Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Reentry

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex Offenders (2009, background): “2006; Tewksbury and Mustaine 2006), Indiana (Levenson and Hern 2007; Tewksbury 2005), New Jersey (Mercado et al.”
Stigmatization of Sex Offenders (2012, background): “…status, firearms ownership, political participation, public assistance, and family rights’’ (Uggen 2005:4; also see Levenson and Cotter 2005; Levenson, D’Amora and Hern 2007; Levenson and Hern 2007; Mercado, Alvarez and Levenson 2008; Tewksbury 2004, 2005; Tewksbury and Lees 2006, 2007).”
Making Sense out of Nonsense: The Deconstruction of State-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions (2008, methodology): “Most of the reasons used to justify the need for residence restrictions are either in direct contradiction to the empirical data or, at best, associated with equivocal research findings (Colorado Department of Public Safety 2004; Levenson 2006; Levenson and Cotter 2005; Levenson and D’Amora 2007; L”
Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycares (2010, background): “In Indiana, 26% of sex offenders surveyed said that they were unable to return to their homes after incarceration, 37% were not allowed to live with family members, and nearly a third experienced a landlord’s refusal to rent to them or to renew a lease (Levenson & Hern, 2007).”