Advertisement

Sex Offender Management Policies and Evidence-Based Recommendations for Registry Reform

  • Jill S. Levenson
Sexual Disorders (LE Marshall and WL Marshall, Section Editors)
  • 338 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper is to improve evidence-based sex offender management systems through an understanding of the research findings related to the stated goals and unintended consequences of such laws.

Recent Findings

Assessment tools using factors derived from research studies can improve the identification of higher-risk sex offenders, so that more intensive or restrictive interventions can be tailored to those who pose the highest threat to community safety. After substantial time offense-free in the community, even higher-risk offenders become less likely to reoffend, suggesting that registration durations can be modified to utilize resources more efficiently.

Summary

Several strategies for applying the evidence base to inform the utility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of sex offender policies include (1) use of empirically derived risk assessment tools to classify offenders and modify registration requirements accordingly, (2) removal of juveniles from registries; and (3) elimination of residence restrictions.

Keywords

Sex offender Registration Notification SORN Residence restrictions Recidivism 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Jill S. Levenson declares no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Ackerman AR, Harris AJ, Levenson JS, Zgoba K. Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. Int J Psychiatry Law. 2011;34(3):149–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Registered Sex Offenders in the United States. 2015 7/30/15]; Available from: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Harris AJ, Lobanov-Rostovsky C. Implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s sex offender registration and notification provisions: a survey of the states. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2010;21(2):202–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409346118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris AJ, Levenson JS, Ackerman AR. Registered sex offenders in the United States: behind the numbers. Crime Delinq. 2012;60:3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levenson JS, Grady MD, Leibowitz G. Grand challenges: social justice and the need for evidence-based sex offender registry reform. J Sociol Soc Welf, 2016. 43(2).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pickett JT, Mancini C, Mears DP. Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology. 2013;51(3):729–59.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levenson JS, Brannon Y, Fortney T, Baker J. Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2007;7(1):137–61.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sample LL, Kadleck C. Sex offender laws: legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2008;19(1):40–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403407308292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris AJ, Socia KM. What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sex Abus: J Res Treat, 2014: p. 1079063214564391.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manchak SM, Fisher LR. An examination of multiple factors influencing support for sex offender policy. Crim Justice Policy Rev, 2017: p. 0887403417715684,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417715684.
  11. 11.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey 2010, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Craun SW, Simmons CA, Reeves K. Percentage of named offenders on the registry at the time of the assault: reports from sexual assault survivors. Violence Against Women. 2011;17(11):1374–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211428604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck VS, Travis LF. Sex offender notification and protective behavior. Violence Vict. 2004;19(3):289–302.  https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.3.289.65762.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kernsmith PD, Comartin E, Craun SW, Kernsmith RM. The relationship bewteen sex offender registry utilization and awareness. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2009;21(2):181–93.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209332235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson AL, Sample L. Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2008;19(4):371–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403408316705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duwe G, Donnay W. The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: the Minnesota experience. Criminology. 2008;46(2):411–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00114.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: did community notification influence recidivism? 2005, Author: Olympia.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Letourneau EJ, Levenson JS, Bandyopadhyay D, Sinha D, Armstrong K. Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2010;21(4):435–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409353148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veysey B, Zgoba K, Dalessandro M. A preliminary step towards evaluating the impact of Megan’s Law: a trend analysis of sexual offenses in New Jersey from 1985 to 2005. Justice Res Policy. 2008;10(2):1–18.  https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.10.2.2008.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zgoba K, Veysey B, Dalessandro M. An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: do the best intentions predict best practices? Justice Q. 2010;27(5):667–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820903357673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levenson JS, Zgoba K. Community protection policies and repeat sexual offenses in Florida. Int J Offender Ther Comp Crim, 2015. doi: 0306624X15573946.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sandler JC, Freeman NJ, Socia KM. Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2008;14(4):284–302.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ackerman AR, Sacks M, Greenberg DF. Legislation targeting sex offenders: are recent policies effective in reducing rape? Justice Q. 2012;29(6):858–87.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.566887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agan AY. Sex offender registries: fear without function? J Law Econ. 2011;54(1):207–39.  https://doi.org/10.1086/658483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vasquez BE, Maddan S, Walker JT. The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Crime Delinq. 2008;54(2):175–92.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merton RK. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. Am Sociol Rev. 1936;1(6):894–904.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levenson JS, Cotter LP. The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. J Contemp Crim Justice. 2005;21(1):49–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levenson JS, D'Amora DA, Hern A. Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behav Sci Law. 2007;25(4):587–602.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.770.