, Volume 73, Issue 4, pp 255–269 | Cite as

Sex offenders, housing and spatial restriction zones

  • Tony H. Grubesic
  • Alan T. Murray
  • Elizabeth A. Mack


Sex offenders are currently a major focus of crime control policies at the local, regional, state and federal levels throughout the United States. In part, the perceived threat of offender recidivism has motivated legislators to launch stringent community notification programs and to establish spatial restriction zones (SRZs) around schools, daycare facilities and public parks. The purpose of these restriction zones is to help protect children and minimize their exposure to convicted sex offenders living in the community. In addition to the concern that the implementation of SRZs dramatically reduces viable housing options for registered sex offenders, there are concerns that offenders will be forced to reside in socially disorganized areas that may encourage recidivism. The purpose of this paper is to explore the demographic and socioeconomic differences between areas inside and outside SRZs. Implications of these results for sex offender policies are discussed.


Sex offenders Social disorganization Spatial restriction zones Housing Spatial analysis GIS 


  1. Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. (2006). Public Law 109-248. 42 U.S.C § 16901–16962.Google Scholar
  2. (2008). Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Apartment Rental Rates. URL:
  3. Bachman, R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, D. (1999). Slamming the door. ABA Journal, 24–25 (January).Google Scholar
  5. Blau, J. R., & Blau, P. M. (1982). The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review, 47, 114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. (2007). Sex offenders pushed to ‘burbs. Cincinnati Enquirer. URL:
  7. Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, L., & Jackson, P. (1983). Inequality, opportunity, and crime rates in central cities. Criminology, 21, 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colorado Department of Public Safety [CDPS]. (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. URL:
  13. Cowan, D., Gilroy, R., & Pantazis, C. (1999). Risking housing need. Journal of Law and Society, 26, 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowan, D., Pantazis, C., & Gilroy, R. (2001). Social housing as crime control: An examination of the role of housing management in policing sex offenders. Social & Legal Studies, 10, 435–457.Google Scholar
  15. Danzinger, S. (1976). Explaining urban crime rates. Criminology, 14, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flint, J. (2006). Maintaining an arm’s length? Housing, community governance and the management of ‘problematic’ populations. Housing Studies, 21, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. (1999). Why is there more crime in cities? Journal of Political Economy, 107, S225–S258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grubesic, T. H., & Mack, E. A. (2008). Spatio-temporal interaction of urban crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(3), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grubesic, T. H., Mack, E., & Murray, A. T. (2007). Geographic exclusion: Spatial analysis for evaluating the implications of Megan’s law. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series Paper 99. URL:
  21. Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office [HCSO]. (2006). Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office Records Division Registered Hamilton County Sex Offenders (22 September 2006). Retrieved 11 June 2005, from
  22. Hannon, L., & Defronzo, J. (1999). The truly disadvantaged, public assistance and crime. Social Problems, 45, 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, A. (2004). Minneapolis neighborhoods home to clusters of released sex offenders. Minnesota Public Radio. URL:
  24. Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. (1994). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R 3355 C.F.R. § 170101.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K., & Hirschfield, A. (1997). New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimization. Criminology, 37, 224–241.Google Scholar
  26. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: Social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 719–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koss, M. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krivo, L. J., & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. L-188-99. Mulligan v. Panther Valley Property Owners Association. Warren County, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  30. LaFollette, H. (2005). Collateral consequences of punishment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 241–261. URL:
  31. Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. (NCJ 198281). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  32. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1, 000 feet from danger or one step from absurd. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lieb, R. (2000). Social policy and sexual offenders: Contrasting united states’ and european policies. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lochner, L. (2004). Education, work and crime: A human capital approach. International Economic Review, 45, 811–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lochner, L., & Moretti, L. P. (2001). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests and self-reports. Working Paper 8605, National Bureau of Economic Research. URL:
  36. Maloney, J. (2006). Anger at sex offender cluster. New York Newsday. URL:,0,1038388.story?coll=ny-linews-utility.
  37. Megan’s Law (1996). Public Law 104-145 C.F.R. § 170101 (d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.Google Scholar
  38. Meloy, M. L., Miller, S. L., & Curtis, K. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice,. doi: 10.1007/s12103-008-9042-2.Google Scholar
  39. Messner, S. F. (1982). Poverty, inequality and the urban homicide rate. Criminology, 20, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore, A. (1999). Housing and sex offenders in Scotland: A practice note. Edinburgh: Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.Google Scholar
  41. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339–362.Google Scholar
  42. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [NCMEC]. (2008). Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States. URL:
  44. Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: A literature review. California Research Bureau, August.Google Scholar
  45. Norman-Eady, S. (2007). Sex offenders’ residency restrictions. State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Report 2007-R-0380. URL:
  46. Patterson, E. B. (1991). Poverty, income inequality, and community crime rates. Criminology, 29, 755–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petrunik, M. (2003). The hare and the tortoise: Dangerousness and sex offender policy in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 45, 43–72.Google Scholar
  48. Proposition 83. (2006). Sex offenders sexually violent predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute. State of California. URL:
  49. Putnum, R. (2001). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Robinson, L. O. (2003). Sex offender management: The public policy challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roncek, D. W. (1981). Dangerous places: Crime and residential environment. Social Forces, 60, 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1991). Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “Hot Spots”. Criminology, 29, 725–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruback, R. B., & Menard, K. S. (2001). Rural-urban differences in sexual victimization and reporting: Analyses using UCR and crisis center data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(1), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sampson, R., & Groves, B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science , 277, 918–924.Google Scholar
  58. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquents in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Shuerman, L., & Kobrin, S. (1986). Community careers in crime. Crime and Justice, 8, 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, D. A., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Social Forces, 68, 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevenson, R. J. (1999). The relationship between alcohol sales and assault in new south wales, Australia. Addiction, 94(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66, 21–26.Google Scholar
  63. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2005). Stigma, harassment, vulnerability and practical difficulties: registered sex offenders’ experiences in the community. Paper presented at the 2005 annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago.Google Scholar
  65. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders: An examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 61–75.Google Scholar
  67. Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., & Stengel, K. M. (2008). Examining rates of sexual offenses from a routine activities perspective. Victims and Offenders, 3, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas, T. (2004). When public protection become punishment? The UK use of civil measures to contain the sex offender. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633.Google Scholar
  70. Walker, J. T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A. C. (2001). The geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research and Policy, 3, 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wood, R. M., Grossman, L. S., & Fichtner, C. G. (2000). Psychological assessment, treatment, and outcome with sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction law using GIS. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zarrella, J., & Oppmann, P. (2007). Florida housing sex offenders under bridge. URL:
  74. Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance. Behavioral Science and the Law, 18, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony H. Grubesic
    • 1
  • Alan T. Murray
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Mack
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomington USA
  2. 2.School of Geographical SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations