Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders

Abstract

Although many states have enacted statewide residency restriction laws, others have left the need for, and content of, these laws to local municipalities. To better understand within-state variation in residency restriction laws, this study investigates the public’s desire for these laws and the distances they feel restrictions should be from public spaces populated by children. We review both quantitative and qualitative data from a statewide survey to determine where the public feels sex offenders can live without threatening children. Our results are interpreted using the “dikes” perspective of public opinion to predict the passage and content of future of residency restriction laws.

Keywords

sex offender residency public opinion criminal justice policy residency restrictions

The prohibition of sex offenders from public spaces has gained widespread legislative support over the last two decades (Levenson, 2009; Meloy, Miller, & Curtis, 2008). To date, at least half the states have enacted statewide residency restriction laws for sex offenders that prohibit them from living anywhere from 500 to 2,500 feet from schools, public parks, or other public spaces in which children may dwell (Center for Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2008). The residency restrictions in the other states are determined by municipalities (Levenson, 2009). City and county governing bodies in these states are free to determine the scope of exclusionary zones for sex offenders. In either case, policy makers may enact residency restriction ordinances with little more than public opinion to guide their decisions.

The notion that public opinion influences public policy is not new (Key, 1961; Sobel, 2001; Wood, 2009). Public opinion can highlight a particular problem that legislators should address through public policy (Canes-Wrone, 2006), thereby driving the need for, and the content of, legislation. On the other hand, public opinion may provide boundaries for policy makers as they consider the passage and content of legislation (Wood, 2009). It is in this way that public opinion can be viewed as a “system of dikes” that constrains policy makers’ discretion (Key, 1961), affecting the content of legislation by limiting the target populations and/or scope of legislation. It is this theoretical perspective that guides the current research.

Our study examined public support for housing restrictions with exclusionary zones for sex offenders. Unlike other investigations of residency restriction laws, we used quantitative and qualitative data from a statewide survey to assess the public’s views of the appropriate distance that sex offenders should live away from children. To the degree to which residency restriction laws have not been enacted statewide, and jurisdictions continue to deliberate the need for this policy reform, public opinion on where sex offenders should live may provide the boundaries within which local officials debate. The public’s opinion on the need for sex offender exclusionary zones, or the distance these zones should cover, may constrain the passage, content, and scope of these laws, and is therefore relevant in any discussion of the future of sex offender policy reforms.

Background

There are a number of perspectives that propose a relationship between public opinion and public policies. Public opinion can influence how problems are defined and problem-solving approaches and remedies (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Best, 2013; Egan, 2011; Zaller, 1992). Some of these approaches infer a linear causal order in which public opinion stimulates policy discussions and influences if and when decision makers will respond. For example, from a dynamic representation perspective, public officials should be responsive to the citizens they represent in a democracy (Wood, 2009). As such, public opinion can directly encourage the enactment of policy, albeit often policies that are based on transitory and ill-informed knowledge of a perceived social problem (Canes-Wrone, 2006). While this can lead to political pandering, other researchers have argued that policy makers are free to disregard public opinion if they believe the policy is ill informed, but only if they are publically popular (Canes-Wrone, 2006). Public opinion often is formed before the voters learn the outcomes and consequences of policy choices. As such, public support for or against a policy is conditioned by the popularity of the decision makers. Both the dynamic representation and conditional pandering perspectives suggest that public opinion plays an important role in the policy process, either directly through voters contacting legislators and demanding responses to perceived problems or indirectly through citizens’ assessments of the popularity of policy makers.

Other scholars have argued that public opinion influences policy makers through a process involving the use of personal ideology and media (Brooks, 1990; Wood, 2009). Policy makers use their own opinions and information gathered from media sources to help persuade the public to support policies they wish to enact (Sample & Kadleck, 2008). As a result, public opinion does not begin the policy process but rather serves to reaffirm a policy direction that decision makers already wish to pursue.

