Examining the Correlates of Sex Offender Residence Restriction Violation Rates

Abstract

Objectives: This research examines the contribution of social ecological factors to the variation in sex offender residence restriction (SORR) violation rates, operationalized as a sex offender residing within a buffer zone around a school or a day care.Methods: Drawing on data from two Midwestern states, we utilize a quasi-experimental cohortcontrol group design to examine the correlates of county-level SORR violation rates among a cohort of post-SORR sex offender parolees, and three counterfactual cohorts (pre-SORR sex offenders, pre-and post-SORR non-sex offender parolees). We model the violation rate using a series of fractional logit regressions, examining the contribution of housing market, environmental justice, and system resource variables.Results: We observe that county-level variation in post-SORR sex offender violation rates is directly associated with concentrated disadvantage and the density of residence restrictions. The direct effect of concentrated disadvantage was unique to the post-SORR sex offender cohort. Model predictions suggest that the relationship between SORR density and concentrated disadvantage varies across the study states. Conclusions:The results suggest that factors found to be associated with sex offender clustering (i.e., housing market characteristics) are not associated with SORR violation rates. Instead, this research suggests a model which allows for the simultaneous influence of environmental justice and system resource effects. Future research on the mechanisms underlying these effects is warranted. Keywords: Sex Offenders; Residence Restrictions; Social Ecology; Proportional Response Models 2 EXAMINING THE CORRELATES OF SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTION VIOLATION RATESIn the past 20 years, sex offender residence restrictions (SORR) have been widely deployed as a means to manage the recidivism risk of sex offenders in the community (Levenson and Cotter, 2005;Meloy, Miller, and Curtis, 2008). Residence restrictions aim to impede opportunities for reoffending among known, registered sex offenders by regulating their residential proximity to areas where potential child victims congregate. This is accomplished by enacting buffer zones of varying sizes (e.g., 500 to 2,500 feet) around varying protected locations (e.g., schools, day care centers, parks, and bus stops), within which registered sex offenders are barred from holding an official residence (Meloy et al., 2008;Pacheco and Barnes, 2013;Socia, 2011). Implicitly drawing on the distance decay hypothesis (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1984), SORR are built on the assumption that sex offenders choose to locate their residences close to potential victim pools for offending purposes (Walker, Golden, and Van Houten, 2001).However, despite wide political and popular support (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker, 2007;Pickett, Mancini and Mears, 2013) recent research suggests that SORR are largely unsuccessful in reducing recidivism. Studies indicate that residential proximity to areas where children congregate explain...

Investigating the Effect of Post-Release Housing Mobility on Recidivism: Considering Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses

“…3. For additional information on the propensity score matching procedure, please see Huebner et al (2014) and the electronic supplementary material to Rydberg et al (2017). 4.…”

The price of a sex offense conviction: A comparative analysis of the costs of community supervision

“…Residence restrictions blur the line between criminal and civil legal spheres, constituting another expansion of the shadow carceral state (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012). In some states, like Missouri, residence restrictions prohibit individuals with a sexual offense from living and congregating near schools, parks, and other places where children gather (Huebner et al., 2014; Rydberg et al., 2017; Socia, 2011). Research has suggested that residence restrictions often force people to live farther away from work and social services and often preclude residence with supportive family members (Huebner et al., 2021; Levenson & Hern, 2007) as most of the available housing in major metropolitan communities is within a restricted zone (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008).…”