Convicted Sex Offender Residential Movements

  • Alan T. Murray
  • Tony H. Grubesic
  • Elizabeth A. Mack
  • Ran Wei
  • Sergio J. Rey
  • Luc Anselin
  • Marie L. Griffin
Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 8)


The social, economic, and cultural impacts of sex offender legislation are topics of considerable interest in recent years. Despite the number of studies evaluating the collateral consequences of these laws, the implications of spatial restrictions on housing availability and residential mobility for convicted sex offenders remain an empirical question. Because of the social implications, but also risks associated with recidivism, a better understanding of the spatio-temporal movements of sex offenders is critical for developing effective management policies and strategies aimed at promoting public safety. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze sex offender residential movement patterns over a 2.5 year period in Hamilton County, Ohio. Using geographic information systems and a developed exploratory system, SOSTAT, this study uncovers significant trends and behavioral patterns that shed light on offender reintegration, their residential mobility and the implications of residency restrictions on both offenders and community.


Spatial restriction zones Sex offenders GIS Residential mobility 


  1. Adam Walsh Child Protection Act (2006) Public Law 109–248. 42 U.S.C § 16901–16962Google Scholar
  2. Anselin L, Bao S (1997) Exploratory spatial data analysis linking SpaceStat and ArcView. In: Fisher M, Getis A (eds) Recent developments in spatial analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes JC, Dukes T, Tewksbury R, DevTroye TM (2009) Analyzing the impact of a Statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina Sex offenders. Crim Justice Policy Rev 20:21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauregard E, Proulx J, Rossmo K (2005) Spatial patterns of sex offenders: theoretical, empirical, and practical issues. Aggress Viol Behav 10:579–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair M (2004) Wisconsin’s sex offender registration and notification laws: has the Wisconsin Legislature left the criminals and the constitution behind? Marquette Law Rev 87:939–981Google Scholar
  6. Boehm TP, Ihlanfeld KR (1986) Residential mobility and neighborhood quality. J Reg Sci 26(2):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1984) Patterns in crime. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Burchfield K (2011) Residence restrictions. Criminol Pub Policy 10(2):411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burchfield KB, Mingus W (2008) Not in my neighborhood: assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Crim Justice Behav 35(3):356–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003) Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of JusticeGoogle Scholar
  11. Bursik RJ (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26(4):519–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chajewski M, Calkins-Mercado C (2009) An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Crim Justice Policy Rev 20:44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke R, Cornish D (1985) Modeling offender’s decisions: a framework for research and policy. Crim Justice 6:147–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke DJ (1998) Psychopathy across cultures. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 351–382Google Scholar
  16. Dieleman FM (2001) Modelling residential mobility: a review of recent trends in research. J Hous Built Environ 16(3–4):249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duwe G, Donnay W, Tewksbury R (2008) Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offender recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 35:484–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groff E (2007) Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: an example using routine activity theory and street robbery. J Quant Criminol 23(2):75–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groth AN, Longo RE, McFadin JB (1982) Undetected recidivism among rapists and child molesters. Crim Delinq 28:450–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grubesic TH (2010) Sex offender clusters. Appl Geogr 30:2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2004) Assessing the locational uncertainties of geocoded data. In: Proceedings from the 24th urban data management symposium, Chioggia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2008) Sex offender residency and spatial equity. Appl Sp Anal Policy 1:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2010) Methods to support policy evaluation of sex offender laws. Pap Reg Sci 89(3):669–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grubesic TH, Murray AT, Mack EA (2007) Geographic exclusion: spatial analysis for evaluating the implications of Megan’s Law. Soc Sci Comput Rev 25(2):143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grubesic TH, Murray AT, Mack EA (2008) Sex offenders, housing and spatial restriction zones. GeoJournal 73:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE (2004) Predictors of sexual recidivism: an updated meta-analysis (User report 2004–02) (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Ottawa, Canada)Google Scholar
  27. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE (2005) The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 73:1154–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haynie DL, South SJ (2005) Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Soc Force 84(1):361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hepburn JR, Griffin ML (2004) The effect of social bonds on successful adjustment to probation: an event history analysis. Crim Justice Rev 29:46–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hipp JR, Turner S, Jannetta J (2010) Are sex offenders moving into social disorganization? Analyzing the residential mobility of California Parolees. J Res Crime Delinq 47:558–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunter S (2003) Geographical Mobility among male psychopaths. Paper presented at the western society of criminology, Vancouver, British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyle v. Porter (2008) Ohio Supreme Court ruling. URL: Accessed 28 June 2010
  33. Kan K (2006) Residential mobility and social capital. J Urban Econ 61(3):436–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krebs J, Davies N (1987) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Levenson JS, Cotter LP (2005) The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 49:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levenson JS, Hern AL (2007) Sex offender residence restrictions: unintended consequences and community reentry. Justice Res Policy 9:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lieb R (2000) Social policy and sexual offenders: contrasting United States’ and European policies. Eur J Crim Policy Res 8:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mack EA, Grubesic TH (2010) Sex offenders and residential location: a predictive analytical framework. Environ Plan A 42(8):1925–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McHugh KE, Gober P, Reid N (1990) Determinants of short- and long-term mobility expectations for home owners and renters. Demography 27(1):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Megan’s Law (1996) Public Law 104–145 C.F.R. § 170101 (d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994Google Scholar