The perspective most relevant for our research is the “system of dikes” perspective (Key, 1961), which posits that public opinion constrains public policy. The climate of public opinion conditions governmental action such that policy makers’ perceptions of the public mood affects their decision making (Sobel, 2001). A climate perceived favorable to government action may exist prior to policy proposals, or policy makers may stimulate a favorable climate for policy enactment before offering proposals. It is the context within which policy decisions are made, or the “climate of opinion,” however, that can affect “the substance of action, the form of action, or the manner of action” (Key, 1961, p. 423). If public opinion works as a system of dikes that constrains the content of policy, then an understanding of public opinion regarding the content of residency restriction laws would serve to inform future policy makers about public support for exclusionary zone distances, as applied to registered sex offenders.

Previous Research on Residency Restriction Laws

Many studies have focused on residency restriction laws for sex offenders (Casady, 2009; CSOM, 2000; Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Levenson, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2007; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee, 2009). Some scholars have concentrated on the laws’ ability to influence sexual reoffending rates or the consequences these laws have on offenders (Barnes, Dukes, Tewksbury, & De Troye, 2009; Burchfield, 2011; Levenson, 2009; Levenson, Zgoba, et al., 2007; Socia, 2012; Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010). For example, Socia (2012) found mixed effects of the efficiency of county residency restrictions in that restrictions did not significantly reduce the arrests made for repeat sex offenders, but it did decrease arrests for sex crimes by first-time sex offenders. Overall, the effectiveness of residency restriction laws for sex offenders has mixed to null effects on recidivism (Socia, 2012; Zandbergen et al., 2010). Other researchers have mapped where sex offenders have been forced to live once restrictions are enacted or how many resided within exclusion zones (Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Hughes & Burchfield, 2008; Zgoba, Levenson, & McKee, 2009), and legal scholars have written about the injustice of states’ edicts on where people can live (Wagner, 2009).

A sizable amount of scholarship on residency restriction laws, however, has examined the public’s knowledge and opinion of these laws. As suggested by the CSOM (2000), the public’s perspective of sex offender management policies is important because it creates the boundaries within which the community will accept, support, and adhere to legal remedies and reforms. Several scholars have followed the advice of the CSOM and have investigated police chiefs’, District Attorneys’, and the public’s opinions of residency restriction laws (Casady, 2009; Comartin, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2009; Dumanis, 2009; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009).

As has been found for other sex offender policies (i.e., community registration and notification), the public is largely supportive of restriction laws, regardless of whether citizens feel that the laws will reduce the sexual victimization of children (CSOM, 2010; Comartin et al., 2009; Levenson, Brannon, et al., 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). For example, Levenson and Hern (2007) found that a majority of residents surveyed in Florida support the enactment of residency restriction laws and felt these laws would prevent sex offending, whereas in an Internet survey, Schiavone and Jeglic (2009) found support for the law but respondents did not feel it had any appreciable effect on preventing sex crimes. Furthermore, some suggest that the support citizens have for a residency restriction law is conditioned by parenthood (Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010), such that individuals with children were significantly more likely to support exclusionary zones for sex offenders than individuals without children.

There are additional individual and social characteristics beyond parenthood that may affect people’s perceptions of residency restriction laws, just as they have affected public opinion of registration and notification policies (Anderson, Evans, & Sample, 2009; Anderson & Sample, 2008; Mancini et al., 2010; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). Given that females are more often victims of sexual assault than men, it would be logical to assume that their opinions of exclusion zones would vary from those of males’ (Anderson & Sample, 2008). Furthermore, the race or ethnicity and income of a respondent would create variation in exposure to sex offenders living nearby, thereby affecting perceptions of the proper size of the exclusionary zone. It is also reasonable to assume that individuals who live in metropolitan areas may have different perceptions of offenders than those who live in rural areas, where anonymity is less assured. For example, Hirschfield and Piquero (2010) found that urban residents were more tolerant and less stigmatizing of ex-offenders than those living in rural or suburban areas. Public support for these laws is well established (Comartin et al., 2009; Levenson, Brannon, et al., 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009), and all of these demographic characteristics have been theoretically or empirically identified as influencing public opinion for restriction laws (Anderson et al., 2009; Anderson & Sample, 2008; Mancini et al., 2010; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009).

Our research is the first to examine public opinion on the size of exclusionary zones for sex offenders. Specifically, we surveyed Nebraska citizens to determine whether there was support for a 500-feet exclusionary zone around schools, day cares, and other places where children dwell. In addition, we asked a subset of respondents how many feet away from children sex offenders should live. Nebraska provides an ideal environment for this type of investigation because the state legislature has not enacted statewide residency restrictions. Rather, the decision to mandate residency restrictions on sex offenders has been left to local municipalities with the limitation that no exclusionary zone in the state can be greater than 500 feet (NE LB1199, 2006). As city and county policy makers debate the need for residency restrictions for sex offenders and the distances from which sex offenders should kept from schools and day care facilities, public opinion may act as a constraint on policy makers’ decisions (Key, 1961). A finding of public support for large exclusionary zones would suggest that the size of the zone may not be easily reduced, regardless of the effectiveness of the residency restrictions or the will or popularity of elected officials. This study also provides a window into the size of the exclusionary zone likely tolerated by the public in places that are considering enacting these types of laws.

Data and Method

Sampling Design

This study uses information from the 2007 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey (NASIS) collected by the Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR). Data were collected with surveys given by professional interviewers using Random Digit Dialing during February 2008 and August 2008.¹ The sample included telephone numbers of individuals listed in households who had a landline telephone number published in Nebraska telephone directories. An equal probability process was used to select persons to be surveyed in each residence, as the NASIS is intended to be a sample of persons rather than households. Interviewers asked whoever answered the phone the number of adults living in the household and requested to speak with an adult based on a random selection by computer. If the designated respondent was not available at the time to the call, the interviewer asked for a good time to call back. The design of this sample excludes Nebraskans who were younger than 19 years of age, in institutional custody, living in group quarters or military installations, transient, or without a landline.

A total of 5,901 telephone numbers were sampled, 4,743 of which were households. Only 11% of the phone numbers for homes resulted in a ring but no answer after 15 attempts and were subsequently excluded from the sample. Of the 4,743 households that were selected, 38% completed the survey resulting in a sample of 1,811 Nebraska residents aged 19 or older. The sample was weighted by the BOSR to represent the population of Nebraskans aged 19 and older. Prior to weighting, females were slightly overrepresented and individuals aged 19 to 24 were underrepresented compared to regional Census population estimates.

Survey Instrument and Variables

Our data were collected as part of a larger survey of Nebraska residents concerning social well-being and quality of life. The survey instrument was 56 pages long and took almost an hour to administer. Four questions were asked pertaining to sex offenders. Each question was closed-ended and also included an open-ended “other” option. Our results are based on the closed-ended responses as well as the open-ended comments provided by a subset of respondents who were asked a follow-up question depending on their answer to the primary residency restriction question we asked.

Demographic measures

The independent variables used in the regression analysis were gender, age, marital status, education, children, income, race, and whether the respondent lived in an urban area. These variables were created from the demographic information collected during the administration of the full survey. Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics (N = 1,811).

Independent variables	Coding information	Frequency
Female	Female = 1	915 (50.5%)
Female	Male = 0	896 (49.5%)
Young	19 to 44 = 1	878 (48.5%)
	45 and older = 0	920 (50.8%)
	Missing	13 (0.7%)
Married	Married or cohabitating = 1	1,349 (74.3%)
	All other arrangements = 0	463 (25.6%)
	Missing	2 (0.1%)
High education	At least some college or more = 1	1,234 (68.1%)
	High school or less = 0	527 (29.1%)
	Missing	50 (2.8%)
Minor children	Children living at home = 1	840 (46.4%)
	No children at home = 0	965 (53.3%)
	Missing	6 (0.3%)
Low income	Less than US$20,000 = 1	136 (7.5%)
	US$20,000 or more = 0	1,552 (85.7%)
	Missing	124 (6.8%)
Race	White only = 1	1,667 (92.1%)
	All other races and ethnicities = 0	135 (7.5%)
	Missing	8 (0.5%)
Urban	City or town = 1	1,448 (79.9%)
	Farm or open country = 0	361 (19.9%)
	Missing	2 (0.1%)

Female was a dichotomous variable coded “1” to represent females and “0” for males. The variable minor children represented the presence of at least one child in the home under the age of 19 (1 = at least one child, 0 = no children). Young was a dichotomous variable coded “1” for respondents aged 19 to 44 years old and “0” for respondents 45 and older. Urban was based on a single question asking respondents if they lived on a farm or in the open country or a city or town (0 = farm or open country, 1 = city or town). Married was coded “1” to represent respondents who were married or cohabitating and “0” for all other marital arrangements, including never married, divorced, separated, or widowed. Respondents were asked their education level, which ranged from no high school diploma through a graduate degree. High education was coded “0” for respondents who reported graduating from high school or with less education and “1” for respondents who had at least some college education or more. Low income was based on a question that asked the respondents if the family total income was US$20,000 per year or less (0 = household income more than US$20,000 and 1 = US$20,000 or less).

Finally, a dichotomous variable was created for race (1 = White only; 0 = all other racial and ethnic groups). Initial response categories allowed respondents to choose multiple racial and ethnic categories, and we recoded the responses into the following mutually exclusive categories: White, African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Hawaiian, Native Americans, and respondents who responded as “Other” or those who self-identified as more than one racial/ethnic category. Those that responded being White and no other racial or ethnic category made up approximately 92% of the sample, with the next largest racial/ethnic group being Hispanic (2.4% of the sample). Each other group accounted for no more than 2% of the sample. This limited distribution of non-White respondents led to our decision to create a dichotomous race measure.

Distance measures

Nebraska state law limits cities and municipalities to a maximum residency restriction of 500 feet, as mentioned earlier. For our study, participants were told that sex offenders were prohibited from living within 500 feet of any school or day care center (although within-state distances can vary) and then were asked their opinion of this distance. Respondents could say that there should be no housing restrictions, there should be some housing restrictions but 500 feet is too much, 500 feet is about right, 500 feet is not enough or that they do not know. For our logistic regression model, we created a dichotomous variable, 500 feet not enough, that was coded 1 for respondents who agreed that 500 feet was not enough and 0 for respondents who answered that there should be no housing restrictions, 500 feet was about right, or there should be some housing restrictions but 500 feet was too much.

A follow-up question was asked of each respondent that answered “500 feet is not enough” that was intended to measure the appropriate size for an exclusionary zone. Respondents were asked their opinion of an appropriate distance with the question, “You said 500 feet was not enough distance. How many feet would you suggest?” Twenty respondents who answered that 500 feet was not enough provided invalid responses to the follow-up question and were coded as missing. In addition, although the question asked the respondent to reply in feet, many respondents gave answers that either centered on the mile metric or were not numeric at all. These qualitative responses were recorded and analyzed thematically (Gibbs, 2007). The themes uncovered were used to create several other distance measures that were not mutually exclusive. The quantitative and qualitative responses to the follow-up question were used to create the measures described below.

To begin, we created three measures that captured distances of less than one mile, one mile, and more than one mile. These three measures were mutually exclusive. Quantitative responses were standardized to feet by the interviewers, and we used the number of feet to determine which of the three distances was appropriate (e.g., 5,280 feet = one mile). Qualitative responses were also coded into one of these three measures where appropriate. For example, the qualitative responses that referenced a different distance metric in some way were coded into our mile-based measures. For example, “a couple of miles” was considered to be two miles, “miles away” was considered to be three miles, “several miles” was considered to be five miles, and “miles and miles” was considered to be twenty miles, and therefore all of these were coded as more than one mile (and in some cases, also as “something far away,” see below). Similarly, responses of “one block,” “a couple of blocks,” and “several blocks” were coded as less than one mile.² Finally, qualitative responses such as “across town,” “out of town,” and “out of the community” were coded as more than a mile.

Some of the respondents responded to the appropriate distance question in a way that suggested that sex offenders should not live anywhere and deserved jail, death, or castration. Responses were coded as jail, death, or castration if respondents directly named one of these three things or indicated that sex offenders should not be in the community at all because no distance would be effective, such as “there isn’t enough feet if they’re mobile sex offenders.”

We also created a measure of something far away for responses that represented some very broad measure of distance. Some examples of these kinds of responses included “as far away as possible,” “out of the country,” “out of the state,” “next county,” or “next town.” The responses that indicated a specific faraway place, such as the moon, Siberia, and Timbuktu, were also included in our measure of something far away. In addition, qualitative answers to the appropriate distance question involved distance from the respondent and respondent’s family, such as “not near me,” “not near my children,” “not within sight,” and “not in my town, in the next town/state.” We created a separate “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) measure to reflect the broad, qualitative responses that were explicitly self-protective.

Two final measures were constructed from the open-ended appropriate distance follow-up survey question. First, the crime-dependent measure reflects responses where the underlying sex offense was relevant to the respondent’s answer. Second, a measure was created to reflect responses where the respondent stated either they did not know or had no suggestions for the appropriate distance. This is a legitimate category because a respondent could have said they did not know in response to whether 500 feet was an appropriately sized exclusionary zone. Stated differently, this measure of “do not know/had no suggestion” that was coded from the qualitative responses describes comments from respondents who believed that 500 feet was not enough distance but were unsure of an appropriate distance (or continued to respond such that the response was also coded into another distance measure).

As noted earlier, these measures are not mutually exclusive due to the complexity of the themes contained within some of the responses. For example, a respondent who replied, “I don’t know, something far away” were coded as both “do not know” and “somewhere far away.” Some responses included both a quantitative element and a qualitative element, and these responses were coded both under a numeric distance measure (e.g., less than a mile) and the qualitative theme(s) included in the response.³

Results

We present our results in two steps. First, we present out findings regarding the general public perceptions of appropriate exclusionary zone distances for registered sex offenders. Second, we present the findings of the logistic regression analysis examining whether the sociodemographic characteristics related to support for sex offender legislation also relate to support for large or extreme distances for exclusionary zones.

We began our examination of appropriate distances by running simple frequencies on our distance measures. The top of Table 2 shows the results of the closed-ended question framed around an exclusionary zone of 500 feet. Around 60% of respondents agreed that “500 feet is not enough,” while only about 31% agreed that “500 feet is about right.” A very small number of respondents agreed that there should be some restrictions but 500 feet was too much (2.6%) or felt that there should be no housing restrictions at all (2.8%).

Table 2.

Appropriate Distance of Exclusionary Zone for Registered Sex Offenders.

Category	Weighted frequency (%)
Closed-ended responses
500 feet restriction opinion (n = 1,805)
No housing restrictions	2.8
Some restrictions but 500 feet too much	2.6
500 feet is about right	31.3
500 feet is not enough	60.0
Do not know	3.3
Open-ended responses
How many feet is enough? (n = 1,066)^a
Less than one mile	56.3
One mile	14.0
More than one mile	16.1
Somewhere far away	11.3
Not in my backyard	2.7
Jail, death, or castration	2.1
Crime dependent	0.2
Do not know/had no suggestion	7.2

n = based on the 1,066 valid cases that answered “500 feet is not enough” on the closed-ended question and were therefore asked a follow-up question regarding their view on the appropriate distance.

The 60% of respondents who did not think that 500 feet was enough distance between where sex offenders live and places where children frequent were asked how much distance was appropriate. As noted earlier, this was an open-ended question and respondents replied with both numerical values and qualitative responses, which we recoded into eight distance measures. The frequencies, presented at the bottom of Table 2, showed that of the respondents who thought that 500 feet was not enough, the majority also felt that the appropriate distance was less than one mile (56.3%). Indeed, only about 16% of respondents felt that the exclusionary zone should be more than one mile.

The results also showed that the most common qualitative response had to do with the sex offender living somewhere far away from children (11.3%). The next most widely given qualitative response was that the respondent did not know or could not identify a distance, which was given by 7.2% of respondents. These respondents all said that 500 feet was not enough, but were unsure about the appropriate size of exclusionary zones. A response that involved the notion of “not in my backyard” was given by only 2.7% of respondents, and an even smaller 2.1% of respondents gave a response that involved jail, death, and/or castration. Finally, hardly anyone made a comment suggesting that the exclusionary zone should depend on the crime the sex offender committed (n = 2).

We now turn to the results of the logistic regression analysis that are presented in Table 3. We were interested in whether the characteristics associated with support for sex offender laws more generally also would be associated with support for wide or extreme exclusionary zones. The results were mixed. Consistent with expectations and previous research, being young, being married, and having minor child were positively and significantly related to supporting exclusionary zones wider than 500 feet. Respondents with an education beyond high school were significantly less likely to support zones wider than 500 feet than respondents with a high school degree or less, which was also consistent with previous research. On the other hand, living in an urban environment was negatively related to wider exclusionary zones. The results indicated that the respondents who reported living in a town or city were 36% less likely than respondents who lived on a farm or in the country to report that 500 feet was not enough.⁴ In addition, respondents who reported a total family income of under US$20,000 were 36% more likely to answer that 500 feet was not enough than respondents whose family income was US$20,000 or more, but this relationship was not significant. Although White respondents were slightly less likely to support wider exclusionary zones than other racial and ethnic groups, this result was not significant. Finally, females were 13% more likely than men to support exclusionary zones wider than 500 feet, but this result unexpectedly was not significant.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression: 500 Feet Is Not Enough Dependent Variable (n = 1,745).

	B (SE)	Exp(B)	Wald
Female	0.13 (.11)	1.13	1.43
Young	0.27 (.13)	1.31	4.79**
Married	0.35 (.13)	1.42	6.81***
High education	−0.42 (.12)	0.66	11.98***
Minor children in home	0.22 (.12)	1.25	3.20*
Low income	0.31 (.22)	1.36	1.98
Urban	−0.45 (.14)	0.64	10.72***
White	−0.09 (.21)	0.91	0.20
Constant	0.60 (.28)	1.81	**

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Discussion

As stated previously, public opinion of sex offender policy can create the boundaries within which the public will accept, support, and adhere to legal resolutions (CSOM, 2000; Key, 1961). Previous literature has found public and professional support for residency restriction laws (Casady, 2009; Comartin et al., 2009; Dumanis, 2009; Levenson, Brannon, et al., 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009) even though the efficiency of such laws has shown mixed to null effects on recidivism rates of sex offenders (Socia, 2012; Zandbergen et al., 2010). This study sought to determine what the public felt was the appropriate distance from which sex offenders should be kept from minor children. In states like Nebraska that have left decisions on exclusionary zones to local policy makers, this information theoretically will guide and/or constrain the need for, and content of, local residency restriction ordinances (Key, 1961).

We found widespread public support for exclusionary zones contained within residency restriction laws, suggesting that exclusionary zones could be enacted in most municipalities irrespective of their utility or instrumental value. Nebraskans were overwhelming unsatisfied with the 500 feet restriction (91.3%), yet most people felt that the restriction distance should be less than a mile (56.3%). Very few thought there should be no restrictions or that the distance should be reduced (5.4%). These findings are congruent with those from other researchers who found that the public is largely supportive of restriction laws regardless of whether citizens feel the laws will reduce the sexual victimization of children (CSOM, 2010; Comartin et al., 2009; Levenson, Brannon, et al., 2007; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009).

These quantitative findings were complimented by the findings from the qualitative comments from respondents. For example, only .2% of respondents said that that the distance of the exclusionary zone should be based on the type of sex crime that was committed. This is an arguably thoughtful response because it requires some basic understanding that the label “sex offender” represents the commission of a variety of offenses, and not all are worthy of large exclusionary zones to protect children. This is in contrast to reactionary comments suggesting that the offenders live somewhere far away (16.1%) and even the more extreme comments pertaining to jail, death, or castration (2.1%). Interestingly, there is cross-over in these two seemingly different responses, for instance, Respondent #2391 stated, “Miles and miles, deserted island, depends on the criteria, some people are listed as sex offenders and shouldn’t be, depends upon the crime.” Similarly, Respondent #121 stated, “One mile, depends on type of offender.” Comments such as these underscore issues related to implementing restrictions against sex offenders as a broad category of offenders and not necessarily to those that have offended against children. It is possible that if the types of sex crimes were differentiated, we would have found support for very large exclusionary zones for offenders with child victims and more respondents offering comments that consistent with our measure of jail, death, or castration. On the other hand, we may have found little support for exclusionary zones for other types of sex offenders. Future researchers should examine whether the size of an exclusionary zone the public would support varies, and to what degree, by the type of sex crime committed.

Overall, our findings showed that citizens want restrictions of more than 500 feet, which is currently prohibited by state law. Although public opinion can and does influence and/or constrain law statewide, this study demonstrates the need to unpack public opinion for residency restriction distances by cities, towns, and rural environments. That is, while our results seem to show support for statewide residency restrictions with larger exclusionary zones, we found a more nuanced story when we examined the environment of the respondent. Specifically, the respondents who lived in cities and towns were less supportive of wider exclusionary zones than those in rural environments, who were more prone to desire zones of greater than 500 feet. This finding is consistent with previous research on stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010).To some extent, law enforcement relies on private citizens to monitor the residences of registered sex offenders, and thereby relies on them to ensure residency restriction compliance. People who live in cities may not informally monitor whether offenders are complying with the law if the exclusionary zones are mandated statewide and do not comport to urban citizens’ notions of the appropriate distance restriction. Stated differently, the implementation and effectiveness of residency restriction laws may be hampered by a disagreement between citizens’ notions of appropriate distances and legislators’ desires to standardize broad exclusionary zones statewide. Given the significant differences found in our data between urban and rural citizens’ beliefs of the appropriate distance for exclusionary zones, the support for residency restrictions laws may be increased if decisions on distance remained with local policy makers in municipalities rather than with state legislators. Citizens would have a higher likelihood of aiding law enforcement in monitoring restriction zones if the content of local ordinances was guided and constrained by their opinions of the scope of the exclusionary space.

In addition to geographic differences in opinion, residency restriction laws may differ across states and state municipalities based on the population composition. We found that support for larger exclusionary zones was associated with having minor children in the home, being young, and being married, while respondents with more than a high school education were less likely to support wide exclusionary zones. It is possible that population composition affects the variability of content and the passage of residency restriction laws across states and municipalities. Future researchers should examine whether sociodemographic characteristics of areas predicts the passage and content of not only sex offender laws but perhaps other criminal justice policies as well.

If public opinion is viewed as a “system of dikes” that constrains policy makers’ discretion (Key, 1961), and statewide, the public feels that 500 feet is not enough irrespective of geographic and demographic influences, then there is evidence that the 500 feet restrictions could be expanded. As such, it is worth noting the various collateral consequences on both sex offenders and low-income neighborhoods. For example, prior studies have noted that broad exclusionary zones can violate sex offenders’ constitutional rights by preventing them from finding and maintaining affordable housing (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007). This problem has been noted in Florida and Indiana, where the restriction is set at 1,000 feet (Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Levenson & Hern, 2007). Another problem with expanding the restriction zone is that it could limit neighborhood availability for sex offenders to only a few areas within a city that would be considered disadvantaged or socially disorganized. The effect of the law would then be to relegate sex offenders to the very neighborhoods that are the least capable of controlling the behavior of its residents (Hughes & Burchfield, 2008).

While this study adds to the existing literature on the public perception of residency restriction laws, it is important to note some of its limitations. As with all surveys, the methodology can translate to sample biases and internal validity concerns and the excluded populations can limit generalizability. Additionally, the majority of our sample was White (92%), which limits our ability to generalize to diverse populations. With regard to the qualitative component, the thematic analyses in our study may be limited because we did not specifically ask respondents about each theme (e.g., if they thought sex offenders should be castrated, sent to the moon, and so on). Rather, we created thematic categories based on respondents’ answer to what distance they thought would be appropriate for restriction requirements. Future researchers should ask about public support for other approaches to dealing with sex offenders beyond a specific restriction distance.

Despite the limitations of this study, there are several policy implications. Public support varied by sociodemographic characteristic such as being young and having children. When enacting laws in which policy makers want the public to informally participate, they would be wise to move beyond acting on statewide polling data and instead investigate the variability in opinions by cities, towns, and counties. To increase the utility and effectiveness of sex offender reforms, such as residency restrictions, consideration should be given to the constraints opinion can and should place on local ordinance and law (Key, 1961). More people will interact with legal reforms if they support them and find them just. If we enact a statewide law that is considered too broad or harsh by large segments of the population in dense urban environments, whatever informal participation we desire from the public will be lost, thereby affecting the instrumental functions of residency restriction laws.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the BOSR, especially Dan R. Hoyt, for allowing us to put questions on the Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey.

