Residency restrictions limit where certain people may live (for example, setting 1,000–2,500 ft buffers around schools and parks). Evidence shows they rarely reduce re-offense, but they do increase homelessness and housing churn. Stable housing is protective; blanket exclusion is not. For organizing tips, see our Legislative Advocacy Guide.
These laws create geographic “no-live” zones that can cover large portions of a city. In practice, they shrink the affordable housing map to a few pockets—often far from transit and services. Reviews published by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice indicate such rules destabilize housing without proven safety gains.
“Stable housing is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry—and residency restrictions directly undermine it.”
When entire neighborhoods are off-limits, people compete for a tiny set of legal addresses. Landlords and screeners add private barriers. The result is frequent moves, doubled-up living, or homelessness. The Prison Policy Initiative documents how reentry is already a gauntlet—residency bans compound the risk of eviction and unsheltered homelessness.
Evidence from the DOJ’s SMART Office and NIJ does not support population-wide buffers as a crime-prevention strategy. Instability and homelessness, by contrast, are associated with higher risk—meaning restrictions can be counterproductive.
Replace blanket buffers with individualized assessment, supportive housing, and Housing First models; pair with supervision and services tailored to risk and need. These approaches improve stability and align with constitutional limits that courts have applied to excessive exclusion.
- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice — https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222759.pdf
- Prison Policy Initiative — https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html
- U.S. Department of Justice, SMART Office — https://smart.ojp.gov/