Turning a Blind Eye: Public Support of Emergency Housing Policies for Sex Offenders. (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Socia, Kelly M.; Dum, Christopher P.; Rydberg, Jason
• Is Part Of: Sexual abuse. Volume 31:Number 1(2019)
• Page Start: 25
• Page End: 49
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: community reintegration -- reentry -- sex offender policy -- sexual offender -- public opinion; Sex offenders -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Sex offenders -- Psychology -- Periodicals; 616.8583
• DOI: 10.1177/1079063217720925
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1079-0632

Abstract

In this study, we examine the influences of citizen decision making in the context of four policy scenarios that would affect the living conditions of sex offenders (SOs) residing at an "emergency shelter" budget motel. We surveyed 773 citizens in an online survey about their support for four policy scenarios that would improve the living conditions of SOs: (a) at no cost to the respondent, (b) in exchange for a US$100 tax increase, and (c) by relocating SOs within the respondent's neighborhood (i.e., "in my backyard"/IMBY scenario). The fourth scenario involved moving nearby SOs into substandard housing located far away from the respondent (i.e., "not in my backyard"/NIMBY). While prior research finds that the public overwhelmingly supports punitive SO policies, we find that indifference is a mainstay of public opinion about improving SO housing conditions. That is, we find only modest levels of average support for any of the policy scenarios, and policy support decreased when increased taxes would be involved, compared with a "no cost" scenario. While no respondent characteristics significantly predicted policy support consistently across all four scenarios, some scenarios showed stark differences in support when considering specific respondent characteristics. Overall, these results suggest that what does affect support depends on the details of the policy being proposed, as well as who is considering the policy. We end by discussing the policy implications of our study for both policymakers and the public.