A reader was nice enough to forward me this link to an amicus brief that was sent to the Ohio Supreme Court. Here is a portion of the brief discussing the way in which the statute may increase recidivism:
Additionally, the Ohio statute may increase the risk of recidivism by forcing many sex offenders to move from supportive environments that reduce the offenders' risk of re-offending. See, e.g., JOAN PETERSILIA, WHEN PRISONERS COME HOME: PAROLE AND PRISONER REENTRY (2003) (concluding that positive social support is critical to the success of released offenders.). In Mr. Porter's case, he and his wife lived in their home for fourteen years. Mr. Porter lived with his family and was well established in his community. In forcing Mr. Porter to vacate his residence, the State requires him to leave much more than the physical location where he lives, it asks him to leave the support network and potentially his source of services. Such phenomenon is seen throughout the country as sex offenders are required to leave their homes in the face of residence restrictions.
There is a lot of well-written stuff in the brief, so I recommend the whole the whole thing. Ohio has been a key battleground state in the courts concerning residency restrictions. The lower-level appellate courts have entered several opinions about the legality and constitutionality of residency restrictions. I'm very interested to see how this Ohio Supreme Court case turns out.