The Effect and Implications of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

• Author: Timothy S. Bynum,Eric Grommon,Kimberly R. Kras,Breanne Pleggenkuhle,Jason Rydberg,Beth M. Huebner
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12066
• Date: 01 February 2014
• Published date: 01 February 2014

RESEARCH ARTICLE

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE

RESTRICTIONS

The Effect and Implications of Sex Offender

Residence Restrictions

Evidence from a Two-State Evaluation

Beth M. Huebner and Kimberly R. Kras

University of Missouri—St. Louis

Jason Rydberg and Timothy S. Bynum

Michigan State University

Eric Grommon

Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis

Breanne Pleggenkuhle

Southern Illinois University—Carbondale

Research Summary

Weevaluated the efficacy of sex offender residence restrictions in Michigan and Missouri

using a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching. First, we examined

the implementation of the laws and found that sex offenders in both states were less likely

to live in restricted areas after the implementation of the laws than the prerestriction

sample, but the differences were not statistically significant. In our outcome analysis,

we find little evidence that residence restrictions changed the prevalence of recidivism

substantially for sex offenders in the postrelease period. In Michigan, trends indicate

that the implementation of the laws led to a slight increase in recidivism among the

sex offender groups, whereas in Missouri, this effect resulted in a slight decrease in

recidivism. Technical violations also declined for both groups in Missouri. The small

effect sizes, inconsistent results across states, and the null results between sex offender and

non–sex offender models cast doubt on the potential usefulness of the laws to influence

individual patterns of recidivism broadly.

Direct correspondence to Beth M. Huebner, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of

Missouri—St. Louis, 324 Lucas Hall, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO, 63121-4499 (e-mail: Huebnerb@

umsl.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12066 C2014 American Society of Criminology 139

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 1

Research Article Sex Offender Residence Restrictions

Policy Implications

The results caution against the widespread, homogenous implementation of residence

restrictions. Instead, we advocate individualization in sex offender programming and

call for the development of risk-centered models of residence restrictions that draw on

the established literature. In addition, the research highlights the practical challenges

in defining restricted areas, enforcing restrictions, and promoting successful returns to

the community. Furthermore, a call for reframing the focus of sex offender reentry

to include collaborative treatment groups and enhanced communication and services

between key stakeholders is made. Finally, we close with a discussion of several best

practice models that provide alternative housing sources for individuals sentenced under

residence restrictions without a suitable home plan.

Keywords

residence restrictions,recidivism ,parole,sex offenders,geographic information systems,

collateral consequences of incarceration.

Of the specialized forms of sex offender management, which have proliferated

in the past 20 years, sex offender residence restrictions are among the most

controversial. Residence restrictions are a specific form of specialized legislation

that prohibits sex offenders from residing within a certain distance from places where

children congregate, such as schools or day care centers. Residence restrictions weredesigned

to enhance public safety by neutralizing the risk of recidivism posed by registered sex

offenders released into the community (Levenson and Cotter, 2005; Sample, Evans, and

Anderson, 2011; Simon, 1998; Socia, 2011). The rationale behind this goal is that sex

offenders choose their victims from the available population of the area in which they reside.

Thus, attempts by the criminal justice system to increase the distance between registered

sex offenders and potential targets should correspond to a decrease in recidivism among this

group (Kang, 2012). Statewide residence restrictions have been adopted in some form by

33 states and at the municipal level in several others (Mancini, Barnes, and Mears, 2013).

With heightened public concern regarding sex offenders, such laws are considered to have

widespread public support (Kernsmith, Craun, and Foster,2009; Mancini, Shields, Mears,

and Beaver, 2010; Schiavone and Jeglic, 2009). Support from parole boards is generally

more muted (Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2012), despite community corrections’ officials

assessments of sex offenders as dangerous (Tewksbury, Mustaine, and Payne, 2012).

To date, there has been little research on the efficacy of residence restrictions in re-

ducing recidivism among registered sex offenders. Scholars have focused primarily on the

projected impact of residence restrictions on available housing, qualitative descriptions of

the unintended consequences of legislation, and the aggregate effect of residence restrictions

on sex crime trends (see Pacheco and Barnes [2013] for a review). Overall, scholars have

140 Criminology & Public Policy