Updated 4/23/2026; originally published 2/4/2025 at narsol.org as Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy.”

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire, and like that

destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, according to research, is what drives down recidivism.

What with adding more people to the registry and in some cases making the laws retroactive, the number of individuals caught up in this maelstrom of flame grows exponentially each year.

The spark that starts the blaze is one we all share, the drive to keep our children safe. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate and contraindicated response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by persons unknown or barely known to their random victims when in reality 93% or higher of cases involves someone well known to the children who have been specifically chosen.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and very close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 93% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. These laws and policies, once begun, spread throughout a state with unstoppable ferocity. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found “. . . proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, does not appear to contribute to sexual recidivism. These data do not support the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders” (introduction).

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending” (abstract), and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that . . .‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders’ ” (conclusion of major findings).

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residency restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, states as diverse as Wisconsin,  Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and many more.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, which actually has a page on its DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work; the state passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting its  jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment

stability, access to evidence-based treatment, amd family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

Are there individuals for whom restrictions from a specific type of place is appropriate? Almost assuredly, and they should be handled on an individualized basis.

Creating “umbrella” laws that indiscriminately restrict everyone listed on a state’s registry, or everyone of a certain classification or tier, thus creating pockets of homeless registrants and acting as a barrier between registrant and rehabilitation, is more than just inappropriate and contraindicated.

It is unrestrained madness.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions–a harmful response first appeared on NARSOL.

By Florida Action Committee… NARSOL Florida State Affiliate the Florida Action Committee (FAC) is outraged by the recent actions of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, which has forcibly displaced individuals attempting to rebuild their lives after serving their sentences. By clearing out a trailer park he described as a “cesspool of sex offenders” and calling its residents “perverts,” the sheriff’s office has not only dehumanized these individuals but also undermined their efforts to reintegrate into society as law-abiding, productive citizens.

“These people are not clustered in the trailer park because they want to be there,” said the president of FAC. Residence restrictions leave them nowhere else to go. Municipalities pass these misguided ordinances and then complain about the unintended consequences they created themselves.”

Stable housing is a cornerstone of successful rehabilitation. For many of these individuals, the trailer park provided a rare opportunity to establish a home, maintain employment, and access support systems. He might not care about these individuals, but the Sheriff should care about the safety of the community. By displacing them, the sheriff’s office has created a crisis of homelessness and instability, increasing the likelihood of recidivism and endangering public safety. “How can we expect individuals to rehabilitate when they are denied the basic dignity of a place to live and are subjected to public shaming?” asked FAC’s President.

The use of derogatory language like “perverts” is not only unprofessional but also counterproductive. Such rhetoric perpetuates stigma and fear, making it even harder for individuals to find acceptance and support in their communities. Rehabilitation requires a level of compassion, not condemnation. It requires opportunities, not obstacles. The sheriff’s actions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to create safer communities.

The FAC calls on the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider its approach. Instead of displacing and demonizing individuals, we urge law enforcement to work collaboratively with community organizations, social services, and policymakers to develop solutions that prioritize both public safety and rehabilitation. Stable housing, access to social services, and employment opportunities are not privileges—they are necessities for reducing recidivism and fostering safer communities.

The Florida Action Committee stands ready to work with all stakeholders to ensure that individuals seeking to rebuild their lives are given the support they need to succeed. Public safety and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive—they are two sides of the same coin.

The post Florida Action Committee Condemns Sheriff’s Office for Evicting Registrants as “Perverts” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Residency restrictions for persons required to register as sexual offenders are often enacted for no reason other than neighboring towns have implemented them. They spread like wildfire,

and like that destructive force, they wreak their own form of havoc, making it more and more difficult for registrants to find decent housing for themselves and their families. This, in turn, makes it more and more difficult for them to create the stability they need to become productive citizens, which, in reality, is what drives down recidivism.

The match that starts the blaze is the totally appropriate desire, a desire we all share, to protect children from sexual harm. Residency restrictions, however, are an inappropriate response to that desire. They are based on three assumptions that are contradicted by evidence:

Residency restrictions assume most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when in reality 94 % or higher of cases involve someone known to the child.

The percentage of situations in which a prior relationship exists between an abuser and a child victim varies dependent on the age of

the victim. A study done by the Office of Juvenile Justice found that for very young children, family members and close acquaintances comprise close to 100% of their offenders while for teens, those categories make up 94.3%. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a mega study, found that overall, 90% of the offenders of children and teens were either family members or trusted acquaintances (p.10).

The policies presume offenders choose victims based on residential proximity, which is not supported by research.

Residency restrictions create zones around schools, daycare facilities, and often parks. A two-state study, Michigan and Missouri, did not support the mistaken theory that living close to one of these was a factor in repeat sexual offenses against children. Another study examining several states found that, in Florida, “There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares.”

Residency restrictions assume that most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, which research shows to be inaccurate.

On average, a significant majority of registered sex offenders are one-time, first-time-convicted offenders. A study in New York found that “. . . over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending,” and a study from the university of Tennessee had very similar findings. They report, “Another factor constraining [sex offender registries’] effectiveness is that past studies have shown that … ‘94.1% of those arrested for child molestation were first-time sex offenders.’ ”

Restrictions often force offenders away from support systems, treatment, stable housing, and employment opportunities, which are crucial for successful reintegration. These are the elements associated with remaining offense-free. Some areas are so encompassed by residence restrictions that homelessness has escalated, especially in states where residency restrictions are aggressively implemented, such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the state of Kansas, who

actually has a page on their DOC website about why residency restrictions do not work and who passed legislation in 2006 prohibiting their jurisdictions from implementing them.

What drives down reoffense? Housing and employment stability; family and community connectedness. What makes those things difficult, sometimes impossible? Residency restrictions.

The choice should be easy.

The post Sex offender residency restrictions: bad, bad public policy first appeared on NARSOL.

October 16, Gail Colletta, president of the Florida Action Committee, NARSOL’s affiliate organization in Florida, spoke to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, about the inhumanity of the registry and residency restrictions. She was allowed only two minutes to speak, and she certainly packed a lot into those two minutes.

This is Gail’s speech, printed first at FAC.

Good morning, I am Gail Colletta, President of the Florida Action Committee (FAC). My remarks to the Committee will emphasize the sex offender residency restrictions (known as SORRs) and its effects on rendering people homeless.  

United States federal law mandates that each state has its own Sex Offender Registry, which does not limit where registered persons can live. However, states have increasingly been developing SORRs. 

Let me tell you about Ira A., a 71-year-old man diagnosed with cancer while being rendered homeless because of Florida’s SORRs. His doctors wouldn’t operate on him until he had a safe place to recover. Because of the state’s exclusion zones, the county Sheriff’s office rejected Ira’s right to access a rehabilitation center, an assisted living facility, a shelter, even his sister’s home. Ira was tragically killed by a hit and run driver who left him to die on the street. A man that old, sick, and frail should not have been homeless, especially when his family was ready and willing to care for him in their home. Sadly, this is not an isolated story. 

In some cases, SORRs effectively banish registrants from living in entire cities. 

The problems caused by SORRs are particularly severe for registrants reintegrating into society. FAC receives calls from probation officers and treatment providers to assist them in locating housing for registrants. The number of registrants increases annually, as registration is for life in Florida.  

There is no empirical evidence to support that SORRs reduce sexual offending or recidivism. Rather, numerous studies, even by the U.S. Department of Justice, demonstrate that SORRs create barriers to stability and successful reentry.  

In closing, let me emphasize that SORRs— as well as the entire sex offender registry scheme in the U.S. — reflect a colossal failure of policy – a failure, which the US Govt nonetheless continues to promote to other countries to implement. Not only do SORRs cause direct harm without any benefit to public safety, but SORRs breach several enumerated Human Rights Violations as outlined in our shadow report and, it is a cruel and inhumane system of law that forces human beings to live without dignity.  

We ask this Committee to hold the U.S. Government accountable by condemning and eradicating these sex-offender residency restrictions for their consequential, often lifelong impacts on individuals’ rights to receive adequate, humane housing and stability.  

Thank you for your time. 

The post S O registry a “a colossal failure of policy,” NARSOL’s FL affiliate leader tells the U.N. first appeared on NARSOL.