Reducing Housing Options for Convicted Sex Offenders: Investigating the Impact of Residency Restriction Laws Using GIS

• Author: Paul A. Zandbergen,Timothy C. Hart
• Date: 01 December 2006
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.8.2.2006.1
• Published date: 01 December 2006
• Subject Matter: Article

Housing Options for Sex Offenders • 1

* Reducing Housing Options for Convicted  



Sex Offenders: Investigating the Impact of  



Residency Restriction Laws Using GIS

Paul A. Zandbergen

Department of Geography

University of South Florida

Timothy C. Hart

Department of Criminal Justice

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

* Abstract

Sex offender registries have been established throughout the United States. To date,

16 states have adopted additional residency restriction policies, precluding registered

sex offenders from living within a certain distance of places where children gather.

This study quanties the impact of residency restrictions on housing options for

registered sex offenders using Orange County, Florida, as a case study. A Geographic

Information System (GIS) is employed to identify all occupied residential properties

using parcel-level zoning data as well as those that fall within the 1,000-foot

restricted buffer zones around attractions, bus stops, daycares, parks, and schools.

Results indicate that housing options for registered sex offenders within urban

residential areas are limited to only 5% of potentially available parcels and that bus

stop restrictions impact the amount of livable area the most, followed by daycares,

schools, parks, and attractions. The limited options to establish residency exist mostly

in low-density rural areas. This supports the argument that residency restrictions

for sexual offenders are a strong contributing factor to their social and economic

isolation. The impacts of increasing the buffer to a proposed 2,500-foot zone are

discussed, and a comparison of the individual restriction categories is presented.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2006

© 2006 Justice Research and Statistics Association

2 • Justice Research and Policy

Housing Options for Sex Offenders • 3

* Introduction

In an effort to protect the public—especially children—from sexual offenders,

federal, state, and local policymakers have crafted crucial legislation aimed at

addressing this important social problem. The Jacob Wetterling Act (1994),

for example, compels states to establish sex offender registries, which are de-

signed to help track and monitor convicted offenders more efciently and ef-

fectively. Megan’s Law (1996) and the PROTECT Act (2003) promote commu-

nity awareness and safety by requiring law enforcement agencies to notify the

public about where registered sex offenders live. And the Adam Walsh Child

Protection and Safety Act (2006) expands the power of sex offender registries

by integrating data from registries across the United States into the National

Sex Offender Registry. Policymakers have also passed residency restriction

legislation that precludes sex offenders from living within certain distances of

places where children gather in hopes of decreasing the likelihood that they

will become victims of future sex crimes (see Florida Statute §947.1405(7a)(2);

see also Iowa Code §692A.2A; see also Township of Manalapan, NJ: Chapter

§187-1). Lawmakers had little more than public support to guide them when

some of these laws were initially crafted, and a growing body of evidence ques-

tions their efcacy (e.g., Wright, 2003).

Several recent studies have demonstrated that sex offender registration

and notication laws may produce unintended outcomes,1 including an in-

creased likelihood of reoffending (Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Elbogen, Patry,

& Scalora, 2003; Hanson & Harris, 1998; Tewksbury, 2005), public anxiety,

retaliation, harassment, stigmatization, and retribution (Edwards & Hensley,

2001; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Schram & Milloy, 1995; Tewksbury, 2004;

Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Younglove & Vitello, 2003; Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas,

2000), problems associated with offender displacement and reentry (Blair, 2004;

Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Elbogen et al., 2003; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a;

Tewksbury, 2005; Zevitz et al., 2000), obtaining and maintaining employment

(Tewksbury, 2004; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006), difculties in personal and so-

cial relationships (Tewksbury, 2004; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006), and limiting

housing options (Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006a; 2006b; Tewksbury,

2004; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000). In short, contemporary sex offender registration

and notication laws may do more harm than good.2 Though the consequences

1 See Welchans (2005) for a review of empirical evaluations of sex offender registra-

tion and community notication policies.

2 Although none of the aforementioned studies measure the degree to which reof-

fending occurs, each provides insight into the adverse effects that notication and resi-

dency restriction policies have on sex offenders and which may subsequently result in an

increased likelihood of reoffending.