Residence Restrictions and the Association With Registered Sex Offender Clustering

• Author: Kelly M. Socia
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403412445613
• Date: 01 July 2013
• Published date: 01 July 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

445613CJP24410.1177/088740341244
5613SociaCriminal Justice Policy Review
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
24(4) 441 –472
Residence Restrictions
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
and the Association With
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887403412445613
cjp.sagepub.com
Registered Sex Offender
Clustering
Kelly M. Socia1
Abstract
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.
Keywords
reentry, residency restrictions, sex offender residency, sex offenders, spatial analysis
Residence restrictions are policies meant to protect community members from regis-
tered sex offenders (RSOs). To do this, residence restrictions prohibit RSOs from
living within a given distance of certain places where children might gather (e.g.,
schools, daycares, parks, and playgrounds), referred to collectively as “child congre-
gation locations.” In doing so, the expectation is that RSOs will have a harder time
1School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Corresponding Author:
Kelly M. Socia, School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University
Ave, Lowell, MA 01854, United States.
Email: ksocia@gmail.com

---

442
Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(4)
finding and approaching young children they could sexually assault, thus decreasing
rates of sexual recidivism (and rates of recidivistic sex crimes). First passed in 1995 at
the state level and in 2005 at the county and local level, residence restrictions have
become extremely popular throughout the United States in a relatively short period
of time.
However, prior research has found that residence restrictions can cause numerous
unintended consequences for RSOs (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010; Levenson, 2009; Socia &
Stamatel, 2010; Soule & Earl, 2001; Walker, 2007). One such unintended conse-
quence stems from limiting housing options for RSOs who are returning to or relocat-
ing within a community. By limiting housing options in certain neighborhoods, a
residence restriction may influence the spatial distribution of RSOs. This is particu-
larly salient when considering relatively small geographic units such as Census block
groups, which have been used as proxies for “neighborhoods” (e.g., Grubesic, Murray,
& Mack, 2008; Schaible & Hughes, 2008; Socia, 2011a).
As a result, residence restrictions may lead RSOs to live closer to other RSOs,
resulting in increased RSO clustering. Alternatively, this may result in RSOs becom-
ing less clustered, as they disperse into rural areas (Socia, 2011a, 2011b). In either
case, it may have consequences not only for successful RSO reentry and rehabilitation
but also for efforts to informally and formally monitor these RSOs, and for the resi-
dents who live near these RSOs.
This study examines whether the presence of a residence restriction is associated
with RSO clustering in upstate New York Census block groups. This study utilizes
data on sex offender residences, structural characteristics, and residence restrictions
implemented at both the county and local level.1 The theoretical model draws on the
association between RSO residences and residence restrictions, indicators of social
disorganization, housing availability and affordability, and the spatial characteristics
of neighborhoods.
Background
Residence restrictions first began at the state level in 1995 (Levenson, 2009; Meloy,
Miller, & Curtis, 2008), and spread to the county and local level in 2005 (Wetterling
& Wright, 2009; Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010). County and local-level
residence restrictions exist throughout the United States regardless of whether a
state-level residence restriction is present. Residence restrictions can vary in size
(i.e., the minimum distance RSO residences must be from certain child congregation
locations), scope (i.e., the child congregation locations subject to the “buffer zones”
of restricted housing), and inclusivity (i.e., the types of RSOs subject to these laws).
Holding other things equal, residence restrictions that are larger in size and/or more
comprehensive in scope will restrict more housing options for RSOs.
Numerous prior studies have examined how proposed or actual residence restric-
tions can affect RSO housing options. These studies, typically conducted at the county
level, find that residence restrictions limit available and affordable RSO housing

---

Socia
443
options, especially in dense, urban neighborhoods (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, &
De Troye, 2009; Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011; Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;
Grubesic et al., 2008; Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Red-Bird, 2009;
Socia, 2011a; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006, 2009a, 2009b; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee,
2009; but see Grubesic, Mack, & Murray 2007).
As a result of these limited housing options, residence restrictions may negatively
affect the ability of RSOs to successfully reenter the community. For example, resi-
dence restrictions may cause RSOs to seek unrestricted housing in more rural neigh-
borhoods, particularly those that still offer housing that is both affordable (i.e., low
rent) and available (i.e., vacant rental units). If such areas offer less access to employ-
ment opportunities, treatment facilities, and/or supportive family members, this could
negatively affect RSOs’ reentry and rehabilitation opportunities (Barnes et al., 2009;
Casady, 2009; Center for Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2007, 2008; Levenson,
2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Minnesota Department of Corrections [MNDOC],
2003; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). This is supported by research that shows that find-
ing housing is one of the key factors in the successful reentry of ex-felons (Andrews
& Bonta, 2007; Colorado Department of Public Safety [CDPS], 2004; CSOM, 2007;
Roman & Travis, 2004; Solomon, Visher, La Vigne, & Osborne, 2006; e.g., Visher,
La Vigne, & Travis, 2004).
Unfortunately, as noted by Police Chief Tom Casady (2009, p. 18), “Put bluntly,
nobody really cares if sex offenders are inconvenienced, relegated to under employ-
ment, or limited to fewer and poorer housing choices.” Thus the relevance of this issue
lies in how residence restrictions can indirectly influence residents through an effect
on RSO clustering.
For instance, while there is little evidence that RSO clustering increases recidivism,
there is some anecdotal evidence that when RSOs live close to one another, they may
act as informal monitors of deviant behavior. As one RSO explained to a newspaper
reporter, “Being clustered like this, we’re a support group for each other . . . You find
a guy acting strange, you say, ‘Hey, what are you doing?’ We kind of keep each other
in check” (Bain & German, 2006, p. 3). Similarly, increased RSO clustering may also
make it easier for law enforcement to monitor these RSOs (Casady, 2009; Goldman,
2009). Furthermore, a study in Colorado found that RSOs in shared living arrange-
ments appeared to be a “frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for
higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher
risk sex offenders living in the community” (Colorado Department of Public Safety,
2004, p. 4). Thus, if residence restrictions result in RSOs living closer together, they
may be indirectly increasing the levels of informal and formal social control exerted
over these RSOs. This could result in either decreased recidivism rates or increased
detection rates, and potentially increasing the safety of nearby residents.
However, there are also downsides to RSO clustering. First, residents who live near
“clusters” of RSOs may experience increased fear (Beck & Travis, 2004; Caputo &
Brodsky, 2004; Craun, 2010; Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009; Kilgannon, 2008;
Pope, 2008; Zevitz, 2003, 2004; but see Beck, Clingermayer, Ramsey, & Travis 2004)

---

444
Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(4)
as well as decreased housing values (Larsen, Lowrey, & Coleman, 2003; Linden &
Rockoff, 2008; Pope, 2008). Thus living near RSOs can have tangible effects on the
mental and financial health of residents. When RSOs live closer to each other, it may
magnify these effects for residents who live near these clusters of RSOs. This may also
lead nearby residents to inflict vigilante justice against clusters of RSOs. For example,
shortly after four RSOs moved into a home in Suffolk County, NY, a resident attempted
to burn that home to the ground (Kilgannon, 2006).
Perhaps most importantly, living near more RSOs may increase victimization
risks for...