National Legislative Briefing

Sex Offender Management Policy

in the States

Issue 2

Fall 2008

Zoned Out: States Consider Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders
	 During the trial of John
Evander Couey, details about
9-year-old Jessica Lunsford’s
death shocked the nation. Kidnapped from her own bed, held
captive for several days, repeatedly raped and ultimately
buried alive, the image of the
sweet, smiling girl in a pink hat
is in sharp contrast to her horrific murder.
	 At the time of Jessica’s abduction, Couey was a registered repeat sex offender who had failed
to change his registered address
when he moved in with his half
sister, who lived only 100 yards
away from Jessica’s home.
	 Unfortunately, Jessica’s murder is only one of a number of
high-profile cases that have shaken the confidence and feeling of
safety and security citizens have
grown to enjoy in their communities. Public fears around
sex offenders in the community
have increased, and state lawmakers have experienced added
pressure to strengthen laws to
manage these offenders.
	 Beginning in 1994, policymakers addressed the concerns
surrounding sex offenders living in communities by enacting
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration
Act, which created the first stan-

dards for sex offender registries,
now a public safety standard in
every state. The Wetterling Act
was amended in 1996.
	 Since then, the criminal justice community has witnessed
a significant movement toward
more effective management of
sex offenders through legislative
initiatives, and protecting the
public against sex offenders has
become a top priority among
lawmakers.
	 Among the many trends in
recent state laws to better manage sex offenders are measures
restricting where convicted sex
offenders are able to live and
work. State legislatures across
the country have passed restriction zones to keep known
sex offenders away from places
where children congregate. As
more states enact residency restrictions for sex offenders, experts are learning more about
the many impacts of these laws
on communities, offenders and
public safety.

Trends in State Sex
Offender Residency Laws
	 The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports 644,865 offenders listed
in sex offender registries nationwide as of July 2008. The U.S.

Department of Justice in a 1997
report, “Sex Offenses and Offenders—An Analysis of Data
on Rape and Sexual Assault,”
estimated that 60 percent of sex
offenders are under some form
of correctional or community
supervision.
	 The first statewide residency
restrictions for sex offenders developed earlier this decade have
become a widespread approach
to managing sex offenders in the
community. According to State-

line.org, in 2005 16 states and
more than 400 cities nationwide
had adopted restriction zones,
with some ordinances barring
high-risk sex offenders from living within their city limits. By
March 2008, at least 29 states
had implemented some form
of residency restriction zones,
according to analysis by The
Council of State Governments.
	 The severity of the restriction
zones varies from state to state.
For instance, in Illinois, sex of-

A fundamental duty of government
is to protect its people.”
—Gov. Brad Henry, Oklahoma

fenders are prohibited from living within 500 feet of a school.
Meanwhile, provisions in such
states as California and Oklahoma require sex offenders to live
as far as 2,000 feet from schools
and parks.
	 Moreover, the places prohibited for sex offenders to live
vary across the country. While
some states like Mississippi
and Ohio designate prohib2	

Public Safety Brief	

ited zones around schools and
day care facilities, other states
include parks, youth program
centers and other places “where
children congregate” in their
provisions.
	 In Georgia, lawmakers went
a step further, including bus
stops, skating rinks, churches
and swimming pools in that
state’s sex offender residency
restrictions—one of the most

restrictive in the country. A
registered sex offender found
to be living, employed or loitering within 100 feet of the
restricted areas faces 10 to 30
years in prison. The law faced
a class action lawsuit due in
part to its broad scope. In May
2008, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed Senate Bill 1 into
law, reinstating the residency
restrictions. The law was immediately challenged and is
currently pending review.
	 Some policymakers worry
that inconsistencies among
the various state statutes have
caused sex offenders to move
from state to state in search
of laws that are more lenient.
As a result, some states are
enacting legislation to protect
their communities in reaction
to laws passed in other jurisdictions, leading to a domino
effect in the passage of sex offender residency restrictions
across the country.
	 South Carolina Rep. Joan
Brady proposed a 1,000 feet
residency restriction during
the 2007/2008 legislative session after reading a newspaper
article about a sex offender
moving into South Carolina
because he claimed its laws
were less stringent.
	 “We don’t want South Carolina to be a welcome center for
sex offenders,” said Brady. “I
am proposing a restriction zone
for sex offenders living within
1,000 feet from our schools,
playgrounds and places where
children gather. The zones will
not only protect our children, but
put less stress on sex offenders if
they know where they can and
cannot be. We have a responsibility to prevent offenders from
preying on innocent children.”
	 House Bill 3094 prohibits
sex offenders convicted of an
offense against a minor from
residing within 1,000 feet of a
school, day care center, children’s recreational facility, park
or playground. Brady’s bill also
narrowed the scope of the restrictions to higher level or more

serious sex offenders whose
crimes targeted minors. The bill
was signed into law by the governor in June 2008.
	 In addition to state laws prohibiting sex offenders from living in close proximity to schools
and other child-focused facilities, many residency restrictions
across the country have passed
at the municipal level. For instance, 96 local jurisdictions in
Florida established additional
restriction zones by local ordinance, ranging from 1,500 feet
in Hypolux or Lake Worth to a
maximum and more common
distance of 2,500 feet. Many
of the zones limit sex offenders
from living near child-oriented
facilities such as schools, parks,
churches, playgrounds, bus
stops, museums, day cares, libraries and other places children
may congregate. Some argue
that these restrictions essentially
ban sex offenders from living
within city limits.

Restriction Zones—
One State’s Experience
	 In 2002, Iowa became one
of the first states to enact sex
offender residency restrictions
requiring sex offenders who
had victimized minors to “not
reside within 2,000 feet of the
real property comprising a
public or nonpublic elementary
school or secondary school or a
child care facility.”
	 Black Hawk County Attorney Tom Ferguson of the
Iowa County Attorneys Association said, “the origin of the
bill came about as a result of
a constituent contacting their
legislator concerned about a
sex offender living in their
neighborhood.”
	 Shortly after the bill was enacted, three sex offenders who
argued the restricted zones encompassed a majority of available housing challenged the
legislation. The case was filed
in U.S. District Court as a class
action suit, and a temporary restraining order suspending the
Fall 2008

the residency restrictions result
in fewer confessions and plea
agreements, which placed added
burdens on the criminal justice
system and decreased the likelihood of adjudications and, ultimately, appropriate convictions.
	 During the 2007 legislative
session, Iowa legislators considered several measures to repeal
or modify the existing sex offender residency restriction law;
however, no action was taken.
Proposals put forth for consideration included an amendment
limiting the applicability of the
law to registered sex offenders
convicted of offenses involving
children, and a proposal au-

rs

tS

t. 237

Milpitas

Ta

Areas that would
allow sex offenders

d.
rR
tte
e
t
s
Ho

r.

nD
sma

M
o
Ex nta
pw gu
y. e

Fi

Zanker Rd.

Residency Restriction Zones Illustrated—San Jose, CA

Areas that would be offlimits to sex offenders

880

Rd
.
d. 680
yR
ur
.
ab
Rd
M
ee
cK
M

.
Rd

Aborn

m

sso

Blo

.
Rd

Oakridge
Mall

Santa Teresa Blvd.

al
ed

rn

am

a

Ex
py
.

Be

Al

Rd
.

Redmond Ave.

Los Gatos

d.
eR

85

l
Hil

te
re
yR
d.

.
Rd
ey

Cottle Rd.

ve.
nA

85

on

p
eli
nF

idia
Mer

M
.

m Ln

ha
Bran

Yerba
Buena Rd.
He
lly
er
Av
e.

Rd.

Sa

.

y Ave
Foxworth

17

all
kV

Ca

ee
Cr

o
pit

ve.
er A

Camden Ave.

.
wy
xp
lE

.
Rd

Hamilton
Ave.
tn
Cur

d.
yR

ll
Tu

101

er
nt

A

Campbell

Miles

Se

Sar
ato
ga A
ve.

ng

Ki

San Jose

e.
Av
lma

2

0

d.
yR

or
St

Ca

St.

87

e.
Av

ck
Ro

San Jose
State
University

e.
Av

Bascom Ave.

Williams Rd.

Alu

lia

San Carlos St.

280

m

t.
nS

Ju

an

Stevens Creek Blvd.

