Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Reentry

Abstract

Many states and hundreds of local municipalities have passed zoning laws prohibiting sex offenders from living within close proximity to schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, and other places where children congregate. The purpose of this study was to investigate the positive and negative, intended and unintended consequences of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Results indicate that residence restrictions create housing instability for many offenders and limited accessibility to employment opportunities, social services, and social support. Young adult offenders were especially impacted because residence restrictions limited affordable housing options and often prevented them from living with family members. Implications for policy development and implementation are discussed. The authors extend thanks to Darren Allen of Lynn University for his assistance with data entry, and to Liberty Health Care Corporation for allowing their sex offender treatment programs to participate in data collection.

Full text

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 59
*
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions:  

Unintended Consequences and
Community Reentry
Jill S. Levenson
Lynn University
Andrea L. Hern
Indiana Sex Offender Monitoring and Management Program
* Abstract
Many states and hundreds of local municipalities have passed zoning laws prohibit-
ing sex offenders from living within close proximity to schools, parks, playgrounds,
day care centers, and other places where children congregate. The purpose of
this
study was to investigate the positive and negative, intended and unintended conse-
quences of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Results indicate that residence
restrictions create housing instability for many offenders and limited accessibility to
employment opportunities, social services, and social support. Young adult offend-
ers were especially impacted because residence restrictions limited affordable hous-
ing options and often prevented them from living with family members. Implications
for policy development and implementation are discussed.
The authors extend thanks to Darren Allen of Lynn University for his assistance with
data entry, and to Liberty Health Care Corporation for allowing their sex offender treat-
ment programs to participate in data collection.
JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2007
© 2007 Justice Research and Statistics Association
Research Note

60 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 61
Sexual violence is a social problem that incites enormous fear and anger in our soci-
ety, and public policies that strive to monitor and restrict sex offenders are becoming
increasingly popular. Since 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Act has required convicted
sex offenders to register their addresses with law enforcement agents to facilitate
better tracking and monitoring of this particular group of criminals. Megan’s Law,
enacted in 1996, modied the Wetterling Act by allowing registry information to be
disclosed to the public. Over time, community residents have become more aware
of sex offenders living among them. As a result, many states and hundreds of local
municipalities have passed zoning laws prohibiting sex offenders from living within
close proximity to schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, and other places
where children congregate. The purpose of this study was to examine the experi-
ences and perceptions of sex offenders regarding residence restriction policies.
* Background
Twenty-two states now have laws restricting where sex offenders can live, with
1,000- to 2,000-foot exclusionary zones being most common (National Confer-
ence of State Legislatures, 2006; Nieto & Jung, 2006). Since a series of highly
publicized murders of several young children by convicted sex offenders around
the country in 2005, hundreds of cities and towns nationwide have also passed lo-
cal ordinances, often increasing restricted zones to 2,500 feet. Many of these regu-
lations have allowed a “grandfather clause” for sex offenders who established
residency prior to the passage of the law, and some waive restrictions for juvenile
or statutory offenders. Some localities have made it a crime for landlords to rent
to sex offenders, making it more difcult for them to secure rental properties.
When the constitutionality of residence restrictions has been challenged,
these laws have generally been upheld (Doe v. Miller, 2005; State v. Seering,
2005) and the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to rule on the issue. In Decem-
ber 2006, however, a Superior Court Judge in New Jersey declared a township’s
local ordinance unconstitutional because it violated the state’s “Megan’s Law,”
which prevents sex offender registration status from being used to deny housing
or accommodations (Elwell v. Lower Township, 2006). More challenges are
underway, and currently, a Georgia law banning sex offenders from living or
working within 1,000 feet of school bus stops (with no grandfather clause) has
been granted class action status, and a temporary injunction preventing enforce-
ment of the law is in effect. A similar injunction exists in California after the
overwhelming recent passage of Proposition 83, a comprehensive bill requiring
sex offenders to live at least 2,000 feet from a school or park.
Effects on Recidivism
Little research has been conducted to investigate the impact or effectiveness
of sex offender residence restrictions. An Arkansas study of 170 sex offenders

