The findings challenge the fundamental assumptions of the residency restriction laws. The study found that residence restrictions for sex offenders did not significantly reduce the number of sex offenders who live near schools or day-care centers. Less than one-third of pre-restriction sex offenders and non-sex offenders lived in restricted areas before implementation of the laws. Discretion to monitor and enforce resident restrictions varies by State, community, and supervision officer. An analysis of the occurrence and timing of recidivism determined that if residence restrictions have an effect on recidivism, the impact is small. In Michigan, sex offenders in the post-restriction group failed more often and did so more quickly than in the pre-intervention sex offender group. Sex offenders in the post-restriction group in Missouri were less likely to incur a technical or a subsequent reconviction. Non-sex offenders had a similar decline in technical violations. Unfortunately, the study could not examine differences in rates of sexual reoffending, which is the explicit target of residence restrictions, due to a small rate of occurrence. The small number of sexual recidivism events was insufficient to detect statistical significance. The findings also indicate that a longer period of follow-up is needed. Another complicating factor is that there are multiple subpopulations of sex offenders. The challenge for the development of a targeted policy is how to identify a small subgroup of offenders at high risk for child molestation. In the two States examined, less than one-third of the sex offenders subject to residence restriction had committed an offense against a child. Risk assessment and classification protocols can assist in the identification process. 4 tables, 81 references, and 2 appendixes