Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:37 am
Time: 1:37 am
Results for sex offender registration
27 results foundAuthor: Zgoba, Kristen Title: Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy Summary: This research concerns the various impacts of community notification and registration laws (Megan’s Law) in New Jersey. Although this report includes a variety of interesting findings and many ideas that will be explored upon post grant period, this research was embarked upon, in general, to investigate: 1) the effect of Megan’s Law on the overall rate of sexual offending over time; 2) its specific deterrence effect on re-offending, including the level of general and sexual offense recidivism, the nature of sexual re-offenses, and time to first re-arrest for sexual and non-sexual re-offenses (i.e., community tenure); and 3) the costs of implementation and annual expenditures of Megan’s Law. These three primary foci were investigated using three different methodologies and samples. Phase One was a 21-year (10 years prior and 10 years after implementation, and the year of implementation) trend study of sex offenses in each of New Jersey’s counties and of the state as a whole. In Phase Two, data on 550 sexual offenders released during the years 1990 to 2000 were collected, and outcomes of interest were analyzed. Finally, Phase Three collected implementation and ongoing costs of administering Megan’s Law. This report presents the major findings of the three phases of the study. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Research & Evaluation Unit, 2008. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf Shelf Number: 113931 Keywords: Megan's Law (New Jersey)RecidivismSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: New Jersey. Administrative Office of the Courts. Criminal Practice Division Title: Report on Implementation of Megan's Law Summary: The Criminal Practice Division of New Jersey’s Administrative Office of the Courts today released a report summarizing, through March 1, 2001, the implementation of the Registration and Community Notification Law, commonly referred to as Megan’s Law. In 1995, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Doe v. Poritz, upheld the constitutionality of Megan’s Law, but mandated judicial review of prosecutorial decisions relating to community notification. The Court also called for an annual report on the implementation of the law. The report outlines the history of legal challenges to Megan’s Law that followed the N.J. Supreme Court decision. The issuance of this report was delayed until all challenges had been resolved and the data on notification could be compiled and presented in a uniform manner. As of March 1, 2001, 7,605 individuals had registered, as required by Megan’s Law, with the New Jersey State Police. Information on 7,273 of those registrants had been entered into the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Megan’s Law Case Tracking System by March 31, and of those, 5,270 registrants had been assigned tiers for community notification. The report shows that 2,388, or 42 percent, of registrants had been assigned a tier 1 (low-risk) classification, requiring local law enforcement to be notified of a registrant’s presence in a community. Fifty-two percent, or 3,007 registrants had been assigned a tier 2 (moderate-risk) classification, requiring notification to law enforcement, schools and certain community organizations. A tier 3 (high-risk) classification, requiring notification to all of the tier 2 groups, plus members of the public likely to encounter the registrant, had been assigned to 325, or six percent of registrants. The report provides an explanation of the criteria used in assigning risk tiers, and outlines the steps in the process of determining a registrant’s tier. It provides data about the implementation of Megan’s Law beginning with offender registration and through tier determination by the prosecutor; opportunities for the registrant to object to the tier assignment; judicial review of tier assignments; and community notification. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, 2008. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2010 at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/megnrept.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/megnrept.pdf Shelf Number: 116692 Keywords: Megan's LawSex Offender RegistrationSsex Offenders (New Jersey) |
Author: Letourneau, Elizabeth J. Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence Against Women Summary: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of one state’s sex offender registration and notification policy in reducing sexual violence. The problem of sexual violence is a national legislative priority as evidenced by numerous sex offender-specific policies enacted at the federal level over the past 15 years. Specifics vary among states regarding criminal justice responses to sex offending, but all such policies have as their primary goals the prevention of sexual violence and the reduction of sexual re-offending. The present study examined the effects of comprehensive registration and community notification policies on rates of sexual violence in South Carolina. Specifically, the present study proposed to evaluate whether broad sex offender registration and notification policies have reduced recidivism or deterred new sexual offenses. Additionally, this study proposed to examine whether unintended effects of broad registration and notification policies have occurred. Of note, the present study focused almost exclusively on the effects of registration and notification as pertains to offenses committed by adults. Given that registration and notification policies often target juveniles adjudicated delinquent as minors, the investigative team has been involved in separate research pertaining to the effects of these policies as pertains to juveniles. This study examined whether the introduction of sex offender registration and notification laws in South Carolina were associated with reductions in sexual crimes and, if so, whether this reduction could be attributed to an actual reduction in sexual violence and/or recidivism (i.e., an intended effect) or to changes in criminal judicial processing of individuals for registry crimes (i.e., an unintended effect). In the context of this project, “sex offender” typically refers to anyone with one or more sex crime convictions. Specific sex crime charges are listed in Table 1 and include contact and noncontact offenses against children and adults. Specific study aims included: (1) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the intended effect of preventing first time sexual offending; (2) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the intended effect of reducing sexual recidivism for known sex offenders; and (3) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the unintended effect of reducing the probability that individuals who commit sexual crimes will be prosecuted or convicted for such crimes. In addition to these primary aims, we also investigated (4) whether registration violations (e.g., failure to register) were associated with sexual or general recidivism. Details: Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina, 2010. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231989.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231989.pdf Shelf Number: 119926 Keywords: RecidivismSex Offender RegistrationSex OffendersSexual Violence |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Impact Assessment: Increasing the Notification Requirements of Registered Sex Offenders Under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Summary: Under existing legislation (Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) registered sex offenders are required to notify their name, address, date of birth, national insurance number, and travel outside the UK of a period of 3 days or longer to the police annually or whenever their details change. Not having to notify travel outside the UK of less than 3 days has been identified as a loophole. Additionally, the police will be able to more effectively manage registered sex offenders if they are required to notify weekly if registered as having 'no fixed abode', notify if living in a household with a child under the age of 18, notify passport and bank account details, and provide proof of identification at each notification. Government intervention is necessary to prevent offenders from exploiting gaps in the system and provide the police with the information they need to manage registered sex offenders more robustly. Public safety will always be a top priority for the Government. Where we can take further action to protect the public we will. The preferred policy option outlined within this Impact Assessment and the consultation paper: Reforming the Notification Requirements of Registered Sex Offenders (Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003): A Targeted Consultation, will strengthen the notification requirements regime. It will provide the police with important intelligence, allowing them to manage registered sex offenders more effectively and robustly, and prevent them from exploiting gaps in existing legislation to cause harm both in the UK and overseas. Details: London: Home Office, 2011. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/notification-sex-offenders/notif-sex-offenders-ia?view=Binary Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/notification-sex-offenders/notif-sex-offenders-ia?view=Binary Shelf Number: 122034 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (U.K.)Sex Offenses |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Corrections Title: The Effects of Failure to Register on Sex Offender Recidivism Summary: In the early 1990s, the Minnesota legislature enacted the predatory offender registration (POR) law, which requires offenders who meet the statutory criteria to register their residences, places of employment, schools, and any vehicles owned or operated by registrants with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Since its creation nearly 20 years ago, the law has been amended several times to broaden its scope and increase the penalties for registration noncompliance. These changes to the POR law have led to a greater number of sex offenders convicted for failure to register (FTR), which has in turn resulted in more offenders coming to prison for FTR offenses. In fact, FTR is now the most common reincarceration offense for sex offenders released from prison. Due to the growing impact of FTR on Minnesota’s criminal justice system, this study attempted to increase understanding of registration noncompliance by examining whether an FTR conviction affected the risk of recidivism among sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 2000 and 2004. Recidivism was distinguished by the type of reoffense (FTR, sex offense, or any offense), and the offenders in this study were tracked through the end of 2007, resulting in an average at-risk period of five years. Of the 1,561 predatory offenders released between 2000 and 2004, 170 had an FTR conviction. Of the 170 FTR offenders, 126 were incarcerated for an FTR offense whereas the other 44 had a FTR conviction before coming to prison. To isolate the impact of FTR convictions on recidivism, a matching technique (propensity score matching) was used to create comparison groups of offenders who did not have a prior FTR conviction. Main Findings Sexual Recidivism • Of the 126 offenders incarcerated for an FTR offense (Instant FTR), 17 (13.5%) were rearrested for a sex offense by the end of 2007. o 13 (10.3%) of the 126 non-FTR offenders in the comparison group had a sex offense rearrest following their release from prison. • Of the 170 offenders with any FTR conviction (Any FTR), 21 (12.4%) were rearrested for a sex offense by the end of 2007. o 16 (9.4%) of the 170 non-FTR offenders in the comparison group had a sex offense rearrest during the follow-up period. • The results from the multivariate statistical analyses showed that a prior FTR conviction did not significantly increase the risk of sexual recidivism. General Recidivism • Of the 126 Instant FTR offenders, 99 (78.6%) were rearrested for any offense during the follow-up period. o 90 (71.4%) of the 126 non-FTR offenders in the comparison group were rearrested for a new offense. • Of the 170 Any FTR offenders, 130 (76.5%) were rearrested for any offense following their release from prison. o 113 (66.5%) of the 170 non-FTR offenders in the comparison group were rearrested for a new offense. • The results from the multivariate statistical analyses showed that a prior FTR conviction did not significantly increase the risk of general recidivism. FTR Recidivism • Of the 126 Instant FTR offenders, 57 (45.2%) were rearrested for a new FTR offense. o 39 (31.0%) of the 126 non-FTR offenders in the comparison group were rearrested for an FTR offense. • Of the 170 Any FTR offenders, 69 (40.6%) were rearrested for a new FTR offense. o 41 (24.1%) of the 170 non-FTR offenders in the comparison were rearrested for an FTR offense. • The results from the multivariate statistical analyses showed that a prior FTR conviction significantly increased the risk of FTR recidivism. o An instant FTR offense increased the risk of getting rearrested for an FTR offense by 54 percent, whereas any prior FTR conviction increased the risk by 58 percent. • The results from the multivariate statistical analysis also showed that having a high school degree or GED at the time of release significantly decreased the risk of FTR recidivism from 39-43 percent. • The findings further revealed that offenders released from prison to the seven metro area (i.e., Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding suburbs) counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington had a significantly greater risk of FTR recidivism. Conclusion The results showed that FTR offenders were significantly different from other sex offenders in a number of ways. Consistent with prior research, this study found that registration noncompliant offenders were more likely to be a minority and to have longer criminal histories (i.e., more prior supervision failures and more prior felonies). Due to shorter prison sentences, FTR offenders had shorter periods of post-release supervision and were less likely to have participated in prison-based treatment than other sex offenders. Moreover, compared to other sex offenders, FTR offenders were less educated and were less likely to have used force or offended against victims from multiple age groups in the offense(s) for which they were required to register. The findings suggest that registration noncompliance does not significantly increase the risk of either sexual or general recidivism. Yet, given that past behavior is often the best predictor of future behavior, a prior FTR conviction was one of the strongest predictors of future registration noncompliance. The results also indicated the risk of registration noncompliance was significantly lower for offenders who had a GED or high school degree at the time of release from prison. This finding suggests that specifically targeting undereducated predatory offenders with educational programming may be an effective strategy to help reduce registration noncompliance and, more narrowly, reincarceration costs resulting from FTR recidivism. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10FailuretoRegisterstudy.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10FailuretoRegisterstudy.pdf Shelf Number: 122376 Keywords: RecidivismSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (Minnesota)Treatment Programs |
Author: Socia, Kelly M. Title: Residence Restriction Legislation, Sex Crime Rates, and the Spatial Distribution of Sex Offender Residences Summary: Residence restrictions are one of the most recent, and most controversial, public policies seeking to protect community members from registered sex offenders (RSOs) reentering society following incarceration. Residence restriction policies prohibit RSOs from living within a given distance of certain places where children might gather (e.g., schools, daycares, parks, and playgrounds). In doing so, the expectation is that RSOs will have a harder time finding and approaching young children whom they can sexually assault, thus driving sexual recidivism rates down. These policies, first passed in 1995 at the state level and in 2005 at the county and local level, have become extremely popular throughout the United States, but without proof that they are effective. To date, the research on these policies has been extremely limited, and has largely focused on the unintended consequences that these policies cause for RSOs, typically as a result of reduced housing options. This study addresses this lack of research by examining four issues: 1) the characteristics of counties passing these policies, 2) the efficacy of county residence restrictions to reduce sex crime rates in New York State, 3) whether these policies are associated with the spatial distribution (i.e., clustering or dispersion) of RSO residences in upstate New York neighborhoods, and 