Sex Offenders: An Overlooked but Significant Subpopulation of the Homeless

https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/sex-offenders-an-overlooked-but-
significant-subpopulation-of-the-homeless/

Executive Summary
The homeless population in the United States is very diverse. Over the 
last decade, scholars have made considerable progress in advancing our 
understanding of the various subpopulations and the myriad drivers of 
homelessness that are associated with each. But even as researchers have 
found a history of criminal offending in a sizeable proportion of homeless 
people, analyses of criminal history and homelessness remain simplistic 
and underdeveloped. Homeless sex offenders present a special case of 
interest within this subpopulation because of their unique set of social 
and legal barriers to housing and their risk profile, which is exacerbated 
by homelessness.

This study investigates the prevalence of homelessness among registered 
sex offenders in 41 states and, in turn, compares those findings to state-
level homelessness data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) to determine the extent to which sex offenders are a 
prominent subpopulation of homelessness. The use of Point-in-Time Count 
data, which is known to undercount unsheltered homeless individuals, 
creates many limitations to the results, but given the PIT Count’s use by 
officials, it still provides useful information to policymakers. The 
results of this study indicate that more than 10 percent of unsheltered 
homeless populations are registered sex offenders in 32 states, and more 
than half are registered sex offenders in eight states. As a proportion of 
total homeless populations, only nine states had more than 10 percent 
registered sex offenders. Median results for homeless sex offenders were 
higher than those of all HUD-tracked unsheltered homeless subpopulations 
selected for comparison and were similarly sized to all but two of the 
HUD-tracked total homeless subpopulations selected for comparison. No 
geographic patterns were tested conclusively, but results show some 
evidence of higher proportions of sex offenders among unsheltered homeless 
in the Midwest, northern Mountain West, and Southern New England. The 
results of this study should inform policymaking and practice in states 
where sex offenses are a sizeable subpopulation, as this population has 
several distinctive risks and needs that may not be well addressed by 
conventional homelessness interventions. Moreover, this study aims to spur 
additional research into the connection between sex offenses and 
homelessness, especially in relation to public safety implications and 
potential drivers of the variability in homeless rates of sex offenders 
among states.

Introduction
The U.S. had 771,480 homeless individuals living in shelters or on the 
street, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development’s (HUD) Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) delivered to 
Congress at the end of 2024.1 The report showed homelessness has increased 
across subpopulations, with nearly every category reaching record levels.2 
These increases held across geographical regions as well, with all but 
seven states seeing a rise in the number of homeless people.3 As America’s 
homelessness crisis worsens, scholars and policymakers alike have sought a 
better understanding of homeless people and the reasons they may have 
become homeless.

One of the largest studies of homelessness to date, Kushel et al. (2023), 
surveyed 3,200 homeless people in California and interviewed more than 300 
to understand the backgrounds of homeless individuals better.4 The 
findings were remarkably diverse, indicating that homeless people come 
from a broad cross-section of society and end up homeless due to a variety 
of economic, social, legal, and personal factors.5 There was, however, a 
surprisingly consistent theme that the report found, but did not explore 
in as much depth: incarceration for criminal offenses. Kushel et al. 
(2023) found that 37 percent of homeless people had been to prison in 
their lifetime, and 79 percent had been to jail.6 One in five had entered 
their recent episode of homelessness following a prison or long jail 
sentence. But many were also victims of crime—half reported physical or 
sexual violence, with 15 percent experiencing sexual violence 
specifically.7 Yet, even in this exploration of criminal justice 
involvement, very little nuance was afforded to different types of 
criminal offenders or how that could impact their loss of housing or 
ability to attain new housing successfully. In particular, sex offenders, 
who arguably face the steepest personal, social, and legal barriers to 
housing and reintegration after prison, were not even mentioned in the 
report.8


Very few homelessness advocacy and research centers have given sex 
offenders attention. The research databases of the National Alliance to 
End Homelessness, the Homelessness Policy and Research Institute at the 
University of Southern California, and the Initiative on Health and 
Homelessness at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health do not contain a 
single reference to sex offenders or the restrictive policies they face in 
finding a place to live. The database at the Benioff Homelessness and 
Housing Initiative at the University of California at San Francisco turns 
up only one result from a search of the term “sex offender”—a blog post 
about potential sex offense prosecution for public urination.9 Though a 
commonly held misconception, it is extremely rare for an individual to be 
prosecuted and placed on a sex offender registry for public urination.10

While homelessness scholars have largely ignored the connection between 
sex offenders and homelessness, criminologists have not. Harris, Levenson, 
and Ackerman (2014) found that two to five percent of the nation’s 
registered sex offenders are homeless, a significantly higher rate than 
that of the general population, which sits below one percent.11 But even 
that measure masks the true relevance of sex offenders to homelessness 
research and policy, as it captures the proportion of sex offenders who 
are homeless, but not the proportion of homeless people who are sex 
offenders. This study seeks to address that research gap by comparing the 
population of homeless sex offenders in 41 states to the general homeless 
population to investigate the relevance of sex offenders as a 
subpopulation worthy of more consideration by scholars, advocates, and 
policymakers. The particular interventions that may be appropriate to or 
effective in addressing homelessness in this subpopulation are beyond the 
scope of this study, but some ideas for further research will be 
suggested.

