Sex Offender Residence Restrictions Research Articles

Sex Crimes: Second Edition

This is a textbook for an upper-level Sex Crimes course at a law school or graduate-level seminar in a variety of disciplines. It covers the criminalization of sexual deviance, rape, sexual assault, obscenity, non-consensual pornography, child molestation, incest, child pornography, sex trafficking, sex work, prostitution, sex offender registration, sex offender residency restrictions, and sex offender civil commitment. The included material is either public domain, Creative Commons, or included with the copyright owner's permission. The book itself is released under a Creative Commons license which you can find at the beginning of the book. I encourage editing, revising, and distributing under those permissive terms.

Sex Crimes: First Edition

This is a textbook for an upper-level Sex Crimes course at a law school or graduate-level seminar in a variety of disciplines. It covers the criminalization of sexual deviance, rape, sexual assault, obscenity, non-consensual pornography, child molestation, incest, child pornography, sex trafficking, sex work, prostitution, sex offender registration, sex offender residency restrictions, and sex offender civil commitment. The included material is either public domain, Creative Commons, or included with the copyright owner's permission. The book itself is released under a Creative Commons license which you can find at the beginning of the book. I encourage editing, revising, and distributing under those permissive terms. If you are interested in using this book in your class, please email me at coreyyung@ku.edu from your official school account and I can provide access to an editable Word version of the casebook and accompanying slides. At some point in the future, I hope to have an available teacher's manual as well.

The Politics of Symbolic Laws: State Resistance to the Allure of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Sex offender residence restrictions are largely symbolic laws that address constituent demands to do something about sex crimes without actually reducing sex offenses. While the majority of US states have implemented such restrictions, this exploratory study examines three states that have resisted the allure of these symbolic laws. Using data from state government archives, we analyze expressive and instrumental rationales for rejecting residence restrictions to explore what facilitates the failure of a symbolic law. We find that while supporters and opponents both made largely instrumental arguments, opponents framed their instrumental arguments in expressive terms. Legislators’ policy positions, reliance on empirical evidence, and testimony from bureaucrats also contributed to the failure of residence restrictions in these states. Our findings help explain why empirically ineffective sex offender laws appeal to the public and politicians, how these laws might be scaled back, and how symbolic laws may lose their power in some contexts.

Sex Offender Residence Restrictions and Homelessness: A Critical Look at South Carolina

Sex offender residence restrictions (SORRs) have been widely implemented across the United States since the 1990s. A common concern regarding the implementation of SORRs is the decrease in viable housing options for registered sex offenders, which could potentially lead to homelessness. The vast application of SORRs across the United States, in addition to the known association between homelessness and crime, necessitates a deeper understanding of how SORRs impact rates of homelessness among this population. Utilizing data from South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry, this study describes patterns of homelessness among this population. Specifically, using an interrupted time series analysis, we examine whether the state’s implementation of its SORR has an effect on the proportion of registered sex offenders reported as homeless. Our findings reveal a strong association between the implementation of residence restriction policies and rates of homelessness for registered sex offenders in South Carolina. Policy implications are discussed.

Sex offender residence restrictions and sex crimes against children: A comprehensive review

Abstract In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence related to the effectiveness of residence restrictions imposed on sex offenders for preventing sex crimes against children. This topic is important because such laws currently exist in many states and there is ongoing debate about changes in law in some jurisdictions. We build on previous reviews by narrowing our scope and applying a greater focus on important methodological features of the studies. In the absence of a body of direct tests, we examine a triangulation of empirical tests related to assumptions of residence restriction laws. The analysis suggests that residence restrictions have little potential for preventing sex offenses against children. Most importantly, the data indicate that very few sex crimes against children have been by the offender's residence near a school, daycare center, or park. Because only one direct test of this research question has been published, we make specific recommendations for future research to fill gaps and to provide more compelling evidence to policymakers.

Nobody gives a #%&!: a factorial survey examining the effect of criminological evidence on opposition to sex offender residence restrictions

This short report tests whether altering messages concerning the presentation (i.e., criminal justice actor experience vs. summary of scientific findings) or nature of criminological research findings (i.e., lack of crime control effect vs. collateral consequences) regarding the (in)efficacy of sex offender residence restrictions (SORR) would subsequently affect public support for this policy. The experimental conditions were presented in a factorial survey delivered to a national online panel, which was subsequently matched to a sampling frame representative of US adults on the basis of gender, age, race, education, ideology, and political interest (N = 970). Analysis of variance was used to estimate the impact of the experimental manipulations on SORR opposition. Support for SORR was high across all experimental conditions, and no manipulations were statistically associated with variation in opposition to the policy. The results support limited previous research suggesting that the public would continue to support SORR even in the lack of evidence to its effectiveness. This research suggests that altering the presenter or nature of research evidence subsequently produces no opinion change, at least in the form that was executed here. Further research on the mechanisms underlying the recalcitrance of SORR support is necessary.

Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of the effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions.

Crime control theater: Public (mis)perceptions of the effectiveness of sex offender residence restrictions.

Examining the Correlates of Sex Offender Residence Restriction Violation Rates

This research examines the contribution of social ecological factors to the variation in sex offender residence restriction (SORR) violation rates, operationalized as a sex offender residing within a buffer zone around a school or a day care. Drawing on data from two Midwestern states, we utilize a quasi-experimental cohort-control group design to examine the correlates of county-level SORR violation rates among a cohort of post-SORR sex offender parolees, and three counterfactual cohorts (pre-SORR sex offenders, pre- and post-SORR non-sex offender parolees). We model the violation rate using a series of fractional logit regressions, examining the contribution of housing market, environmental justice, and system resource variables. We observe that county-level variation in post-SORR sex offender violation rates is directly associated with concentrated disadvantage and the density of residence restrictions. The direct effect of concentrated disadvantage was unique to the post-SORR sex offender cohort. Model predictions suggest that the relationship between SORR density and concentrated disadvantage varies across the study states. The results suggest that factors found to be associated with sex offender clustering (i.e., housing market characteristics) are not associated with SORR violation rates. Instead, this research suggests a model which allows for the simultaneous influence of environmental justice and system resource effects. Future research on the mechanisms underlying these effects is warranted.

The Social and Geographic Patterns of Sexual Offending: Is Sex Offender Residence Restriction Legislation Practical?

The development of sex offender residence restriction legislation was predicated on the assumption that sex offenders pose an increased risk to the public. The goal of such legislation was to create “sex-offender-free” zones in an effort to decrease sex offenders’ access to potential victims. Such legislation prohibits registered sex offenders from residing near landmarks where children are known to congregate. Empirical evidence thus far has failed to demonstrate that residing near these landmarks contributes to sex offenders’ ability to access victims, and may actually be doing more harm than good. The current study questions the rationale behind the implementation of residence restrictions and if this rationale is consistent with the realities of victim selection and sexual offending among incarcerated sex offenders. The sample consisted of 270 males incarcerated in a New Jersey correctional facility. The results demonstrate that most sex offenders resided within a 2,500-foot restricted landmark zone. However, after examining the methods sex offenders used and examining how far they traveled to meet or establish contact with their victims, residing near restricted landmarks did not contribute to victim selection. Of the 270 sex offenders, the offense patterns consistent with many residence restrictions were applicable to less than 1%.

Sex offender laws in the United States: smart policy or disproportionate sanctions?

In the 1990s, the United States began enacting a series of laws to monitor and supervise sex offenders living in the community. These evolved to include Internet registries of sex offenders, sex offender residence restrictions, GPS monitoring, and even civil commitment of sex offenders at the conclusion of their criminal sentences. Though other countries have enacted legislation to monitor sex offenders, none have implemented laws impinging on the civil liberties of offenders to the extent of those in the United States. This article examines the basis of the US laws and their challenges, provides an overview of their efficacy, and compares the US approach to those of other countries.

Criminal Justice Officials’ Views of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and Residency Restrictions

Despite widespread media attention, research efforts, and political support, there is relatively little known about how individuals who are employed in the criminal justice system perceive the fairness, efficacy, and scope of policies aimed at sex offenders. The present study considers the attitudes and beliefs toward sex offenders and sex offender laws, including registration, community notification, and residency restrictions, held by a diverse sample of criminal justice officials who represent all three major components of the criminal justice system. Findings reveal that variation exists among types of criminal justice officials with respect to their perspectives on sex offenders, and most criminal justice officials endorse the implementation and enforcement of current sex offender laws, despite having doubts about their efficacy.

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

The Effect and Implications of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Research SummaryWe evaluated the efficacy of sex offender residence restrictions in Michigan and Missouri using a quasi‐experimental design with propensity score matching. First, we examined the implementation of the laws and found that sex offenders in both states were less likely to live in restricted areas after the implementation of the laws than the prerestriction sample, but the differences were not statistically significant. In our outcome analysis, we find little evidence that residence restrictions changed the prevalence of recidivism substantially for sex offenders in the postrelease period. In Michigan, trends indicate that the implementation of the laws led to a slight increase in recidivism among the sex offender groups, whereas in Missouri, this effect resulted in a slight decrease in recidivism. Technical violations also declined for both groups in Missouri. The small effect sizes, inconsistent results across states, and the null results between sex offender and non–sex offender models cast doubt on the potential usefulness of the laws to influence individual patterns of recidivism broadly.Policy ImplicationsThe results caution against the widespread, homogenous implementation of residence restrictions. Instead, we advocate individualization in sex offender programming and call for the development of risk‐centered models of residence restrictions that draw on the established literature. In addition, the research highlights the practical challenges in defining restricted areas, enforcing restrictions, and promoting successful returns to the community. Furthermore, a call for reframing the focus of sex offender reentry to include collaborative treatment groups and enhanced communication and services between key stakeholders is made. Finally, we close with a discussion of several best practice models that provide alternative housing sources for individuals sentenced under residence restrictions without a suitable home plan.

Sex Offender Residency Requirements: An Effective Crime Prevention Strategy or a False Sense of Security?

Several high-profile cases have emerged in recent years generating public and political concern for effective sex offender management. The general response has been to implement a series of legislative crime prevention measures designed to restrict the movement of sex offenders with public safety in mind. One of the more recent prevention strategies includes sex offender residency restrictions. The problem with the approach to sex offender management is that methodologically strong empirical evaluations of crime prevention strategies pertaining to this group of offenders are relatively non-existent. Given the changing composition of contemporary law enforcement and the focus on evidence-based practices, criminal justice officials and policy-makers would certainly benefit from exploring more effective crime prevention strategies in this context. This paper aims to present the effectiveness of residency requirements through a review of the most current literature and empirical research. Theoretical underpinnings related to sexual violence and the effectiveness of residency requirements are also discussed and empirical evaluations are assigned a score that is based on the Scientific Methods Scale.

Identifying the Sources of Community Corrections Professionals’ Attitudes About Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Over the past two decades, a number of different types of policies have been developed to govern sex offenders. Sex offender residence restriction policies have proliferated as part of this growth in sex offender policies. Several studies have focused on how different types of respondents perceive these policies. These studies show that individuals have mixed perceptions about the policies. Less attention has been given to the factors that influence professionals’ attitudes about sex offender residence restriction. In this study, 716 community corrections professionals were surveyed in an effort to identify how they framed their perceptions about residence restriction. Specific attention was given to the impact of demographic factors, education, and perceptions of the fairness and efficacy of sex offender policies. Results show that support for the policies is tied to gender, education, and perceptions of fairness and effectiveness. Implications are discussed.

Sex-Offender Laws Doomed by Flawed Reasoning

Sex-Offender Laws Doomed by Flawed Reasoning

The Efficacy of County-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions in New York

Residence restrictions seek to protect community members from registered sex offenders (RSOs) reentering society following incarceration. These policies, first passed in 1995 at the state level and in 2005 at the county and local levels, have become extremely popular throughout the United States but without proof that they are effective. To date, the research on these policies has been extremely limited and has largely focused on the unintended consequences that these policies cause for RSOs. This study examines whether county residence restrictions were associated with reduced sex crime arrest rates in New York State. In doing so, this study draws on the limited prior research regarding the effectiveness of residence restrictions and on the extensive literature regarding the incapacitation and deterrence of crime through public policy measures. Results indicate that residence restrictions were not associated with significantly reduced arrests for sex crimes committed either by RSOs (regardless of victim) or by non-RSOs against child victims. However, results suggested that these policies may be associated with a general deterrence effect, resulting in a decrease of sex crimes against adults by first-time sex offenders (non-RSOs). Implications for future research and policy making are discussed.

Residence Restrictions and the Association With Registered Sex Offender Clustering

This study examined whether sex offender residence restriction policies were associated with the clustering of registered sex offender (RSO) residences in 3,056 upstate New York block groups. RSO clustering was measured as the average distance between an RSO and the five closest RSO neighbors, and was aggregated to the block group level. Controls were included for structural characteristics of block groups as well as regional differences within the study area. Results indicate that block groups with relatively newer residence restrictions had decreased RSO clustering (i.e., RSOs living farther apart from each other) compared to block groups without such policies. However, block groups that had residence restrictions for longer than about 2 years had similar RSO clustering levels to block groups without such policies. Results suggest a nonlinear relationship between how long a residence restriction is in place and RSO clustering levels. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Overview of “The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY”

Research Summary Only a handful of studies have evaluated how residence restrictions would affect sex offender housing options, and even fewer have compared different residence restrictions to one another. This study analyzed how different types of statewide residence restrictions would affect the housing options of convicted sex offenders in the Upstate New York region. Combinations of five buffer zone sizes (500 – 2,500 feet) and three scopes of restricted locations resulted in comparisons between fifteen unique residence restriction policies. Neighborhoods (i.e., census block groups) were first separated into three groups based on the percentage of restricted housing parcels they contained under each residence restriction policy (i.e., less than 33 percent of restricted housing parcels for the least restricted group, between 33 and 66 percent for the moderately restricted group, and more than 66 percent for the most restricted group). Measures of housing density, housing availability and housing affordability, and social disorganization were compared between these groups using ANOVA. Findings indicate that the least restricted neighborhoods were consistently the least dense and the least socially disorganized. However, the size and scope of a restriction influenced conclusions about the availability and affordability of housing and the overall number of neighborhoods offering substantial unrestricted housing to sex offenders. Additionally, comparing the extremely unrestricted and extremely restricted neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods containing less than 10 percent and more than 90 percent of restricted housing parcels, respectively) yielded similar conclusions to the comparisons of the least and most restricted neighborhoods. Policy Implications This study is important because it provides recommendations for best practices for evaluating potential or existing sex offender residence restriction policies in the future, as well as providing policy makers with evidence-based research to base policy decisions from. Some of the best practices promoted by this study include examining neighborhoods at the census block group level, using factor analysis for measuring social disorganization, and controlling for differing housing markets across the study area. In terms of evidence-based research results, this study found that how a residence restriction policy affects sex offender housing options at the neighborhood level can depend largely on the size and scope of the policy in question, but the neighborhoods likely to be the most restricted are typically the most dense, the most disorganized, and offer the most available and affordable housing options. As a result, policy makers should consider both the potential benefits of these policies, such as limiting sex offenders from residing in the most disorganized neighborhoods, and the potential consequences, such as limiting available and affordable housing options, or forcing offenders into only a handful of rural neighborhoods that may lack adequate support structures. Policy makers are advised to carefully study proposed or existing residence restrictions to ensure the evidence-based implementation (or retraction) of such policies. The results of this study indicate that residence restrictions, particularly in Upstate New York, are unlikely to be effective at either promoting the rehabilitation of registered sex offenders or increasing the safety of community members, particularly in less urban areas. As such, when policy makers are unable to devote the resources required to carefully study the effects of a proposed restriction, the results of this study suggest that residence restrictions should be bypassed in favor of other, more evidence-supported policies. Residence restrictions should not be used by policy makers who are seeking a “quick fix” to the problems of increased sex crimes or concerns about increased sex offender reentry. In order to be effective, alternative policies should have research evidence supporting their ability to (a) increase the ability of communities to informally monitor and control other neighborhood residents (see Walker, et al., 2001), (b) increase the supervision and treatment of such offenders (Walker, 2007), and/or (c) increase other opportunities that provide for the successful reentry and rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders.

Policy implications of sex offender residence restrictions laws

Criminology & Public PolicyVolume 10, Issue 2 p. 345-348 EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION Policy implications of sex offender residence restrictions laws Richard Tewksbury, Richard Tewksbury Senior Editor University of LouisvilleSearch for more papers by this author Richard Tewksbury, Richard Tewksbury Senior Editor University of LouisvilleSearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 April 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00712.xCitations: 5 Direct correspondence to Richard Tewksbury, Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292 (e-mail: tewks@louisville.edu). Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume10, Issue2May 2011Pages 345-348 RelatedInformation