Authors’ Note

The data were collected as part of the Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey (NASIS) conducted by the Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. A detailed description of the methods employed to gather this data is contained in the booklet, “Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey Methodology Report,” which may be obtained by writing to NASIS, Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Box 880325, Lincoln NE 68588-0325.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Amy L. Anderson is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Univeristy of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include the effects of various social contexts on adolescent delinquency as well as public views sex offenders. Her work has been published in Criminology, Journal of Youth & Adolescence, Criminal Justice Policy Review, and Justice Quarterly, among other journals.

Lisa L. Sample is the Reynolds Professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include juvenile and criminal justice sentencing disparities, drug control policies, prison reentry programs, and sex offender behavior and policies. Her work has been published in Criminology and Public Policy, Criminal Justice Policy Review, Crime & Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, among other journals.

Calli M. Cain is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her primary research interests include women and crime (emphasis on human trafficking), depression as it relates to delinquency, and institutional corrections. Calli earned her MA in criminology and criminal justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

References

Anderson

A. L.

Evans

M. K.

Sample

L. L.

(2009). Who accesses the sex offender registries? A look at legislative intent and citizen action in Nebraska. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 22, 1-23.

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

(2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.

Barnes

J. C.

Dukes

Tewksbury

De Troye

T. M.

(2009). Analyzing the impact of a statewide residence restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 21-43.

Baumgartner

F. R.

Jones

B. D.

(1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Best

(2013). Social problems (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Brooks

J. E.

(1990). The opinion-policy nexus in Germany. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 508-529.

Burchfield

K. B.

(2011). Residency restrictions. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 411-419.

Canes-Wrone

(2006). Who leads who? Presidents, policy, and the public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Casady

(2009). A police chief’s viewpoint: Geographic aspects of sex offender residency restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 16-20.

10.

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2000). Public opinion and the criminal Justice system: Building support for sex offender management programs. Washington, DC: Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

11.

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2008). Legislative trends in sex offender management. Washington, DC: Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

12.

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2010). Exploring public attitudes and opinions about sex offender management: Findings from a national opinion poll. Washington, DC: Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Chajewski

Mercado

C. C.

(2008). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 44-61.

14.

Comartin

E. B.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Kernsmith

R. M.

(2009). Sanctions and sex offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 605-619.

15.

Dumanis

B. M.

(2009). A District Attorney’s viewpoint: Geographic aspects of residency restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 13-15.

16.

Egan

P. J.

(2011). Public opinion, the media, and social issues. In Shapiro

R. Y.

Jacobs

L. R.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 622-638). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Gibbs

G. R.

(2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

18.

Hirschfield

P. J.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). Normalization and legitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminology, 48, 27-55.

19.

Hughes

L. A.

Burchfield

K. B.

(2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental injustice? Justice Quarterly, 25, 161-201.

20.

Key

V. O.

(1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

21.

Levenson

(2009). Sex offender residence restrictions. In Wright

R. G.

(Ed.), Sex offender laws: Rhetoric and reality (pp. 211-242). New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Levenson

J. S.

Brannon

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Public perceptions and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 1-25.

23.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 168-178.

24.

Levenson

J. S.

Hern

(2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 59-73.

25.

Levenson

J. S.

Zgoba

Tewksbury

(2007). Sex offender, residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic. Federal Probation, 71, 2-9.

26.

Mancini

Shields

R. T.

Mears

D. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1022-1030.

27.

Meloy

M. L.

Miller

S. L.

Curtis

K. M.

(2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 209-222.

28.

Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-101 (LB 1999-2006).

29.

Sample

L. L.

Kadleck

(2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.

30.

Schiavone

S. K.

Jeglic

E. L.

(2009). Public perceptions of sex offender social policies and the impact on sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 679-695.

31.

Sobel

(2001). The impact of public opinion on U.S. foreign policy since Vietnam. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Socia

K. M.

(2012). The efficacy of county-level sex offender residence restrictions in New York. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 612-642.

33.

Wagner

L. A.

(2009). Sex offender residency restrictions: How common sense places children at risk. Drexel Law Review, 1, 175-209.

34.

Wood

(2009). Why public opinion of the criminal justice system is important. In Wood

Gannon

(Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 33-48). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

35.

Zaller

J. R.

(1992). The nation and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Zandbergen

P. A.

Levenson

Hart

T. C.

(2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical analysis of sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 482-502.

37.

Zgoba

K. M.

Levenson

McKee

(2009). Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 91-110.