Effectiveness of residency restrictions in preventing sex offense recidivism

2012 Florida:

Abstract:
Many municipalities have recently extended residence restrictions for sex offenders beyond the provisions of state law, although the efficacy of these measures in reducing recidivism has not been empirically established. This study used arrest histories in Jacksonville, Florida, to assess the effects of a recently expanded municipal 2,500-foot residence restriction ordinance on sex crimes and sex offense recidivism.

Using a quasiexperimental design, pre- and posttest measures of recidivism were compared, and no significant differences in citywide sex crimes or recidivist sex crimes were found. In addition, time-series analysis revealed no significant differences in sex crime trends over time when compared with nonsex crimes from the same offender sample.

After controlling for several demographic factors, individual level multivariate results indicate that the timing of the residence restriction policy was not associated with a meaningful change in sex crime arrests or sex offender recidivism after the policy implementation date, suggesting that the residence restriction did not achieve its intended goal of reducing recidivism. ..Source.. by Matt Nobles, Tasha J. Youstin, and Jill S Levenson

Program Profile: Residence Restrictions for Sex Offenders (Jacksonville, Florida)

9-6-2016 Florida:

Program Summary

In 2005, the city of Jacksonville, Florida passed an ordinance that required sex offenders to reside more than 2,500 feet away from any place where children congregate. The goal was to reduce sex crimes, especially those committed against children. However, the city residence restriction law was later deemed unconstitutional in 2007. The program is rated No Effects. The residence restriction had no significant impact on sex offenders’ rates of rearrests for sex crimes. ..At this link is a full description of the program and why it was declared unconstitutional..

Courts are reconsidering residency restrictions for sex offenders

July 2015:

In 2006, California voters passed "Jessica's Law," a ballot initiative that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In 2011, crime analyst Julie Wartell of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office analyzed how much housing was left for those offenders. Consulting land-use files, she concluded that just 0.7 percent of multifamily parcels in the county were compliant.

That analysis came as part of a trial court’s hearing in In re Taylor, a habeas corpus case brought by four San Diego County parolees. All four planned to live with family or friends after leaving prison, but they couldn’t because the homes were not compliant with Jessica’s Law. Instead, they ended up living in the alley behind the parole office, in the bed of the (seasonally dry) San Diego River, in vehicles or in noncompliant homes. When plaintiff William Taylor ended up hospitalized, he was rearrested for failing to register the hospital’s address with police.

That’s part of why the California Supreme Court struck down the blanket application of Jessica’s Law in March’s In re Taylor (PDF). The justices noted that parole officers may impose residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis. But they unanimously agreed that universal application of the law violates offenders’ constitutional rights—and doesn’t keep children safe.

The law “has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” now-retired Justice Marvin Baxter wrote.

Sex offender residency restrictions: What does the research say?

1-29-2015 National:

Earlier this week, I reported Muleshoe could set an ordinance restricting registered sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and daycare centers.

More on that here: Muleshoe woman cites child safety in support of sex offender ordinance

Some of our online commenters suggested City Council consider more research on the subject before they take action. As always, thank you for your feedback.


But what does the research say? Searching for studies that seemed as objective as possible, here is some of what I found:

* About 93 percent of sex crimes are committed by an offender already acquainted with the victim, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics. Personal observation covering sexual-assault cases in the South Plains supports this statistic. I have not yet covered a case in which an offender attacked a stranger on a playground, but that does not mean it couldn’t happen. See Chart HERE

* A 2007 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections that reviewd 224 cases of sexual-offender recidivism determined those repeat offenders committed the attacks more than a mile away from their homes. The researchers summarized, “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law ... Even when offenders established direct contact with victims, they were unlikely to do so close to where they lived.”

* A 2008 study from Lynn University, the University of New Mexico and the University of Nevada researched recidivism rates among Florida sex offenders. It did not find a correlation between the offenders’ homes in proximity to schools and playgrounds and their likelihood of reoffending.

The study concluded, “Sex offenders who lived within closer proximity to schools and daycare centers did not reoffend more frequently than those who lived farther away ... The time that police and probation officers spend addressing housing issues is likely to divert law enforcement resources away from behaviors that truly threaten our communities in order to attend to a problem that simply does not exist.”

* The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers supports alternatives to residency restrictions as mental health treatment and access to housing and employment.

Sex-offender notification laws and residency requirements began growing in popularity in the 1990s. Now, more than 30 states and hundreds of cities nationwide hold some form restrictions on where sex offenders are allowed to live.

If Muleshoe adopts such an ordinance, it will have company in neighboring South Plains towns Crosbyton and Lamesa. ..Source.. by Josie Musico

Sex offender residency requirements: an effective crime prevention strategy or a false sense of security?

December 2013

Abstract:
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. ..Source.. by Michele P. Bratina, PhD is an assistant professor in the criminal justice department at Shippensburg University in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

Summary: Bratina reviewed the results of 15 studies on sex offender residence restrictions and concluded that “the effectiveness of residency restrictions as a crime prevention strategy is unknown. As a group, these evaluations suggested that residency restrictions have negative consequences on outcomes, whether collateral consequences, re-offending or proximity to target… some of the findings suggest that residency restriction policies may even be counterproductive” (p.214).

Michele P. Bratina (2013) Sex offender residency requirements: an effective crime prevention strategy or a false sense of security?. International Journal of Police Science & Management: Autumn 2013, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 200-218.

MN- Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota

April 2007 Minnesota:

Executive Summary:
In an effort to curb the incidence of sexual recidivism, state and local governments across the country have passed residency restriction laws. Designed to enhance public safety by protecting children, residency restrictions prohibit sex offenders and, in particular, child molesters from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of a school, park, playground or other location where children are known to congregate. Given that existing research has yet to fully investigate whether housing restrictions reduce sexual recidivism, the present study examines the potential deterrent effect of residency restrictions by analyzing the sexual reoffense patterns of the 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006.

In order to determine whether the 224 cases might have been affected by residency restrictions, four basic criteria were used.

1. Because housing restrictions are geared primarily towards deterring sex offenders—namely, child molesters—from initiating contact with potential victims, offenders had to establish direct contact with the victims, as opposed to gaining access to their victims through another person they know such as a significant other (e.g. wife, fiancée, girlfriend, etc.), friend, co-worker, or acquaintance.

2. The contact had to have occurred within at least one mile of the offender’s residence at the time of the offense.

3. The first contact location had to have been near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area.

4. The victim had to have been under the age of 18 at the time of the offense.

Data on the most recent sex offense for the 224 recidivists were derived from the criminal complaint, the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, the Statewide Supervision (SSS) database, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (DOC) Correctional Operations Management System (COMS) database.

Results
Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law. Only 79 (35 percent) of the cases involved offenders who established direct contact with their victims. Of these, 28 initiated victim contact within one mile of their own residence, 21 within 0.5 miles (2,500 feet), and 16 within 0.2 miles (1,000 feet). A juvenile was the victim in 16 of the 28 cases.

But none of the 16 cases involved offenders who established victim contact near a school, park, or other prohibited area. Instead, the 16 offenders typically used a ruse to gain access to their victims, who were most often their neighbors. ..Source.. by Minnesota Department of Corrections