DescriptionThe development of sex offender residence restriction laws are predicated on the assumption sexual offenders pose an increased risk to the public. The laws create zones where registered sex offenders are prohibited from residing near landmarks where children congregate. Despite the support for these laws, there appears to be little evidence of their efficacy. Evidence has demonstrated these laws may be doing more harm than good by inhibiting successful community reintegration. When sex offenders commit offenses, are they likely to do so by selecting victims who reside in close proximity to where they live and in close proximity to schools, parks, daycares, and religious institutions? The argument against residence restriction laws is sex offenders can live near a restricted area and offend within their household, or travel elsewhere to meet victims. The goals of this study are: 1). to identify the social and physical proximity between offenders and victims, 2). to identify if offenders met or contacted victims or committed offenses in close proximity of restricted landmarks, and 3). to examine any differences among offenders who do and do not meet or contact victims in close proximity to offender’s residence and in close proximity to a restricted landmark. The current study consisted of 270 males who are or were incarcerated in one correctional facility in New Jersey. The results demonstrated nearly half the sample shared a household with their victim, and nearly half of sex offenders were related to their victim by blood or marriage. Although it was revealed most sex offenders resided within 2,500 feet of one of the restricted landmarks, after examining the methods offenders used to meet victims, and how far offenders traveled to meet or establish contact with victims, residing near restricted landmarks did not contribute to an offender’s ability to access victims. Of the 270 sex offenders, the offense patterns consistent with many residence restriction laws were applicable to less than one percent. This dissertation concludes with a discussion of the findings, policy implications, and future research recommendations.