The effectiveness of these laws is being challenged. We ask that young first offenders (age 19 or under at time of offense) be excluded from these residency restrictions.

• Iowa County [District] Attorneys Association
  • Residency restriction “does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that cost…and unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures…80 to 90% of sex crimes against children are committed by a relative or acquaintance…that is not impeded by residency restrictions. Only parents can effectively impede that kind of access.”
  • “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa, January 2006,” http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/iowa_prosecutors_statement_on_sex_offenders.pdf
• Minnesota Department of Corrections
  • Reports “there is no evidence in Minnesota that residential proximity to schools or parks affects re-offense…Blanket proximal restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. [case by case basis]
  • “Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues. 2003 Report to the Legislature.” https://mn.gov/doc/assets/Lvl%203%20SEX%20OFFENDERS%20report%202003%20(revised%202-04)_tcm1089-272828.pdf
• California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
  • There is simply no evidence to suggest that residency restriction or GPS monitoring…will lead to decreases in recidivism. Rather, the evidence suggests mass migration to rural areas, decreasing their social stability and increasing their risk of recidivism [plus] a dramatic increase in offenders driven underground. 2006. http://www.calcasa.org/resources/publications/
• Colorado Dept of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Sex Offender Management Board as prepared for the Colorado State Judiciary Committees, Senate, and House of Representatives.
  • Report states, “Placing restrictions on the location of correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter [them] 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,” March 2004. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=205712