Existing Subpopulations of Homelessness

Scholars and policymakers generally understand that the homeless 
population is not a monolith. HUD’s Annual Homelessness Assessment Report 
to the U.S. Congress divides the homeless population into broad 
subpopulations: individuals without families, families with children, 
unaccompanied youth, veterans, and the chronically homeless.12 The HUD 
Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations report includes 
further subcategorization based on age, race and ethnicity, gender 
identity, and characteristics of severe mental illness, substance abuse, 
HIV status, and exposure to domestic violence.13 Culhane (2019) explored 
the rapidly growing and uniquely challenging subpopulation of elderly 
homeless,14 Metraux and Culhane (2004) examined the interrelationship 
between the burgeoning U.S. prison population and the reemergence of 
homelessness in the early 2000s.15 The authors of the latter found that 
between 4.2 and 13.1 percent of offenders released from prison were housed 
in a shelter after release, a number which varied considerably based on 
the severity of the offense, though their study notably did not consider 
the specific category of sexual offenses. Still, the findings suggested 
that former criminal offenders may constitute a distinct subpopulation. 
Kushel et al. (2023) found that, two decades later, almost 80 percent of 
homeless individuals in California, who account for approximately half of 
the nation’s homeless population, had some form of criminal history that 
resulted in incarceration in jail or prison.16 That study also found that 
a combined two-thirds of homeless individuals used some type of hard 
narcotic, and more than 80 percent experienced some form of mental 
illness.17 These findings suggest that some of these characteristics may 
not constitute distinct subpopulations but rather represent nearly 
universal characteristics of the homeless population.


Despite Kushel et al.’s (2023) comprehensiveness, especially compared to 
the various HUD reports and smaller-scale studies, the authors still 
failed to identify sex offenders as a distinct subpopulation or even a 
category of interest.18 HUD does make a reference to sex offenders in the 
regulations for its homelessness programs, 24 CFR 578.93(b)(4), which 
provides programs with the discretion to exclude sex offenders if the 
program also includes children.19 However, homelessness scholars have 
almost entirely avoided the subject of sex offenders. Among policy 
organizations that work on both homelessness and criminal justice, the 
Urban Institute is one of the few that has produced reports that even 
mention this intersection, though even their research is from decades ago. 
Roman and Travis (2004) offered the most direct consideration of the 
subject in their study of prisoner reentry and homelessness, identifying 
social stigma, pressure on landlords, exclusionary criteria for shelters 
and housing programs, and legal residence restrictions as unique 
challenges for sex offenders leaving prison that may increase their 
likelihood of homelessness.20 The only other mentions of sex offenders and 
homelessness by the Urban Institute were far more limited. Theodos, 
Popkin, Guernsey, and Getsinger (2010) praised an innovative program for 
the “hard to house” but noted it excluded sex offenders.21 And Burt et al. 
(2010) made passing mention of exclusionary program eligibility criteria 
for people with criminal histories, including sex offenders. They 
recommended that those requirements be reduced, though the authors stopped 
short of calling for those changes specifically for sex offenders.22

Sex Offenders and Homelessness
The primary source of information on the intersection of sexual offending 
and homelessness is within criminological literature on the challenges 
that the population faces during re-entry, especially due to the litany of 
restrictions to which they are subjected upon release, which scholars 
suggest increase homelessness. Harris, Levenson, and Ackerman (2014) found 
that between two and five percent of the nation’s registered sex offenders 
are homeless, a finding reaffirmed by state-specific studies such as those 
of South Carolina (Cann and Scott 2020) and Delaware (Metraux and Modeas 
2023).23,24,25 The potential reasons for such a high rate of homelessness 
among registered sex offenders are many, ranging from individual-level 
factors (e.g., cognitive functioning and childhood trauma) to community-
level and social structural factors (e.g., public policy, housing 
affordability, and social stigmatization).

Individual-Level Causes of Sex Offender Homelessness
Research on individual-level factors influencing sex offender homelessness 
is relatively limited, though several studies hold homelessness as an 
implication of their findings. Lee, Tyler, and Wright (2010) do not 
explicitly mention sex offenders, but they theorize the ways in which at-
risk populations become homeless due to a combination of personal 
vulnerabilities and experiences, which holds considerable relevance for 
sex offenders.26 Levenson, Willis, and Prescott (2016) found that male sex 
offenders were several times as likely to report high adverse childhood 
experiences (ACE) scores compared to the general male population.27 Liu et 
al.’s (2021) systematic review and meta-analysis found a high prevalence 
of high ACE scores among the homeless population, offering additional 
insight into Levenson, Willis, and Prescott’s (2016) findings.28 
Similarly, findings from Joyal et al. (2013) and Stone, Dowling, and 
Cameron (2018) present a possible connection between the high prevalence 
of low cognitive functioning among sex offenders and an overrepresentation 
of low cognitive functioning among the homeless population.29–30 Although 
there are a few studies that approach the issue of individual-level 
factors that may drive sex offender homelessness, this area of research is 
critically underdeveloped.

Community-level Causes of Sex Offender Homelessness
Far more research has focused on the impact of various structural factors 
on sex offenders. Sex offenders are subjected to a wide variety of 
policies in different states, though these policies tend to fall into four 
categories: registration, community notification, residence restriction, 
and civil commitment.

Registration Policies
The first state to require sex offenders to register with law enforcement 
was California, which did so in 1947.31 The original intention of sex 
offender registries was to provide investigators with a ready-made list of 
possible suspects in the vicinity of a crime. However, their usefulness to 
the criminal justice system grew to include providing prosecutors with 
additional leverage in negotiating plea deals and allowing law enforcement 
to use charges for an offender’s failure to register or other violations 
as a stand-in for crimes they could not prove.32 By 1996, all states had 
created some form of sex offender registry.33 The U.S. Congress’s passage 
of the Adam Walsh Act in 2005 established a national registry to which all 
states were required to contribute, including offenses dating back to the 
1970s.34 The Adam Walsh Act also required states to instruct law 
enforcement to inform the public when sex offenders were being released 
from prison through so-called “community notification” policies, though 
not every state is in full compliance with that law.35

Community Notification Policies
Community notification policies vary in content far more than registration 
policies, which are similar in purpose, though distinct in structure and 
governance, across states. Despite federal requirements of the Adam Walsh 
Act, fewer than half of the states have some form of community 
notification policy, and those that do differ considerably in the scope 
and implementation of their policies. On one end is California, which 
leaves notification policies up to local law enforcement agencies; on the 
other is Alabama, which requires law enforcement to distribute leaflets 
with identifying information about the released sex offender to everyone 
living within 1,000 feet of the offender’s residential address.36 Lasher 
and McGrath (2012) systematically reviewed the literature on policies 
related to sex offender community notification and their potential impact 
on employment and housing opportunities.37 A significant number of studies 
found an impact, though only the more active forms of community 
notification, such as those in Alabama, were associated with social 
destabilization related to employment or housing.38


Residence Restrictions
Sex offender residence restrictions, which legally prohibit sex offenders 
from living in certain areas commonly associated with children, under 
criminal penalty, are by far the most widely explored sex offender policy 
as it relates to homelessness. The work of J.S. Levenson has explored the 
ways these sex offender residence restrictions create collateral 
consequences for sex offenders far beyond their prison sentence or even 
the challenges associated with other felony offenses. Levenson and Cotter 
(2005) surveyed sex offenders about how they navigate the effects of a 
Florida law forbidding them from living within 1,000 feet of schools and 
daycares.39 The authors found that more than half of sex offenders found 
it more difficult to attain affordable housing, and just under half were 
unable to live with supportive family members because their residences 
fell within an exclusion zone.40 A similar survey in Indiana found that 
nearly two-thirds of sex offenders feared they might become homeless as a 
result of residence restrictions in that state.41 Sex offenders surveyed 
in a study by Mercado, Alvarez, and Levenson (2008) reported that they had 
to move more frequently because of residence restrictions, a finding 
affirmed by Rydberg et al.’s (2018) quasi-experimental study that found 
that sex offenders were twice as likely to move more than three times 
following release from prison after a statewide residence restriction went 
into effect.42–43 Frequent residence movement is strongly associated with 
homelessness.44

The two strongest studies that investigated the potential of residence 
restrictions to increase sex offender homelessness were Socia, Levenson, 
and Ackerman (2014) and Cann and Scott (2020).45–46 Socia, Levenson, and 
Ackerman (2014) conducted regression analyses of residence restrictions 
along with a number of other variables to test their relationships with 
the prevalence of homeless sex offenders in different counties in 
Florida.47 The results showed that a one-percent increase in geographic 
coverage by a residence restriction in a county led to a one-percent 
increase in the number of homeless sex offenders.48 Cann and Scott (2020) 
analyzed the change in the homeless rate of the South Carolina sex 
offender registry over more than a decade to examine the potential impact 
of that state’s sex offender residence restriction law.49 The authors 
found a significant increase in sex offender homelessness following the 
adoption of the law, but they could not isolate the impact from other 
potential explanations.50

Civil Commitment
The U.S. is unique in its policy of civilly committing some sex offenders 
to psychiatric institutions under distinct procedures from all other types 
of psychiatric commitment. This practice began in the early twentieth 
century as part of a movement to classify sex offenders, especially those 
who committed crimes against children, as “sexual psychopaths.”51 It was 
relatively unusual for child molesters to receive prison sentences until 
after the mid-twentieth century.52 Before then, child molesters most often 
received probation sentences, and some were committed to psychiatric 
institutions in connection with their offending patterns. The latter half 
of the twentieth century brought a dramatic shift in policy towards sex 
offenders, with increased reliance on long prison sentences and, for a few 
decades, little attention to obsolete or repealed sexual psychopath 
laws.53

Renewed interest in the civil commitment of sex offenders came towards the 
end of the twentieth century, with states adopting a new paradigm called 
“sexually violent predator” laws.54 These laws allow states to designate 
certain sex offenders as sexually violent predators, which became a 
special classification within the sex offender registry that has 
heightened community notification requirements and permits prosecutors to 
petition courts to civilly commit such offenders to psychiatric 
institutions under a lower standard than applies to the general 
population.55 Instead of requiring individuals to exhibit signs of severe 
mental illness and present an immediate danger to themselves or others as 
evaluated by a psychologist, sexually violent predators need only be shown 
to have a “mental abnormality,” a vague standard that falls outside of the 
Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM) and essentially allows for broad 
confinement of offenders who would otherwise not meet commitment 
criteria.56 Because the presence of a mental condition justifies civil 
commitment, sexually violent predator laws have a pretext of treatment. 
Miller (2010) points out that treatment is fairly limited in these 
facilities, and committees have strong disincentives to participate in 
treatment or discuss their crimes or underlying sexual deviance.57 The 
result is that those committed tend to stay in psychiatric facilities for 
periods that may exceed their original prison sentence.58

Importantly, civil commitment of sexually violent predators need not 
happen in lieu of prison. Rather, prosecutors can petition for commitment 
upon release from prison or even after the individual is back in the 
community. These laws have been the subject of significant litigation, but 
ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 
that they did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of due 
process or against double jeopardy.59 By 2006, more than 4,500 individuals 
were committed under sexually violent predator laws nationwide.60

While sexually violent predator statutes may seem less directly relevant 
to homelessness, it is worth considering that sex offenders who exhibit 
the highest degrees of mental and social dysfunction and whose crimes 
would be the most severely stigmatized in the community (such as those who 
might be classified as sexually violent predators) could be at 
particularly high risk of homelessness. But if those individuals are 
committed to psychiatric facilities indefinitely, then they are not 
homeless. Thus, it is possible that sexually violent predator statutes, 
unlike the other sex offender policies, could reduce sex offender 
homelessness through indefinite incapacitation. However, for those sex 
offenders who are eventually released from psychiatric institutions, 
homelessness is a very high risk.61


Existing literature on sex offenders describes many relevant individual-
level and community-level risk factors for homelessness. However, it has 
failed as of yet to establish sex offenders as a legitimate subpopulation 
of homelessness worthy of attention from researchers and policymakers. 
Although research has established that sex offenders have higher rates of 
homelessness than the general public, it is not yet clear what proportion 
of the general homeless population is on the sex offender registry, and it 
is that question that this study aims to answer. This study has 
considerable relevance to policy because of the complexities of this 
population, both in terms of risk profile and the policies to which they 
are subjected. This study raises further questions about how those 
complexities may hinder the effectiveness of certain homelessness 
interventions but will require further research to answer.

Methodology
This study will use the basic statistical functions of the Statistical 
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software to analyze the prevalence 
of sex offenders within the homeless populations of 41 states. Although 
there is a national sex offender registry overseen by the Sex Offender 
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) 
Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, that database is comprised of 
submissions from 50 separate sex offender registries across the country. 
Each state registry is separately developed and managed, leading to 
variability in the quality and labeling of data. While each state 
maintains a registry and reports data to the national registry, most 
states are out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act to some degree, 
contributing further to the variability in structure and access among 
states.62 Of 50 states, nine were removed from this study’s sample for 
various reasons, including refusal of access (Minnesota), inability to 
provide homeless-specific data (Nevada, New York, Maine, Michigan, West 
Virginia), or no response (Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina).

State-level datasets were collected in a variety of formats, including 
Excel sheets with all the state’s sex offenders, databases scraped using 
the DataMiner plugin, and aggregate counts with no additional context sent 
by registry managers in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. 
Each dataset was cleaned to eliminate duplicate entries, offenders who 
lived out of state, were in prison, deported, institutionalized, or had a 
verified address. The remaining sex offenders were divided into two 
categories: those labeled as homeless or a related term, or who had an 
address that described a state of homelessness (e.g., under a bridge or 
living in a tent), and those with no address or listed as “whereabouts 
unknown.” Importantly, sex offenders who listed their address as a 
homeless shelter or transitional housing provider are not labeled as 
homeless in registries, even though they would be considered homeless by 
HUD’s definition of homelessness for the Point-in-Time (PIT) Count.63 The 
decision not to include sex offenders who are not labeled as “homeless” or 
“address unknown” but may, in fact, be homeless as defined by HUD was 
necessary due to the difficulty in matching addresses and the large number 
of states in which no such data collection would even be possible given 
the structure and availability of the registry. This decision does, 
however, imply that this study undercounts HUD-defined homelessness on the 
registry, though evidence that sex offenders are excluded from most 
homeless shelters suggests that the underestimation may be relatively 
marginal.

The decision to keep the data explicitly labeled as “homeless” separate 
from the data labeled “no address” was informed by prior literature on the 
sex offender registry that attests to the ambiguity of the latter 
category. The primary limitation of the “no address” dataset is that it is 
unclear whether the individuals in this category are homeless or if they 
simply did not provide the required information that would allow them to 
be categorized otherwise.64 While it may seem intuitive to include 
offenders who are missing or who have absconded in this category, 
offenders who are out of compliance are listed separately within each 
registry. Cann and Scott (2020) make note of this problem and ultimately 
decided not to include sex offenders with no address in their sample, with 
the acknowledgment that this would likely mean their research undercounts 
homelessness and thus provides only a conservative estimate.65 The present 
study addresses this issue by conducting two comparisons: one between sex 
offenders labeled as homeless and general homeless data and the other 
between a combined dataset of sex offenders labeled as “homeless” and 
those labeled “no address,” which, in effect, creates an upper and lower 
bound of the proportion of the homeless population who are sex offenders.

The final major decision about the data was which general homelessness 
dataset to use for the comparison. HUD’s annual census, the Point-in-Time 
Count, provides the homeless population for each state. Even acknowledging 
the limitations of the Point-in-Time Counts’ rudimentary data collection 
methods, they remain the most consistent data on homelessness—and the most 
widely used. The Point-in-Time Count data is divided into two major 
categories: unsheltered and sheltered homeless.i State sex offender 
registries, however, do not specify the type of homelessness as defined by 
HUD. Moreover, both the sex offender registry and HUD’s Point-in-Time 
Count classify homelessness as binary and not a spectrum for the purposes 
of data collection, which in turn ignores potentially relevant but fluid 
categories of housing insecurity, a severe limitation raised by Socia, 
Levenson, and Ackerman (2014).66 While all of these categories can 
certainly be problematized, a few insights from other scholars informed 
how this study decided which categories of homelessness it deemed 
relevant. First, Rolfe, Tewksbury, and Schroeder (2017) investigated 
homeless shelters in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. They found 
that 71 percent of homeless shelters in those states had policies to 
refuse admission of sex offenders, with a nearly equal number conducting 
sex offender registry checks upon entrance.67 Stucky and Ottensmann (2014) 
excluded from their research a group of sex offenders who had listed 
homeless shelters as their address and were thus not labeled as homeless, 
which suggests that sex offenders explicitly listed as “homeless” or 
“transient” are likely best categorized as unsheltered homeless.68 While 
these two studies suggest that unsheltered homelessness is the most 
appropriate categorization because of the relative ambiguity, this study 
compares the homeless sex offender population to both the unsheltered 
homeless and total homeless (combined sheltered and unsheltered) 
populations.

For each of the 41 states examined in this paper, four proportions will be 
created: (1) the number of registered sex offenders listed as homeless 
compared to the unsheltered homeless population; (2) the number of 
registered sex offenders listed as “homeless” or “address unknown” 
compared to the unsheltered homeless population; (3) the number of 
registered sex offenders listed as “homeless” compared to the total 
homeless population; (4) the number of registered sex offenders listed as 
“homeless” or “address unknown” compared to the total homeless population.

i A related issue that is not as pressing for the purposes of this study 
is that sex offenders who were homeless but have been provided with 
permanent supportive housing through a HUD homelessness program are not 
considered homeless by HUD or by the sex offender registry. Therefore, 
they would not be included in this sample, though it could be an area for 
future research to see how successful such programs are at moving sex 
offenders off the street at scale.

Results
Across the 41 state sex offender registries examined, a total of 21,583 
individual sex offenders were identified as homeless, and another 8,796 
sex offenders were classified as “address unknown.” These figures were 
analyzed primarily in comparison to the unsheltered and total homeless 
population at the state level, but an average figure using the combined 
sample and the combined unsheltered and total homeless populations is also 
included in Figure 1.

Each of the four measures comparing registered sex offenders and 
homelessness among the 41 states analyzed has wide variability. Figure 1 
shows the results for all states in the sample (N = 41) across all four 
measures, and then the results for each measure are reported in more 
detail individually. Results were categorized as small (0.00-0.10), medium 
(0.10-0.20), large (0.200.50), and exceptionally large (0.50).

Figure 1: Results of Registered Sex Offenders and Homeless Point-in-Time 
Count Comparison by State


The number of states with similar proportions of unsheltered homeless 
populations on the sex offender registry listed as homeless is reported in 
Figure 2. The proportions ranged from 0.1 in New Jersey and New Mexico to 
0.74 in Delaware, with the true maximum value of 1.57 in Wisconsin noted 
as an exceptional outlier.ii Arkansas was not included in this portion of 
the analysis because its registry could only provide sex offenders whose 
addresses were unknown and not explicitly labeled homeless. Nearly half of 
the sample (N = 19) had proportions between 0.01 and 0.10, indicating a 
small subpopulation of sex offenders within the unsheltered homeless 
population. Nine states’ proportions fell between 0.10 and 0.20, 
indicating a medium-sized subpopulation. Eight states had proportions 
between 0.20 and 0.5, indicating a large subpopulation, while one-fifth (N 
= 4) had proportions above 0.50, indicating an exceptionally large 
subpopulation of sex offenders within the unsheltered homeless population. 
The four states with proportions above 0.50 were Illinois (0.50), Nebraska 
(0.61), Delaware (0.74), and Wisconsin (1.57). The average result across 
the whole sample, weighted for population, was 0.09.

iiWisconsin’s 1.57 value implies that there are more registered sex 
offenders listed as homeless than there are unsheltered homeless people in 
the state. A few possible explanations are that the Point-in-Time Count 
used to measure unsheltered homelessness undercounts the actual value, 
which is consistent with the literature on the Point-in-Time Count (Shinn, 
Yu, Zoltowski, and Wu 2024). Another possibility is that some unknown 
proportion of Wisconsin’s registered sex offenders listed as homeless are 
sheltered, though there were several entries in the registry not labeled 
as homeless that listed shelters as their address, so it is unclear the 
extent to which this is the primary issue with Wisconsin’s data.


The number of states with similar proportions of unsheltered homeless on 
each state’s sex offender registry listed as “homeless” or “address 
unknown” is reported in Figure 3. The proportions ranged from 0.2 in 
Vermont to 0.74 in Delaware, with outliers in Nebraska and Wisconsin, both 
at 1.57. Nebraska’s and Wisconsin’s outlier results exceeded the total 
unsheltered homeless populations of those states, which again possibly 
indicates an undercount of unsheltered homeless people or a 
misclassification of some number of homeless sex offenders as 
unsheltered.69 Arkansas was included in this portion of the analysis due 
to the broadened category that includes both sex offenders labeled as 
“homeless” and those labeled as “address unknown.” Just under a quarter of 
the sample (N = 9) had proportions between 0.01 and 0.1, indicating a 
small subpopulation of sex offenders within the unsheltered homeless 
population. Compared to the results in Figure 2, a much larger number of 
states fell into the medium and large subpopulation groupings with the 
broadened criteria for what is considered homeless. More than a quarter of 
the sample (N = 12) fell into each of the medium (0.10-0.20) and large 
(0.20-0.50) subpopulation categories, and nearly one-fifth of the sample 
(N = 8) exceeded 0.50. The eight states with registered sex offenders 
labeled as “homeless” or “address unknown” making up more than half of 
their unsheltered homeless population were: Connecticut (0.53), Delaware 
(0.74), Illinois (0.50), Massachusetts (0.50), North Carolina (0.67), 
Nebraska (1.57) Rhode Island (0.66), and Wisconsin (1.57). The average 
size of the subpopulation across the whole sample was 0.13.


The number of states with similar proportions of total homeless on each 
state sex offender registry listed as homeless is reported in Figure 4. 
The proportions ranged from 0.00 in New Jersey and Vermont to 0.16 in 
Tennessee and Wisconsin. Nebraska’s and Wisconsin’s outlier results of the 
comparisons that were limited to unsheltered homelessness appeared much 
closer to the results from other states when compared to total 
homelessness but were both still in the fourth quartile of results. 
Arkansas was again not included in this portion of the analysis because 
its registry could only provide sex offenders whose addresses were unknown 
and not explicitly labeled “homeless.” Almost one-third of the sample (N = 
13) had proportions between 0.00 and 0.02, and more than half (N = 23) 
were between 0.02 and 0.10. Only four states in the sample had proportions 
of their total homeless population on the sex offender registry in excess 
of 0.10: Delaware (0.12), Oklahoma (0.12), Tennessee (0.16), and Wisconsin 
(0.16). The average result across the sample was 0.04.


The number of states with similar proportions of total homeless 
populations on each state’s sex offender registry listed as “homeless” or 
“address unknown” is reported in Figure 5. The proportions ranged from 
0.00 in Vermont to 0.26 in North Carolina. Even when the criteria for 
inclusion were broadened to include sex offenders labeled “address 
unknown” in addition to those labeled as “homeless,” only four states 
changed to a proportion above 0.10. Just over three-quarters of the sample 
(N = 32) was between 0.00 and 0.10, and an equal portion (N = 4) was 
between 0.10 and 0.15 as was between 0.15 and 0.20. The nine states above 
0.10 were Alabama (0.14), Delaware (0.12), Montana (0.14), North Carolina 
(0.26), Nebraska (0.17), Oklahoma (0.18), Rhode Island (0.14), Tennessee 
(0.16), and Wisconsin (0.16). The average result across the sample was 
0.06.


Analysis & Implications
Sex offenders appear to be a relevant and sizeable subpopulation of the 
homeless population in many states. When focusing specifically on the 
unsheltered population, which the literature and structure of the sex 
offender registries suggest is the most appropriate label for those listed 
as “homeless” or “address unknown” in the registry, the size of the 
subpopulation is alarming. There appears to be wider variability in the 
size of the subpopulation when limited to unsheltered homelessness (with 
far more states exceeding 0.10 and even 0.20) than when compared with the 
total homeless population. As a proportion of total homelessness, the 
majority of states fall below 0.10. These findings have implications for 
several areas of homelessness research and policy, including geographic 
variation in homelessness, comparisons to existing subpopulations in the 
factors that cause homelessness, homelessness interventions and services, 
and public safety.

Geographic Variation
Given that the sample is based on state-level jurisdictions, the results 
of each of the four analyses are presented below in national maps (Figures 
6-9). These figures offer a cursory view of potential geographic 
variations that could be further explored in future studies to determine 
potential causes of the significant variation in the results among states.

Figure 6: Map of States by Proportion of Unsheltered Homeless Population 
on Sex Offender Registry (Labeled Homeless)


Figure 7: Map of States by Proportion of Unsheltered Homeless Population 
on Sex Offender Registry (Labeled “Homeless” or “Address Unknown”)


Figure 8: Map of States by Proportion of Total Homeless Population on Sex 
Offender Registry (Labeled “Homeless”)


Figure 9: Map of States by Proportion of Total Homeless Population on Sex 
Offender Registry (Labeled “Homeless” or “Address Unknown”)


The precise geographic patterns are hard to discern due to the missing 
nine states from the sample. Figures 6 and 7 indicate possible geographic 
patterns of higher proportions of unsheltered homeless on the sex offender 
registry in the Midwest, the northern portion of the Mountain West, and 
southern New England. However, those geographic patterns do not hold 
strongly when compared to the total homeless population in Figures 8 and 
9. The Southeast appears to have a potential cluster of higher proportions 
of total homeless on the sex offender registry in Figure 9, though the 
absence of data from South Carolina and Mississippi significantly limits 
the geographic analysis.

Subpopulations
HUD tracks several different subpopulations of homeless individuals across 
race, gender, family status, veteran affiliation, exposure to domestic 
violence, behavioral health, and HIV status.70 HUD reports state and 
national statistics of how many homeless people fall into these categories 
based on the Point-in-Time Count, providing an opportunity to 
contextualize the size of the homeless sex offender subpopulation with 
HUD-tracked subpopulations. Most of the subpopulations for race and 
gender, with the notable exceptions of those identifying as Native 
American, Asian, Middle Eastern, Native Hawaiian, or as some variant of 
genderqueer, were far larger than the sex offender subpopulation as well 
as most other subpopulations unrelated to race and gender and are 
therefore not included in the comparison in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 10 
compares the two measures of the sex offender subpopulation within 
unsheltered homelessness with the following HUD-tracked unsheltered 
subpopulations: families, veterans, transgender, non-binary or more than 
one gender, victims of domestic violence, HIV-positive, and elderly (over 
64). Figure 11 compares the two measures of the sex offender subpopulation 
within the total homeless population with those same HUD-track 
subpopulations of the total homeless population.


Comparisons of the median proportions of each subpopulation of the 
unsheltered homeless population show that sex offenders are far larger 
than any of the selected HUD-tracked subpopulations. Notably, this pattern 
held for both sex offenders explicitly labeled as “homeless” (median = 
0.14) and the measure that included sex offenders labeled as either 
“homeless” or “address unknown” (median = 0.20). The smallest 
subpopulations included in the comparison were unsheltered homeless people 
identified as having HIV/AIDS (median = 0.01) and as non-binary, 
transgender, or more than one gender (median = 0.01). Victims of domestic 
violence were the largest unsheltered subpopulation across states of those 
tracked by HUD (median = 0.08), and families, elderly, and veterans 
(medians = 0.05) were each only a fraction of the size of the sex offender 
subpopulation measures. These comparisons confirm that sex offenders are a 
significant subpopulation of unsheltered homelessness and warrant greater 
attention from HUD and researchers.


The sizes of the two measures of the sex offender subpopulation relative 
to several HUD-tracked subpopulations were much smaller when compared with 
the total homeless population. Only the proportions of homeless people 
identified as having HIV/AIDS (median = 0.01) and as non-binary, 
transgender, or more than one gender (median = 0.01) were smaller than the 
proportions of sex offenders labeled as “homeless” (median = 0.03) and 
labeled as “homeless” or “address unknown” (median = 0.05). Veterans and 
elderly homeless subpopulations (medians = 0.06) were comparably sized to 
the largest estimate of sex offenders but double the size of the smaller 
estimate. Families (median = 0.27) and victims of domestic violence 
(median = 0.10) made up far larger proportions of the total homeless 
population than either measure of sex offenders. Even though sex offenders 
seem to be one of the smaller subpopulations of total homelessness, the 
fact that they are still larger than several HUD-tracked subpopulations 
further affirms their relevance as a subpopulation.

Causes of Homelessness
The prevalence of registered sex offenders in the homeless population 
suggests additional complexity in our understanding of the drivers of 
homelessness. Sex offender residence restrictions and community 
notification policies have not been considered as part of the mainstream 
discourse on drivers of homelessness. Still, these findings suggest that 
they may be relevant. The impact of sex offender policies on homelessness, 
however, is not as easily theorized as it may seem. While many studies 
have suggested a connection between residence restrictions and 
homelessness, some studies offer evidence that the connection may be 
weaker than previously thought. Huebner et al. (2014) found no impact of 
the laws restricting where a sex offender resides on where sex offenders 
actually lived in Michigan and Missouri.73 Berenson and Appelbaum’s (2011) 
geospatial study found that while more than three-quarters of residences 
were prohibited by residence restrictions in two counties in New York, 
nearly all sex offenders simply lived in restricted locations.74 Gruebsic, 
Murray, and Mack (2008) contradicted another leading theory that argued 
that areas outside of sex offender restriction zones are less affordable 
or accessible and thus further disadvantage sex offenders at risk of 
homelessness.75 The prevalence of homeless sex offenders, combined with 
the conflicting evidence about the extent to which sex offender policies 
may be a major driver of homelessness, warrants more research by a broader 
array of scholars than just criminologists.