Within 2,000 feet of park

Fl
Av emin
e. g

d.
eR
hit
ve.
W
ol A
pit

st

Fir

Santa Clara

Within 2,000 feet of school

sa
Be

rr

San Jose
Mineta
International
Airport

.
Rd

ye
s

aw
ok
Br

101

lem

Fall 2008	

ported that the Iowa law displaced approximately 6,000
offenders and their families
and resulted in the homelessness of many offenders.
	 As a result, in 2006 the Iowa
County Attorneys Association
issued a “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
in Iowa,” which found that the
restrictions “do not provide the
protection that was originally
intended and the cost of enforcing the requirements and the
unintended effects on families
of offenders warrant replacing
the restrictions with more effective protective measures.” The
statement further argued that

added that enforcing residency
restrictions requires significant
resources from criminal justice
agencies. “Law enforcement
and probation do not have the
time or resources to track them
(sex offenders) down (to verify
their addresses) given all their
other responsibilities. Instead,
because of the restriction
zones, they have become landlords trying to find housing for
offenders.”
	 In a 2007 report in the Criminal Justice Policy Review, Jill
Levenson of Lynn University
and David D’Amora of the
Center for the Treatment of
Problem Sexual Behavior re-

Co

restriction zones was issued.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Miller upheld
the law, stating it was constitutional and that the state had a
right to protect its residents. In
addition, the court found that
the U.S. Constitution does not
include a “right to live where
you choose.” Following the
2005 ruling, Iowa state officials
began enforcing the statute.
	 However, after a year of experience with the law, policymakers began to identify problems
in the language of the statute
and questions surrounding the
law’s implementation. The statute included every offender, not
just those who had committed
crimes against children. Further,
questions surfaced about the
law’s applicability to juvenile offenders once they reach the age
of majority and how to address
day care facilities that opened
after the passage of the law.
	 A 1997 U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report on Sex Offenses and
Offenders, found: “Three out
of four rape/sexual assault victimizations involved offenders
(both single- and multiple-offender incidents) with whom the
victim had a prior relationship
as a family member, intimate or
acquaintance. … About 7 percent of all rape/sexual assault
victimizations involved multiple
offenders who were strangers to
the victim.” The main legislative focus in passing residency
restrictions has been to provide
increased protection to the community from sexual offenses
committed by unknown persons
when in reality most sexual
abuse is perpetrated by individuals known to the victim.
	 Moreover, Ferguson said, the
new Iowa law resulted in a serious unintended consequence: It
drove registered sex offenders
underground.
	 “When the law was enacted,
we couldn’t find 80–90 people,” said Ferguson. “Now, it
is more like 300–400 sex offenders we cannot locate.” He

101

Source: City of San Jose

Source: San Jose Mercury News
FILENAME WITH DATE:

SEX OFFENDERS 1A 092706

ASSIGNMENT NO.

Xxxxx

ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS FOR MEDIASERVER:
2006

ARTIST & EXT.

ROB Hernandez 5495

Public Safety Brief	

3

thorizing probation and parole
officers to use assessments of
offenders to assist in making
determinations on residency requirements.

Where is It Safe?
A Lingering Question
for Lawmakers
	 For policymakers, questions
remain about the efficacy of
residency restrictions in enhancing public safety against
sex offenders. Although some
research has been conducted
on this issue, findings have
generally been inconclusive.
	 In a 2004 study by the Colorado Department of Public
Safety’s Sex Offender Management Board, researchers found
that proximity to schools and
child care centers did not seem
to have a strong correlation to
re-offenses committed by sex
offenders on community supervision.
	 “[S]ex offenders who have
committed a criminal offense
(both sexual and nonsexual)
while under criminal justice supervision appear to be randomly
scattered throughout the study
areas—there does not seem to
be a greater number of these offenders living within proximity
to schools and other child care
centers than other types of offenders,” the report states.
	 Likewise, a 2003 study by the
Minnesota Department of Corrections found that residential
proximity to a park or school
was not a contributing factor
to sexual re-offenses by sex offenders in the community.
	 In a 2001 study by Jeffery
Walker, James Golden and
Amy VanHouten in Arkansas,
however, 48 percent of child
molesters residing in the study
area lived in close proximity
to schools, day care centers or
parks. Although researchers
were unable to draw conclusions regarding the motivations of these offenders, they
speculated that their intent in
living close to schools, day
4	

Public Safety Brief	

care centers and parks was to
be near potential child victims.
The study did not look at the
association between the location of child sex offender housing and re-offense rates.
	 While research on the efficacy of sex offender residency
restrictions is limited, practitioners and policymakers alike
have highlighted some of the
challenges associated with residency laws. Among the most
noted concerns is the availability of appropriate housing for
sex offenders returning to the
community where residency restrictions are in effect.
	 In a 2004 survey of sex offenders in Florida, half the offenders reported that residency
restrictions forced them to
move, and nearly half of respondents reported that the re-

lic, but have had unintended
consequences in making the
offenders homeless. This is the
only place they can live, but at
least we know where they are.
If we don’t know where they
are and they go underground,
we can’t supervise them, which
does not increase the public’s
safety.”
	 By February 2008, 19 sex
offenders were residing under the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
The makeshift home includes a
couch, a generator-powered television and X-Box, a kitchen area
and two dogs. State officials
have recently advised the offenders they will have to move.
	 For corrections professionals, the lack of housing for sex
offenders can be a serious public safety concern. Research
indicates that stable relation-

For corrections
professionals, the lack of housing
for sex offenders can be a serious
public safety concern.
strictions prevented them from
living with supportive family
members.
	 In April 2007, reports surfaced of five sex offenders in
Miami, who were residing under the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
The situation is blamed, in
part, on a housing shortage created by the city’s stringent residency restrictions law, which
bars a registered sex offender
from living within 2,500 feet
of a school, park or other area
where children gather.
	 Gretl Plessinger, public information officer for the Florida Department of Corrections
said, “We are finding it increasingly difficult to find housing
for sex offenders because of
the restriction zones. The zones
were created to protect the pub-

ships, employment and social
services can be contributing
factors to the success of offenders returning to the community.
Some experts point out those
residency restrictions can limit
housing options for sex offenders in metropolitan areas, forcing them to relocate to more
rural areas where employment
and appropriate treatment and
services are limited.
	 “Residence restrictions don’t
contribute to public safety,”
said Secretary Roger Werholtz
of the Kansas Department of
Corrections. “In fact, the consensus of experts in the field of
sex offender management supported by available research
and experience indicates they
do just the opposite. They destabilize offenders, punish

their families and thwart law
enforcement efforts to effectively supervise sex offenders,
make offender registries less
reliable and mislead communities into believing they’ve
discovered a magic bullet for
protecting their children.”
	 Moreover, experts express
concerns over the broad reach
of many sex offender residency
restrictions, including individuals convicted of low-level sex
offenses as well as high-risk
sexual offenders.
	 In a 2005 report to the
Florida legislature, Levenson
noted that “all sex offenders
are not the same.” Moreover,
she warned that, “broad strategies may, by lumping all sex
offenders together, dilute the
public’s ability to truly identify those who pose the greatest
threat to public safety. At the
same time, classification systems allow limited resources
to be used more cost-efficiently to monitor, treat and restrict
highly dangerous offenders
without unnecessarily disrupting the stability of lower risk
offenders and their families.”
	 Kentucky’s residency restrictions have had similar effects.
State Rep. Robert Damron
said, “The classification of sex
offenders on the registries may
be causing some low-risk individuals to move from their
neighborhoods where for the
last 20 years they have lived
as responsible law-abiding
citizens. One of my constituents lived in a rural area and
the subdivision began to build
up around him. The county
government built a park near
his home and he was forced
to move. He was within a year
of completing his time on the
registry. I think we must focus
more of our limited resources
in monitoring the most violent
offenders and predators in our
community.”
	 Carl Wicklund, executive
director of the American Probation and Parole Association
who has spent many years
Fall 2008

Residency Restriction Zones
State	

Distance/Location		

Alabama	

2,000 ft/school, child care facility	

Arizona	
	

1,000 ft/ school, childcare facility for offenders/	
A.R.S. §13-3727	
dangerous crimes against children level 3		

2007

Arkansas	

2,000 ft/school, day care center	

Ark. Code Ann § 5-14-128	

2003

California	

2,000 ft/school, park, where children gather	

Cal. Penal Code § 3003.5	

2006

Florida	

1,000 ft/where children gather	

Fla. Stat. 948.30 	

2003

Georgia	

1,000 ft/where children gather	

Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-15	

2006

Idaho	

500 ft/ school with children under 18	

Idaho Code § 18-8329	

2006

Illinois	

2000 ft/school, playground	

720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-9.4	

2006

Indiana	

1,000 ft/school, park, youth program center	

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-11	

2006

Iowa	

2,000 ft/school, child care facility	

Iowa Code § 692A.2A	

2002

Kentucky	
	
Louisiana	

1,000 ft/school, child care facility, playground, ball field	 Ky. Rev. Stat. § 17.545	

2006

1,000 ft/school, related activities, school buses	

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:91.1	

2001

Maryland	

Parole Commission restricts where feasible	

Md. Code Ann., Crim. Pro. § 11-724	

2006

Michigan	

1,000 ft/school (student safety zone)	

Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.733-735	

2006

Minnesota	

End-of-Confinement Review Committee decides	

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 244.052	

1996

Mississippi	

1,500 ft/school, child care facility	

Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-25	

2006

Missouri	

1,000 ft/school, child care facility	

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.147	

2006

Montana	

Judge decides	

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-255	

2001

Nebraska	

500 ft/school, child care facility	

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4017	

2006

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-11A-5.1	
1 mile radius contacted

2000

New Mexico	
School/day care center in 	
		

Citation	

Ala. Code § 15-20-26	

Year Enacte
2005

Ohio	

1,000 ft/school, child care facility, where children gather	 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2950.031	

2003

Oklahoma	

2,000 ft/school, day care center, park	

Okla. Stat. 57 § 590	

2003

Oregon	

Department of Corrections decides	

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 144.642, 144.644	

2001

South Carolina	
	

1,000 ft/school, day care, childrens recreation facility, 	 S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-535	
park, playground

2008

Tennessee	

1,000 ft/school, child care facility, victim	

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-211	

2004

Texas	

Distance specified by Parole Board	

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 508.187	

1997

Virginia	

100 ft/school, child care center	

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370.2	

2000

Washington	
880 ft/school, day care center	
		

Wash. Rev. Code 	
§§ 9.94A.712(6)(a)(ii), 9.95.425-430

2006

West Virginia	

W. Va. Code § 62-12-26	

2006

1,000 ft/school, child care facility	

Source: The Council of State Governments	

Spring 2008	

August 2008

Public Safety Brief	

5

The long-term solutions to
eradicating sexual violence from
our society, however, do not lie
in measures taken to stop reoffense, but rather in preventing
sexual violence from happening
in the first place.”
—Elizabeth Barnhill
Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

6	

Public Safety Brief	

examining policy affecting
offenders re-entering the community, agrees.
	 “We have to guard against
arbitrarily widening the net in
regard to adding individuals
to our registries and, consequently, forcing them to abide
by exclusion zones. The nets
we create to protect society
from the highest risk, most
dangerous sex offenders cannot withstand the added burden
of including those individuals
that are least likely to re-offend,” Wicklund said. “In the
end, the safety net we create
will be stretched to the point of
making our communities less
safe by demanding more than
our resources can provide and
putting unnecessary hurdles
to an individual’s ability to effectively conduct him/her in a
legal and legit manner.”
	 Finally, while the intent of
residency restriction laws is to
ensure the protection of children
against sexual predators, many
experts point out the myth of
“stranger-danger.” A 1997 report by BJS found that approximately 75 percent of all sexual
assault victimizations are committed by an individual known
to the victim, such as a family
member, intimate or acquaintance. In addition, offenders are
known to rape victims in nearly
90 percent of rape cases involving victims under age 12.
	 Further, according a report
published by BJS in 2000,
police reports indicate that in
reported incidents of juvenile
sexual assault cases, the victims identified their perpetrators as family members in 34
percent of cases and acquaintances in 59 percent of cases.
Only 7 percent of perpetrators
of sexual assault against juveniles were identified as strangers to the victim.
	 Testifying before the Nebraska Judiciary Committee
in 2006, Elizabeth Barnhill,
executive director of the Iowa
Coalition Against Sexual Assault noted, “The sad reality is

that most of the time, children
know, and often have trusted,
the person who sexually abuses
them … Public policy should
create community supports to
protect children from all sex
offenders.”

Determining Effective
Strategies
	 Given the lack of conclusive
research undertaken on the general efficacy of sex offender residency restrictions as a method
to prevent future sexual assaults,
state officials are beginning
to take a closer look at the full
range of impacts these laws have
in their communities as well as
in neighboring states. More are
focusing on the overall effectiveness of these laws and potential
unintended consequences.
	Rep. Damron has been a
proponent of toughening laws
against sex offenders and helped
enact legislation in Kentucky to
restrict offenders from living
within 1,000 feet of schools and
playgrounds. “It has been less
than a year since the legislation
passed and it is too early to determine the effects of the legislation,” Damron said in 2007.
“We know that children are being protected in the state, but in
passing any piece of legislation
there may be unintended consequences. It is incumbent upon
the legislature to always research
the effects of what we pass and
make the necessary corrections.
Initially what we are finding is
that the residency restrictions
may be causing a clustering of
sex offenders.”
	 Some states have developed
sex offender policy boards to
study a range of issues related to
the management of sex offenders, including residency restrictions, and provide guidance to
policymakers.
	 The Kansas Sex Offender
Policy Board (SOPB) was created jointly by the 2006 Kansas
legislature and Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius. Established under the
auspices of the Kansas Criminal
Fall 2008

Justice Coordinating Council
(KCJCC), the SOPB was authorized to advise the KCJCC on
issues relating to the treatment,
rehabilitation, reintegration and
supervision of sex offenders.
Further, the SOPB was tasked
with reporting its findings to the
KCJCC, as well as the governor,
attorney general, chief justice
of the Kansas Supreme Court,
chief clerk of the House of Representatives and the secretary of
the Senate.
	 In January 2007, the SOPB
submitted the results of a yearlong study of sex offender management with recommendations
to the Kansas legislature. The
board found, “although resident
restrictions appear to have strong
support, there is no evidence
to support its efficacy. It is imperative that policymakers enact
laws that will actually make the
public safe and not laws giving a
false sense of security.”
	 Sex offender boards have
been active in guiding policy
development in other states as
well. The Colorado General
Assembly established the Sex
Offender Management Board
(SOMB) in 1992 to develop and
oversee guidelines for the treatment, evaluation and supervision of sexual offenders. The
SOMB is a collaborative effort
comprising representatives from
the Department of Corrections,
the judicial department, local
law enforcement, district attorneys, the public defender’s office, polygraph examiners, the
Department of Safety, the Department of Human Services,
licensed mental health professionals experienced in treating
sex offenders, victims advocates
and the Department of Community Corrections.
	 In a March 2004 report to the
Colorado General Assembly,
the SOMB stated that, “Placing
restrictions on the location of
correctional supervised sex offender residences may not deter
the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered
as a method to control sexual
Fall 2008	

offending recidivism.” Lawmakers decided against passing
statewide residency restrictions.

Developing
New Alternatives
	 Although residency restrictions remain a popular policy
option to manage sex offenders in the community, some
states are looking into alternative approaches, including the
development of child safety
zones, risk-based restrictions
for offenders, and community
education efforts promoting
strategies to protect children
from sexual abuse.
Child Safety Zones
	 Whereas residency restrictions prohibit sex offenders
from living within a certain
distance (usually 1,000 to
2,500 feet) of child-oriented
locations, child safety zones
are designed to prevent sex offenders from loitering within
designated
areas—typically
300 feet from schools, day
care facilities, parks and playgrounds.
	 In addition, in contrast to
blanket sex offender residency
restrictions, child safety zones
often target designated highrisk sex offenders whose victims were minors.
	 In Texas, judges may prohibit
child sex offenders on probation
and certain sex offenders on parole from going within 1,000 feet
of schools, day care facilities,
playgrounds, youth centers, public swimming pools and video
arcades. Further, these offenders
are prohibited from supervising
or participating in athletic, civic
or cultural activities with participants under age 18, although
restrictions may be modified if
they interfere with an offender’s
ability to attend school or maintain employment.
	 Lawmakers in Iowa considered legislation that would establish child safe zones during the
2007 legislative session. Under
the proposed bill, the presence of

registered sex offenders whose
victims were minors would be
prohibited from the property of
a school or child care facility,
unless under certain designated
circumstances. The legislature
took no action on the bill prior
to the end of the session.
	 In June 2007, Maine legislators passed a law establishing a
new Class D crime of prohibited contact with a minor in a
sex offender restricted zone.
The new law makes it a crime
for registered sex offenders
whose victims were under age
14 to have any direct or indirect
contact with a child under 14
in designated sex offender restricted zones. These zones include the property of a school,
day care facility, athletic field,
park, playground, recreational
facility, children’s camp or other place where children are the
primary users.
Risk-Based Restrictions for
Sex Offenders
	 While most state residency
restrictions for sex offenders
are broad in scope, some state
laws target certain high-risk
offenders. For instance, Arkansas prohibits level three and
four sex offenders (the most
serious offenders) from living
within 2,000 feet of schools or
day care centers. Meanwhile,
Washington prohibits sex offenders convicted of a serious
offense with a high-risk assessment from residing within
880 feet of a school or day care
facility.
	 Other states, like Minnesota,
make individualized determinations about residency restrictions for sex offenders based
on risk assessments. Minnesota classifies sex offenders under a three tier ranking system,
with tier one representing the
lowest-risk offender and tier
three including those assessed
as having the highest risk of
re-offense.
	 Restrictions on an offender’s
residential proximity to schools
are made on a case-by-case basis

among tier three sexual offenders by the agency responsible
for the offender’s community
supervision.
	 According to the Minnesota
Department of Corrections,
“Proximity restrictions, based
on circumstances of an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool. Continued
use—through extension of conditional release and specific
release conditions and restrictions—is appropriate.”
Community Education Efforts
	 In addition to policies targeting sexual offenders, some
experts and practitioners advocate for additional community
education efforts to promote
strategies to prevent sexual
abuse from occurring.
	 In her testimony to the Nebraska legislature in 2006,
Barnhill noted, “When a brutal
sexually violent crime occurs,
such as the one that occurred
in Iowa last year, our societal
tendency is to focus all our resources and energy on stopping
offenders. The long-term solutions to eradicating sexual violence from our society, however,
do not lie in measures taken to
stop re-offense, but rather in
preventing sexual violence from
happening in the first place.”
	 Victims’ advocates, criminal justice professionals and
academic experts all underscore
the importance of community
education efforts in preventing
sexual assaults.
	 In their “Statement on Sex
Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,” Iowa prosecutors
advocated measures “that aim at
keeping all young people safe
from all offenders. This should
include programs that focus on
the danger of abuse that may lie
within a child’s family and circle
of acquaintances. It is important
to help children and parents recognize the signs and dangers of
sex abuse by persons with ordinary access to children.”
	 Secretary Werholtz agrees.
“We are living in a time of
Public Safety Brief	

7

public safety brief
Zoned Out: States Consider Residency
Restrictions for Sex Offenders
Daniel M. Sprague
CSG Executive Director
Mike Robinson
Deputy Director for
Membership Services
Jennifer Horne Boyter
John Lile
Amy Vandervort-Clark
Project Managers

heightened concern about sex
offenders. People are frightened
and want to take steps to address
those fears. It is not good enough
to simply tell communities not
to enact residence restrictions.
We must also offer alternatives
that provide parents and communities with a level of comfort that they are taking steps to
protect their children, and those
alternatives must be real and ef-

public safety brief
The Council of State Governments
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578-1910
www.csg.org

fective,” he said. “Right now, it
appears that the best alternatives
are in the form of communitywide education and training regarding steps that can be taken
to educate parents and children
about risk indicators for which
we should be vigilant.”

This project is supported by Award No. 2006-WP-BX-K003, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the official policies of the U.S Department of Justice.

If you would like more information or
references, please visit our Web site
at www.csg.org.

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Lexington, KY 40578
Permit No. 355