60 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 61
found that 48% of child molesters lived in close proximity to schools, day care
centers, or parks, compared with 26% of perpetrators convicted of sex crimes
against adults (Walker, Golden, & VanHouten, 2001). Although the study did not
examine recidivism, and the factors contributing to residential placement choices
could not be clearly identied, the authors speculated that some child molesters
might be motivated to purposely live within close access to potential victims.
In Minnesota, a study was undertaken to determine whether residential
proximity to schools and parks was a factor in recidivism (Minnesota Depart-
ment of Corrections, 2003). Researchers tracked 329 “level three” sex offenders
(those considered to be at highest risk for reoffense) who were released from
prison between 1997 and 1999. By March 2002, 13 (4%) of those high risk
offenders had been rearrested for a new sex crime. The circumstances of each
recidivism case were then examined to determine whether the offense was re-
lated to the offender’s residential proximity to a school or park. None of the
new crimes occurred on the grounds of a school or was seemingly related to a
sex offender’s living within close proximity to a school. Two of the offenses did
take place near parks, but in both cases the park areas were several miles away
from the offenders’ homes. The authors concluded that residential proximity to
schools and parks appeared to be unrelated to sex offense recidivism, and ad-
vised that blanket policies restricting where sex offenders can live are unlikely to
benet community safety. They did suggest that case-by-case restrictions might
be an appropriate supervision strategy when based on the risks and needs of
each individual offender.
In Colorado, 130 sex offenders on probation were tracked for 15 months
(Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004). Fifteen (12%) were rearrested
for new sex crimes, and all were “hands off” offenses (peeping, voyeurism, or
indecent exposure). The researchers used mapping software to examine the sex
offenders’ proximity to schools and daycare centers, and found that recidivists
were randomly located and were not usually living within 1,000 feet of a school.
The authors further found that in densely populated areas, residences that are
not close to a school or childcare center are virtually nonexistent. They conclud-
ed that residence restrictions are unlikely to deter sex offenders from committing
new sex crimes, and that such policies should not be considered a viable strategy
for protecting communities.
Despite the dearth of evidence linking residential proximity to schools and
sex offense recidivism, zoning restrictions are widely popular, partly due to the
belief that sex offenders have extraordinarily high recidivism rates (Levenson,
2006; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-
Quinn, 2004; Sample & Bray, 2006). Research indicates, however, that the ma-
jority of sex offenders are unlikely to be rearrested for new sex crimes following
a conviction. Average recidivism rates range from 5.3% (Bureau of Justice Sta-
tistics, 2003) to 14% (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2004; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005) over 3- to 5-year follow-up pe
riods,

62 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 63
with slightly higher rates of 24% over 15 years (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Ex-
tensive media attention to sexually motivated abductions of children creates a
perception that violent sex crimes are on the rise, though according to police
reports and victim surveys, sexual assaults of both adults and children are on the
decline (Finkelhor & Jones, 2004; Maguire & Pastore, 2003). Residence restric-
tions are designed to prevent assaults by strangers, despite that such crimes are
relatively rare events (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) and that in the majority
of sexual assaults, perpetrators are well known to their victims (Bureau of Jus-
tice Statistics, 1997).
Sex Offender Policies and Offender Reintegration
Social stability and support increase the likelihood of successful reintegra-
tion for criminal offenders, and public policies that create obstacles to commu-
nity reentry may compromise public safety (Petersilia, 2003). It has been found
that sex offenders who had a positive support system in their lives had signi-
cantly lower recidivism and fewer rule violations than those who had negative
or no support (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004). Sex offenders
who maintained social bonds to communities through stable employment and
family relationships had lower recidivism rates than those without jobs or sig-
nicant others (Kruttschnitt, Uggen, & Shelton, 2000). As well, the stigma of
felony conviction can interfere with the ability to assume prosocial roles across
multiple domains, including employment, education, parenting, and property
ownership (Uggen, Manza, & Behrens, 2004). Uggen et al. emphasized that
self-concept, civic participation, and social resources are an essential link to an
offender’s identity as a conforming citizen and ultimately to his or her desis-
tance from crime. Policies such as residence restrictions can disrupt the stability
of sex offenders and interfere with the potential to develop social bonds, secure
employment, and engage in positive activities, raising concerns that ultimately
they might be counterproductive (Levenson, 2006).
Indeed, a growing body of research indicates that sex offender registra-
tion and community notication can interfere with community reentry and
adjustment (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson, D’Amora, & Hern, 2007;
Sample & Streveler, 2003; Tewksbury, 2004; Tewksbury, 2005; Tewksbury
& Lees, 2006; Zevitz, 2006a; Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000). Between one
third and one half of sex offenders surveyed in Florida, Indiana, and Ken-
tucky reported adverse consequences such as job loss, relationship loss, being
denied a place to live, threats, harassment, or property damage as a result of
public disclosure (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Tewksbury, 2004; Tewksbury,
2005). A substantial minority (5-16%) reported being physically assaulted,
and many said that collateral consequences have affected other members
of their households. The majority also reported emotional distress such as
shame, embarrassment, depression, or hopelessness (Levenson & Cotter,
2005a; Tewksbury, 2004; Tewksbury, 2005). In Wisconsin, a majority of

