Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex offenders, housing and spatial restriction zones

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. LaFollette (2005) outlines the three prevailing conceptions of collateral consequence in the United States. Broadly defined, they are not formal punishments, rather they are direct consequences of criminal behavior or state action to protect citizens from the risks posed by former felons. Where sex offenders are concerned, the literature is primarily concerned with the latter instance(s).

  2. See, for example, Tewksbury (2005), Tewksbury and Lees (2005), Zevitz and Farkas (2000).

  3. Average rental rates for a two bedroom apartment in the Cincinnati metropolitan area was $758 during 2005 (Apartmentratings.com 2008).

  4. Although different criteria could be used (i.e., there must be at least a 10% difference in the means), the dearth of prior statistical studies quantitatively examining this issue provided no a priori reason for selecting a difference value other than zero.

  5. There is new trend of successful challenges in several states, many of which limit the retroactivity of the restriction zones (e.g. 2008-Ohio-542)

References

  • 2008. Ohio-542. Hyle v. Porter. URL: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/summaries/2008/0220/062187.asp.

  • Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. (2006). Public Law 109-248. 42 U.S.C § 16901–16962.

  • Apartmentratings.com. (2008). Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Apartment Rental Rates. URL: http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=1642.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D. (1999). Slamming the door. ABA Journal, 24–25 (January).

  • Blau, J. R., & Blau, P. M. (1982). The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review, 47, 114–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2007). Sex offenders pushed to ‘burbs. Cincinnati Enquirer. URL: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/NEWS01/705010422/1056/COL02.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, L., & Jackson, P. (1983). Inequality, opportunity, and crime rates in central cities. Criminology, 21, 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom.

  • Cowan, D., Gilroy, R., & Pantazis, C. (1999). Risking housing need. Journal of Law and Society, 26, 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Danzinger, S. (1976). Explaining urban crime rates. Criminology, 14, 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint, J. (2006). Maintaining an arm’s length? Housing, community governance and the management of ‘problematic’ populations. Housing Studies, 21, 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. (1999). Why is there more crime in cities? Journal of Political Economy, 107, S225–S258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., & Mack, E. A. (2008). Spatio-temporal interaction of urban crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(3), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series Paper 99. URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf.

  • 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 http://www.hcso.org/PublicServices/SexOffenders/sexoffenders.aspx.

  • Hannon, L., & Defronzo, J. (1999). The truly disadvantaged, public assistance and crime. Social Problems, 45, 383–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. (2004). Minneapolis neighborhoods home to clusters of released sex offenders. Minnesota Public Radio. URL: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/02/05_hughesa_offenders/.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: Social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 719–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krivo, L. J., & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L-188-99. Mulligan v. Panther Valley Property Owners Association. Warren County, New Jersey.

  • LaFollette, H. (2005). Collateral consequences of punishment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 241–261. URL: http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/Collateral_Consequences.htm.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieb, R. (2000). Social policy and sexual offenders: Contrasting united states’ and european policies. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner, L. (2004). Education, work and crime: A human capital approach. International Economic Review, 45, 811–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8605.pdf.

  • Maloney, J. (2006). Anger at sex offender cluster. New York Newsday. URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/nylisex274907930sep27,0,1038388.story?coll=ny-linews-utility.

  • Megan’s Law (1996). Public Law 104-145 C.F.R. § 170101 (d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

  • 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 

  • Messner, S. F. (1982). Poverty, inequality and the urban homicide rate. Criminology, 20, 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. (1999). Housing and sex offenders in Scotland: A practice note. Edinburgh: Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [NCMEC]. (2008). Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States. URL: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf.

  • Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: A literature review. California Research Bureau, August.

  • Norman-Eady, S. (2007). Sex offenders’ residency restrictions. State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Report 2007-R-0380. URL: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm.

  • Patterson, E. B. (1991). Poverty, income inequality, and community crime rates. Criminology, 29, 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Proposition 83. (2006). Sex offenders sexually violent predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute. State of California. URL: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/pdf/proposition_83/entire_prop83.pdf.

  • Putnum, R. (2001). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L. O. (2003). Sex offender management: The public policy challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roncek, D. W. (1981). Dangerous places: Crime and residential environment. Social Forces, 60, 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(1), 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R., & Groves, B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Shuerman, L., & Kobrin, S. (1986). Community careers in crime. Crime and Justice, 8, 67–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. A., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Social Forces, 68, 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, R. J. (1999). The relationship between alcohol sales and assault in new south wales, Australia. Addiction, 94(3), 397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal Probation, 66, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarrella, J., & Oppmann, P. (2007). Florida housing sex offenders under bridge. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington , IN, USA

    Tony H. Grubesic & Elizabeth A. Mack

  2. School of Geographical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-0104, USA

    Alan T. Murray

Authors
  1. Tony H. Grubesic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan T. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth A. Mack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony H. Grubesic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grubesic, T.H., Murray, A.T. & Mack, E.A. Sex offenders, housing and spatial restriction zones. GeoJournal 73, 255–269 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9197-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9197-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation