Are sex-offender limits working?

Tough residency restrictions are making it more difficult to track offenders, some say.

TOLEDO (AP) — Cities that are increasingly banning sex offenders from living near parks, pools and playgrounds may be making it tougher for authorities to keep a close eye on them.

Some evidence suggests the well-intended strategies don’t make children safer.

Residency restrictions in Iowa have made it more difficult to track sex offenders because many changed residences without notifying authorities or signed in with fake addresses, a group of county prosecutors said.

The same thing happened in Oklahoma a year ago when the state banned offenders from living in most residential areas. Within four months, nearly 200 sex offenders dropped off the state’s registry that tracks people who have committed sex crimes.

“It’s an illusion of protection to zone people out of the neighborhood,” said David Finkelhor, a University of New Hampshire sociology professor who is director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center. “It’s like keeping bank robbers out of neighborhoods where there are banks. It’s not much of a barrier.”

The buffer zones have not been researched enough yet to determine whether they reduce sex crimes, he said.

Sex offenders usually find victims through their families, friends or other social groups — not by where they live, he said.

Restrictions vary

At least 22 states have laws restricting how close sex offenders can live to places where children gather, such as schools. Iowa has one of the most restrictive laws, banning offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and child-care centers.

In many states, cities and villages are approving measures that go beyond their state laws.

Ohio bars registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. But many city leaders have said that isn’t tough enough.

Some have extended the buffer zones to 2,500 feet — about a half-mile — and added parks, preschools and other places to the restricted list.

One argument against the most restrictive bans is that sex offenders will simply stop registering or say they have moved somewhere else.

“When you drive them underground we’re not going to be able to keep tabs on them,” said Andrew Ginther, a city councilman in Columbus. “I want to know who they are, where they are.”

Several suburbs around the city have restrictions, including Upper Arlington, which bars offenders from living and working near places where children are often found.

Seeks different approach

Ginther has asked that cities in the area study how they can track sex offenders throughout central Ohio rather than have various restrictions in each city.

The solution, he said, may be a statewide approach.

“Children in rural areas are just as important,” he said. “We shouldn’t just push offenders away from cities.”

Ottawa Hills, a suburb that is almost entirely bounded by Toledo, put in place this summer an ordinance that stops registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of its schools, parks, bike paths and a tennis club.

The new rules make all but a quarter of the village off limits to sex offenders.

“We did not tell anyone where they had to live,” said Marc Thompson, the village administrator.

“We would look at it from a different perspective: we’re trying to create an environment and a place where families can feel safe,” he said. “That is a fundamental part of our job.”

The village’s restrictions forced one man who is a registered sexual predator to move to nearby Springfield Township. Leslie Kohli, the township’s administrator, said she wasn’t upset with Ottawa Hills officials.

“I don’t have a problem with setting guidelines where children will be protected,” she said. “The reality is there are still places for them to live.”