62 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 63
sex offenders reported housing problems (83%), isolation or harassment
(77%), employment instability (57%), and harm to family members (67%)
(Zevitz et al., 2000). Though vigilantism is rare, extreme cases such as arson,
vandalism, and even murder of sex offenders have been documented (Sample
& Streveler, 2003). Because sex offender policies can lead to ostracization
and underemployment for sex offenders, many of them end up living in so-
cially disorganized, economically depressed neighborhoods that have fewer
resources for mobilizing community strategies to deter crime and protect
residents (Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine,
2006; Zevitz, 2004; 2006b).
The effects of residence restrictions on sex offenders remains largely un-
known, with only one published study to date. Levenson and Cotter (2005b)
investigated the impact of Florida’s 1,000-foot statewide exclusionary zone on
the reintegration of 135 sex offenders. They found that about one quarter of
offenders were forced to move from a home that they owned or rented, or were
unable to return home following their release from prison. Nearly half (44%)
reported that they were unable to live with supportive family members due to
zoning laws. More than half (57%) found it difcult to secure affordable hous-
ing, and 60% reported emotional distress as a result of housing restrictions.
The authors suggested that residence restrictions have the potential to disrupt
stability and contribute to psychosocial stressors that can lead to dynamic risk
factors (Hanson & Harris, 1998) associated with sex offense recidivism.
Levenson and Cotter (2005b) collected their data in 2004, prior to the
passage of scores of city ordinances in Florida that increased restricted zones
to 2,500 feet (about one-half mile). These newer laws have more severely lim-
ited housing options for sex offenders, especially in major metropolitan areas
(Carlson, 2005; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Emerging data generated from
geographical mapping technology conrms that residence restrictions greatly
diminish housing availability. In Orange County, Florida (the Orlando metro-
politan area), researchers found that combined multiple restrictions (schools,
parks, daycare centers, and bus stops) reduced the number of dwellings avail-
able for sex offenders from 137,944 (total number of residential properties in
the county) to 4,233 within 1,000-feet buffer zones and 37 within 2,500-feet
buffer zones (Zandbergen & Hart, 2006).
The purpose of this exploratory study was to better understand the posi-
tive and negative, intended and unintended consequences of residence restric-
tions on sex offenders’ community reintegration. Specic hypotheses were not
proposed, but the study sought to clarity offenders’ experiences and percep-
tions of the impact of residence restrictions on their lives. Indiana’s law went
into effect on July 1, 1999, and prohibits all sex offenders from residing within
1,000 feet of school property for the period of probation, unless the offender
obtains written approval from the court (“Residency requirements for certain
offenders,” 1999).

64 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 65
* Method
Sampling
A purposive sample (N = 148) was drawn from a pool of adult male sex of-
fenders attending four (three urban and one rural) outpatient sex offender coun-
seling centers in Indianapolis, South Bend, and New Albany, Indiana. There
are currently approximately 8,250 registered sex offenders in Indiana. All 200
clients attending treatment at the cooperating facilities were invited to complete
a survey about the impact of sexual offender policies on their community rein-
tegration. Out of 200 surveys administered, 148 were returned, a response rate
of 74%. Clients had been on probation for an average of 24 months (median
18; s.d. 28). Slightly more than half (51%) had been in their current treatment
group for less than one year, 33% had been in treatment for one to two years,
and 16% had been in treatment for over two years.
Instrumentation
A survey was designed by the authors for the purpose of understanding the
impact of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Client demographic data and
infor-
mation regarding offense history were elicited using forced-choice categorical re-
sponses in order to better protect anonymity. Participants were asked to rate three-
point and ve-point Likert scales indicating their degree of agreement with survey
questions, and were also given the opportunity to provide narrative responses.
Data Collection Procedures
Clients were invited to complete the survey during a group therapy session.
Data were collected in November 2005. Respondents were instructed not to
write their names on the survey, and to place the completed questionnaire in a
sealed box with a slot opening. The research was conducted in accordance with
federal guidelines for the ethical treatment of human subjects.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to interpret the results of the survey. Data
analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Ver-
sion 14 (SPSS, 2006).
* Results
Demographics of the sample are displayed in Table 1. A minority of sex offend-
ers (18%) indicated that they were forced to move from a home or apartment
that they owned or rented due to residence restrictions, and more than one
quarter (26%) said that they were unable to return to their homes after being