It is worth noting, however, that even if strong evidence emerges that sex 
offender policies drive homelessness, Rydberg, Dum, and Socia (2018) found 
that support for such policies remains very high within the public, 
regardless of the strength of evidence suggesting their ineffectiveness or 
harmful effects.76 As Federman (2021) notes, it is the public, not 
criminologists, who rightfully decide the direction of public policy in 
our system of government.77

Interventions and Services
As Theodos, Popkin, Guernsey, and Getsinger (2010) and Burt et al. (2010) 
note in their analyses of homelessness interventions, sex offenders are 
often excluded from traditional services, shelters, and housing.78–79 The 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, gives programs 
broad discretion in whether to include sex offenders in their homelessness 
programs.80 It is important that programs take care to ensure that their 
participants are adequately protected from potential criminal activity and 
violence. It is also imperative that programs attract homeless individuals 
by making them comfortable, even if that is at the expense of sex 
offenders. Thus, eligibility requirements for many programs probably 
should not change even if risk is not a foremost consideration—client 
comfort alone is enough reason to keep sex offenders excluded. However, 
excluding sex offenders from existing programs warrants the creation of 
tailored homelessness programs for sex offenders, which is politically 
unpopular. This would likely have to be done through the criminal justice 
system, even at the risk of additional stigmatization, to ensure adequate 
oversight and specialization among staff. Similarly, because sex offenders 
are excluded from so many shelters, it is critical that outreach workers 
are made aware of their high prevalence on the street and adjust their 
practices and offers for services accordingly.

It is possible that the findings of Rolfe, Tewksbury, and Schroeder (2017) 
and others that a high proportion of homeless shelters exclude homeless 
people as a matter of policy are only part of the issue.81 Facilities’ 
geographic locations could also fall within residence restriction zones, 
categorically excluding sex offenders, even if the program or shelter 
intends to permit them. This complexity highlights the need for greater 
consideration of sex offenders when planning projects and discussing 
homelessness policy, as even when there is political will to include sex 
offenders in a project, there are additional barriers to successfully 
integrating them.

Public Safety
Policymakers must also consider the public safety implications of 
congregating sex offenders in homeless encampments in parks, near schools, 
or on city streets. The importance of enforcing laws against unregulated 
street camping becomes even more apparent in light of the high proportions 
of sex offenders among the unsheltered population. Moreover, the evidence 
indicating extremely high rates of current criminal offending within the 
unsheltered population builds further urgency for a more proactive 
approach in moving people out of encampments and into shelters.82 Given 
the restrictions on admitting sex offenders to shelters, states and 
localities should consider developing plans to allow sex offenders to camp 
in a structured, secure environment or rely on criminal justice sanctions 
to ensure that this population is off the street. Another related option 
would be for states to make wider use of sexually violent predator 
statutes to civilly commit sex offenders who also exhibit behavioral 
health issues to psychiatric facilities.

Limitations and Further Research
This study relied on administrative data sets that varied considerably in 
structure, content, and labels. Sex offender registry data could not be 
independently verified beyond its status as official government data. In 
many states, not all sex offenders are included in public databases, 
potentially skewing the dataset in any number of different ways. The 
Point-in-Time Count data used to create the comparison datasets for 
general homeless populations are notoriously flawed methodologically. They 
could undercount, overcount, or simply miscount homeless populations, 
especially the unsheltered. This limitation almost certainly impacted this 
study, given the illogical outliers in Nebraska’s and Wisconsin’s results 
compared to unsheltered homeless populations.

This study did not investigate potential causes of variability among 
states, though future studies from the Cicero Institute will test several 
hypotheses based on its findings and the literature referenced herein. 
Moreover, the statistical analyses used in this study were basic and 
descriptive, in line with the goals of the study to identify sex offenders 
as a potentially significant subpopulation of homelessness. Far more 
research is warranted into the drivers of sex offender homelessness, 
causes of variability among states, and the impact of different 
proportions of sex offenders on program success, outreach, camping 
enforcement, and public safety concerns. All of these areas are of 
interest to future research by the Cicero Institute.

Conclusion
Sex offenders are a relevant subpopulation of homelessness that merits far 
more consideration by scholars and policymakers than they have been 
afforded. It is undeniable that sex offenders are an inconvenient and 
difficult population to discuss politically, and similarly difficult to 
work with in the community. But the alarmingly high numbers of homeless 
sex offenders across the country demand reconsideration of existing 
policies that may be ineffective when considering this information. There 
must be an urgency to develop innovative programs and policies to more 
assertively address the humanitarian and public safety crisis unfolding on 
the streets of America’s cities.


-- 
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump.  We look 
forward to America being great again.

We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that 
stupid people won't be offended.

Every day is an IQ test. Some pass, some, not so much.

Thank you for cleaning up the disasters of the 2008-2017, 2020-2024 Obama 
/ Biden / Harris fiascos, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the 
The World According To Garp.  Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood 
queer liberal democrat donors.