Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: 

How Mapping Can Inform Policy 

NCJ 222759 

JUL 08 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

➡TOWARD CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOLUTIONS

IN 

SHORT 

KEY POINTS 

■	 Many locations have implemented residency 

laws that prohibit sex offenders from living 

near schools or other places where children 

gather. 

■	 Studies show that restrictions can create exclusion zones that make it difficult, if not impossible, for sex offenders to find housing. 

■	 Sex offenders then may become homeless, go 

underground or report false addresses, making 

them difficult to track. 

■	 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can help 

evaluate the impact of residency laws. 

OVERVIEW 

Laws that restrict where registered sex offenders 

may live have become increasingly popular during 

the past decade. As of 2007, some 27 states and 

hundreds of municipalities had enacted laws that 

bar sex offenders from residing near schools, parks, 

playgrounds and day care centers. The specified 

distance from a school or other venue is typically 

1,000 feet but varies from 500 to 2,500 feet, 

depending on the jurisdiction. 

The laws, which have wide public support, are 

modeled after Florida’s “Jessica’s Law,” named for a 

nine-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped and 

killed by a molester. They follow the Wetterling Act 

of 1994 mandating sex offender registration and the 

1996 Megan’s Law requiring public notification 

when an offender moves into a community. 

Residency restriction laws have led to some unanticipated and unintended consequences. In many 

locations — most noticeably in urban areas — the 

restrictions have created overlapping exclusion 

zones that severely limit where offenders can live. 

In some cities the only acceptable sites are in highcrime neighborhoods or commercial zones. Even 

when residential areas are available, sex offenders 

just released from prison may not be able to find 

affordable housing in those areas. 

If unable to find legal housing, offenders may 

report false addresses, become homeless or go 

underground. Others may be forced to live in rural 

areas with less access to employment or mental 

health services. Even in rural areas where schools 

and day care centers are more geographically dispersed, most unrestricted land is forest or farmland. 

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS 

GIS analysis can help officials gauge the impacts of 

sex offender residency laws. By analyzing mapping 

data from GIS, they can isolate the exclusion zones 

and the areas available for housing in their communities. They can also determine whether registered 

sex offenders are living in compliant housing. 

Researchers mapped data from three areas using 

GIS to locate registered offenders and identify 

restricted sites and their exclusion zones. Although 

the localities differed in geography and population, 

all evidenced limited access to suitable housing. 

New Jersey. New Jersey does not have a statewide 

sex offender residency restriction policy, but as of 

2007, 113 municipalities had barred sex offenders 

from living near parks, beaches, schools, day care 

centers or bus stops. Restrictions range from 500 to 

2,500 feet. 

Using GIS mapping, researchers examined three 

areas in northern New Jersey — the rural townships of Phillipsburg and Alpha in Warren County, 

the City of Newark, and Bergen County — to assess 

Office of Justice Programs ■ Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods ■ www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
 

2 

the potential impact of residency restrictions near 

schools.1 

■	 In the rural townships, researchers plotted the 

16 registered sex offenders and the 13 schools 

and concluded that with a 1,000-foot exclusion 

zone, five of the offenders would have to move. 

With the maximum 2,500-foot zone, all 16 

offenders would be required to relocate, and 

city centers would be off-limits. Although about 

half of the township land was compliant, most 

of it is uninhabitable farmland and natural 

reserves. 

■	 Newark showed 196 registered sex offenders 

and 118 schools. With a 1,000-foot exclusion 

zone, 127 offenders would have to relocate. 

With a 2,500-foot zone, this figure jumps to 

193, and the main parts of the city become completely off limits. Only about 7 percent of city 

land would be compliant. 

■	 Bergen County showed 56 registered sex 

offenders and 410 schools. With a 1,000-foot 

exclusion zone, 21 offenders would have to 

move. With a 2,500-foot zone, nearly all of the 

offenders (51) would have to relocate. About 

one-third of the county would be compliant, but 

much of it is natural reserves and roads. 

Further complicating the analysis, when schools 

were located near township or county boundaries, 

residency restriction zones extended into neighboring jurisdictions. In two cases, exclusion zones 

extended into adjacent states, making enforcement 

difficult. 

San Diego. California voters overwhelmingly 

passed a law in 2006 requiring registered sex 

offenders to live at least 2,000 feet from schools 

and parks. After the law became effective, 

researchers used GIS to assess its impact on San 

Diego County. They began by examining all parcels 

countywide. They next identified the residential 

parcels, overlaid school and park exclusion zones, 

and analyzed parcels outside the exclusion zones. 

They found that slightly more than 27 percent of 

the residential parcels were acceptable.2 

Hamilton County, Ohio. Hamilton County is a large 

metropolitan area covering southwest Ohio that 

includes Cincinnati and parts of Kentucky and 

Indiana. There were 1,098 registered sex offenders 

in the county and 353 schools. Researchers overlaid 

residences of registered offenders with school 

exclusion zones and found that 494 offenders were 

living within the zones, but were unable to determine why such a large number were in violation of 

the law. Approximately 50 percent of all available 

rental units were found to be in compliant areas of 

the county.3 

CONCLUSION: WHAT MAPPING CAN OFFER 

GIS mapping can inform legislators about sexual 

offender residency requirements — especially in 

jurisdictions that are contemplating enactment of 

residency laws. Local officials can use the mapping 

analysis to determine whether affordable housing is 

available within approved areas and to evaluate the 

proximity of that housing to treatment facilities. 

Such prior analysis can demonstrate whether a proposed law is feasible to enforce. Jurisdictions with 

a residency law already in place can use the data to 

assess whether the exclusion zones result in a lack 

of housing options for offenders. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

■	 NIJ’s Mapping Analysis for Public Safety Web 

page: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/about.htm 

■	 NCJRS Web page on Sex Offender Registries: 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic.aspx?Top 

icid=114 

1 Chajewski, Michael, and Cynthia Calkins-Mercado, A Geo-spatial Analysis of Sex 

Offender Residency Restrictions in the State of New Jersey. New York: John Jay 

College of Criminal Justice, March 2007. 

2 Wartell, Julie, Sex Offender Laws: Planning for an Election, San Diego District 

Attorney’s Office, March 2007, available on NIJ’s Crime Mapping Web page at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/events/maps/pittsburgh2007/papers/Wartell2.pdf. 

3 Grubesic, Tony H., Alan T. Murray, and Elizabeth A. Mack, Geographic Exclusion: 

Spatial Analysis for Evaluating the Implications of Megan’s Law. Bloomington, 

Indiana: Department of Geography, Indiana University, and Columbus, Ohio: Center 

for Urban and Regional Analysis, The Ohio State University, available at 

http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/25/2/143. 

*NCJ~222759*
 

This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent 

a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The 

products and manufacturers discussed in this document are presented for informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice.