the six states (n=30)
They were randomly selected using a random number generator from a generated list of
30 subject matter experts compiled for each state from authors of literature reviews and
other experts, including state law enforcement executives, prosecutors, legislators,
academic professionals, human services professionals, and victim advocates. The
randomly selected participants were asked to participate in an in-person or telephonic
interview, of which ten did.
Materials/Instruments
Phase I: Interviews with law enforcement officials and collection of
compliance efforts data. Interviews with thirteen law enforcement professionals, after
obtaining informed consent (see Appendix F). They were asked questions from a list of
open-ended interview questions (see Appendix C). The questions were developed to
ensure that each member of the criminal justice professionals study sample was asked the
same questions so that answers can be compared and contrasted to identify issues with
the registration and notification laws and program, as well as challenges to enforcement
57
that might be present. The interviews consisted of 30 questions, developed to provide
detail around the SORN program as well as the enforcement efforts of the agency. The
interviews lasted no more than ninety minutes.
A form to document whether the offender has complied with the check-in
requirement of the SORN laws (see Appendix A) was used to document whether the
offender listed on the SORN website at the time of research had checked in with the
Sheriff’s Department as required by Nebraska State law. The law required the offender
to had provided a photograph and fingerprints, and provided a DNA sample. The
documentation form also indicated whether he or she is considered an absconder.
Records recording the compliance efforts of the sample law enforcement agency, where
available, were obtained for the past 3 years and recorded on a standard form (see
Appendix B) to standardize the recording of the data according to the number of
offenders checked, the number who complied, the number who did not comply, and the
number who are considered absconders.
Triangulation of interview data. Triangulation of data obtained in interviews
with law enforcement officials concerning SORN was accomplished via inspection of
offender data collected from the SORN website along with documentation of compliance
efforts of the participating agencies used to check the consistency of the interviews with
the agency’s efforts and the SORN registration data.
Phase II: Examination of SORN procedures in five other comparable states.
Interviews were conducted, after obtaining informed consent (see Appendix F) using a
standard interview format (see Appendix D). All the interviews were digitally recorded
and transcribed. Data outlining the SORN laws of the state were obtained from the
58
state’s SORN website. No instrument was used to catalog this information. Instead,
comparisons were accomplished in narrative form.
59
Study Procedures
Approval was obtained from the Northcentral University Institutional Review
Board before any effort being undertaken to collect data. The study was conducted in
two phases: Phase I entailed interviews of 13 law enforcement officials from randomly
selected county law enforcement agencies and obtaining the data detailing the efforts of
the agency to enforce compliance with SORN. Phase II entailed interviews of 10 subject
matter experts on SORN from six states: Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota,
and Iowa.
Phase I: Interviews with law enforcement officials and collection of
compliance efforts data. Thirteen law enforcement officials from 12 counties and the
Nebraska State Patrol in Nebraska were interviewed. The interviews were audiotaped.
Interviewees had the opportunity to consent to the interview in writing upon being
presented with an informed consent advisement (see Appendix F). Participation of law
enforcement officials was voluntary, and they were informed of the purpose of the study
and its potential for publication first in a letter sent to the agency, in the case of law
enforcement officials, requesting their compliance data over the past three years and
asking for their assistance by participating in the study. They were told of the need to
participate in in-person or telephonic interviews that are recorded and provided with a
consent form. At the time of the interview, they were given the opportunity to withdraw
from the study and their information shall not be included as part of the study. They
continued to have the option to withdraw up until the publication of the study results in
the final report. They were referred to by their study identifier rather than their name.
Interviews with law enforcement officials were digitally recorded, and the subjects were
60
allowed copies should they have chosen to receive a copy of their interview. The
interview questions were in writing (see Appendix C) and asked in the same manner of
each subject.
Interviews were conducted telephonically and recorded digitally. Digital
recordings shall be kept in a secure folder on a hard drive and in a secure cloud.
Participants only had their study identifier recorded in any results. Hard copies of any
consent forms are kept in a locked file cabinet and indexed by study identifier and not
any personal identifier.
Phase II: Examination of SORN procedures in five other comparable states.
Ten matter experts in SORN from Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, and
Iowa were interviewed. The interviews were audiotaped. Interviewees had the
opportunity to consent to the interview in writing upon being presented with an informed
consent advisement (see Appendix F). Participation of subject matter experts was
voluntary, and they were informed of the purpose of the study and its potential for
publication first in a letter sent to the agency, in the case of law enforcement officials,
requesting their compliance data over the past three years and asking for their assistance
by participating in the study. They were told of the need to participate in in-person or
telephonic interviews that are recorded and provided with a consent form. At the time of
the interview, they were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study and their
information shall not be included as part of the study. They continue to have the option
to withdraw up until the publication of the study results in the final report. They also
were referred to by their study identifier rather than their name. Interviews with law
enforcement officials were digitally recorded, and the subjects were allowed copies
61
should they have chosen to receive a copy of their interview. The interview questions
were in writing (see Appendix D) and asked in the same manner of each subject.
Interviews were conducted telephonically and recorded digitally. Digital
recordings shall be kept in a secure folder on a hard drive and in a secure cloud.
Participants only had their study identifier recorded in any results. Hard copies of any
consent forms were kept in a locked file cabinet and indexed by study identifier and not
any personal identifier.
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
Phase I: Interviews with law enforcement officials and analysis of
compliance enforcement data. Participating agencies were asked to provide the results
of SORN offender in-person check-ins on the form shown in Appendix A. A data
collection form (see Appendix B) was used to capture the data from the compliance
efforts for the past three years from the sample law enforcement agencies as well. Prior
to collecting the data, and after obtaining IRB approval, A letter (see Appendix D) was
sent to the agency asking the Sheriff or Chief Executive to provide their compliance data
and soliciting their participation in the study. It informed them of the purpose of the
study and the need to conduct personal or phone interviews in addition to them providing
their compliance data. Additionally, data from the public websites were collected with an
instrument for the study population. Finally, an interview guide (Appendix C) was
developed to use to interview each of the law enforcement officials consistently. The
data was then correlated and reported as to percentages of offenders in compliance as
well as in narrative format as to the consistent information from the interviews (BonnarKidd, 2010; Bench & Allen, 2014; Jennings, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2012). The Nebraska
62
Administrative Code Title 272, Chapter 19 addressing sex offender registration was used
as the guide for determining compliance.
The interviews of law enforcement officials were transcribed for analysis. The
analysis included organizing the transcribed information and thoroughly reviewing it to
identify common categories of information and coding those categories. The categories
were developed into common themes based on the emerging information developed from
the interviews and not based on any predetermined belief as to what the codes should
reveal. The themes continued to be identified until the development of themes is
completely saturated. The coded data were then described regarding people, places or
events using specific labeling. Detailed narratives were written to describe the various
themes and interpret the data to make determinations as to what lessons were learned.
The interview coding and narratives were then triangulated with the actual compliance
data provided by the agencies and the public SORN data to support or refute the themes
that were developed. Transcripts from interviews were coded both manually and with the
assistance of qualitative NVivo (QSR International, n.d.).
Phase II: Examination of SORN procedures in five other comparable states.
Phase II interviews were conducted in the same manner as conducted in Phase I and
evaluated in the same manner using the standard questions identified in Appendix D.
Consent was obtained prior and the participants were coded to protect their identities.
NVivo or Leximancer, among others, are tools of qualitative narrative analysis,
which is a social science research method to analyze qualitative data such as interviews
and notes. The tools help the researcher analyze large amounts of qualitative data to
identify consistent themes that are present in the data and then code those themes, so the
63
researcher can more clearly compare the data (Bergin, 2011; Sotiradou, Brouwers, & Le,
2014; Johnston, 2006). Coding is the process whereby the material is gathered by topic
or theme and then coded to a node, which is a container for the material. NVivo allowed
the researcher to import the recorded interviews, transcribe them and search them
continuously for themes, coding the material into themes and nodes (QSR International,
Start
Phases
I & II
Collect
State SORN
Procedures
Phase Ii
Send
Solicitation
Letters
Solicitation
Letters
< 1 week
Follow-up
Phone Calls
Analyze
Data &
Transcribe
Interviews
Phase I
Collect
Agency
Compliance
Conduct
Interviews
Yes
Verbal
Consent?
Securely
Store
Data
Analyze
Data &
Transcribe
Interviews
Securely
Store
Data
No
Participant
Eliminated
Figure 1. Explanation of data collection process
n.d.). Although qualitative coding software is designed to aid the researcher by
64
reviewing transcripts and recordings and extracting data related to specific themes that
are continually updated, the researcher must still be in control of the research and analyze
the data through the results produced by the computer-aided data analysis software
(Zamawe, 2015).
Data comparing the SORN laws of the six states were obtained both from the
cataloged laws of the states as well as from comparisons already conducted by various
researchers in previous studies. The data were compared in narrative form, specifically
identifying the differences and similarities between each state, but more importantly, the
differences and similarities between each state and Nebraska. The information was
compared to the information obtained from the interviews with the subject matter experts
to determine any programs that support the victims of sex offenses as part of SORN. See
Figure 1 for additional explanation.
Quality and Validity
Credibility. Credibility was ensured by recording the participant’s interviews
and providing them copies, should they wish. The participants in the study were
professional peers of one another. During their interviews, the interviewer did not add to
the content of the written questions and asked the questions verbatim but allowed the
participants to add general narratives about the topic as a final question of the interview.
Transferability. The researcher ensured a high degree of transferability by
describing the settings of the research and limitations the research was conducted in
detail. The researcher also detailed any processes that might occur that are not replicable,
detailing the procedures as to how the research was conducted.
65
Dependability. To ensure dependability the researcher kept detailed notes of the
way in which the research is conducted, ensuring consistency with the proposed and
approved procedures. Any changes in the settings of the study were detailed, noting how
those changes may have affected the research.
Confirmability. Confirmability was ensured through the recording of all
interviews and detailing records through research logs as to how the research was
conducted. The researcher also audited the way the study was conducted against how it
was proposed. During the defense of the research, other researchers will be provided the
opportunity to challenge the results and the manner in which the results were obtained.
Assumptions
The only assumption of consequence in this study was that respondents
interviewed will be truthful and provide information upon which respondents can rely on.
This assumption was relevant as the participants all held positions of trust and were in a
position to know the information they discussed. Additionally, the participants were
given open-ended questions that required them to support their answers.
Limitations
The study had two limitations. The study was limited by the how well sample law
enforcement agencies recorded their compliance efforts. A second limitation was the
cooperation of law enforcement officials in validating information and participating in
interviews. Participation in the study was voluntary law enforcement agencies or subject
matter experts who declined to participate, may have diminished the study sample,
potentially affecting the ability to generalize the results.
66
Delimitations
This study was limited to an examination of the SOR in Nebraska. Additionally,
with 93 counties, the law enforcement agencies of one-third of the counties in Nebraska
were chosen to narrow the scope of the study to a manageable number, while still
providing a strong sample for universality. Due to practical reasons, the researcher has
chosen not to expand the study beyond these 32 counties. Additionally, the identification
of five subject matter experts out of a framing sample of 30 was chosen out of
practicality, taking into account time constraints and the limitations of one researcher.
The researcher also considered conducting home visits to check the validity of the
reported addresses of offenders personally; however, this idea was eliminated due to the
potential risk of direct contact with the offender. The interviewer conducted the
interviews via telephone.
Ethical Assurances
The Northcentral University Institute Review Board was solicited for approval of
the study before any data being collected. Participation of law enforcement officials and
subject matter experts was voluntary, and they were informed of the purpose of the study
and its potential for publication first in a letter sent to the agency, in the case of law
enforcement officials, requesting their compliance data over the past three years and
asking for their assistance by participating in the study. They were told of the need to
participate in in-person or telephonic interviews that are recorded and provided with a
consent form. At the time of the interview, they were given the opportunity to withdraw
from the study and their information would not be included as part of the study. They
continue to have the option to withdraw up until the publication of the study results in the
67
final report. They shall also be referred to by their study identifier rather than their name.
Interviews with law enforcement officials and subject matter experts were digitally
recorded, and the subjects were allowed copies should they have asked to receive a copy
of their interview. No vulnerable populations were interviewed. The interview questions
were in writing and asked in the same manner of each subject. The researcher did not
add further explanation and read the question verbatim, allowing the respondent to
respond in whatever manner they desire. The researcher did not offer any opinions or
make any attempt to influence the answers of the respondents with voice or gesture. The
interviews were recorded in their entirety with agreement by both parties that the
interviews were concluded before stopping the recording.
Summary
The data collected in this study is data that is considered public information. The
information is available from the sample law enforcement agency along with offender
information that is available on the internet on websites designed to notify the victim and
community of the whereabouts of the registered sex offenders. The website also contains
information about the vehicles that the offender uses for transportation and the offender’s
employer or school. Also, data were collected from the records of law enforcement
agencies as to their enforcement efforts and through interviews as to their ability to
enforce sexual offender registration and notification laws and the challenges they face.
The data were collected mostly at the normative level of measurement thus it does not
lend itself well to quantitative studies.
Instead, a qualitative study that triangulates or collects the data in multiple ways is
appropriate. In the case of this study, one collected data through collecting and
68
documenting offender data from sex offender registration and sex offender notification
sites. Thirdly, the data was collected from law enforcement officials and subject matter
experts through interviews. These three different sources and methods of collecting data
lend themselves very well to a straightforward qualitative study, was used.
69
Chapter 4: Findings
The problem that this study addressed is that it is unknown if sexual offender
registration and notification [SORN] is being adequately enforced by local law
enforcement with the responsibility for SORN. Improvements in SORN enforcement and
practice will be difficult to achieve in the absence of information concerning current
enforcement levels. Existing data suggest that enforcement of SORN is irregular and
ineffective (Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008; Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Tewksbury
& Mustaine, 2012; Craun, Simmons, & Reeves, 2014; Duwe, 2015). SORN enforcement
is not assigned to any one agency and is left to the ability of the local law enforcement
agencies to handle SORN provisions. Finally, at the time of the study, no regulatory
agency ensured that the information contained in the registries was accurate and verified.
Once one determined if law enforcement, was effective, in its own views, at enforcing
SORN, the question remained as to whether or not those who used SORN understood
how it could be used to protect victims of sex offenders. This study was not an attempt in
any manner to evaluate the SORN program either globally or in Nebraska; however, was
instead aimed at obtaining the insights of the professionals who were intimately involved
in the program in enforcement and utilized SORN to institute programs to help victims
and protect the public.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand better how law
enforcement and subject matter experts viewed the problem of SORN and its
enforcement and how better results can be obtained from the efforts they have made in
addressing the problem. Thirteen members of Nebraska County Sheriff’s Departments
and the Nebraska State Patrol, who are directly involved in SORN efforts, were
70
interviewed to determine what processes they used to validate offender compliance, how
often they validated, and the challenges they faced in doing so. Additionally, ten experts
who address the needs of victims of sex offenses in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Florida,
Texas, and Missouri were interviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of SORN in serving
victims of sexual offenses.
The findings from the study are being reported in this chapter to address the four
research questions that the study wished to answer:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
The chapter, organized around these four research questions, addresses the
trustworthiness of the data, the results of the study, an evaluation of those results, and a
summary of the chapter.
Trustworthiness of the Data
Trustworthiness is a product of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability for qualitative studies. The study consisted of more than one source for
the data. Interviews were conducted with twelve Sheriffs or Deputy Sheriffs of Nebraska
71
County Sheriff’s Department and a civilian administrator of the Nebraska State Patrol
who has responsibility for administering and enforcing SORN. These participants work
with SORN administration and enforcement as a part of their duties on a day-to-day
basis. Additionally, interviews were conducted with ten subject matter experts from
agencies who address the needs of victims of sex offenses or have expertise in SORN in
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Missouri, and Florida, utilizing triangulation (Webb
et al, 1966), based on the belief that two independent measurement processes yield results
with greater credibility. The answers from the standardized interview questions of the 23
participants were triangulated with data from the Nebraska Sex Offender Website
(https://sor.nebraska.gov/) about each of the twelve county’s sex offender population and
data disclosing the enforcement efforts of two of the County Sheriff’s Departments who
agreed to provide the data.
Transferability was established by conducting thirteen interviews of County
Sheriff ‘s Deputy Sheriff’s and civilian administrators from different sized agencies in
Nebraska. The agencies participating were the Cass County Sheriff’s Department, Gage
County Sheriff’s Department, Hall County Sheriff’s Department, Jefferson County
Sheriff’s Department, Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department, Lincoln County Sheriff’s
Department, Merrick County Sheriff’s Department, Nemaha County Sheriff’s
Department, Nebraska State Patrol, Platt County Sheriff’s Department, Sarpy County
Sheriff’s Department, Sheridan County Sheriff’s Department, and Stanton County
Sheriff’s Department. The twelve sheriff’s departments had responsibility for
administering 1,395 (26.4%) of Nebraska’s 5,280 registered sex offenders. Additionally,
ten interviews were conducted with ten subject matter experts in SORN or services for
72
sex offender victims for various locations, including a university researcher, an internet
sex offense crimes unit expert, a victim/witness assistance director, two counselors, a
sexual assault victim assistance trainer, a sex offender registration and notification reform
advocate, a coordinator of offender services, an executive director of a sexual violence
center, and a county attorney. These ten subject matter experts were from six states that
included Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, and Florida.
Dependability, the next criteria of trustworthiness, was established by following
an IRB approved interview protocol supporting the methodology of triangulation. The
first phase of interviews intended to interview members of 32 of Nebraska’s 93 county
sheriff’s and a member of the Nebraska State Patrol who works with SORN. Site
permissions and interviews were requested of 32 County Sheriff’s resulting in 12 of the
Sheriff’s giving permission. The Superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol also
provided permission to use his site. Site permissions were obtained first to ensure the
authorization from the chief executive of the agency and a willingness to participate.
Agencies were selected using a random number generator over and over until 32 County
Sheriff’s provided verbal intent to participate. Site permissions were then sent, resulting
in 12 being returned signed. The thirteen participants averaged 23 years’ experience in
law enforcement and together had one associate degree, four bachelor’s degrees, and two
master’s degrees. The same 30 standard questions were asked of each participant, and
the interview was conducted by Skype and recorded with the consent of the participant.
Phase II interviews were conducted similarly by compiling a list of 114 various
potential subject matter experts from social services agencies, corrections agencies,
victim advocate agencies, prosecutors, government service agencies, and researchers
73
from Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Missouri, Florida, and Minnesota. A random number
generator was then used to identify the 30 participants that would be invited to be
interviewed, using an established interview guide. Ten participants were willing to
participate and consented to the interview. The ten participants averaged almost 16 years
in experience in their fields and held one bachelor’s degree, seven master’s degrees, and
two doctorate degrees among them. The interviews were conducted via Skype and
recorded with the participant’s consent.
All of the 23 interviews from both Phase I and Phase II were then coded,
transcribed and uploaded to NVivo®, a robust qualitative data analyzer, and checked for
similar themes among all 23 interviews. Additionally, data was obtained from the
Nebraska sex offender registry database on the Internet:(https://sor.nebraska.gov) for
each of the 12 participating sheriff’s departments. Two of the participants also provided
their enforcement data, and one provided quarterly check-in data for sex offenders in
their county. The other 10 and 11 participants respectively needed more time to provide
the data, obtain legal review of the study, or declined to provide data citing their lack of
resources to produce it.
Confirmability was painstakingly considered in conducting interviews. Each
participant was provided with an approved informed consent document (Appendix G).
Upon obtaining the signature of the participant consenting, the interview was scheduled
to be conducted via Skype. Consent was then obtained again verbally and recorded.
They were told they could stop the interview at any time should they feel uncomfortable.
The standard list of questions applicable to either Phase I participants or Phase II
participants was then read verbatim by the researcher and the participant was permitted to
74
answer. The entire interview was recorded using Amolto Call Recorder for Skype. The
interviews were verbal only and did not use the video feature of Skype, preventing the
participant from seeing any reaction from the researcher to their answers. Each
participant has also been previously advised that any comment or reaction by the research
should not be taken as agreement or disagreement and they would be kept confidential to
the extent possible, so they should feel able to speak candidly during the interview. They
were also told they could receive a copy of the audio recording should they wish one.
Each interview was then de-identified and assigned a random number for tracking
purposes. The interviews were transcribed using Scribie (https://scribie.com), first
automatically by the service and then checked for accuracy by the researcher. The
recordings and data were kept along with the transcripts of the interviews in a password
protected and encrypted folder on the researcher’s laptop and then backed up on an
encrypted and password-protected folder on an external hard drive as well as in a
password-protected folder on an individual Microsoft One-Drive account. The signed
site permissions and signed informed consents are also secured in the same manner. The
external hard drive was locked in a desk drawer with only one key, possessed by the
researcher when not in active use. The results identified in the next section were obtained
as a result of these detailed processes.
Results
The procedures outlined in the previous section were followed to meet the stated
purpose of the study, which is to understand better how law enforcement and subject
matter experts view the problem of SORN and its enforcement and how better results can
be obtained from the efforts they have made in addressing the problem. Following Yin’s
75
(2009) design procedures (Yin, 2009), this researcher addressed the four research
questions:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
The results of the research are reported below, organized under each research question.
The demographics of the participants are identified in Table 1.
76
Table 1
Demographics of Phase I and Phase II Interview Participants
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Years
Experience
9
25
35
19
19
19
3
24
23
19
23
36
29
Role
Phase I n=13
Deputy Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff
Investigator
Deputy Sheriff
Sheriff
Captain
Deputy Sheriff
Sheriff
Practitioner
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff
Education
Some College
Graduate Study
High School
Bachelors
High School
Bachelors
Bachelors
Masters
Masters
Bachelors
Some College
Associates
High School
Phase II n=10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
19 Counselor
Masters
24 Counselor
Masters
13 Advocate
Bachelors
20 Counselor
Masters
5 Director
Masters
18 Prosecutor
Juris Doctorate
10 SORN Administrator Masters
24 Director
Masters
21 Counselor
Masters
2 Educator/Researcher Ph.D.
Notes: Roles have been generalized to help ensure
confidentiality
Research question 1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law
enforcement study participants being checked to ensure compliance with the
Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws? Question 7 of the Standard
Interview Guide addressed this research question directly with the question “Describe
77
your agency’s SORN compliance and efforts to ensure that the information provided by
offenders is accurate and registration laws are complied with?” (Appendix C, question 7).
Transcripts of Phase I interviews were reviewed closely, coded using NVivo ® to
develop relevant themes. Key themes that were identified using NVivo ® are identified
in Table 2. Those themes were checked for frequency and are shown in how many
interviews and the number of instances they were identified. Some of these themes were
also present in Phase II interviews.
Table 2
Themes Identified in Phase I Interviews and Frequency Identified
Theme Quantity of
Interviews Theme
Identified
Compliance checks 12
Complexity 9
Number of
Incidences of the
Theme Identified
19
10
Ambiguous law 6
6
Conflict with the court 8
9
One size fits all 8
13
Priority of enforcement 8
8
Registration 6
6
inconvenient 7
7
Resources adequate 5
8
Social media 6
7
Three-tiered vs. risk 10
17
Underfunded 7
13
Understaffed 8
12
Victim initiation
Note NVivo Pro ® used to code themes manually
78
Themes developed that were directly related to this question included compliance
checks, complexity, social media, and ambiguity.
The most common theme for this research question was compliance checks with it
appearing in all 12 sheriff’s department interviews. Regarding the initial part of the
research question as to whether the information is accurate or not, the participants
accomplished this when the person first registers and when the person checks in for their
required in-person check-ins based on the category of their registration as a fifteen-year
offender, twenty-five-year offender, or lifetime offender. Participant 1 explained
Compliance checks are done on a regular basis, and then we use in-person
verification and an information exchange period just to take that time and make a
brief and casual interview of our offenders to make sure that the information that
is provided is accurate. We use that interaction as an informal interview, just to
see if they are being truthful with us (Phase I Participant 1, 2018).
Participant 2 explained how it was important that they give a blank form to the
offender to fill out for verification each time and not just let them review and approve of
the current information, stating, “We make sure that we give that to them each time and
have them fill it out and sign it” (Phase I Participant 2, 2018). Even with the attempts to
ensure the offenders are providing accurate information from the beginning, as
Participant 1 stated, “A lot of what is relied upon comes from the individual coming in
and providing an accurate address, work address, phone number, cars, and all that is
required to bring in. For example, registration paperwork is provided so we can verify
vehicles and that kind of thing” (Phase I Participant 1, 2018).
79
A sheriff of a smaller county, Participant 8, explained the advantage his
department enjoys in verifying information,
We would do the basic standard check with the information they provide us. It’s
a small enough county that I generally have a pretty good grasp on who my
offenders are, where they live and even work. So again, it’s a minimal problem
for us compared to a larger metropolitan area where they have more offenders and
a much larger geographical area (Phase I Participant 8, 2018).
Nine participants of the 13 reported that there was a concern with the complexity
of the law, Participant 1 reporting,
So generally, complaints are that the system that just is too complicated or
contains too much information for them that they feel like they’re in over their
heads with what’s required and things like that. We do our best to explain things
like that to them so that they understand. A lot of our offenders don’t understand
the difference between updating information when they come in to report for their
month that they are assigned for verification. So, if they have violations
regarding those things, they complain about not knowing, even though they’re
served with papers explaining the process (Phase I Participant 1, 2018).
Participant 4 reported similar observations:
One thing I hear so far here is that they don’t understand as far as their
registration requirements what they need to do, and of course, it’s always different
depending on whatever with they are not in compliance. If it’s a vehicle, what’s
to understand with that? If it’s employment, they complain they didn’t
understand they needed to register their employment (Phase I Participant 4, 2018)
80
Participant 4 went on to state his belief that it was more of an excuse than a
misunderstanding, as they are explained the requirements in writing, and the offender is
also verbally briefed on the requirements when they first register.
Part of the research questions deals with ensuring compliance with the law. Ten
of the participants reported their agencies’ efforts as proactive in addressing compliance
checks.
Additionally, Participant 4 did provide registration check-in data that is required quarterly
by
Nebraska law. The data is shown in Table 3. The table identifies the number of sex
offenders who were expected to check-in during the quarter according to the
requirements of the category of their sex offender classification. It also shows the actual
number of offenders who did check-in during the quarter indicated for each classification.
Table 3
EXPECTED
ACTUAL
Reg. Term
Lifetime
25-Yr.
15-Yr.
Lifetime
25-Yr.
15-Yr.
2015 2015.25
18
21
5
12
8
3
14
18
4
11
8
2
Number of Offenders Checking In Within Quarter Required
2015.5 2015.75
2016 2016.25 2016.5 2016.75
2017 2017.25
23
23
23
25
23
23
22
24
6
14
7
11
6
12
8
10
7
8
6
3
7
4
3
2
21
20
21
23
21
22
21
22
6
12
7
11
6
11
8
10
7
8
6
3
7
4
3
2
2017.5 2017.75
25
25
9
13
6
3
22
23
8
12
6
3
Note. Decimals are related to quarters of the year
Participants 1 and 4 also provided enforcement data, in which they went to
addresses and checked on offenders and determined if there were violations. The data is
shown in Table 4.
Participating agencies, however, reported varying degrees of effort in compliance
checking by going to the offender’s home or work to verify their address, vehicle and
other information.
81
Table 4
SORN Law Enforcement Agency 3-Year Compliance Enforcement Effort
No.
1
2
2014 Total Compliance Effort
Tota l
11
129
Tota l
1
2
1
2
11
141
Sa mpl e
Compl i ed
Not-Compl i ed Abs conded
11
10
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
2015 Total Compliance Effort
Sa mpl e
Compl i ed
Not-Compl i ed Abs conded
11
10
1
140
123
17
2016 Total Compliance Effort
Tota l
Sa mpl e
Compl i ed
11
151
11
145
10
137
1
N/A
1
N/A
Not-Compl i ed Abs conded
1
18
1
N/A
Participant 10 described when asked about the percentage of registrants they check,
I would say it’s a very small percentage. We don’t have the capability. Like I
said, we don’t have a department that can focus on that. A lot of our compliance
comes by tips by someone, maybe other agencies or their officers or calls from
the community. That would probably be the primary sources for any follow-up
check on any compliance (Phase I Participant 10, 2018).
Participant 6 described their efforts:
The deputies out in and the field and the police officers out in the field, as they
come into contact with anybody with a sex offender registration requirement,
they’re also verifying that information and then reporting back to us so that we
can ensure that the information that was provided to us was accurate and correct.
82
Specific team detectives are also responsible for sex offenders that are residing in
their geographical location or geographical team areas and then occasionally
deputies will go out into the county and check various sex offenders’ registrations
to be sure that everyone complies (Phase I Participant 6, 2018).
Participant 3 reported their efforts as,
The other thing as far as compliance is we do compliance checks, and we have not
done one for about a year, but in 2015, we did three compliance checks so many
months apart, and in 2017 we just did one. At one point they were talking about
getting another one started when we got some of our deputies out of the training
center. For a while, we were doing them every three months, which was maybe
almost too much and then we kind of went twice here and there and we did the
one and probably will do another one here shortly. When we’ve done them, we
take the whole list that I have and divide them up amongst all the deputies. We
have about 10 to maybe 13 offenders, and they go to their houses, confirm that
they are living there and confirm where they are working (Phase I Participant 3,
2018).
All 13 participants reported that enforcement action is accomplished when they
identify a sex offender on a traffic stop. They verify their registration information after
running a person check and then verify and update any information at the time. If the sex
offender is not driving a vehicle that is reported on their registration or is living at a
different address, participants reported they may or may not initiate a violation on the
offender.
83
Interestingly, five participants reported using social media to enlist the aid of the
public in enforcement. They used Twitter ® and other social media sites to convey
changes in addresses and status of offenders as well as offenders who may have
absconded and then hope to get tips to help them enforce the law. The number of
offenders that each agency supervises vary and this public assistance helps them manage
the offenders.
Table 5 shows the number of offenders supervised in each category by the
participating agencies, which have been assigned random numbers for identification
purposes. The total number supervised is about a quarter of the total number of sex
offenders supervised in Nebraska on a given day (Nebraska Sex Offenders, 2018).
Table 5
Participating Agencies Sex Offenders on Registry by Category
ACS336P
AG621B
AH111G
AJ606F
AL302N
AL575L
AM1821
C
AN1805
A
AP2610C
AS0510R
AS03655
S
AS8335P
Total
15Years
8
12
49
5
23
114
25Years
21
20
84
10
43
255
Lifetime
15
25
68
9
37
255
Total Offenders
44
57
201
24
103
624
Absconde
d
1
2
8
1
6
27
5
15
8
28
1
7
13
1
5
32
6
6
17
3
18
62
10
1
36
3
102
14
68
18
206
274
596
525
1395
Incarcerated
/Committed
1
1
10
1
59
Transient
8
2
31
1
1
1
46
73
43
Note. Adapted from “Nebraska Sex Offender Registration and Notification Website,”
Nebraska State Patrol, 2018.
*one participating agency did not have offender supervision data
84
As reported in Table 2, six participants commented on the ambiguousness of the
law and how it impacted their ability to enforce compliance. Participant 1 noted from his
experience,
I think one of the issues that come straight to mind is a kind of an issue we’ve had
in the last couple of years as far as the state statutes themselves not being clear
enough in establishing a time frame for reporting certain items to the database.
This goes back to the U.S. Marshal compliance check we did. We filed multiple
violation cases as a result of that compliance check, and a lot of the violations
were for things like a phone number and license plate number not being valid.
The statutes don’t specifically give a time frame for when those have to be
reported (Phase I Participant 1, 2018).
Research question 2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants face in enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification
laws?
Question 18 of the Standard Interview Guide addresses this directly with the question
“What challenges does your agency face in enforcing SORN laws?” (Appendix C,
Question 18). Referring to Table 2, one can readily see that underfunded and
understaffed were prominent themes, along with the priority of enforcement,
ambiguousness, and conflict with the court.
Seven of the participants expressed their concerns with understaffing as a prominent
theme. Participant 2 expressed his frustration due to the vastness of his county and lack
of staffing, noting,
85
It’s a matter of manpower and the time and distance. If I had to look at the northeast
part of the county and one in the southwest part of the county, let alone the
investigative efforts of the two, it’s just a matter of resources to be able to do it
because there’s always something else going along with that. This is just a collateral
duty of mine (Phase I Participant 2, 2018).
Participant 3 expressed how challenging it is, with limited staff, to keep track of the
paperwork and log all the moves of the offenders. This challenge is capitalized on by just
getting the information that the offender is in violation. He noted that much of the time
they are dependent on the public giving them a tip that the information on the registry is
wrong (Phase I Participant 3, 2018).
Seven of the participants commented along the theme of adequate staffing, reporting
being used to doing more with less, They felt that the resources were adequate for the
activity they are doing but Participant 3 lamented, “Resources are adequate for what we
do now, but If we were really to do it, I wouldn’t have enough personnel to do it, so
resources are inadequate” (Phase I Participant 3, 2018). Participant 6 advised, “If we had
enough people we could go out and find the higher-risk, harder to find individuals just to
ensure they are in compliance, but as with any agency, we don’t have the time or the
manpower or the money to devote a single person or group of people to do nothing else”
(Phase I Participant 6, 2018). He continued similarly, “I think what would be seen for
most agencies our size is the challenge of time and money resources. We have a limited
number of road deputies on the street and a limited number of investigators that we can
utilize, so there’s a lot of different things going on each and every day and sex offenders
are just a part of that” (Phase I Participant 6 2018).
86
Ten of the participants commented along the theme of being underfunded and how
they were under an unfunded mandate from the Federal government that the State of
Nebraska had assigned to them. There were no funds to enforce the sex offender registry,
and the counties are mandated under the law to do the registration. The State does
provide the website and issued iPads to the counties to help facilitate the data entry on the
website. It is not only the counties that have been hampered by funding. However,
participants spoke of how the Nebraska State Patrol had a strong presence at the
beginning of the registration process, but a small staff of civilian analysts now staffs the
enforcement and registration branch that was managed by sworn officers.
Ten of the participants addressed the theme of priority of enforcement as a challenge.
When asked about what priority enforcing sex offender registration and notification is for
their agency, they replied that it is a priority; however, it is not their top priority. They
still have other crime, and only two of the agencies participating in the study reported
having the full-time dedicated staff to SORN. The others used part-time personnel with
other duties that had a higher priority. Five participants reported that it is a high priority
for their agency, probably the highest priority outside the primary role that they are
assigned. In the recruiting process, however, four agencies refused to participate citing
that SORN was not a high priority since it was not funded and they expressed resentment
that they had to expend resources on something that was enacted by the Federal
government and given to the states. When the funding for the states then ran out, it
became a problem for local government.
Staffing and funding is a serious problem, but it is not the only problem reported by
participants. As was discussed earlier, ambiguities in the law was a common theme for
87
six of the participants, citing it made it difficult for enforcement. Participant 1, noted, “I
wouldn’t say it is complicated, but I think it doesn’t clearly define some of the reporting
requirements as a whole” (Phase I Participant 1, 2018).
However, it is not just ambiguity but conflict as the SORN law is not universally
enforced and recognized by the courts, creating the common theme of conflict with the
courts for eight of the participants. There are differences in how it is enforced.
Participant 7 pondered,
The laws are fine, I think. The difficult aspect is applying the law by the judge and
courts. It doesn’t matter that he [the offender] didn’t tell us that it’s a new house and
he got a new car or he’s not telling us where he’s working. It’s a felony, and the
judges need to take it as being the law. It’s not just, well, I forgot to do that and try to
encourage to plea down to a misdemeanor (Phase I Participant 7, 2018).
Participant 2 put it rather succinctly, “Some of the judges are not seeing that this is either
intentional deception on the part of the registrant or that they’re trying to get away with
something” (Phase I Participant 2, 2018). Almost universally, the participants saw a lot
of the misunderstanding of the law by offenders as an attempt to make excuses for their
not complying with the law.
Research Question 3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law
enforcement study participants recommend? Questions 27 and 28 of the Standard
Interview Guide (Appendix C) address this research question directly with “How would
you change or improve the SORN laws if you could?” (Appendix C, Question 27) and
“How would that make the law better? What effect would it have on the offender?”
(Appendix C, Question 28). There were a variety of ideas expressed by law enforcement
88
participants. Themes that were developed to address this research question were threetiered vs. risk and one-size-fits-all.
Eight of the participants addressed comments along the theme of one-size-fits-all
while six addressed the theme of three-tiered vs. risk. Participants spoke of the
classifications and how they view it as a feel-good law enacted by the legislature when
passed by the Federal government. While more than one thought that lifetime and
twenty-five-year requirements for offenders to be on the list made for no incentive for the
person to get off the list, others felt that the current classifications into three reporting
requirements of 15, 25, and lifetime put everyone in the same bucket, in a one-size-fitsall. This approach contrasted with the previous classifications that were by the risk of the
offender after a comprehensive evaluation. Low-risk offenders were not reported to the
public. As one sheriff, Participant 10, put it,
I think every situation is different. Like I said, you go to the different degrees of
the different classifications, and you get some high tier, high-end offenders who I
think need to be drastically monitored and watched when they get back out of the
community and I think there's some out there whose low offense was just a stupid
decision they made at a time of their life, and for the most part, are probably
going to learn from their past mistakes and will likely not re-offend in that manner
(Phase I Participant 10, 2018).
Speaking to the length of how long one should be on the registry and the differences in
risk, Participant 12 noted:
I think certain violations probably don't need the length of time. Somebody and
I'm just using an example, somebody on a third-degree sexual assault, which
89
maybe was nothing more than a simple touch, perpetrated by somebody that's
living within the same residence as the victim. I'm not sure that they need to be on
the long-term registry. I think a lot of those people have proven that they paid
their price to society and moved on (Phase I Participant 12, 2018).
Participant 9, speaking along a similar theme, had a little different take in that the
participant would like to see Nebraska become fully compliant with the Federal law
rather than reverting to the three-tiered system. It was explained,
I would like to see Nebraska become in full compliance with the federal
regulations right now. We have several crimes that should be lifetime that are not.
We also do not register juveniles, and despite what the public thinks, I know the
juvenile cases I have read have been extremely severe--it's more than just
curiosity and playing doctor. I would like to see us be able to register juveniles-maybe not exactly post them to the public website until they become an adult--but
I would like us to see Nebraska become in compliance with the Federal law. I
think that would not only give the state more money, but I think it would become
a more solid statute (Phase I Participant 9, 2018).
Still, one participant, Participant 5, was not a believer in SORN at all, explaining,
I don't know what I would do differently. I'm just not a believer. I don't know
that I'd do anything different. I just don’t believe in it and don’t think it will make
a difference no matter what you do with it. That kind of puts all sex offenders in
the same barrel, and we have different sex offenders. We have people that are sex
offenders that simply had the inappropriate age difference and had a consensual
relationship. I don't see them as nearly the threat, if any threat, compared to a
90
violent sex fender, whether that violence is upon an adult or a child, but especially
a child. If they're attracted to violating children, I'm not satisfied you ever get that
out of them (Phase I Participant 5, 2018).
Some of these same concerns were shared in the Phase II interviews with subject matter
experts from Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Missouri, and Florida which were
relevant to research question 4.
Research Question 4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other
comparable states to use SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can
be done? Table 7 identifies several consistent themes among the participants that were
identified by querying NVivo ®. The themes are listed showing the number of
interviews the theme was identified in as well as the number of total instances of the
theme occurring in the interviews.
91
Table 7
Themes Identified in Phase II Interviews and Frequency Identified
Theme Quantity of Interviews
Theme Identified
Justice 4
Number of Incidences of the
Theme Identified
4
No consistent enforcement 4
6
One-size fits all 5
7
Protected by the registry 5
6
Offense based vs. risk 45
56
Understaffed 4
6
Romeo and Juliet 4
5
Underfunded 4
6
Victim initiation
6
Note NVivo Pro ® used to code
The themes that were most prominent were one-size-fits-all and protected by the
registry, followed by understaffed, victim initiation, underfunded, offense-based vs. risk,
no consistent enforcement, and justice. It was an interesting finding, which among the
subject matter experts there did not appear to be an awareness of programs that assisted
victims of sex offenders in other states; however, they had a strong knowledge of the
programs in their states. They were not all convinced however that SORN in their states
offered any real protection for current victims. Speaking to the developed theme of
justice, four of the subject matter experts felt that the victims received some feeling of
92
justice by having their offender listed on the registry and in effect being publicly shamed
for victimizing them. Participant 1 explained,
I think there is not a general understanding of anything that happens consistently
with every person who's been victimized, but I do feel that for many people,
knowing that their perpetrator will have this consequence of being listed on that
registry does serve as some sort of feeling of not really vindication, but of justice
being served; that it's a public thing that they were found in violation of the laws
and that they heard them. So now this seems as an appropriate consequence that
publicly people will know what happened (Phase II Participant 1, 2018).
Along the theme of victim initiation, four of the ten participants cited VINElink
(www.vinelink.com), which refers to Victim Information and Notification Everyday,
which facilitates victims of crime registering free of charge to obtain information
regarding an offender’s incarceration status. They can receive the information through
the website and receive an automated email, phone, or text messages about their offender.
This service was also a misgiving of the experts, however, as it requires the victim to
initiate the notifications rather than the SORN laws providing them a mechanism for
being notified. Victim assistance units of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies
though were given as examples of ways that SORN can be used to help victims; however,
this not an aspect of SORN as it is a service provided to all victims of crime – not just sex
offender victims. Speaking along the theme of underfunded, Participant 8 spoke
consistently with three other participants that “Nebraska spends the least amount of
money on crime victims in the nation” (Phase II Participant 8, 2018).
93
Half of the participants’ comments addressed the theme of one-size-fits-all just
like the law enforcement professionals in Phase I. Comments centered around whether
SORN provided proper monitoring of the offenders to protect the victims. Participant 1
lamented,
I also feel like it's a really complex issue that's tried to be simplified to a few steps
that people can take, just like I look at orders of protection and stuff. It's like, this
is important that people understand we're going to be watching and monitoring
you and you've lost these rights and privileges of being in places and spaces; but I
know that it's not perfect either, that some people are maybe on there and it's not
necessarily the best option for them. So, in terms of what's lacking, I feel that it's
pretty institutionalized and sort of a one-size-fits-all (Phase II Participant 1,
2018).
These five participants compared and contrasted the law under the Jacob
Wetterling Act versus the law under the Adam Walsh Act and how the law was originally
intended to be a registration act alone to help law enforcement. It then became a
notification act as well as different states taking notification further than others. In
Minnesota, they hold community notification meetings. The notification meetings are
especially important in light of Minnesota has laws permitting indefinite civil
commitment of sex offenders, and these meetings are held before release. The subject
matter experts described one of the meetings:
I struggle with seeing people in pain, and so I was seeing community members.
I've seen single parents. I was seeing folks in a lot of pain and a lot of just literally
terrified because we have been misinformed collectively that these are the folks
94
who are supposed to be afraid of, and that the sex offender registry sort of
distinguishes some evil people. And yeah, it's tough. It's really sad. It makes me
feel bad to see people so upset (Phase II Participant 5, 2018).
Undoubtedly, this statement is in line with the discussion of one-size-fits-all.
Four of the experts interviewed believed that the victims would be better served
by having a registry that concentrated on those offenders most at risk to re-offend, rather
than dividing them up by grouped offenses. This belief is consistent with the theme of
offense-based vs. risk, which offense-based classification encapsulates everyone from
Romeo and Juliet and internet port voyeurs to the sadistic child rapists based purely on
the classification of their convicted crime. Participant 7 described how the law was
different under the Jacob Wetterling Act versus what it is now:
The way the sex offender laws were in Nebraska originally when the sex offender
registry was created categorized and reported on the most high-risk offenders.
Now, the way it is presented, a lot more offenders are being listed, and it changes
with time as more watering it down versus the ones that may have been scored out
using a scoring mechanism, as most likely to re-offend. Now, you're putting a lot
of people out there that may have committed a sex-related crime but have not
gone through the analysis that used to be done. So that when you're actually put
on a public website to where the public is aware of it, that you know there's
somebody that has been scored as most likely to re-offend (Phase II Participant 7,
2018).
More resources, as Participant 8 explained, were required on the front end to
evaluate the risk of the offender; however, there existed a better use of the resources in
95
monitoring the offenders as the offenders who were most at risk were monitored more
closely than those who were less likely to offend. The public was only told of the higher
risk offenders, and those who were minor offenders weren’t subject to public
ostracization (Phase II Participant 8, 2018). Having scientific assessments of offenders
was time-consuming and expensive. Participant 10, consistent with the four other
participants who espoused this theme, believes this is the reason that the state complied
with new Federal guidelines under the Adam Walsh Act, explaining,
It takes a lot of time to assess each individual and reassess each individual. It took
time to deal with the appeal process that requires staff and requires funding. I
think that's the primary reason why we allowed that risk-based system to go away.
The fact that Federal dollars are dependent upon following the Federal
regulations, the Walsh Act, It was just easier. We can get rid of all the assessment.
We do not worry about all that data. We don't have to worry about training
individuals to do assessments the right way. We'll base our sex offender registry
on an offense-based system consistent with Adam Walsh. I think there's some
political will to go back to the old system because I know a number of our state
legislators who receive pressure from constituents saying that we're having entire
lives and families ruined because of individual's placements on the registry (Phase
II Participant 10, 2018).
Although none of the participants could point to any particular state with model
legislation, they did cite some of their own state’s laws as helpful. Five of the
participants addressed the theme of protected by the registry, in which victims feel,
sometimes, erroneously, that the registry protects them by keeping the offender away
96
from them and monitoring their every move. They cite from their interactions with those
who enforce SORN they know that consistent with the theme of understaffed, espoused
by four of the participants; law enforcement is too understaffed to watch every move of
the registered sex offender.
Evaluation of the Findings
The initial intent of this study was to determine how effectively Nebraska law
enforcement officials were verifying the information on the sex offender registry and
whether or not the information could be relied upon by the public. Research question 1
addressed that very issue along with the challenges in enforcing SORN that were
identified in the interviews in answer to research question 2. The law enforcement
participants overwhelmingly indicated that they relied on the information provided by the
registrant, confirming the information sporadically at time of registration and then reverifying it during their required check-ins. Those that did conduct independent
compliance checks did them sporadically for the most part. Smaller agencies were
familiar enough with their registrants, due to the few numbers of them, that they were
able to keep track of them because they knew them.
Some of the sheriff’s departments that did not have the luxury of knowing all their
registrants stated they conducted compliance checks by actually going to the registrant’s
residence or place of employment and verifying it. Others also leveraged local police
departments to assist in this effort and, at the time, grant-funded task forces utilizing
local, state and Federal agencies to assist them in validating registrants. The reasons for
the differences in enforcement and registration validation efforts becomes clear when one
starts looking at the challenges law enforcement faces in enforcing SORN.
97
Overwhelmingly, a lack of resources was cited as the greatest challenge the
agencies faced in enforcing SORN. Sheriff’s, as a group, lamented that SORN is an
unfunded mandate (Wang, 2014) that was passed on to the counties after the federal
grants for the states ran their course. Only two of the sheriff’s departments interviewed
had full-time resources to enforce SORN, while all others relied on the efforts of their
deputies along with the other duties they had to perform. Both law enforcement Phase I
participants and subject matter expert Phase II participants cited one aspect of changes in
the law that has impacted the number of registrants that have to be managed. Under
previous Nebraska law under the Jacob Wetterling Act, the registrants were divided into
tiers based on the risks they posed after being evaluated prior to their release back into
society. Only the higher risks were reported to the public. Law enforcement could
concentrate its compliance efforts on those that posed the highest risk (Consortium for
Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013). Under current law,
prescribed by the Adam Walsh Act, the registrants are classified by their crimes, and all
reported to the public, and all require monitoring by law enforcement for verification.
The results obtained to support verification efforts were almost non-existent due
to this very resource issue, although the numbers and classifications for each agency were
obtained, allowing triangulation of the data with the interviews. The sheriffs could not
spare the resources to put together the information for the study, and even the Nebraska
State Patrol had difficulty extracting data from their databases to support the study. It
was interesting to note; however, that almost all of the sheriff’s departments reported that
they had adequate staffing to enforce SORN, which contrasted greatly with their stated
98
need for resources but is also indicate, one believes, that they are used to do more with
less.
Additionally, due to the broad reporting of sex offenders to the public as present
in Nebraska’s registration law, 14 of the 23 total participants mentioned the negative
impact of registration on the offender. This realization was consistent with previous
studies on offender impact (Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011; Evans &
Cubellis, 2015; Call, 2016; Bensel & Sample, 2016) with most commenting how it was
that many offenders are at low risk of recidivism. Many, according to the participants
just comply with the law and go about their lives, which is consistent with many previous
studies noting the lack of real impact on recidivism and the negative impact on offenders
(Mancini & Budd, 2016; Platt, 2013; Dierenfeldt & Carson, 2017; American
Psychological Association, n.d; Colombino, Mercado, Levenson, & Jeglic, 2011; Duwe,
2015; Stucky and Ostensmann, 2016).
These same thoughts were the basis for many of the recommendations that were
made in answer to research question 3. Participants recommended that the classifications
and time periods be reviewed as a lifetime registration seemed long to many, and they felt
that having a carrot at the end of the stick, in other words, a way to reduce the length
through performance, could at least give the registrant something to look forward to in
the future. Some also thought that Nebraska should revert to the three-tiered model with
risk evaluations, noting that it would require more resources on the front end. These
same finding as to the effectiveness of the three-tiered model over crime classification
models were found in a previous Nebraska landmark study (Consortium for Crime and
Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013).
99
Although the tier differences were mentioned by Phase II participants in response
to research question 4, the only real benefit for current victims of sex offenders to protect
them from being further victimized was the feeling of justice obtained from their offender
having to be on the registry and having access to VINElink. This service requires them
to register to obtain information on their offender to know when they are released from
incarceration. All of the participants in Phase II indicated that the victim had to initiate
actions to monitor what is happening with their offender. Some did mention that there
were victim-assistance units that helped with that. Six noted that the offender is already
known to the victim, so the registry doesn’t help track them as the person may be a
member of their household or a family member. These findings are consistent with
previous findings of the overall effectiveness of sex offender registries (Lovell et al.,
2017; Consortium for Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha,
2013; Mogavero and Kennedy, 2017).
Summary
In this chapter, findings from the two sets of interviews consisting of 13 law
enforcement participants and ten subject matter experts as well as enforcement and
registration verification data were presented. The trustworthiness of the data obtained
was discussed. The research questions were presented, and findings were disclosed
relative to those questions. Data were analyzed using NVivo ® to identify clear themes
that were present in the interview. The themes for Phase I interviews were compliance
checks, complex, ambiguous law, conflict with the court, education and treatment, false
sense of security, high recidivism of offenders, housing difficulties of offenders, law
enforcement training, lifetime too long, no consistent enforcement, one size fits all,
100
priority of enforcement, registration inconvenient, resources adequate, social media,
three-tiered vs risk, underfunded, understaffed, unparalleled information, and victim
initiation, which are shown in Table 2. The themes for the Phase II participants were
somewhat similar and are found in Table 7.
Data from only a few participants were received due to their difficulty in
obtaining resources to provide the data. This lack of resources was a prominent theme in
both Phase I and Phase II interviews, citing both the unfunded mandate that had been
passed down from first the federal government to the state government and then the state
government to the county government to enforce SORN. A possible other cause
identified was the offense-based classification system currently in use in Nebraska and
other states, which is different from the previous three-tiered system that classified
offenders after a risk analysis was conducted. Only the highest-risk offenders were put
on notification of the registry and required continuous monitoring and compliance
checks. Resources were required up front, but not as many resources were required by
law enforcement to monitor the registrants as they could concentrate on the highest risk
offenders.
Subject matter experts interviewed did not have a lot of good to say about the
registry regarding its ability to protect current victims, a concern of research question 4.
They felt that it did provide some measure of justice for the victim, but the victims are
predominantly known to their offenders, and the registration is not the means they use to
keep track of them. They did cite some of the notification resources such as VINElink
and no-contact-orders did help the victim, but much of the work in keeping informed had
101
to be initiated by the victim. The next chapter will tie up the entire study and connect the
dots through a discussion of implications, recommendations, and conclusions.
102
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
In considering how this study ties together, it is important to revisit the problem
that was the basis for the study. The problem that this study addressed is that it is
currently unknown if SORN is being adequately enforced by local law enforcement given
responsibility for SORN. Improvements in SORN enforcement and practice will be
difficult to achieve in the absence of information concerning current enforcement levels.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand better how law enforcement
and subject matter experts viewed the problem of SORN and its enforcement and how
better results can be obtained from the efforts they have made in addressing the problem.
A qualitative triangulation method was used to analyze data from the Nebraska
Sex Offender Registry, the reported efforts of Nebraska county sheriff’s in enforcing
SORN and qualitative interviews of members of participating law enforcement agencies
from thirteen different departments and the ten subject matter experts from six different
states. The method addressed the research questions from both a data perspective and
interviews with the actual law enforcement officials who utilize the data to enforce sex
offender registration laws. It also identified challenges encountered in enforcing
compliance with the law and ways the laws or enforcement can be improved from a law
enforcement perspective as well as from the perspective of the victim through the eyes of
the subject matter experts. Utilizing Yin’s (2009) procedures, the enforcement efforts of
the thirteen law enforcement agencies, as well as their sex offender registries, were
examined. Additionally, records of their enforcement efforts were obtained from those
agencies that could provide them. The information was further examined from the
perspective of interviews with members of the agencies who were responsible for SORN
103
in their agency and from subject matter experts in Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Texas
Minnesota, and Florida.
The data was used to answer four research questions that were developed to
address the problem:
Q1. How is the information being reported to Nebraska law enforcement study
participants being checked to ensure compliance with the Nebraska sex offender
registration and notification laws?
Q2. What challenges do Nebraska law enforcement study participants face in
enforcing Nebraska sex offender registration and notification laws?
Q3. What improvements in SORN do Nebraska law enforcement study
participants recommend?
Q4. What is being done in Nebraska and five other comparable states to use
SORN to serve the victims of sex offenders and what can be done?
The 13 law enforcement agencies chosen randomly from 92 counties in Nebraska
were provided standardized forms to capture their enforcement data (Appendix A,
Appendix B). A search of the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration website
(https://sor.nebraska.gov/, 2/25/2018) was conducted relative to each participating
agency. Additionally, an interview guide, consisting of 25 relevant questions and five
demographic questions (Appendix C) was used to conduct a Skype telephone interview
with each participant. In Phase II of the study, an interview guide, consisting of 15
relevant and six demographic questions (Appendix D) was used to conduct Skype
interviews of 10 randomly selected subject matter experts from Nebraska, Iowa, Texas,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Florida.
104
Several factors limited the study. First, the initial effort was to try to obtain a
sample of 32 participants from law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies
were very reluctant to authorize participation for a variety of reasons to include the most
common reason being that they were too busy. Also cited was that the agency did not
believe in SORN and did not wish to participate as well as the agency was being asked to
participate in such studies all the time and did not wish to participate. This lack of
participation limited the sample to 13 of 92 (14.13%) rather than the proposed 32 of 92
(34.78%). Although on its face, this seems like a great limiting factor, it is important to
note that the 13 agencies participating had supervision of 1,395 of Nebraska’s just over
5,000 registered sex offenders (Table 5). Additional participants could have been
obtained had the researcher not been constrained by the deadline set for the collection of
data.
The second limiting factor in this study was the inability of the participating
agencies to produce enforcement data for the most part (Table 4). The agencies reported
that they did not have the time to produce the data as they did have the resources to
dedicate to the production of enforcement data. Even the Nebraska State Patrol who
received much of the enforcement data from the agencies was not able to produce an
extraction of their data due to lack of information technology resources to produce the
extract. This limiting factor is also evidence, however, of what many of the agencies
related during their interviews: the lack of resources hampering their enforcement
ability. Additionally, their registry of sex offenders and classifications was available to
the public (Table 5).
105
A third limiting factor was obtaining the participation of subject matter experts
from the six states chosen for participation. Although a list was generated and then
participants randomly identified for solicitation, this process had to be redone multiple
times to obtain the participation of the ten participants that finally were involved in the
study. Subjects that were solicited declined to participate in many cases, citing their lack
of expertise and knowledge of SORN and how it impacted the victims with whom they
worked. They also cited the concern of the agencies they worked with and the
requirement to have a legal review of the questions and informed consent. Due to the
time constraints of data collection, this was not possible in many cases. The study would
have benefited from a higher participation rate and a larger sample of interview subjects.
These limitations lead one to this chapter and the areas that this chapter addresses,
including the implications of the study, recommendations for practice, recommendations
for further research, and conclusions from the research.
Implications
The limitations notwithstanding, there were still significant findings from this
study, although the findings were not surprising in many cases. A driving factor for this
study was research question one which addressed how Nebraska law enforcement
agencies validated the information provided by the registrants and enforced SORN. Most
agencies relied heavily on the initial registration of the sex offender and on the required
in-person check-ins that are part of the Nebraska SORN laws. Those few participants
that indicated that they conducted independent validation and enforcement checks
indicated they did so sporadically or when dictated by circumstances that put the offender
106
on their radar. One county sheriff described when asked about the percentage of
registrants they check,
I would say it’s a very small percentage. We don’t have the capability. Like I
said, we don’t have a department that can focus on that. A lot of our compliance
comes by a word of other, maybe other agencies or their officers on calls from the
community. That would probably be the primary sources for any follow-up check
on any compliance (Phase I Participant 10, 2018).
A second law enforcement executive from a larger agency reported their efforts as
more proactive, citing,
The deputies out in and the field and the police officers out in the field, as they
come into contact with anybody with a sex offender registration requirement,
they’re also verifying that information and then reporting back to us so that we
can ensure that the information that was provided to us was accurate and correct.
Specific team detectives are also responsible for sex offenders that are residing in
their geographical location or geographical team areas and then occasionally
deputies will go out into the county and check various sex offenders’ registrations
to be sure that everyone complies (Phase I Participant 6, 2018).
This procedure was not cited as the norm, however. Since most of the data is selfreported by the registrant, if the information is not validated, the registrant could be
untruthful and not give a correct address, place of employment or vehicle information and
fly under the radar of law enforcement and of the public who rely on the data on the
public website. It can be concluded from the data safety that enforcement of SORN in
Nebraska is sporadic as far as independent verification and it is dependent on the efforts
107
of the individual agencies, with no statewide standard. It is relegated to the county
sheriff’s departments, who utilize relationships with local police departments to enforce
SORN as the Nebraska State Patrol has no dedicated enforcement branch for SORN. It is
unknown if the sporadic enforcement efforts have reduced compliance efforts as,
according to the Nebraska State Patrol, the compliance rate is 94% in Nebraska. The two
agencies that reported compliance efforts in Nebraska reported slightly lower compliance
rates of 91% and 94% (Table 4).
Examining research question 2, which addresses the challenges that Nebraska law
enforcement agencies have in enforcing SORN, explains some of the sporadic
enforcement efforts found. Every participating law enforcement agency cited the lack of
resources as one challenge they face in enforcing SORN, and it was cited by subject
matter experts interviewed as well when asked about obstacles (Table 8). The lack of
resources is explained as the enforcement of SORN being an unfunded mandate passed
on by the federal government to the state government and then to the county government
in Nebraska. Initially, according to the participants, there was federal funding through
grants and the Nebraska State Patrol had resources to enforce SORN; however, those
grants ran out, and the positions were eliminated at the state level. This same concern of
the unfunded mandate was raised by Wang (2014). Only three of the participating
agencies interviewed had a full-time resource dedicated to SORN while all other agencies
had part-time resources administering the program as well as enforcing the program.
Despite this, all but three of the participating law enforcement agencies reported that they
had enough resources to enforce SORN at this time. To do more enforcement, they
would require additional resources. Smaller agencies reported that they knew their
108
offenders and knew where they were, seeing them all the time, so they did not have the
issue with resources. Resources to do the job was not the only challenge noted by
participants. A coordinated effort by prosecutors, judges and law enforcement was noted
as a challenge. Participants mentioned that judges and prosecutors needed more
education as to the potential risk and had to be more willing to prosecute violations of
SORN (Table 6). This lack of prosecution appeared to cause frustration on the part of a
small number of participants. This same frustration was shared by other Midwest law
enforcement officials in a study of the officials’ perceptions of SORN completed by
Gaines (2006), citing difficulty in gaining compliance from offenders and willingness to
prosecute offenders (Gaines, 2006).
Research question 3 was asked of the participants to determine what
recommendations for improving SORN they might have. This question generated a
variety of responses from the participants. Five of the participants were concerned with
technology and felt there was a need to monitor cell phones, utilize GPS, and monitor
social media. This concern is consistent with the belief of 83.1% of almost 12,000 law
enforcement officials surveyed by researchers in 2014, who felt that the purpose of
SORN was to keep track of sex offenders (Harris et al., 2015, p. 6). This view was also
shared by 67% of state legislators surveyed who felt that the purpose of the law was to
increase public safety (Meloy, Curtis, & Boatwright, 2013).
Four of the participants cited a concern about the one-size-fits-all approach based
on offense classification rather than actual threat (Table 6). They felt that some offenders
did not need the same level of supervision as others and they had to use the resources
across the board rather than concentrating on those most at risk of harm to the public.
109
Four of the subject matter experts participating in Phase II also mentioned this concern
(Table 8), with two citing the change in the law between the Wetterling Act and the
Walsh Act and how Nebraska went from a 3-Tiered risk-evaluated system to an offensebased system under the Walsh Act. The concern was that law enforcement has to
supervise all the offenders as they do not know which ones are the most at-risk of
offending and the public is informed of all of the offenders and paints them with the same
broad brush, which causes the public to treat all sex offenders as predators. This same
view was shared in a landmark study of the Nebraska SORN in 2013 (Consortium for
Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013) as well as in a study
conducted by Platt (2013). The concern that sex offenders were painted with a broad
brush and were not individually viewed for risk was shared by both offenders and
community corrections officials in a study of offenders and officials from Nebraska,
Kansas, and Montana. The 2013 study found that the offenders had no problem with
SORN, other than wishing it was applied more discriminately based on risk (Ackerman,
Sacks, & Osier, 2013).
The question as to what is being done in Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Missouri,
Minnesota, and Florida to serve the victims of sex offenders was asked of the Phase II
participants. It was interesting to note that all of the subject matter experts were familiar
with victimization in their states but were not aware of the programs in other states to any
detail. Few were familiar enough with their state SORN law to speak as to its
effectiveness (Table 8). This lack of knowledge was also discovered during the
recruiting process when many subject matter experts declined to participate due to this
lack of expertise. VINELink which notifies victims of the release of their offender from
110
incarceration, when the victim registers, was the only real program other than local
victim-witness units and civil commitments that were listed by the subject matter experts
that provided services to victims of sex offenders (Table 8). Two of the participants
admitted they did not think that any programs actually assisted the victims as the
programs were underfunded and also were more concentrated on the offender than the
victim (Table 8). Community notification was not even discussed by the subject matter
experts as they all commented that it required initiation by the victim and most of the
victims they dealt with were victimized by someone they knew or even a family member,
so they knew where they were. This victim profile is consistent with the 2013 landmark
study of SORN in Nebraska that found that the primary threat to victims is not from
strangers but those the victim knows (Consortium for Crime and Justice Research,
University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013). Prescott (2012) similarly concluded that there
was no evidence that SORN impacted the sex offenses against strangers (Prescott, 2012).
Mogavero and Kennedy (2017) found that only 11.9% of victims were strangers to their
offenders in their study (Mogavero & Kennedy, 2017, p. 423).
There were additional implications from the study that did not originate from the
four research questions. The law enforcement officials were also asked about how much
a threat they felt sex offenders were once they served their time. There were a variety of
answers to that question. Three of the participants felt that sex offenders always posed a
threat (Table 8). This is consistent with the views of law enforcement officials in a study
by Mustaine, Tewskbury, Connor, & Payne (2015) where they found law enforcement
officials and prosecutors the most cynical and negative of the 208 law enforcement
officers, 77 prosecutors, 76 prison wardens, 80 parole board members, and 716
111
community corrections professionals they surveyed (Mustaine, Tewskbury, Connor, &
Payne, 2015). This contrasts with another four participants (Table 6) who felt that sex
offenders were often lumped into one barrel and were just trying to live their lives after
being released and an additional six who felt that offender risks varied, and we did not
really know what that risk was when they were released (Table 6). The belief that sex
offenders were incurable has persisted although research has shown differently (Mancini
& Budd, 2016; Platt, 2013).
Community notification was another topic of interest that produced interesting
results, although most participants (54%) admitted to doing no community notification
beyond the Nebraska State Patrol website (Table 6). Those that did some outside
community notification stated it consisted of social media postings or working with
victim assistance organizations. VINELink was mentioned as a method for the public to
monitor offenders who are incarcerated (Table 6). Many researchers would argue that
community notification has severe negative consequences to the offender by the
registration requirements and their names being on a public list, resulting in
unemployment, lack of housing, public abuse and other harmful results (Spraitz, Frenzel,
Bowen, Bowers, & Phaneuf, 2015; Ackerman and Sacks, 20012; Burchfield and Mingus,
2008; Levenson and Cotter, 2005). Sample, Evans, & Anderson (2012), in a Nebraska
study, found that only 30.8% of 1,811 residents surveyed had accessed the SORN
website, so, for the most part, SORN did not interest Nebraskans (Sample, Evans, &
Anderson, 2012).
Residency restrictions, although not part of Nebraska’s state laws, are enforced by
some local jurisdictions and were a part of the standardized questions given participants
112
in Phase I (Appendix C). Sixty-nine percent of the Phase I participants felt that residency
restrictions were not effective (Table 6), similar to the findings of previous studies (Budd
and Mancini, 2016; Stucky and Ostensmann, 2016; Huebner, Kras, Rydberg, Bynum,
Grommon, and Pleggenkuhle, 2014; Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin, 2012). The
participants often referred to residency restrictions as feel-good laws as they made the
public feel good but did nothing really to protect them (Table 6).
Technology, although not a subject of the research questions became a topic of
discussion during the interviews as it has changed how perpetrators access victim
(Borden, 2017). Three participants proposed using GPS on the phones to keep track of
offenders, registering their social media accounts and actively monitoring them, and even
having the ability to register all their cell phone data (Table 6) as methods to attack the
offender’s use of technology to groom and contact victims. The participants lamented
that, although some social media account data is captured during registration, it is not
referred to due to recent court decisions. It is safe to assume that this topic will continue
to be a point of controversy going forward.
Phase II participants, although predominantly in victim services, felt that too
much emphasis was on the offender. They cited how the number of categories in the
offense-based system made it difficult for law enforcement to manage the offenders and
how it painted all offenders as predators in the eyes of the public as all categories are
published to the public (Table 8). There was an interest in returning to the three-tiered
risk-based system. It had already been determined in previous research in Nebraska that
the level of social outcast was less in the three-tiered system as only the highest risk
offenders were published on the public website (Consortium for Crime and Justice
113
Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013). The negative effects on the offender
were also a concern of the subject matter experts, much as previous researchers had
found in regard to the impact of the registration on the offender and how they had
difficulty in getting jobs, maintaining jobs, finding suitable housing, and in socializing,
resulting in them often gravitating to one another and to social media (Ackerman, Sacks
and Osier, 2013; Evans & Cubellis, 2015; Call, 2016; Bensel & Sample, 2016). What
these implications mean for solving the research problem is discussed in the next section.
Recommendations for Practice
Several recommendations can be made based on the results of the study; however,
one has to remember that the sample was small, so one has to be careful about not
overstating the universality of the study results. One must also remember, that this study
was not an evaluation of SORN but on the perceptions of law enforcement in its ability to
enforce SORN and on programs available to help current victims of sex offenders. One
thing, however, that was clear from the study, both by law enforcement as well as subject
matter experts was that there are not enough resources coming to focus on the problem.
It was mentioned more than once by participants that when they conducted multi-agency
enforcement efforts funded by grants, they identified multiple compliance violations and
sent a strong message. This large effort was contrasted with the lone sheriff enforcing
SORN in his jurisdiction who hoped he knew everyone and knew where they were at all
times. It was also clear that the Nebraska State Patrol had the resources initially to
conduct concentrated compliance investigations and they currently have civilians just
doing analysis work with no division responsible for enforcement, instead relying on the
counties to take on that responsibility without additional funding. Nebraska’s legislature
114
should look at this as the new leadership of the Nebraska State Patrol and provide
additional funding to put sworn law enforcement officials from the state back into
enforcement of SORN. However, this is difficult in looking at the current offense-based
classification system as they would have to look at the entire list of offenders
(Consortium for Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013) as
they are not classified by risk, which brings one to the next recommendation.
Three-tiered classification versus offense-based classification became a topic of
discussion in this study. Offense-based requires a classification of offenders based on
their offenses and determines how long they are on the registry: 15 years, 25 years, or
lifetime. The tiered system classifies offenders based on their risk: level one, level two,
or highest level three. This determination has a direct impact on resources as well as the
impact on the offender. Federal crime dollars were tied to adoption of the offense-based
system, resulting in every sex offender being included on the notification website. The
question remains if it was the right move, however. When Nebraska was in a three-tiered
system, offenders were evaluated on risk before releasing from incarceration and were
classified at that time. It took a little longer and required funding to correction to conduct
the analysis; however, it resulted in fewer overall offenders that required supervision by
law enforcement. Law enforcement could spend more time monitoring the offenders,
that posed the greatest risk and did not have to spend a great deal of time on those were
unlikely to re-offend. Four of the participants in Phase I and four in Phase II shared that
concern openly. One described why the change was made:
It takes a lot of time to assess each individual and reassess each individual. It took
time to deal with the appeal process that requires staff and requires funding. I
115
think that's the primary reason why we allowed that [three-tiered system] to go
away. The fact that Federal dollars are dependent upon following the Federal
regulations, the Walsh Act. It was just easier. We can get rid of all the assessment.
