Is there any evidence to support the belief that residence restrictions increase community safety?

September 2011 California:

The most direct and succinct answer that can be made to Question Two is the following: No, there is no evidence to support the assumption that residence restrictions are or would be effective in reducing sexual offending and thereby making communities actually safer.

There is no evidence to support that residence restrictions are effective in reducing sexual offending [or] making communities safer.

There does not seem to have ever been any attempt on the part of those who advocate for and create policies establishing residence restrictions to identify, conduct, sponsor, fund, promote or in any way establish a scientific research basis for such policies.

An absence of scientific support for residence restriction policies does not seem to have hampered their creation and proliferation. The general fear, misunderstanding, and antipathy toward sex offenders makes it easy to persuade the general public that things must be done to protect children from their attacks.

In such a cultural climate, the question about whether there is sufficient reason to believe that such “things” will accomplish the task is seldom seriously asked, much less answered.

The focus of residence restrictions is on the sexual abuse of children. No one seems to make a claim that residence restrictions will do anything to reduce sexual assault against adults. The belief that residence restrictions would be effective in reducing the sexual victimization of children seems to be based on a
set of underlying beliefs and assumptions about how sexual offenses against children occur. These assumptions include: ...Continued at Question 2.. by The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)