The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY

Only a handful of studies have evaluated how residence restrictions would affect sex offender housing options, and even fewer have compared different residence restrictions to one another. This study analyzed how different types ofstatewide residence restrictions would affect the housing options of convicted sex offenders in the Upstate New York region. Combinations of five buffer zone sizes (500 ― 2,500 feet) and three scopes of restricted locations resulted in comparisons between fifteen unique residence restriction policies. Neighborhoods (i.e., census block groups) were first separated into three groups based on the percentage of restricted housing parcels they contained under each residence restriction policy (i.e., less than 33 percent of restricted housing parcels for the least restricted group, between 33 and 66 percent for the moderately restricted group, and more than 66 percent for the most restricted group). Measures of housing density, housing availability and housing affordability and social disorganization were compared between these groups using ANOVA. Findings indicate that the least restricted neighborhoods were consistently the least dense and the least socially disorganized. However, the size and scope of a restriction influenced conclusions about the availability and affordability of housing and the overall number of neighborhoods offering substantial unrestricted housing to sex offenders. Additionally, comparing the extremely unrestricted and extremely restricted neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods containing less than 10 percent and more than 90 percent of restricted housing parcels, respectively) yielded similar conclusions to the comparisons of the least and most restricted neighborhoods. Policy Implications This study is important because it provides recommendations for best practices for evaluating potential or existing sex offender residence restriction policies in the future, as well as providingpolicy makers with evidence-based research to base policy decisions from. Some ofthe best practices promoted by this study include examining neighborhoods at the census block group level, usingfactoranalysisformeasuringsocialdisorganization, and controllingfor differing housing markets across the study area. In terms of evidence-based research results, this study found that how a residence restriction policy affects sex offender housing options at the neighborhood level can depend largely on the size and scope of the policy in question, but the neighborhoods likely to be the most restricted are typically the most dense, the most disorganized, and offer the most available and affordable housing options. As a result, policy makers should consider both the potential benefits of these policies, such as limitingsex offenders from residing in the most disorganized neighborhoods, and the potential consequences, such as limiting available and affordable housing options, or forcing offenders into only a handful of rural neighborhoods that may lack adequate support structures. Policy makers are advised to carefully study proposed or existing residence restrictions to ensure the evidence-based implementation (or retraction) of such policies. The results of this study indicate that residence restrictions, particularly in Upstate New York, are unlikely to be effective at either promoting the rehabilitation ofregistered sex offenders or increasing the safety of community members, particularly in less urban areas. As such, when policy makers are unable to devote the resources required to carefully study the effects of a proposed restriction, the results of this study suggest that residence restrictions should be bypassed in favor of other, more evidence-supported policies. Residence restrictions should not be used by policy makers who are seeking a "quick fix" to the problems of increased sex crimes or concerns about increased sex offender reentry. In order to be effective, alternative policies should have research evidence supporting their ability to (a) increase the ability ofcommunities to informally monitor and control other neighborhood residents (see Walker, etal., 2001), (b) increase the supervision and treatment of such offenders (Walker, 2007), and/or (c) increase other opportunities that provide for the successful reentry and rehabilitation of convicted sex offenders.