We do not worry about all that data. We don't have to worry about training
individuals to do assessments the right way. We'll base our sex offender registry
on an offense-based system consistent with Adam Walsh. I think there's some
political will to go back to the old system because I know a number of our state
legislators who receive pressure from constituents saying that we're having entire
lives and families ruined because of individual's placements on the registry (Phase
II Participant 10, 2018).
Easier does not necessarily mean better; however, money does talk, especially in
light of the concerns already raised about the lack of resources. The idea the participant
addresses with how lives have been ruined, however, cannot be discounted. Many
researchers have confirmed what the participants in this study have also said regarding
the impact on the offender – even minor offenders who may have fallen into a Romeo
and Juliet trap of falling in love with someone close to their age but outside the age of
consent. Commenting on what the registration law had become after she spoke to a
young 16-year old man who had sexual relations with a girl who told him she was 16 and
was, in reality, only 13, Patti Wetterling, the outspoken mother responsible for the
Wetterling Act, said in a 2013 interview, “It just makes no sense to me," she says. "The
design of the law was not to punish kids for being kids. He thought she was 16, and she
lied" (Bleyer, 2013). In the same interview Wetterling, commenting on the Adam Walsh
Act, stated, "We've caught a lot of people in the net who could have been helped," she
116
says. "We've been elevating sex offender registration and community notification and
punishment for 20-some years, and a wise and prudent thing would be to take a look at
what's working. Instead, we let our anger drive us” (Bleyer, 2013). Other researchers
would agree with her, in looking at what SORN has become from what it began as under
the Wetterling Act. Initially, it was to be a tool for law enforcement and was not
intended to be a public bulletin board. There are such a variety of offenders caught in the
net now that it is difficult to determine which ones pose the most or for that matter any
risk to society. In their study of sex offenders in 2013, Ackerman, Sacks, and Osier
(2013) found that the offenders understood the need for SORN but questioned why it had
to be so broad. Twenty-one percent of those surveyed were upset at having to spend their
lifetime on the registry, basically giving them no hope to ever see normal treatment again
(Ackerman, Sacks, and Osier, 2013). This study, though small in population supports
that treatment of offenders, the net being overly broad and potentially the need to take a
look at once again conducting risk assessment of offenders and classifying them
accordingly. Patti Wetterling probably had the best solution, but it is, unfortunately,
outside the scope of this study: "We can spend the rest of our years talking about how to
manage sex offenders," she says. "But wouldn't it be better if we could quit growing
them? That's the bigger problem” (Bleyer, 2013).
Technology was a concern of the many of the participants, both law enforcement
and subject matter experts. The concern was the ability of the offender to groom
potential victims on social media. In Doe v Nebraska (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled unfavorably on Nebraska’s statue that required registered sex offenders to register
their devices and social media accounts. The court felt the law to be overly broad since
117
not all offenders would use the internet to access victims. They did leave the door open
to crafting a much better law that targeted those who could not resist the impulse to
victimize children using the internet (Doe V. Nebraska, 2012), but, of course, that would
take an evaluation of risk. Due to the concern raised by the participants as well as
substantial literature on the potential threat (Borden, 2017; Jones, Mitchell, & Finkelhor,
2012; Bensel & Sample, 2016), consideration should be given to going through that door
and trying to draft a law that permits Nebraska law enforcement officials to capture
online social media account information, phone carrier, and device specifications and
require activation of the GPS at all times. This new approach would be for only the
highest risk offender, however, as the Court has already ruled that the law must be
specific as to who is being targeted and cannot target the entire sex offender population
(Doe v. Nebraska, 2012).
A major focus of this study was finding how SORN does and could serve victims
of the registered sex offenders. There was little consensus from the study that SORN
does anything to help victims (Table 8). As for what SORN could do, most of the subject
experts felt that education on the threat from sex offenders had to begin early as most
offenders are known to their victims and are often family members (Consortium for
Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha, 2013). Regarding SORN
specifically; however, one participant did offer a potential recommendation that coincides
with the previous recommendations made in this section. He offered that there was a
need for a strong communication and data network statewide to address the complex
problem (Phase II Participant 7, 2018). Participants in this study indicated that they put
data into the system and it is analyzed for trends by the Nebraska State Patrol. However,
118
the State Patrol was not able to provide an extract of data, unless it would be extracted
manually as they did not have the information technology support to extract it. Again,
regarding resources, there is the need for state coordination of the SORN program with
both sworn law enforcement personnel and non-sworn administrative support. Currently,
it is just non-sworn support working at the state level. The higher risk offenders could
then be supervised by this special unit, validating their compliance with the law and their
potential to re-offend based on their classification as a high-risk offender. This approach
would also be consistent with the statements of other participants that working with other
agencies helped in their compliance efforts (Table 6).
The current literature is not compelling on this topic, however. Freeman (2012)
found that those offenders subject to community notification in New York were twice as
quickly rearrested for another offense than those that were not on community
notification, surmising that could be from the intensified supervision on the registry as
well as other reasons (Freeman, 2012). Other researchers, however, found no compelling
improvement in recidivism with an offender being on intensified supervision (Levenson,
Sandler, & Freeman, 2012; Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2014). This approach of
coordinated, intensive supervision of high-risk offenders may still work to identify
violations and prevent recidivism but should be subject to further research. This is just
one area that was identified as needing further study.
Recommendations for Future Research
The current study had several limitations that make further study desirable. The
studies sampling for interviews was less than planned and was rather small although the
law enforcement participants did have supervision of a significant number of offenders.
119
Part of the reason for this was the short data gathering window that was available. The
framework and design of the study appear to be sound and is repeatable. It would be
worthwhile to replicate this study in both states operating under three-tiered classification
as well as states operating under offense-based classification with wide-spread public
notification. This study approach would evaluate the challenges faced by law
enforcement officials operating under both systems and see if those challenges are
consistent or whether one classification system stands out above the other. The study
could be done similarly using larger samplings; however, it is imperative that the
enforcement data from the agencies be obtained so that there can be a true triangulation
of data. Although that was the intent in the current study, agencies were not able to
provide sufficient enforcement data to compare to interview data.
Regarding Phase II interviews, obtaining the optimum cross-section of victim
subject matter experts who are also knowledgeable about SORN would be desirable, so
they can offer information as to how SORN helps or hinders victims. The sampling of
subject matter experts in the current study was again smaller than desirable, so one
should use a larger sample for any future study. This sample would provide a better
cross-section of vocations that are working with victims and identify issues more readily.
The researcher intended originally to validate registry information through
interviews with offenders; however, due to the special population considerations, this
idea was eliminated from consideration. Such a Phase III study, however, would prove
valuable in validating the law enforcement data and interviews. It would prove difficult
to develop a strong research method to ensure the protection of the special population;
120
however, it could be a valuable study that offers further insight and adds to the current
body of research in furtherance of solving the problem.
At the close of the previous section, a consideration for further research was also
offered. There is a strong body of research on the effects of intense probationary
supervision on the offender; however, there does not appear to be research on the effects
of law enforcement intensive compliance efforts on the offender. If it would be found
that there is no correlation, the entire idea of SORN may be moot as it becomes nothing
more than a voluntary registration and notification framework. If there is found to be a
correlation, it could give support to the idea of enhancement of resources and
coordination of efforts to supervise high-risk offenders.
Conclusions
Revisiting what was accomplished in this study, one must remember the purpose
of the study was to understand better how law enforcement and subject matter experts
view the problem of SORN and its enforcement and how better results can be obtained
from the efforts they have made in addressing the problem. There was no intent to
evaluate SORN laws, although, to some degree that was unavoidable. The study used
triangulation to conduct interviews with thirteen law enforcement officials in Nebraska
and ten subject matter experts from Nebraska, Missouri, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, and
Iowa. The results of the interviews were then compared to the law enforcement
compliance enforcement efforts as reported by the agency as well as their SORN
registration data. Unfortunately, in this study, law enforcement agencies were unable to
provide enforcement data almost across the board due to lack of resources to produce it.
121
There was found to be very little literature that identified the enforcement efforts
of law enforcement and the challenges they had in enforcing as well as the impact of
SORN on current victims. The study, through the use of standardized interview guides,
obtained a great deal of information from both the law enforcement and subject matter
expert interviews. The findings were consistent between both groups that the major
challenge facing law enforcement in enforcing SORN is a lack of resources. They do not
have the resources to dedicate to validate all the registration information and are
dependent on the offender to be forthcoming and to keep them updated. This lack of
resources was determined to be due to the slow diminishing of federal grant money over
the years compared to the initial enthusiastic years of SORN. It is also due to the funding
drying up at the state level and the enforcement of SORN becoming an unfunded problem
of the county sheriff. Enforcement was found to be sporadic, with some sheriff’s having
no belief in SORN while others vigorously enforced it.
Additionally, the lack of resources was found to be due at least partially to the
number of offenders on the registry who are subject to supervision and public notification
being expanded under the Adam Walsh Act compared to the Jacob Wetterling Act.
Nebraska adopted the federal guidelines under the Walsh Act to avoid a loss of federal
funding. This new guideline meant that every offender was classified by their crime and
subject to either a 15-year, 25-year, or lifetime registration requirement. Previously,
under the Wetterling Act, offenders were evaluated by corrections officials and classified
as Level I (lowest), Level II, Level III (highest) sex offenders and were consistently
reevaluated as to when they were no longer subject to registration. Only the highest-level
offenders were reported to the public on the public website, whereas now, all offenders
122
are listed, resulting in greater public scrutiny and mistreatment. All of the offenders must
also be under the supervision of the county sheriff, as the Nebraska State Patrol only
provides support in analyzing the data from the counties.
The only programs for victims that were found were VINELink, which is a
registration website where a victim can register to obtain updates on the movements of
their offender through the corrections system; and local and state victims assistance units.
There was found to be more emphasis on the offender than the victim of sex offenses.
The prevailing attitude of the public and fear of predators makes the tracking of offenders
a priority, although much literature suggests that only a small percentage are predatory.
The study’s framework and design were solid; however, the sample size was
small, so every consideration should be given to replicating the study with larger
samplings. Additionally, the importance of looking at the classification methods was
found to be important for multiple reasons, including a greater number of resources
required to monitor all offenders rather than just the highest risk as the risk of the
offender may be unknown. The previous literature, as well as this study, indicated that
the one-size-fits-all approach of offense-based classification has resulted in a larger
number of offenders being subject to public notification without a true understanding of
the risk they pose. This has resulted in public ostracizing of the offender and even
forcing them into their own subcultures according to the literature as well as the
information from subject matter experts in this study.
SORN is as complex as its clients: the sex offender. There are no easy answers,
and there are a lot of questions as to what works and what does not. There is even
evidence that society may have gone down the wrong path in its approach and has
123
exasperated the problem by segregating and throwing away part of society. Law
enforcement has no easy job in managing the process and ensuring the safety of the
public without unnecessarily diminishing the quality of life for the sex offender as well as
their families. The process has been negatively impacted by a lack of resources as well
as a lack of understanding of the risk that each sex offender poses to society. The area is
ripe for further study and examination as there is no evidence that the public has a desire
to give up on SORN, although there are movements to do just that. The criminal justice
and sociology researcher must help address the issues by identifying best practices in this
effort and making them universal. Otherwise, one will just be left with Patti Wetterling’s
solution: "We can spend the rest of our years talking about how to manage sex
offenders," she says. "But wouldn't it be better if we could quit growing them? That's the
bigger problem” (Blyer, 2013).
124
References
Ackerman, A. R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Zgoba, K. (2011, May/June). Who are
the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public
sex offender registries. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(3), 149159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.001
Ackerman, A. R., & Sacks, M. (2012). Can general strain theory be used to explain
recidivism among registered sex offenders? Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 187193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.11.002
Ackerman, A. R., Sacks, M., & Greenberg, D. F. (2012). Legislation targeting sex
offenders: Are recent policies effective in reducing rape? Justice Quarterly,
29(6), 858-887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.566887
Ackerman, A. R., Sacks, M., & Osier, L. N. (2013). The experiences of registered sex
offenders with internet offender registries in three states. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 52, 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2012.720959
Ahearn, L. A. (2014). Sex offender registration and notification, a common sense
approach. Retrieved from www.parentsformeganslaw.org
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Herraiz, A. (2015, January-April). Psychological injury in
victims of child sexual abuse: A meta-analytic review. Psychosocial Intervention,
24(1), 49-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.03.002
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Understanding and preventing child abuse
and neglect. Retrieved April 2, 2017, from
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/understanding-child-abuse.aspx
Anderson, A. L., Sample, L. L., & Cain, C. M. (2015). Residency restrictions for sex
offenders: Public opinion on appropriate distances. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 26(3), 262-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403413513897
Bader, S. M., Welsh, R., & Scalora, M. J. (2010). Recidivism among female child
molesters. Violence and Victims, 25(3), 349-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/08866708.25.3.349
Bani-Yaghoub, M., Fedoroff, J. P., Curry, S., & Amundsen, D. E. (2010). A time series
modeling approach in risk appraisal of violent and sexual recidivism. Law and
Human Behavior, 34, 349-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9183-y
Bench, L. L., & Allen, T. D. (2014). Assessing sex offender recidivism using multiple
measures: A longitudinal analysis. The Prison Journal, 93(4), 411-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032885513500765
125
Bensel, T. T., & Sample, L. L. (2016). Social inclusion despite exclusionary sex offense
laws: How registered citizens cope with loneliness. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403416675018
Bergin, M. (2011). NVivo 8 and consistency in data analysis: Reflecting on the use of a
qualitative data analysis program. Nurse Researcher, 18(3), 6-12. Retrieved from
http://journals.rcni.com/journal/nr
Beshears, M. L. (2017). Neighbors of registered sex offenders: A qualitative study of
their lived experiences. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 48, 4049. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlcj
Bierie, D. M. (2016). The utility of sex offender registration: a research note. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2015.1100760
Bierie, D. M., & Budd, K. M. (2016). Romeo, Juliet, and Statutory Rape. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063216658451
Bierie, D. M., & Detar, P. J. (2016). Geographic and social movement of sex offender
fugitives. Crime & Delinquency, 62(8), 983-1002.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128714530658
Blatier, C., Sellon, C., Gimenez, C., & Paulicand, M. (2012). The assessment of
incarcerated sexual delinquents’ risk of recidivism. Review European Psychology
Applied, 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.001
Bleyer, J. (2013). Patty Wetterling questions sex offender laws. Retrieved from
http://www.citypages.com/news/patty-wetterling-questions-sex-offender-laws6766534
Bonnar-Kidd, K. (2010). Sex offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or
recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412-419.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254
Borden, P. N. (2017). The peering predatory: Drone technology leaves children
unprotected from registered sex offenders. Campbell Law Review, 39(1), 168-184.
Retrieved from https://campbelllawreview.com/
Boyle, D. J., Ragusa-Salerno, L. M., Marcus, A. F., Passannante, M. R., & Furrer, S.
(2014, May 22). Public knowledge and use of sexual offender Internet registries:
Results from a random digit dialing telephone survey. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(10), 1914-1932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511698
Budd, K., & Desmond, S. A. (2014). Sex offenders and sex crime recidivism:
Investigating the role of sentence length and time served. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(12), 1481-1499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13507421
126
Budd, K. M., & Mancini, C. (2016). Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of
the effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 22(4), 362-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000083
Burchfield, K., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex
offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 35, 356-374.
Buttars, A., Huss, M. T., & Brack, C. (2016). An analysis of an intensive supervision
program for sex offenders using propensity scores. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 55(1), 51-68. http://dx.doi.org/DOI:
10.1080/10509674.2015.1107003
Cain, C. M., Sample, L. L., & Anderson, A. L. (2017). Public opinion of the application
of sex offender notification laws to female sex offenders: Why it is important to
examine. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(2), 155-175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403415572253
Caldwell, M. F., & Dickinson, C. (2009). Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in
juvenile sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 941-956.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.907
Caldwell, M. F., Ziemke, M. H., & Vitacco, M. J. (2008). An examination of the sex
offender registration and notification act as applied to juveniles: Evaluating the
ability to predict sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14(2),
89-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013241
Call, C. (2016). The collateral consequences of sex offender management policies:
Views from professionals. Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1, 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16653978
Carpenter, C. L. (2014). Against juvenile sex offender registration. University of
Cincinnati Law Review, 82, 746-793. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319139
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2010). Exploring public awareness and attitudes
about sex offender management: Findings from a national public opinion poll.
Retrieved from Center for Sex Offender Management:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/CSOM-Exploring%20Public%20Awareness.pdf
Colombino, N., Mercado, C. C., Levenson, J., & Jeglic, E. (2011). Preventing sexual
violence: Can examination of offense location inform sex crime policy?
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, 160-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.002
Consortium for Crime and Justice Research, University of Nebraska - Omaha. (2013).
Nebraska sex offender registry study. Retrieved from
http://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-
127
service/nebraska-center-for-justice-research/documents/ne-sex-offenderrecidivism-report-2.pdf
Craun, S. W., Simmons, C. A., & Reeves, K. (2014). Percentage of named offenders on
the registry at the time of the assault: Report from sexual assault survivors.
Violence Against Women, 17(11), 1374-1382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801211428604
Day, A., Carson, E., Newton, D., & Hobbs, G. (2014). Professional views of the
management of sex offenders in the community. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 53, 171-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.887605
Dierenfeldt, R., & Carson, J. V. (2017). Examining the influence of Jessica’s Law on
reported forcible rape: A time-series analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
28(1), 87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403414563139
Doe v. Nebraska, 2012 F. Supp. WL 4923131 (D. Neb. 2012).
Ducat, L., Thomas, S., & Blood, W. (2009). Sensationalising sex offenders and sexual
recidivism: Impact of the serious sex offender monitoring act 2005 on media
reportage. Australian Psychologist, 44(3), 156-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00050060903127499
Duwe, G. (2015). What has worked and what has not with Minnesota sex offenders: A
review of the evidence. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(1), 71-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.901430
Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A
geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35,
484-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807313690
Easterly, B. (2016, January). Judicial responsiveness to valence issues: An event history
analysis of the initial sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws,
38(1), 4-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12046
Evans, D. N., & Cubellis, M. A. (2015). Coping with stigma: How registered sex
offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
40, 593-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9277-z
Freeman, N. J. (2012). The public safety impact of community notification laws:
Rearrest of convicted sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4), 539-564.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330852
Gaines, J. S. (2006, July). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and
community notification. Police Practice and Research, 7(3), 249-267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614260600825448
128
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders
may not be high risk forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 27922813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514526062
Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., & Harris, A. J. (2015, December). Assessing the risk and
needs of supervised sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12),
1205-1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602094
Harris, A. J., & Cudmore, R. (2016). Community experience with public sex offender
registries in the United States: A national survey. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403415627195
Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Ackerman, A. R. (2014). Registered sex offenders in the
United States: Behind the numbers. Crime & Delinquency, 60(1), 3-33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128712443179
Harris, A. J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. S. (2015). Law enforcement
perspectives on sex offender registration and notification: Preliminary survey
results (U.S. Department of Justice No. 249189). Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249189.pdf
Harris, A. J., Walfield, S. M., Shields, R. T., & Letourneau, E. J. (2015). Collateral
consequences of juvenile sex offender registration and notification: Results from
a survey of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574004
Huebner, B. M., Kras, K. R., Rydberg, J., Bynum, T. S., Grommon, E., & Pleggenkuhle,
B. (2015). The effect and implications of sex offender registration restrictions:
Evidence from a two-state evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 139168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12066
Huss, M. T., & Brack, C. (2016). An analysis of an intensive supervision program for sex
offenders using propensity scores. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(1), 5168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1107003
Implications for residence restriction laws. Justice Research and Policy, 11, 27-43.
https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.11.2009.27
Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Donner, C. M., Henderson, B. B., & Tewksbury, R.
(2014). Considering specialization/versatility as an unintended collateral
consequence of SORN. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 184-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.010
Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., & Tewksbury, R. (2012). A comparative longitudinal
analysis of recidivism trajectories and collateral consequences for sex and non-sex
offenders released since the implementation of sex offender registration and
community notification. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(3), 356-364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.662062
129
Johnston, L. (2006, December). Software and method: Reflections of teaching using
QSR NVivo in doctoral research. International Journal Research Methodology,
9(5), 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645570600659433
Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2012). Trends in youth internet
victimization: Findings from three youth safety surveys 2000-2010. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50, 179-186. Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/internet-crimes/papers.html
Kaseweter, K., Woodworth, M., Loagan, M., & Freimuth, T. (2016). High-risk sexual
offenders: Towards a new typology. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 123-132.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00472352
Kielsgard, M. (2014). Myth-driven state policy: An international perspective of
recidivism and incurability of pedophile offenders. Creighton Law Review, 47,
247-260. Retrieved from
http://www.creighton.edu/groups/lawreview/issuearchive/
Knighton, J. C., Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., & Turner, D. B. (2014). How likely is
“likely to reoffend” in sex offender civil commitment trials? Law and Human
Behavior, 38(3), 293-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000079
Konopasek, J. E. (2015). Expeditious disclosure of sexual history via polygraph testing:
Treatment outcome and sex offense recidivism. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 54, 194-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1023481
Koon-Magnin, S. (2015, January-February). Perceptions of and support for sex offender
policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 43(1), 80-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.007
Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders
released from prison in 1994 (NCJ 198281). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Dept. of Justice website:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf
Levenson, J., Ackerman, A. R., Socia, K. M., & Harris, A. J. (2015). Where art thou?
Transient sex offenders and residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 26(4), 319-344. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0887403413512326
Levenson, J. S. (2016). Hidden challenges: Sex offenders legislated into homelessness.
Journal of Social Work, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654811
Levenson, J. S., Ackerman, A. R., & Harris, A. J. (2014). Catch me if you can: An
analysis of fugitive sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 26(2), 129-148. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1079063213480820
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender
reintegration. Journal of Comparative Criminology, 21, 49-66.
130
Levenson, J. S., Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2012). Failure-to-register laws and
public safety: An examination of risk factors and sex offense recidivism. Law
and Human Behavior, 36(6), 555-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/b0000002
Logan, W. A. (2015). Database infamia: Exit from the sex offender registries. Wisconsin
Law Review, 2015(2), 219-246. Retrieved from
http://wisconsinlawreview.org/volume-2015-no-2/
Lovell, R., Luminais, M., Flannery, D. J., Overman, L., Huang, D., Walker, T., & Clark,
D. R. (2017). Offending patterns for serial sex offenders identified via previously
unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 68-78.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.08.002
Lytle, R. (2015). Variation in criminal justice policy-making: An exploratory study using
sex offender registration and community notification laws. Criminal Justice
Policy Review, 26(3), 211-233. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0887403413507274
Maddan, S., Miller, J. M., Walker, J. T., & Marshall, I. H. (2011). Utilizing criminal
history information to explore the effect of community notification on sex
offender recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 303-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.505577
Mancini, C., & Budd, K. M. (2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?”:
Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime &
Delinquency, 62(6), 777-799. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128715597693
Maurelli, K., & Ronan, G. (2013). A time-series analysis of the effectiveness of sex
offender notification laws in the USA. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &
Psychology, 24(1), 128-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2012.746383
Maurlli, K., & Ronan, G. (2013). A time-series analysis of the effectiveness of sex
offender notification laws in the USA. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &
Psychology, 2013(24), 128-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2012.746383
Meloy, M., Curtis, K., & Boatwright, J. (2013, April). The sponsors of sex offender bills
speak up. Policy maker’s perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex
offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 438-452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455740
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Reliability. In Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliability
Miller, H. A. (2015). Protective strengths, risk, and recidivism in a sample of known
sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 3450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564389
Miller, L. (2013). Sexual offenses against children: Patterns and motives. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 18, 506-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.006
131
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Residential proximity and recidivism in
Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Mogavero, M. C., & Kennedy, L. W. (2017). The social and geographic patterns of
sexual offending: Is sex offender residence restriction legislation practical?
Victims & Offenders, 12(3), 401-433. https://doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1084962
Montgomery, M. (2015, June). Demographics and classification sexual offenders and
associations with compliance of the Tennessee sexual offender registration laws.
Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, 3(1), 1-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jlcj.v3n1a1
Mustaine, E. E. (2015). Sex offender residency restrictions: successful integration or
exclusion. American Society of Criminology, 13(1), 169-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12076
Mustaine, E. E., Tewskbury, R., Connor, D. P., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Criminal justice
officials’ views of sex offenders, sex offender registration, community
notification and residency restrictions. Justice System Journal, 36(1), 63-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2014.965859
Nicholaichuck, T. P., Olver, M. E., Gu, D., & Wong, S. C. (2014). Age, actuarial risk,
and long-term recidivism in a national sample of sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(5), 406-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063213492340
Nobles, M. R., Leveson, J. S., & Youstin, T. J. (2012). Effectiveness of residence
restrictions in preventing sex offense recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58(4),
491-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128712449230
Nunes, K. L., Hermann, C. A., Malcom, J. R., & Lavoie, K. (2013). Childhood sexual
recidivism, pedophilic interest, and sexual recidivism. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37,
703-711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.008
Omori, M. K., & Turner, S. F. (2015). Assessing the cost of electronically monitoring
high-risk sex offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 61(6), 873-894.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128712466373
Payne, B. K., & DeMichele, M. (2011). Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated
consequences of GPS sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
16, 177-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.002
Payne, B. K., & DeMichele, M. T. (2010). Electronic supervision for sex offenders:
Implications for work load, supervision, goals, versatility, and policymaking.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 276-281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.014
132
Platt, E. R. (2013). Gangsters to greyhounds: The past, present, and future of offender
registration. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 37(4), 727782. Retrieved from https://socialchangenyu.com/archives/2013-2/volume-37issue-4/
Powell, M., Day, A., Benson, M., Vess, J., & Graffam, J. (2014). Police officers’
perceptions of interviewing offenders on sex offender registries. International
Journal of Police Science and Management, 16(4), 255-266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2014.16.4.344
Prescott, J. J. (2012, Summer). Do sex offender registries make us less safe? Regulation,
35(2), 48-55. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2012
Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011, February). Do sex offender registration and
notification laws affect criminal behavior? The Journal of Law & Economics, 54,
161-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/658485
Psychology Today. (2017). Pedophilia defined. Retrieved August 10, 2017, from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia
QSR International. (n.d.). NVIVO 11 starter for Windows. Retrieved March 23, 2017,
from http://www.qsrinternational.com/product/nvivo11-for-windows/starter
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2013). What does it mean when age is related to recidivism
among sex offenders? Law and Human Behavior, 38(2), 151-161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000052
Sample, L. L., Evans, M. K., & Anderson, A. L. (2012). Sex offender community
notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 27-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403410373698
Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time
series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14, 284-302.
Sex Offender Registration, 272 N.A.C. § 19 (2010).
Sex Offender Registration Act, 29 N.R.S. § 4002 (1996 & Suppl. 2002).
Sotiradou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: A
comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 218234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
Spohn, R. (Ed.). (2013). Nebraska sex offender registry study. Retrieved from University
of Nebraska at Omaha website: http://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-publicaffairs-and-community-service/nebraska-center-for-justiceresearch/documents/ne-sex-offender-recidivism-report-2.pdf
133
Spraitz, J. D., Frenzel, E. D., Bowen, K. N., Bowers, J. H., & Phaneuf, S. (2015). Adam
Walsh Act compliance in Pennsylvania: What does the future hold? A research
note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(3), 252-261.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887403413511632
Sterling, R. W. (2015). Juvenile sex offender registration: An impermissible life
sentence. University of Chicago Law Review, 82, 295-315. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org
Stevenson, M. C., Najdowski, C. J., & Wiley, T. R. (2013). Knowledge of juvenile sex
offender registration laws predicts adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 22, 103-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.744376
Stevenson, M. C., Smith, A. C., Sekely, A., & Farnum, K. S. (2013). Attitudes toward sex
offenders: Predictors of support for juvenile sex offender registration: Educated
individuals recognize the flaws of juvenile registration. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 22, 231-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.735354
Stucky, T. D., & Ottensmann, J. R. (2016). Registered sex offenders and reported sex
offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 62(8), 1026-1045. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0011128714556738
Tewksbury, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender
registration and notification on sex offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 37, 570-582.
Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W. G., & Zgoba, K. M. (2012). A longitudinal examination of
sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 308-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1009
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2012). Parole board members’ views of sex offender
registration and community notification. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
37, 413-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9119-1
Turner, S., Chamberlain, A. W., Jannetta, J., & Hess, J. (2015). Does GPS improve
recidivism among high risk sex offenders? Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot
for high risk sex offender parolees. Victims & Offenders, 10, 1-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.953236
VINE website. (2018.). https://www.vinelink.com
Wagner, C. (2011). The good left undone: How to stop sex offender laws from causing
unnecessary harm at the expense of effectiveness. American Journal of Criminal
Law, 38(263-288), 263. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/ajcl/
Wang, J. N. (2014). Paying the piper: The cost of compliance with the federal sex
offender registration and notification act. New York Law School Law Review, 59,
681-705. Retrieved from www.nylslawreview.com
134
Wiersma, B. A., & Siedschlaw, K. D. (2016, Summer). Student attitudes toward sex
offender policies and laws. College Student Journal, 50(2), 143-153. Retrieved
from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/index.html
Wollert, R., & Cramer, E. (2012). The constant multiplier assumption misestimates longterm sex offender recidivism rates. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 390-393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093924
Worley, R. M., & Worley, V. B. (2013). The sex offender next door: Deconstructing the
United States’ obsession with sex offender registries in an age of neoliberalism.
International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 27(3), 335-344.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2013.796708
Yeh, S. (2015). Revealing the rapist next door: Property impacts of a sex offender
registry. International Review of Law and Economics, 44, 42-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2015.08.001
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Retrieved from
http://cemusstudent.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/YIN_K_ROBERT-1.pdf
Zamawe, F. C. (2015, March). The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative
data analysis: Evidence-based reflections. Malawi Medical Journal, 27(1), 13-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4
Zgoba, K. M., & Levenson, J. (2012, August). Failure to register as a predictor of sex
offense recidivism: The big bad wolf or a red herring? Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment, 24(4), 328-349.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063211421019
Zgoba, K. M., Miner, M., Levenson, J., Knight, R., Letourneau, E., & Thornton, D. ().
The Adam Walsh Act: An examination of sex offender risk classification
systems. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1079063215569543
135
Appendix A
SORN Agency Validation of Check-In
136
Appendix B
SORN Law Enforcement Agency 3-Year Compliance Effort
137
Appendix C
Standardized Interview Questions for Law Enforcement Professionals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name?
Agency?
Title?
Number of years in law enforcement/criminal justice?
Highest education level attained?
What is your experience that offenders in your jurisdiction have reported as
challenges in registering as a sex offender and repercussions from registering?
7. Describe your agency’s SORN compliance and efforts to ensure that the
information provided by offenders is accurate and registrations laws are complied
with?
8. Would you characterize your efforts as proactive or reactive or both?
9. How do you determine your enforcement efforts? Is it random?
10. How often do you check compliance and what percentage of your registrants do
you check?
11. How many officers in your agency actively work SORN compliance?
12. How much of a priority in the scheme of things compared to other efforts is
enforcing SORN compliance for your agency?
13. How effective are SORN laws in notifying and protecting potential victims?
14. Why do you feel they effective? Ineffective?
15. How effective are SORN laws in enabling law enforcement to prevent offenders
from repeating their crimes?
16. Why do you feel they are effective? Ineffective?
17. What efforts does your agency make to notify the public outside of the Nebraska
State Patrol’s sex offender website?
18. What challenges does your agency face in enforcing SORN laws?
19. Are your resources adequate to enforce SORN compliance?
20. If not, what do you need?
21. What are the most effective parts of the SORN laws in your view?
22. What are the least effective parts of the SORN laws in your view?
23. What examples, if any, can you provide of situations that were detrimental that
resulted from a failure in SORN?
24. Does your jurisdiction enforce residence restrictions for sex offenders?
25. What are the challenges to enforcing residency restrictions?
26. Are residence restrictions effective in protecting potential victims of sex
offenders?
27. How would you change or improve the SORN laws if you could?
28. How would that make the law better? What effect would it have on the offender?
29. Generally, how do you feel about the threat posed by sex offenders to society
once they have served their time?
30. Has there been any topic that I haven’t covered that you think it is important to
relate about sex offenders in Nebraska and the registration and notification
requirements of the law? What?
138
Appendix D
Standardized Interview Questions for Subject Matter Experts on SORN and Victims
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Name?
Agency?
Title?
What is your role in working with SORN or sex offense victims?
Number of years working in a field relevant to SORN or sex offense victims?
Highest education level attained?
Do you feel you state SORN laws as written offer protection and service to those
that have already been victimized by a sex offender?
8. Why or Why not?
9. Is the gap, if there is one, present in the “registration” or “notification” parts of
the law or both?
10. What provisions do your state’s SORN laws have that offers protection or service
to those who have already been victimized by a sex offender?
11. What special programs, if any, are in place to utilize SORN laws to protect those
who have already been victimized from being victimized again?
12. What do you find that your state’s SORN laws lack in protecting victims of sex
offenses?
13. What obstacles does a state face in enacting provisions that are lacking that you
describe?
14. Who else in your field believes the same way you do?
15. Are there programs in other states that do a better job of taking the victim of sex
offender into account, if you know?
16. Which states, if you know?
17. What state has model legislation, if you have an opinion?
18. Why is it a model state for SORN legislation?
19. Have you heard from any victims, expressing your same concerns, or what data or
information are your views based upon?
20. What other efforts, if any, can be made to account for the gap in the law to protect
victims of sex offenders and better serve their needs?
21. Thank you for your participation in this interview? Do you have anything else
you wish to add regarding SORN laws or victims of sex offenders?
139
Appendix E
Solicitation for Participation in Study in Phase I
Richard W. Holter, DBA-abd, MS, LPC, CPO
FBINA 191
2316 North 152nd St, Omaha, NE 68116
[Date]
Sheriff
Dear [Recipient Name]
I am a doctoral candidate in criminal justice at Northcentral University. I am currently working on my
dissertation. It is entitled Sexual Offender Registration and Notification: A Qualitative Study of the
SORN in Nebraska and the Challenges of Law Enforcement in Enforcing the Law. An important part is
the collection of data on sexual offender registration and notification (SORN) compliance I have
randomly selected 32 counties in Nebraska. I also wish to interview employees engaged in SORN or
their chief executives. I will also be interviewing a member of the Nebraska State Patrol.
I am writing you to ask you to participate. This study has the potential to become published. It will
address ways in which SORN can be improved in Nebraska. It will also look at the difficulties in
enforcing SORN. To participate, I ask you to:
Please provide data of sexual offenders in your county checking-in with you since 2015;
Please provide data of your compliance efforts with SORN during 2014, 2015, 2016; and
Please consent to an interview with me. The interview will be by phone or in-person with
me and will be recorded. It will consist of about thirty questions addressing your compliance
efforts and challenges in enforcing SORN. It will also ask your opinions about the law and
how it could be improved.
o When reported, your identity will be coded, and name or agency never used.
o All interviews will be digitally recorded in-person or by a “Skype” type phone
software. You may ask for a copy of the digital recording.
• Additionally, data from individual agency’s compliance efforts will also be generalized.
Your participation in the study is very much appreciated. It will benefit me in the completion of
my dissertation. It will also benefit the citizens of Nebraska and the educational and criminal
justice community. I will follow-up with a personal phone call within one week of the date of
this letter to provide additional information. At that time, I will make a tentative appointment
for an interview. I truly hope you find value in participating and receiving a copy of the study.
Should you have any questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at
R.Holter6215@email.ncu.edu or rwholter@gmail.com or by cell phone at (402) 707-7890.
•
•
•
Respectfully, with great appreciation,
Richard W. Holter, DBA-abd, MS, LPC, CPO
140
Appendix F
Solicitation for Participation in Study in Phase II
Richard W. Holter, DBA-abd, MS, LPC, CPO
FBINA 191
2316 North 152nd St., Omaha, NE 68116
[Date]
Dear [Recipient Name]
I am a doctoral candidate in criminal justice at Northcentral University. I am currently working on my
dissertation. It is entitled Sexual Offender Registration and Notification: A Qualitative Study of the
SORN in Nebraska and the Challenges of Law Enforcement in Enforcing the Law. An important part is
the interviewing of subject matter experts in sex offender registration and notification, and its effect
on victims in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Florida, Missouri, and Texas
I am writing you to ask you to participate. This study has the potential to become published. It will
address ways in which SORN can be improved in Nebraska. It will also look at the difficulties in
enforcing SORN. To participate, I ask you to:
Please consent to an interview with me. The interview will be by phone or in-person with
me and will be recorded. It will consist of about twenty questions addressing your SORN
laws in the state and their impact on victims.
o When reported, your identity will be coded, and name or agency never used.
o All interviews will be digitally recorded in-person or by a “Skype” type phone
software. You may ask for a copy of the digital recording.
• Additionally, data from your states sex offender registration and notification sites and
current laws will also be generalized.
Your participation in the study is very much appreciated. It will benefit me in the completion of
my dissertation. It will also benefit the citizens of Nebraska and the educational and criminal
justice community. I will follow-up with a personal phone call within one week of the date of
this letter to provide additional information. At that time, I will make a tentative appointment
for an interview. I truly hope you find value in participating and receiving a copy of the study.
Should you have any questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at
R.Holter6215@email.ncu.edu or rwholter@gmail.com or by cell phone at (402) 707-7890.
•
Respectfully, with great appreciation,
Richard W. Holter, DBA-abd, MS, LPC, CPO
141
Appendix G
Introduction:
Informed Consent
My name is Richard W. Holter. I am a doctoral student at Northcentral University. I
am doing research on the efforts of Nebraska law enforcement agencies to enforce
sexual offender registration and notification laws. I am also investigating the
challenges law enforcement faces in doing so. Furthermore, I am investigating the
effectiveness of the law in offering protection and service to victims of sex
offenders. I am completing this research as part of my doctoral degree. I invite you
to participate.
Activities:
If you participate in this research, you will be asked to:
1. Be interviewed by telephone or in-person for no more than an hour. I will
ask about 20-30 questions. I will use a standardized interview guide.
2. Consent to having your interview recorded.
Eligibility:
You are eligible to participate in this research if you:
1. You enforce SORN in your jurisdiction in Nebraska, or you are the elected
Sheriff of your county.
2. You are at least 19 years-of-age at the time of the interview.
or for Phase II Study Related to Effect on Victims:
1. You have some level of expertise in SORN or victims of sex offenders as a
law enforcement professional, prosecutor, judge, educator, human
services worker, legislator or other related profession.
2. You are at least 19 years-of-age at the time of the interview.
3. You reside and work in a state that is part of the study.
You are not eligible to participate in this research if you:
1. Under the age of 19 years-of-age at the time of the interview, or
2. Do not enforce SORN in your jurisdiction in Nebraska, or you are not the
elected Sheriff of your jurisdiction, or, if participating in Phase II,
3. Do not have any expertise in SORN or victims of sex offenders in a state that
is being studied as part of this study.
142
I hope to include 33 people in this research.
Risks:
There are minimal risks in this study. Some possible risks include: 1) Your opinions
differing from those of your citizens or your chief executive, causing you discomfort.
2) A risk could also be your answers embarrassing your agency due to either
perceived under-enforcement or over-enforcement of SORN. To decrease the
impact of these risks, you can: skip any question or stop your participation at any
time.
Benefits:
If you decide to participate, there are no direct benefits to you.
The potential benefits to others are: 1) A comparison of the enforcement efforts of
Nebraska law enforcement agencies; 2) A compilation of challenges faced by law
enforcement agencies and recommendations as to how to overcome those
challenges; 3) Identification of programs and provisions that help service and protect
victims of sex offenders with SORN laws; and 3) Recommendations for changes in
the Nebraska sexual offender registration and notification laws based on what works
and what doesn’t work.
Confidentiality:
The information you provide will be kept confidential to the extent allowable by law.
Some steps I will take to keep your identity confidential are: 1) I will use a coding
system to identify you and save your interview recordings; 2) any reference to your
name will be purged and replaced with the coded identifier; and 3) quoted materials
in the resulting report will not contain your name or agency.
The people who will have access to your information are: (myself, and/or, my
dissertation chair, and/or, and/or, my dissertation committee. The Institutional
Review Board may also review my research and view your information.
I will secure your information with these steps: Ensuring that your information from
my portable recorder or from the Skype recording is transferred to a secure file on
my computer that is password protected. Ensuring that your consent forms are
transferred to digital format and secured. Data will be kept in a locked drawer or
password-protected computer file.
143
I will identify you with a special code and will not keep your name or agency with
any of the electronic or paper data that I keep.
I will keep your data for 7 years. Then, I will delete electronic data and destroy paper
data.
Contact Information:
If you have questions for me, you can contact me at: R.Holter6215@email.ncu.edu
or 402-882-0118.
My dissertation chair’s name is Patrick McNamara, Ph.D. He works at Northcentral
University and is supervising me on the research. You can contact him at:
pmcnamara@ncu.edu or at 888-327-2877. If you have questions about your rights
in the research, or if a problem has occurred, or if you are injured during your
participation, please contact the Institutional Review Board at: irb@ncu.edu or 1888-327-2877 ext. 8014.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation is voluntary. If you decide not to participate, or if you stop
participation after you start, there will be no penalty to you. You will not lose any
benefit to which you are otherwise entitled.
Additional Costs:
There are no anticipated financial costs to you.
Audiotaping:
I would like to use a voice recorder or recorded phone conversation to record your
responses. You cannot still participate if you do not wish to be recorded.
Please sign here if I can record you:
______________________ Date: ______________
Signature:
A signature indicates your understanding of this consent form. You will be given a
copy of the form for your information.
144
Participant Signature
Printed Name
_____________________
_____________________
Researcher Signature
Printed Name
_____________________
_____________________
Date
____________
Date
____________