64 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 65
released from prison (see Table 2). More than a third (37%) reported that they
were unable to live with supportive family members. About 30% reported that
a landlord refused to rent to them or to renew their existing lease due to their
being a registered sex offender. Many (38%) have had difculty securing afford-
able housing as a result of restrictions on where they can live.
* Table 1
Demographics of Sample
Characteristic Percentage
Age
Under 25 8%
25–64 86
65 or over 6
Ethnicity
White 80
Black 14
Hispanic 4
Other 2
Marital Status
Currently married 21
Never married 24
Divorced or separated 53
Widowed 1
Characteristic Percentage
Education
High school graduate or GED
38%
Attended college 45
Income
$30,000 per year or less 83
Victims (Index Offense)
Age 12 or under 51
Minor teens 40
Adults 9
Female only 81
Male only 6
Both genders 13
* Table 2
Perceived Consequences of Residence Restrictions
Total N = 148 % Answering
Item Valid (n) Missing (n) Yes
Had to move out of a house that I owned. 139 9 7%
Had to move out of a residence that I rented. 139 9 11
When released from prison, was unable 137 11 26
to return to home or apartment.
Unable to live with supportive family members. 137 11 37
Landlord refused to rent to me because I am a
sex offender.
135 13 22
Landlord refused to renew my lease. 134 14 8
Have found it difcult to nd an affordable place
to live. 136 12 38
Was grandfathered in and did not have to move 132 16 3
from a previously established residence.
(16% I don’t know)

66 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 67
Table 3 describes sex offenders’ perceptions about residence restrictions.
Many (45%) reported experiencing negative affect as a result of housing restric-
tions, including depression, anger, and hopelessness. They reported that they
were forced to live farther away from employment opportunities (37%), social
services and mental health clinics (25%), and supportive family and friends
(45%). The majority (64%) expressed anxiety that they would be unable to nd
a place to live at some point in the future.
Most participants did not appear to nd housing restrictions helpful in
managing their risk to reoffend. Although 26% agreed that zoning laws lim-
ited their access to children, only 19% indicated that such restrictions help to
prevent offending. The majority (74%) reported that if they were motivated
to reoffend, they would be able to nd a way to do so despite laws regulating
where they can live.
Bivariate correlations were used to determine the relationship between of-
fender characteristics and negative consequences of residence restrictions (see
Table 4). Offender age was the only characteristic signicantly related to any
consequences. Specically, younger offenders were more likely to be unable to
Total N = 148
% Agree or
Item Valid (n) Missing (n)
Strongly Agree
Housing restrictions have led to nancial hardship.
136 12 40%
Housing restrictions make me feel hopeless, angry
and/or depressed. 136 12 45
Because of housing restrictions, I live farther away 136 12 37
from employment opportunities.
Because of housing restrictions, I live farther away
136 12 25
from social services and/or mental health treatment.
Because of housing restrictions, I live farther 137 11 45
away from supportive family or friends.
I worry that if I have to move, I will be unable 137 11 64
to nd a place to live.
I am more able to manage my risk factors because
135 13 26
I cannot live near a school, park or playground.
Residence restrictions are successful in limiting 134 14 26
my access to children.
Residence restrictions help me to prevent offending. 135 13 19
If I really wanted to reoffend, I would be able to 133 15 74
do so despite my residence restrictions.
* Table 3
Perceptions About Residence Restrictions

66 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 67
live with supportive family members and to have difculty nding an affordable
place to live. Victim age, length of time on probation, income, and education
were not signicantly related to the experience of negative consequences.
Offender Years of Most Recent Months on
Age Education Income Victim Age
Probation
Had to move out of a house .05 -.03 -.02 -.11 .16
that I owned
Had to move out of a rental -.08 -.15 -.08 -.10 .17
When released from prison, -.01 -.08 -.15 -.15 .03
unable to return home
Unable to live with supportive -.21 * -.12 -.15 -.08 .00
family
Landlord refused to rent to me -.14 .00 .00 .00 .15
Landlord refused to renew lease -.08 .00 .03 .01 -.08
Have found it difcult to nd -.31 ** .00 .00 .04 -.04
an affordable place to live
*p < .05; **p < .01
* Table 4
Correlations Between Offender Characteristics and Negative Consequences
* Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine sex offenders’ perceptions of the im-
pact of residence restrictions on their reintegration. Housing restrictions appear
to disrupt the stability of sex offenders by forcing them to relocate, sometimes
multiple times, creating transience, nancial hardship, and emotional volatility.
Zoning laws appear to push sex offenders out of major metropolitan areas into
more rural communities where employment, social services, mental health treat-
ment, and social support are less accessible.
Young adult offenders seem to be especially affected by these laws. They
were more likely than older offenders to be unable to live with family members
(presumably parents), probably because their families resided in residential
neighborhoods near schools. Young adults are usually less prepared develop-
mentally and nancially for independence, and indeed, this subgroup of offend-
ers seemed to have particular trouble securing affordable housing. Younger sex
offenders are at higher risk for sexual and general recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere,

68 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 69
1998; Hanson & Thornton, 1999). As well, lifestyle instability increases
risk
(Hanson & Harris, 1998; 2001; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004). Residence
restrictions, therefore, might exacerbate risk for younger offenders.
Despite the widespread popularity of housing regulations, sex offenders indi-
cate that such regulations offer little value in preventing recidivism. In Indiana, as
in many states, sex offender residence restrictions are quite comprehensive in that
they include rapists, though in some other states (such as Florida and Illinois)
such regulations pertain only to sex offenders with minor victims. In Indiana,
however, the only restricted areas are schools, as compared to Florida, Iowa,
and Georgia, where restricted areas include parks, playgrounds, daycare centers,
bus stops, or other places where children congregate. Because Indiana limits
restricted zones to school property, it is likely that sex offenders living in states
with a greater number of prohibited venues experience even greater disruption.
Why should we be concerned about the perceptions of sex offenders? After
all, they have committed egregious crimes and caused great harm to victims
and their families. Society has an interest in protecting the public from danger-
ous criminals. The implications of this research, however, suggest that it would
behoove our society to consider the cost-benet analysis of housing restrictions.
In the absence of evidence that such policies are effective in preventing sexual
assault, we should consider whether the collateral consequences of these laws on
offenders create more problems than they solve.
An unintended consequence of sex offender zoning laws is that they can
separate offenders from their dependent families and children, or force entire
families to relocate, causing psychological and nancial hardship. Fearing fam-
ily disruption, children or their parents may be less likely to report sexual abuse
by household members, preventing victims from receiving protection and thera-
peutic intervention. These concerns were highlighted by the Iowa County At-
torneys Association, whose membership is composed of prosecutors throughout
Iowa. Their report noted that residence restrictions are imposed on victims and
families with whom offenders have been reunited, causing unnecessary disrup-
tion including loss of school continuity, spousal employment, and community
connections (Iowa County Attorneys Association, 2006).
Importantly, prosecutors in Iowa have reported a reduction in plea agree-
ments due to the lifelong housing restrictions for registered sex offenders. As
a result, many sex offenders will not be criminally adjudicated, allowing them
to remain at large in the community without supervision or treatment (Iowa
County Attorneys Association, 2006). Interestingly, victims’ advocates have
also taken a stand against residence restriction laws, noting their potential to
jeopardize public safety by creating transience and thereby making sex offend-
ers more difcult to track and monitor (California Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, 2006; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, 2006).
Sex offender risk can uctuate according to environmental and psychoso-
cial conditions (Hanson & Harris, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004).

68 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 69
Not surprisingly, access to victims has been found to increase the likelihood of
sexual reoffense (Hanson & Harris, 1998). On the other hand, those most likely
to recidivate have been found to have poor social supports, negative social inu-
ences, poor self-management strategies, and negative moods (Hanson & Harris,
1998; 2001). Psychosocial stressors resulting from residence restrictions, such
as transience and instability, are likely to challenge the coping skills of some sex
offenders, potentially increasing their risk. Hanson and Harris (1998) found
that many recidivists experienced an increase in anger and subjective distress
just prior to offending.
Self-report studies have limitations, primarily that the ndings cannot be
corroborated with independent data. Sex offenders may have a vested interest in
portraying residence restrictions as disruptive, since they cause inconvenience.
The ndings in this study were, however, comparable to results from a Florida
survey (Levenson & Cotter, 2005b), suggesting that sex offenders in various
regions of the nation have similar experiences and perceptions.
Because the majority of sex offenders are unlikely to recidivate (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2003; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2005; Harris & Hanson, 2004), overly broad housing restrictions may be un-
necessary and lead to an inefcient distribution of limited resources. Risk factors
for reoffense have been identied through research (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996;
1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005),
and instruments for assessing the likelihood of sexual reoffense have demon-
strated predictive validity and reliability (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, & Peacock,
2001; Hanson & Thornton, 1999; Levenson, 2004). Such procedures are com-
monly accepted and utilized in civil commitment proceedings and community
notication classication systems, and could be applied to residence restrictions
as well. A more discriminating approach to housing laws could reduce the inci-
dence of negative unintended consequences and increase the likelihood of suc-
cessful community adjustment for many sex offenders.

