Program Profile: Residence Restrictions for Sex Offenders (Jacksonville, Florida)

In 2005, the city of Jacksonville, Florida passed an ordinance that required persons convicted of sex offenses to reside more than 2,500 feet away from any place where children congregate. The goal was to reduce sex crimes, especially those committed against children. However, the city residence restriction law was later deemed unconstitutional in 2007. The program is rated Ineffective. The residence restriction had no statistically significant impact on their rates of rearrests for sex crimes.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Program Components

The goal of residence restrictions is to deter persons convicted of sex offenses from sexual predation and committing sex offenses, especially against children. In Florida, residence restrictions for persons convicted of sex offenses have been enforced since 1995. This statewide law requires registered those on probation to reside more than 1,000 feet from schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, school bus stops, or other places where children may congregate.

However, in 2005, the city of Jacksonville passed an ordinance increasing the state’s residence restriction parameters. The new ordinance required sexual predators to reside more than 2,500 feet away from any place where children congregate; however, it also included a “grandfather clause”, which allowed predators to remain where they were residing prior to the effective date of the law.

Target Population

In Jacksonville, the residence restriction law specifically targeted sexual predators and registered sex offenders (RSOs) on probation. “Predator” is defined as a person convicted of more than one sex crime, or someone convicted of one particularly egregious sex crime such as abuse of a minor (Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin 2012).

Program Theory

There are several theories that underlie the passing of residence restriction laws. For instance, routine activities theory suggests that crime is most likely to occur in the presence of a motivated person, access to a potential victim, and the absence of guardians (such as police) who could prevent criminal activity (Cohen and Felson 1979). It is believed that by removing a potential victim (i.e., a child) and keeping sex them away from areas where children may congregate, sexual abuse and other sex crimes can be prevented.

Another theory, distance decay, suggests that proximity to a person convicted of sex offenses increases the likelihood of victimization (Rengert, Piquero, and Jones 1999). Other research also suggests that there is a link between geographic patterns of offending and crime-related decision making. These theories imply some aspect of rational choice, and suggest that sexual predators with unrestricted or unmonitored access to potential victims are more likely to commit sexual assaults. Therefore, residence restriction laws are designed to diminish the risk posed by sexual predators to potential victims (especially children) by decreasing access and opportunity (Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin 2012).

Additional Information

In 2007, the Jacksonville residence restriction law was deemed unconstitutional because it preempted the state’s 1,000-foot law (Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin 2012). Therefore, RSOs in Jacksonville are currently only required (by state law) to live more than 1,000 feet away from places where children congregate.

Study

Nobles, Levenson, and Youstin (2012) used a quasi-experimental design to examine whether the imposition of increased residence restrictions (2,500 feet, as required by the city ordinance passed in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 1, 2005) beyond the state-mandated 1,000-foot law resulted in any difference in sex-offense recidivism. It is important to note that the city ordinance was deemed unconstitutional on October 11, 2007. 

Data used in the study was provided by the Jacksonville Sherriff’s Office. Data was provided for all individuals arrested between March 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, for sex offenses such as rape, sexual battery, lewd or lascivious behavior, or sexual assault. This timeframe allowed for examination of offenses before and after Jacksonville’s residence restriction was implemented. Only individuals arrested for sex offenses between those dates were included in the sample. Full criminal histories of the sample were provided. The criminal histories included prior and subsequent sexual and nonsexual arrests; thus, some cases spanned more than 30 years. 

The final sample included 8,597 unique cases (accountable to 2,639 individuals). Of those cases, about 30 percent (2,557 cases) featured one or more sex offenses, and less than 8 percent (670 cases) met the criteria for a recidivist sex offense. The vast majority of the cases involved males, and about half of the cases involved white people (however, specific breakdown of race was not provided). The ages ranged from 12 to 84 years. 

The sex-offense data was analyzed in several ways. Bivariate analyses were used to compare sex-offense counts in the pre-intervention period to the post-intervention period. A time-series analysis was also conducted to find any observed changes through autoregressive-integrated moving average (ARIMA) regression modeling. Two separate binary logistic regression models were also estimated.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 20:44–61.

Levenson, Jill S., and Leo P. Cotter. 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(2):168–78.

Rengert, George F., Alex Piquero, and Peter R. Jones. 1999. “Distance Decay Reexamined.” Criminology 37:427–46.