Reducing Housing Options for Convicted Sex Offenders: Investigating the Impact of Residency Restriction Laws Using GIS

Abstract

Sex offender registries have been established throughout the United States. To date, 16 states have adopted additional residency restriction policies, precluding registered sex offenders from living within a certain distance of places where children gather. This study quantifies the impact of residency restrictions on housing options for registered sex offenders using Orange County, Florida, as a case study. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is employed to identify all occupied residential properties using parcel-level zoning data as well as those that fall within the 1,000-foot restricted buffer zones around attractions, bus stops, daycares, parks, and schools. Results indicate that housing options for registered sex offenders within urban residential areas are limited to only 5% of potentially available parcels and that bus stop restrictions impact the amount of livable area the most, followed by daycares, schools, parks, and attractions. The limited options to establish residency exist mostly in low-density rural areas. This supports the argument that residency restrictions for sexual offenders are a strong contributing factor to their social and economic isolation. The impacts of increasing the buffer to a proposed 2,500-foot zone are discussed, and a comparison of the individual restriction categories is presented.

A cross-sectional exploration of household financial reactions and homebuyer awareness of registered sex offenders in a rural, suburban, and urban county.

“…Neighborhoods became increasingly unavailable as the size and coverage of residency restrictions increased in Orange County, Florida (Zandbergen & Hart, 2006), upstate New York counties (Socia, 2011), and four counties in South Carolina (Barnes et al, 2009). Compared to jurisdictions with longer residency restrictions, neighborhoods with shorter residency restrictions had the most available housing parcels (Barnes et al, 2009;Socia, 2011), but also maintained the least affordable housing (however, see Socia, 2016;Socia, 2011).…”

“…Scholars have suggested that the social disorganization theory does not align with the social ecology of rural environments (Brunton-Smith & Sturgis, 2011;Kaylen & Pridemore, 2013;Ross & Mirowsky, 1999; see Sloas et al, 2012; see also Tewksbury et al, 2007;Weisheit & Wells, 2005) given the urban roots of the theory itself (Park & Burgess, 1925;Shaw & McKay, 1942;Sutherland, 1939). However, these conclusions have not deterred scholars from exploring the theory's appropriateness to RSOs in rural areas (Huebner et al, 2013;Navarro & Rabe-Hemp, 2017;Sloas et al, 2012;Tewksbury et al, 2007).It is essential to explore rural-and suburban-based RSOs as sex offender policies have constrained RSOs away from urban residential locations, with housing options being much more obtainable (based on residency restriction zones) in suburban areas and even more in less dense, rural areas (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Socia, 2011see Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006). The primary culprit of this geographic phenomenon that has displaced RSOs in the outskirts of the main city is residency restrictions (Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012).…”

“…Residency restrictions have complicated the ability for RSOs to obtain appropriate housing (Barnes et al, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;see Tewksbury, 2005; see Tewksbury & Lees, 2006;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2016Socia et al, 2015;Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Housing options are so limited (even when compared to non-RSO parolees) that RSOs have been forced to return to halfway homes, jail, or prison because they had not secured suitable housing within the given time parameters-colloquially referred to as "violating at the door" (Mills, 2015;Wolfson, 2015;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b).…”

“…Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006). As a consequence of legal discrimination like residency restrictions housing options for RSOs are severely limited (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008;Huebner et al, 2013;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia et al, 2015;Zandbergen & Hart, 2006;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b). Given these acts of discrimination, it is apparent that mainstream society rejects…”

“…Primary among the collateral consequences faced by convicted sex offenders is their relegation into socially disadvantaged communities (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Craun, 2010;Gordon, 2013;Hipp et al, 2010;Huebner et al, 2013;Hughes & Burchfield, 2008;Hughes & Kadleck, 2008;Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006b;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011b; see also Yeh, 2015;Sloas, Steele, & Hare, 2012;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aSocia, , 2016Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015;Socia & Stamatel, 2012;Suresh, Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Higgins, 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Rolfe, 2016). Another act of discrimination included banishment into the outskirts of the main metropolitan cities (Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;see Huebner et al, 2013; see also Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012aZandbergen & Hart, 2006). As a consequence of legal discrimination like residency restrictions housing options for RSOs are severely limited (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009;Berenson & Appelbaum, 2011;Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Chajewski & Mercado, 2009;Clark & Duwe, 2015;Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008;Huebner et al, 2013;Socia, 2011Socia, , 2012a…”