{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0215633423180593, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005390835579514825, 'mean_word_length': 5.7926829268292686, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sex Offender Notification: A Cross‐State Comparison

Crime prevention programs have increasingly become more reliant on community involvement in policing efforts. In 1996, the federal government enacted Megan’s Law requiring states to implement community notification procedures for offenders convicted of sexually violent offenses or crimes against children, or risk losing 10% of their federal anti‐crime funding. Currently, all states have sex offender notification procedures; however, the notification process varies by state. This paper compares data from a survey of residents in Jefferson County, Kentucky, where a passive notification process is used by the state police, with data from a survey of Hamilton County, Ohio residents, where an aggressive notification process is used by the county sheriff. Study findings indicate that Ohio’s aggressive notification process is more effective in getting the word out, but that variation in the notification process does not influence the extent to which community members perceive risk of victimization, fear victimization, or engage in protective behavior.