In New Zealand, for instance (and I think Australia too) child sex offenders are released with parole conditions that limit where they may live and work, and even where they may go eg swimming pools and playgrounds, and release conditions require regular contact with their probation officer so mobility is somewhat restricted - but governed not so much by city ordinances as by the legal system.

It may be worth checking out the probation literature, and the relationship between parole boards re release decisions and local bodies eg some city councils provide housing for prisoners on release that would have to meet the strict parole conditions of sex offenders.

Here are a couple of links: one to some search results with a couple of relevant housing ones among them, and another to a relatively recent report that has a pretty extensive list of references - check the bibliographies of the relevant articles and you might find some more leads http://prb.sagepub.com/search/results and http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1088/Wsipp_Post-Release-Controls-for-Sex-Offenders-in-the-U-S-and-UK_Full-Report.pdf

Good luck!

Hi Julie,

Thanks.

I am seeing a case in which cities with additional ordinances are effectively pushing such offenders to other cities which do no have such retsrictive ordinances. Example: In Florida, the law states that no registeretd sex offender may reside closer than 1000ft from a school. Citites seem to be free to vote on additional ordinances. Miami added an ordinance which has limittations such as change 1000 ft to 2500 ft, plus, forbid mobility to playgrounds, school bus stops, parks, .... and , make landlords liable if they house any offender in a region that is forbidden. The ACLU has a lawsuit right now against Miami.

There's some relevant work, e.g., geographic analysis shows how restrictive housing and movement options become with these restrictions (hence the infamous sex offender village under a bridge in Florida) and other relevant work showing registration and other requirements have impacts on housing, employment etc.

http://jrx.sagepub.com/content/8/2/1.short

http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/49/2/168.short

http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/21/1/67.short

Michael

Thank you, Michael. I have given my research class several of the references this morning. The three references listed by you also have additional references that cited the former ones. 

The real problem occurs when part of a state (that is densely populated)pushes sex offenders (by design) to another part of the same state (with less dense population). 

In England, New Zealand and Australia this has resulted in the citizens of neighbourhoods and sometimes entire towns rejecting offenders, and occasionally in murder. Here is an interesting case from NZ that raises significant human rights issues - it is from Wkipedia, but makes a good case study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Murray_Wilson

I have my students use modern disease surveillance methods to create spatial cluster maps so that we identify the locations where sexual predators are located across Florida. This  process exposed the southern half of Florida very clearly as having pushed out their sexual predators.

I forgot about this study, which suggests residency restrictions would not have impact on recidivism anyway

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/4/484.short

The logic used in this article is imperfect, Michael. Things could be worse now in areas where they implemented such stringent city ordinances if these registered offenders and predators ahd not been driven out to other areas (where things don't look good now).

The added city ordinances pushed out registered offenders and predators to other areas. New predators and offenders will be there, but the old ones are gone. There is a smaller population of offenders and predators in these areas with strict city oridnances.

"Abstract

In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would significantly reduce sexual recidivism."

I think that you can find a good work in: Elizabeth E. Mustaine et al. (2006), Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice. , Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 177-192

Thank you, Cesar.

I have uploaded our report on Florida to ResearchGate.