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mercado CC, Alvarez S, Levenson JS. The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community re-entry. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2008;20(2):188–205.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208317540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sample LL, Streveler AJ. Latent consequences of community notification laws. In: Decker SH, Alaird LF, Katz CM, editors. Controversies in criminal justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury; 2003. p. 353–62.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tewksbury R. Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Fed Probat. 2004;68(3):30–4.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tewksbury R. Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. J Contemp Crim Justice. 2005;21(1):67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tewksbury R, Lees M. Consequences of sex offender registration: collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociol Spectr. 2006;26(3):309–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170500524246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zevitz RG, Farkas MA. Sex offender community notification: managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behav Sci Law. 2000;18(2-3):375–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0798(200003/06)18:2/3<375::AID-BSL380>3.0.CO;2-N.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Levenson JS. Hidden challenges: sex offenders legislated into homelessness. J Soc Work. 2016:146801731665481.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654811.
  36. 36.
    Nobles MR, Levenson JS, Youstin TJ. Effectiveness of residence restrictions in preventing sex offense recidivism. Crime Delinq. 2012;58(4):491–513.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712449230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zandbergen P, Levenson JS, Hart T. Residential proximity to schools and daycares: an empirical analysis of sex offense recidivism. Crim Justice Behav. 2010;37(5):482–502.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810363549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Colorado Department of Public Safety. Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver: Sex Offender Management Board; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Duwe G, Donnay W, Tewksbury R. Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35(4):484–504.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807313690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Socia KM. The implementation of county residence restrictions in New York. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2012;18(2):206–30.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    SMART Office Sex offender management, assessment, and planning initiative. 2015: Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mogavero MC, Kennedy LW. The social and geographic patterns of sexual offending: is sex offender residence restriction legislation practical? Victims & Offenders, 2015: p. 1–33.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Colombino N, Mercado CC, Levenson JS, Jeglic EL. Preventing sexual violence: can examination of offense location inform sex crime policy? Int J Psychiatry Law. 2011;34(3):160–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: victim, incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2000. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Walfield SM, Levenson JS, Cubellis MA, Harris AJ, Lobanov-Rostovsky C. Law enforcement views on sex offender compliance with registration mandates. Am J Crim Justice. 2017:1–26.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Levenson JS, Tewksbury R. Collateral damage: family members of registered sex offenders. Am J Crim Justice. 2009;34(1):54–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9055-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tewksbury R, Levenson JS. Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders. Behav Sci Law. 2009;27(4):611–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Farkas MA, Miller G. Reentry and reintegration: challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Fed Sentencing Rep. 2007;20(2):88–92.  https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hanson RK, Bourgon G, Helmus L, Hodgson S. The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2009;36(9):865–91.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809338545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hanson RK, Thornton D, Helmus L-M, Babchishin KM. What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sex Abus: J Res Treat, 2015: p. 1079063215574710.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hanson RK, Thornton D. Static 99: improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada; 1999.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon K. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(6):1154–63.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hanson RK, Harris AJR. A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2001;13(2):105–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320101300204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lussier P, Gress CLZ. Community re-entry and the path toward desistance: a quasi-experimental longitudinal study of dynamic factors and community risk management of adult sex offenders. J Crim Just. 2014;42(2):111–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Freeman NJ, Sandler JC. The Adam Walsh Act: a false sense of security or an effective public policy initiative? Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2010;21(1):31–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409338565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    • Zgoba K, Miner M, Levenson JS, Knight R, Letourneau E, Thornton D. The Adam Walsh Act An Examination of Sex Offender Risk Classification Systems. Sex Abus: J Res treat. 2015;  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215569543. A longitudinal, four-state study funded by the National Institutes of justice. Compared the validity and utility of the Adam Walsh Act Tier classification system with actuarial risk assessment protocols, and found that the AWA Tiers were not valid predictors of risk or recidivism.
  57. 57.
    Harris AJ. SORNA in the post-deadline era: what’s the next move? Sex Offender Law Rep. 2011;12(6):81–6.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ellman IM, Ellman T. “Frightening and high”: the Supreme Court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics. Const Comment. 2015;30:495–667.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    • Hanson RK, Harris AJ, Helmus L, Thornton D. High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever. J Interpers Violence. 2014;29(15):2792–813. Provides longitudinal data over 20 years documenting the recidivism trends of low, moderate, and high-risk sexual offenders, which provides compelling evidence for guidance in the construction of registry durations and sex offender management policies. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harris, A.J.R. and R.K. Hanson. When is a sex offender no longer a sex offender? In 31st Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. 2012. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Harris AJR, Hanson RK. Sex offender recidivism: a simple question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; 2004.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hanson RK, Gordon A, Harris AJR, Marques JK, Murphy W, Quinsey VL, et al. First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2002;14(2):169–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schmucker M, Lösel F. The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. J Exp Criminol. 2015:1–34.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Losel F, Schmucker M. The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1(1):117–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-004-6466-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 4th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing; 2017.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2010;16(1):39–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yates PM, Prescott D, Ward T. Applying the good lives and self-regulation models to sex offender treatment: a practical guide for clinicians. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Levenson JS. Incorporating trauma-informed care into sex offender treatment. J Sex Aggress. 2014;20(1):9–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.861523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Levenson JS, Willis GM, Prescott D. Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of male sex offenders and implications for trauma-informed care. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2016;28(4):340–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Levenson JS, Willis G, Prescott D. Trauma-informed care: transforming treatment for people who sexually abuse. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Maruna S, LeBel TP, Mitchell N, Naples M. Pygmalion in the reintegration process: desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10(3):271–81.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2003. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2002.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hanson RK. Recidivism and age: follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. J Int Violence. 2002;17(10):1046–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605-0201710-02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Thornton D. Age and sexual recidivism: a variable connection. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2006;18(2):123–35.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Helmus L, Thornton D, Hanson RK, Babchishin KM. Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: revised age weights. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2011;24(1):64–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bonta J, Andrews DA. The psychology of criminal conduct. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2017.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chaffin M. Our minds are made up—don’t confuse us with the facts: commentary on policies concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders. Child Maltreat. 2008;13(2):110–21.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508314510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jones M. The case of the juvenile sex offender: is he a criminal marked forever or a kid whose behavior can be changed?, in New York Times Magazine. 2007.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Letourneau EJ, Miner MH. Juvenile sex offenders: a case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2005;17(3):293–312.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320501700304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Parker SC. Branded for life: the unconstitutionality of mandatory and lifetime juvenile sex offender registration and notification. Va J Soc Policy Law. 2014;21:167.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    • Harris AJ, Walfield SM, Shields RT, Letourneau EJ. Collateral Consequences of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Notification Results From a Survey of Treatment Providers. Sex Abus: J Res Treat 2015: p. 1079063215574004. Summarizes observations from treatment providers about the deleterious impact of sex offender registration on youth, highlighting its contribution to mental health disorders, academic disruption, suicidality, and lost human potential. Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pittman N, Parker A. Raised on the registry: the irreparable harm of placing children on sex offender registries in the US. 2013, Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Letourneau EJ, Borduin CM. The effective treatment of juveniles who sexually offend: an ethical imperative. Ethics Behav. 2008;18(2–3):286–306.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802066940.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Reitzel LR, Carbonell JL. The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by recidivism: a meta-analysis. Sex Abus: J Res Treat. 2006;18(4):401–21.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Burton DL, Duty KJ, Leibowitz GS. Differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers: developmental antecedents and behavioral comparisons. J Child Sex Abus. 2011;20(1):77–93.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2011.541010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Topitzes J, Mersky JP, Reynolds AJ. From child maltreatment to violent offending: an examination of mixed-gender and gender-specific models. J Interpers Violence. 2012;27(12):2322–47.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433510.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Levenson JS, Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, Epps N, Royall WC, Gomez KC, et al. You learn what you live: prevalence of childhood adversity in the lives of juveniles arrested for sexual offenses. Adv Soc Work. 2017;18(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Levenson JS, Ackerman AR, Socia KM, Harris AJ. Where for art thou? Transient sex offenders and residence restrictions. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2015;26(4):319–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403413512326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lobanov-Rostovsky C. Adult Sex Offender Management, N.C.J.A.a.U.S.D.o. Justice, Editor. 2015, National Criminal Justice Association and U.S. Department of Justice: http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/AdultSexOffenderManagement.pdf.
  91. 91.
    Huebner BM, Kras KR, Rydberg J, Bynum TS, Grommon E, Pleggenkuhle B. The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminol Public Policy. 2014;13(1):139–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rydberg J, Grommon E, Huebner BM, Bynum T. The effect of statewide residency restrictions on sex offender post-release housing mobility. Justice Q. 2014;31(2):421–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.667141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Socia KM. Residence restrictions are ineffective, inefficient, and inadequate: so now what? Criminol Public Policy. 2014;13(1):179–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Broward County Commission. Final report: sexual offender & sexual predator residence Task Force. 2009, http://www.floridaatsa.com/Final_Report_-_Sexual_Offender_Sexual_Residence_Task_Force.pdf: Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkBarry UniversityMiami ShoresUSA

Personalised recommendations