70 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 71
* References
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluat-
ing the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex
offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490–521.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis
of data on rape and sexual assault. (NCJ-163392). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Criminal victimization. Retrieved No
vem-
ber
16, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from
prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. (2006). Opposition to California’s
Jessica Lunsford Act. Retrieved from http://www.calcasapublicpolicy.org/.
Carlson, M. (2005, August 25). Not in my city. Orlando Weekly. Available on-
line at http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=8250.
Colorado Department of Public Safety. (2004). Report on safety issues raised
by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community.
Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board.
Doe v. Miller, 405 F. 3d 700 (8th Circuit 2005).
Elwell v. Lower Township (Superior Court of New Jersey 2006).
Finkelhor, D., & Jones, L. M. (2004). Explanations for the decline in child
sexual abuse cases. Washington, DC: Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1996). Predictors of sexual offender recidi-
vism: A meta-analysis. (No. 1996-04). Ottawa, Canada: Department of the
Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis
of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 66, 348–362.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidi-
vism. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

70 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 71
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2001). A structured approach to evaluating
change among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research &
Treatment, 13(2), 105–122.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism:
An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Govern-
ment Services.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent
sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk
assessments for sex offenders. (No. 1999-02). Ottawa: Department of the
Solicitor General of Canada.
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple
question (No. 2004-03). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness Canada.
Iowa County Attorneys Association. (2006). Statement on sex offender resi-
dency restrictions in Iowa. Des Moines: Author.
Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance
among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social con-
trols. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 61–88.
Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment
criteria. Law & Human Behavior, 28(4), 357–369.
Levenson, J. S. (2006). Sex offender residence restrictions. Sex Offender Law
Report, 7(3), 33, 46–47.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions
about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 1–25.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on
sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
21(1), 49–66.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence
re
strictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 168–178.

72 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 73
Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s Law and its im-
pact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the
Law. (in press).
Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. L. (2003). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2003.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level three sex offenders resi-
dential placement issues. St. Paul: Author.
Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Residential location
and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Jus-
tice, 30(2), 177–192.
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. (2006). Community management of
convicted sex offenders: Registration, electronic monitoring, civil commit-
ment, mandatory minimums, and residency restrictions. Retrieved April 2,
2006, from www.naesv.org
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2006). States with sex offender resi-
dency restriction laws. Denver, CO: Author.
Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex of-
fenders and correctional management practices: A literature review. Sacra-
mento, CA: California Research Bureau.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., & Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex
offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their
crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215–232.
Residency requirements for certain offenders, Indiana Code 35-38-2-2.5 (1999).
Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examina-
tion of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83–102.
Sample, L. L., & Streveler, A. J. (2003). Latent consequences of community
notication laws. In S. H. Decker, L. F. Alaird, & C. M. Katz (Eds.), Con-
troversies in criminal justice (pp. 353–362). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
SPSS. (2006). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL.
State v. Seering, No. 34 / 03-0776 (Iowa Supreme Court 2005).
Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex
offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30.

72 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY
SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS • 73
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–82.
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration:
Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spec-
trum, 26(3), 309–334.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to nd sex offenders: An ex-
amination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal
Justice Studies, 19(1), 61–75.
Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen:
Stigma, role transition, and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S.
Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to
offender reintegration. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Walker, J. T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A. C. (2001). The geographic link
between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach.
Justice Research and Policy, 3(2), 15–33.
Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for con-
victed sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws
using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24.
Zevitz, R. G. (2004). Sex offender placement and neighborhood social integra-
tion: The making of a scarlet letter community. Criminal Justice Studies,
17(2), 203–222.
Zevitz, R. G. (2006a). Sex offender community notication: Its role in recidi-
vism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.
Zevitz, R. G. (2006b). Sex offender community notication and its impact on
neighborhood life. Crime prevention and community safety: An interna-
tional journal, 5(4), 41–62.
Zevitz, R. G., Crim, D., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community
notication: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance?
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375–391.

74 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY