Sex Offender Residence Restrictions and Homelessness: A Critical Look at South Carolina

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419862334
• Author: Deena A. Isom Scott,Deanna Cann
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419862334

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(8) 1119 –1135

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419862334

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Sex Offender Residence

Restrictions and

Homelessness: A Critical

Look at South Carolina

Deanna Cann1 and Deena A. Isom Scott1

Abstract

Sex offender residence restrictions (SORRs) have been widely implemented across

the United States since the 1990s. A common concern regarding the implementation

of SORRs is the decrease in viable housing options for registered sex offenders, which

could potentially lead to homelessness. The vast application of SORRs across the

United States, in addition to the known association between homelessness and crime,

necessitates a deeper understanding of how SORRs impact rates of homelessness

among this population. Utilizing data from South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry,

this study describes patterns of homelessness among this population. Specifically, using

an interrupted time series analysis, we examine whether the state’s implementation

of its SORR has an effect on the proportion of registered sex offenders reported as

homeless. Our findings reveal a strong association between the implementation of

residence restriction policies and rates of homelessness for registered sex offenders

in South Carolina. Policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

sex offenders, sex offender residency, unintended consequences, homelessness

Policies that limit where a registered sex offender can reside have become increasingly

popular since the mid-1990s. Sex offender residence restrictions (SORRs) are meant

to limit the accessibility of potential victims to known sex offenders by prohibiting this

population from living within a specific distance of schools, parks, and other areas

1University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Deanna Cann, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305

Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Email: dcann@email.sc.edu

862334CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419862334Criminal Justice Policy ReviewCann and Isom Scott

research-article2019

1120 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(8)

where children congregate. By 2008, at least 30 states had state-level SORRs and

nearly all others enforced such restrictions through local-level ordinances or various

criminal justice departments (Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008). A more recent analysis

of state-level legislation indicates that 33 states have some form of residence restric-

tions for registered sex offenders (Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws

[ACSOL], 2018). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that presently a large portion of

registered sex offenders within the United States are subject to such policies.1

While much emphasis has been placed on assessing the efficacy of these laws in

preventing crime (e.g., Huebner et al., 2014; Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin, 2012;

Sandler, Freeman, & Socia, 2008), scholars also have considered the potential collat-

eral consequences of SORRs. A common concern regarding the implementation of

SORRs is the decrease in viable housing options for registered sex offenders (e.g.,

Levenson & D’amora, 2007). A lack of housing options could result in a number of

issues that may affect the ability of registered sex offenders to successfully reintegrate

into society. These include, for example, the clustering of offenders within certain

areas, offenders living in violation of the SORRs, their residential instability, as well

as the potential increasing rates of homelessness and transiency for this population.

Increasing rates of homelessness among this population is an especially troubling con-

sequence of SORR policies as unstable housing is robustly linked to offending in

criminological research, both among general offenders (Lutze, Rosky, & Hamilton,

2014; Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Pleggenkuhle, Huebner, & Kras, 2016; Steiner,

Makarios, & Travis, 2015) and sexual offenders (Willis & Grace, 2008).

Research on SORRs and housing issues has largely focused on determining the

extent of the decrease of legitimate housing available for registered sex offenders and

whether or not the laws result in the clustering of offenders in specific areas. Few

researchers, however, have explicitly explored the relationship between SORRs and

rates of homelessness among registered sex offenders. The vast application of SORRs

across the United States, in addition to the known association between homelessness

and crime, necessitates a deeper understanding of how SORRs impact rates of home-

lessness among this population. Employing an interrupted time series analysis of data

from South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registry, this study compares the proportion of

registered sex offenders reported as homeless before and after South Carolina imple-

mented its SORR. In the following, we provide an overview of residence restriction

policies and their known associations with various housing issues including

homelessness.

Residence Restrictions and the Availability of Housing

As researchers began to study the unintended outcomes of SORRs, issues such as the

decreased availability of legitimate housing (Zandbergen & Hart, 2006), the clustering

of registered sex offenders in specific areas (Socia, 2011, 2013), housing instability

(Levenson, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury &

Mustaine, 2009), and homelessness (Levenson, Ackerman, Socia, & Harris, 2015;

Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015) became apparent. Numerous surveys of