Kansas Department of Corrections issue on Sex Offender Housing
Sex Offender Housing Restrictions

Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies

Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media:

1) all sex offenders reoffend;
2) treatment does not work; and
3) the concept of “stranger danger.”

Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive.
Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.

Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.

Iowa County Attorneys Association
The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety.

Iowa County Attorneys Association
There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction.

Iowa County Attorneys Association
Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child.

In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial process.

Iowa County Attorneys Association
Recommendation 1: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders in the community….

Recommendation 2: 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 offending recidivism.

Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board ....the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

There is no accommodation in the current statute for persons on parole or probation supervision.

These offenders are already monitored and their living arrangements approved.

Iowa County Attorneys Association [This policy] is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice.

Iowa County Attorneys Association
The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

….some offenders are attempting to comply by providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,” “in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest area,”….

Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

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. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

… the Board of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association in stating that these unintended consequences warrant replacing the residency restriction with more effective measures. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Housing restrictions have passed in most localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to preventing sex crimes.
There is no evidence, however, that such laws are effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful community re-entry.

Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
Despite overwhelming public and political support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism, or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase community safety. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.

Based on the examination of level three re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted…
Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known.

Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections

Having such restrictions in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential restrictions. Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections

Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained.

Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides.
Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections

A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association…

A tight web of supervision, treatment and surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a sex offender resides. Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender Management Board

Publications on Reentry
You must have Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or Higher to read these documents in there entirety

Prisoner Reentry: Addressing the Challenges in Weed and Seed Communities
Each year, more than 650,000 prisoners are released from state and federal prisons, and more than 12 million cycle through local jails (Harrison and Beck 2005; Beck 2006).

Taken together, this large volume of people moving in and out of correctional institutions impacts public safety, public health, family networks and community well-being—especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods already affected by crime, unemployment, and other factors (Travis et al, 2001).

Coalitions across the country are developing innovative strategies to address the challenges of prisoner reentry. In order to understand the extent to which Weed and Seed sites are engaged in prisoner reentry efforts—and to foster peer-to-peer support among sites—the Department of Justice’s Community Capacity Development Office, the Center for Community Safety of Winston-Salem State University, and the Urban Institute surveyed Weed and Seed sites around the country. This report summarizes the responses from the survey, illustrating the various ways that Weed and Seed sites are focusing on prisoner reentry and working with partner organizations to reduce recidivism and create safer, healthier communities.

Right Click and choose "Save Target As" then save it to your PC Download the complete report in PDF Format

Education/ Vocational Training/ Employment and ReEntry Statistics

• A brief synopsis on the statistics of prisoners reentry into the local communities Download the complete report

General ReEntry Statistics

• Each year, nearly 650,000 people are released from U.S. prisons, and over 7 million are released from jails.
• Approximately 2 out of every 3 people released from prison in the US are rearrested within 3 years of their release.
• The number of people released from prison has increased 350 percent over the last 20 years.

People released from prison return to just a few communities that are particularly ill-equipped to receive them. In Chicago, only 24 percent of identified organizations that provide services to reentering individuals were located in any of the six communities to which the highest numbers of people returned from prison in 2001. No services were located in two of those six neighborhoods. Download complete report

Housing Statistics Fact Sheet More than 10 percent of those coming in and out of prisons and jail are homeless in the months before their incarceration.1 For those with mental illness, the rates are even higher—about 20 percent. Download complete report
Public Safety Fact Sheet Each year, nearly 650,000 people are released from U.S. prisons, and over 7 million are released from jails. Download complete report

Substance Abuse Fact Sheet Eighty percent of state prisoners report a history of drug or alcohol use. 1 In fact, more than half (55 percent) of state prisoners report using drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crime that resulted in their incarceration. Download the complete report

Mapping for the Community The purpose of this guidebook is to explore ways in which mapping can aid police responses to prisoner reentry. Funded by the Police Foundation through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, this guidebook raises and answers a series of questions designed to walk the reader through the logic of why and how police can take an active role in prisoner reentry efforts and how mapping can aid in those efforts. It describes the reasons behind, and strategies for, engaging in data-sharing partnerships with corrections agencies, followed by a description of useful maps that can be produced. Special attention is paid to describing the various obstacles both to forging reentry partnerships and to mapping reentry data and how those obstacles can be surmounted. The guidebook closes with a discussion of how police agencies, in partnership with corrections, service providers, and community representatives, can use maps to influence changes in policies, practices, and procedures to better enhance public safety by reducing recidivism among released prisoners and apprehending those who do recidivate swiftly and efficiently. Available on the Police Foundation web site Download Here

Please note: All publications on this resource are posted by permission of the UI Website at http://www.urban.org/index.cfm please read there acceptable Use Policy below:

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute-contact paffairs@ui.urban.org

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Courtesy of Simona Combi
Public Affairs Urban Institute
2100 M Street., NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-261-5709 www.urban.org scombi@ui.urban.org

You may also download the latest DOC Department of Corrections 2006 Annual Report here to get better acquainted with the rising need to assist prisoners with ReEntry. Download Report Here


Center for Sex Offender Management:
A Project of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
Managing the Challenges of Sex Offender Reentry February 2007

The release of individuals from prisons to communities is a practice that has long been fraught with systemic challenges and one which evokes considerable public concern. As a result, in recent years, prisoner reentry has become the focus of a number of problem-solving initiatives at the national, state, and local levels, and a body of promising research and professional literature to inform reentry efforts has begun to accumulate. Thus far, however, these strategies have primarily targeted general criminal offenders. Download there brief

M.P.I. Agency Published on 2/27/2008 By The Associated Press

Legislation that encourages churches and other faith-based groups to prepare state inmates for life after prison and reduce the number of repeat offenders was overwhelmingly approved by the Oklahoma House Tuesday.

Lawmakers voted 93-4 for the legislation in spite of concern that it may violate the constitutional separation between church and state and would give faith-based groups some of lawmakers' oversight authority over the state Department of Corrections.

Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said he agreed with the goals of the legislation. "They are extremely meritable and worthy. But you are crossing the line," Morrissette said. He complained that the bill would grow government by creating a new Office of Faith Based Initiatives and that there would be little accountability for how tax dollars allocated to the office would be spent. Read More

U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Nearly 650,000 people are released from state and federal prison yearly and arrive on the doorsteps of communities nationwide. A far greater number reenter communities from local jails, and for many offenders and /defendants, this may occur multiple times in a year.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) over 50 percent of those released from incarceration will be in some form of legal trouble within 3 years. In his 2004 State of the Union, President Bush proposed “a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups.” read more