  41. Meredith T, Speir J, Johnson S (2007) Developing and implementing automated risk assessments in parole. J Res Policy 9:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messner S, Anselin L, Baller R, Hawkins D, Deane G, Tolnay S (1999) The spatial patterning of county homicide rates: an application of exploratory spatial data analysis. J Quant Criminol 15:423–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Minnesota Department of Corrections (2003) Level three sex offenders residential placement issues: 2003 report to the legislature. Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray AT (2010) Quantitative geography. J Reg Sci 50:143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2012) Spatial optimization and geographic uncertainty: implications for sex offender management strategies. In Johnson M (ed) Community-Based Operations Research: Decision Modeling for Local Impact and Diverse Populations, (Berlin: Springer). pp 121–142Google Scholar
  46. Murray AT, Grubesic TH, Wei R, Mack EA (2011) A hybrid geocoding methodology for spatio-temporal data. Transactions in GIS 15:795–809Google Scholar
  47. Murray AT, McGuffog I, Western JS, Mullins P (2001) Exploratory spatial data analysis techniques for examining urban crime. Br J Criminol 41:309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R, Stengel KM (2006) Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. Am J Crim Justice 30:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) (2011) Map of registered sex offenders in the United States. URL:
  50. Ohio Department of Education (ODE) (2005) ODE Interactive: extract Ohio educational information. URL:
  51. Ouimet M, Proulx J (1994) Spatial and temporal behavior of pedophiles: their clinical usefulness as to the relapse prevention model. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Miami, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  52. Petrunik M (2003) The hare and the tortoise: dangerousness and sex offender policy in the United States and Canada. Can J Criminol Crim Justice 45:43–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pope JC (2008) Fear of crime and housing prices: household reactions to sex offender registries. J Urban Econ 64:601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Putnum R (2001) Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Pyle GF (1974) The spatial dynamics of crime. Chicago, University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 159Google Scholar
  56. Quigley JM, Weinberg DH (1977) Intra-urban residential mobility: a review and synthesis. Int Reg Sci Rev 2(1):41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ratcliffe JH (2001) On the accuracy of TIGER-type geocoded address data in relation to cadastral and census areal units. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(5):473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reppetto TA (1974) Residential crime. Ballinger, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Rey SJ, Anselin L (2007) PySAL: a Python library of spatial analytical methods. Rev Reg Stud 37:5–27Google Scholar
  60. Rey SJ, Janikas MV (2006) STARS: Space-Time Analysis of Regional Systems. Geogr Anal 38:67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rey SJ, Murray AT, Grubesic TH, Mack EA, Wei R, Griffin M (2012) The impact of spatial restrictions on sexual offender residential movement patterns: a Markov chain analysis. Draft manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  62. Rhodes WM, Conly C (1981) Crime and mobility: an empirical study. In: Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (eds) Environmental criminology. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  63. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social- disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schiavone SK, Jeglic EL (2009) Public perception of sex offender social policies and the impact on sex offenders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 53:679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  67. Socia K (2011) The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY. Criminol Pub Policy 10(2):351–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tewksbury R (2005) Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. J Contemp Crim Justice 21(1):67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tewksbury R (2011) Policy implications of sex offender residence restrictions laws. Criminol Pub Policy 10(2):345–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tewksbury R, Lees M (2006) Perceptions of sex offender registration: collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociol Spectr 26:309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tewksbury R, Mustaine E (2006) Where to find sex offenders: an examination of residential locations and neighborhood conditions. Crim Justice Stud 19(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turley E, Hutzel L (2001) West Virginia sex offender study. URL:
  73. U.S. Census Bureau (2011) TIGER/Line Shapefiles.
  74. White RC (1932) The relation of felonies to environmental factors in indianapolis. Soc Force 10:498–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Willis GM, Grace RC (2008) The quality of community reintegration planning for child molesters: effects on sexual recidivism. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 20:218–240Google Scholar
  76. WLWT (2009) Police: suspect in teen’s death possible serial killer. URL: Accessed 28 June 2010
  77. Youstin TJ, Nobles MR (2009) Residency estrictions: a geospatial analysis of sex offender movement over time. Crime Mapp 1:55–76Google Scholar
  78. Zandbergen PA, Hart TC (2006) Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: investigating the impact of residency Restriction Laws using GIS. Justice Res Policy 8:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zgoba KM, Levenson J, McKee T (2009) Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Crim Justice Policy Rev 20(1):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zipf GK (1949) Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan T. Murray
    • 1
  • Tony H. Grubesic
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Mack
    • 1
  • Ran Wei
    • 1
  • Sergio J. Rey
    • 1
  • Luc Anselin
    • 1
  • Marie L. Griffin
    • 3
  1. 1.GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation, School of Geographical Science and Urban PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Laboratory, College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations