Social Ethics: Sex

Offender Housing
and the
Community
Wendy Chan, M.A.
Overview of California’s
SO Housing Laws
 Sex offenders must be
returned to the
community in which they
were committed unless
there are circumstances
creating a public or
victim safety issue
Before Jessica’s Law
 High risk offenders (L&L
acts or continuous
sexual abuse of a child)
& SVPs cannot live within
1/2 mile of a K-12 school.
Jessica’s Law (2006)
 Any offender under PC
290 may not live within
2000 feet of a school or
park
 No two registered s.o.’s
can live in the same
single family dwelling
(this includes
independent living with
more than 6 residents)
unless related
 Jessica’s Law
 Cities also have the right
to enact further
ordinances regulating
s.o. housing---what types
of issues might this
cause in a community?
 Jessica’s Law
Over 400 municipalities throughout the
United States have passed local housing
restrictions (Nieto & Jung, 2006).
However, in the State of California no
agency has the responsibility to track all
local ordinances and local governments
are not compelled to disclose the
passage of ordinances.
For example, Sacramento County enacted
an ordinance prohibiting sex offenders
from loitering within 300 feet of any
library, daycare center, skate park,
public swimming pool, video arcade,
youth sports facility, or bus stop (CALCASA
Public Policy on Sex Offenders Report, 2008).
 Jessica’s Law
The information presented relates strictly to
offenders on State parole. At present, it is not
possible to gather comprehensive statistics
related to the probation or post- supervision
population from all 58 counties.
 Residence Complaint 3166 41%
 Declared Homeless/Transient 718 9%
 Confined to Medical/Psychiatric Facility 13 <1%
 In Custody/Revoked for Housing Violation 217
3%
 In Federal/State/Local Custody Pending non-JL
Violation 2886 38%
 Parolee At Large 212 3%
 Discharged from Parole 147 2%
 Deceased 12 <1%
 In Custody with New Term 145 4%
 TOTAL 7516 100%
Community Safety & S.O.
Housing
 A 2000 study by the Minnesota
Dept. of Corrections found that
property owners generally will
not rent to people with prior
convictions.
 Some offenders admitted
reoffending so that they could
go back to a correctional facility
rather than “living under a
bridge.”
 The same study found that
stable, supportive housing
decreased recidivism by 50%
Sex Offender Housing as
a Social Problem
 There are social and political
reasons that this is a difficult
issue: fear, safety, and
mistrust. Housing and
treating a sex offender in
the criminal justice system
(through state hospitals or
correctional facilities) costs
California taxpayers
$110,000/year per offender.
Research on Sex Offender
Housing and Recidivism
 A review of four studies
(Minnesota Corrections, 2000, Colorado Dept.
of Public Safety 2004, Levinson & Cotter, 2005,

all concluded
& Durling, 2006)

that there is no evidence

that sex offender
housing restrictions
increase public safety.
Research on Sex Offender
Housing and Recidivism
 In 2006, Durling concluded that the adverse
consequences of sex offender residency
restrictions outweighed the benefits to
society. The conclusion was based on the
following concerns:
 residency restrictions laws were based on
two flawed assumptions regarding the
efficacy of residency restrictions
 residency restrictions may compel
government agencies to provide housing
 neighborhoods in unrestricted areas will
bear the financial costs for residency
restrictions
 financial stress will overwhelm the low-
income offenders 
Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
Sex offender housing was
discussed with two
treatment providers
(psychologists) and
three currently
hospitalized sex
offenders (mentally
disordered offenders)
 Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
 The treatment providers
were asked for their views
on the challenges of
transitioning sex offenders
from a controlled
environment to the
community, how this
impacts treatment, and for
their recommendations for
policy makers regarding the
sex offender housing
problem in California.
 Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
 Psychologist #1
 32 y.o. Asian-American male, has
worked exclusively with sex
offenders for two years in a state
hospital.
“It is difficult to transition these
offenders back into the
community as it is--CONREP
doesn’t want to take them, the
community doesn’t want them,
and because of mental illness
and lack of family support,
there are often financial
obstacles that make housing a
problem. That’s without
 Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
“As far as the impact on treatment,
any stressor can trigger the
urges to regulate the distress. In
here, we don’t focus much on the
housing problem because the
individuals experience feelings of
hoplessness.Until we’re ready to
transition them or unless they
bring it up, we focus on what we
can control--we educate them on
how to manage their fantasies
and urges.”
 Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
 Psychologist #2
 34 y.o. Biracial (Latino/Caucasian) male, has worked
exclusively with sex offenders for two years in a
state hospital
“We try to prepare [sex offenders] to
manage stress and urges the best
we can while they’re here. The
challenges they have on the outside
can put them at-risk for recidivism.
Housing is a major stressor because
it is so unlikely for them to find a
landlord that will take them in a
neighborhood that is compliant with
Jessica’s Law that they can afford.”
 Perspectives on the S.O.
Housing Problem from Within
the System
“I’ve had guys tell me that
working on treatment is
useless---even if they do get
out, nobody will help them
to get housing or jobs. It
makes it hard to motivate
them to move forward in
treatment. And I can’t totally
disagree with that
assessment either, it’s often
valid.”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
 Three male offenders
were asked to discuss
their understanding of
Jessica’s Law, how it
impacts their treatment,
and whether they
thought it was helpful to
public safety.
Perpectives from Offenders
 “Jim”- a 63 y.o. Caucasian male (MDO).
Has been in the hospital for 8 years on a
L & L charge.

“Jessica’s Law was meant

to keep sex offenders
from living close to kids
so they wouldn’t
reoffend. It worries me to
think about it because I
already don’t think I’ll
find a place to live.”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
“If I’m homeless after I
leave I can get tossed
back in for violating
CONREP. I guess it
affects treatment for me
because when I think like
this, there’s really no
point in me getting
better. What am I going
to get out for?”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
“Carl”- a 43 y.o. Caucasian
male, has been in the
hospital for a L&L charge for
12 years.
“I know there are limits on
housing. I could live with my
mother, but she might live
by a school. I guess I
wouldn’t have a place to live
then.What do I do then?”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
“I can’t really spend too
much time thinking
about where I’m going to
live after here. I guess
CONREP’s my best bet.
After that, I don’t know.”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
“Ray” a 34 y.o. Caucasian male,
has been hospitalized for 21
years for rape charges
“Some of that law
shouldn’t even apply to
me because I never hurt
kids. What does it matter
if I live by a school?”
 Perspectives from
Offenders
“I feel hopeless
sometimes, like if I do
get out of here, I won’t
get a place or a job
anyway. What’s the
point of doing
treatment? But then I do
want to get out because
I’ve served my time and
I have better coping
skills now.”
 Offender perspectives on
Housing Restrictions and Public
Safety
“I never looked for victims
near my home. I don’t
think anyone’s any safer
with the restrictions.” Jim
“I don’t think the
restrictions make a
difference…if I decide to
reoffend it won’t matter
if I have to go out of my
way to do it.” Carl
 Provider
Recommendations for
Policy Makers
“We spend $110,000 a
year to keep each
offender here. If there
was supervised housing
for sex offenders we
could save the taxpayers
money and ensure that
offenders were ready to
be in the community.”
Psychologist #1
 Provider
Recommendations for
Policy Makers
“It’s kind of crazy that we can
legally stringently regulate
people that have, for all
intents and purposes paid
their debt to society. I
understand the need for
public safety, but also think
we can work with
communities to provide
supportive housing for
offenders so they don’t get
triggered to re-offend
because of housing stress.”
Recommendations from
Research
• Well-founded risk assessments instruments
should be used to identify high-risk
offenders and determine the appropriate
supervision level. Residency restrictions
should be imposed only on those where the
assessment tool shows that proximity is
related to recidivism.
• Use an indeterminate sentencing (as a means
of imposing longer sentences and longer
control) over high-risk offenders. However,
the indeterminate sentencing scheme will
work only if treatment is available for the
offender while in prison.
• Specialized sex offender reentry courts,
modeled after drug courts, could manage
the sex offender through close supervision
where the offender would be motivated to
comply with treatment and polygraph
testing in order to gain his freedom. 
Questions/Thoughts?