4) whether this spatial distribution is in turn associated with differences in county-level recidivistic sex crime rates. In doing so, this study draws on a number of diverse literatures, including the diffusion of policy innovations, incapacitation and deterrence theories, reentry and rehabilitation research, and the conceptualization and measurement of the spatial distribution of ex-offender residences. Results indicate that political competition is very influential in passing a county residence restriction and that a nearby residence restriction may dissuade others from passing their own policies. Further, while these restrictions do not reduce recidivistic sex crimes, they may generally deter some individuals who are not yet RSOs from sexually victimizing adults. Finally, results indicate that while a residence restriction is in some cases associated with the within and between-neighborhood spatial distribution of RSOs, there is no indirect effect on recidivistic sex crime rates. Details: Albany, NY: School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, 2011. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/235979.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/235979.pdf Shelf Number: 123174 Keywords: Residency RestrictionsSex Crimes, PreventionSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Deibel, Jeffrey Title: Sex Offenders and Predatory Offenders: Minnesota Criminal and Civil Regulatory Laws Summary: This information brief describes Minnesota laws that apply to sex offenders and predatory offenders. The information brief consists of two parts. The first part summarizes the criminal laws that prohibit unlawful sexual conduct, the criminal penalties that apply to these offenses, and the mandatory sentences that courts must impose on certain offenders. The second part describes the civil and regulatory laws that supplement the criminal provisions. These regulatory laws include the predatory offender registration law, the community notification law, and the law authorizing civil commitment of persons determined to be sexually dangerous. Details: St. Paul, MN: Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Information Brief: Accessed April 2, 2012 at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/sexofdr.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/sexofdr.pdf Shelf Number: 124793 Keywords: Sex Crimes, PreventionSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (Minnesota) |
Author: Kester, Kyra Title: Housing Sex Offenders in the Community; Results of a Literature Search Conducted for the Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board Summary: The primary issue in investigating housing for sex offenders returning to the community is that little research exists that demonstrates the specific effect of housing on sex offender transition. This is not to say that there is no evidence at all regarding sex offender housing, rather that it is too indiscrete (housing is one of many social support or environmental issues linked together) and there is simply too little altogether to be a compelling body of evidence. Research on sex offender housing does little to depict the availability of housing generally in a community nor to demonstrate a relationship between homelessness and sex offense recidivism. Analysis also suffers from the heterogeneity of sex offenders and the scarcity of longitudinal study. Lacking a compelling body of empirical data addressing the topic, policy makers rely on “evidence” regarding the importance of housing in sex offender transition from: • General correlations between housing and crime or housing and offender transitions. According to the Justice Policy Institute, of the ten states that spent the largest proportion of their total expenditures on housing, all ten had re‐incarceration rates lower than the national average. A study of offenders leaving an Illinois correctional institution for structured housing found a 30 percent reduction in recidivism compared to offenders not in the program. And California’s efforts to provide housing for the mentally ill observed a reduction in days of incarceration (and increase in days of full employment.) • The testimony provided by sex offenders themselves, who regularly cite a lack of housing as one of the difficulties they face on release from prison. How severe this problem appears to be relative to other problems reported by transitioning sex offenders varies, particularly among regions. This is not surprising given considerable differences in social‐political attitudes that would affect the likely reception and support of sex offenders in American communities. Economic stresses, climate, transit and housing availability will be significantly different among regions as well. • Theories such as social disintegration, which profiles environmental conditions that are conducive to crime and therefore to recidivism. When sex offenders are faced with housing limitations they may be more likely to find themselves in socially disrupted neighborhoods, heightening the risk of reoffending. How well social disintegration pertains to sex offenses, however, is not well documented. The theory began as an analysis of juvenile delinquency and remains most often applied to general lawlessness. No psychological information yet connects to the specific crimes of the sex offender. Initial studies are intriguing, and further inquiry may clarify the community characteristics that correlate with high or low sex offender recidivism. Still, the conditions of release that now exist for sex offenders in the community are such that housing dilemmas must result. Whether or not the suspect conditions prove to be critical to recidivism, sex offenders certainly do face obstacles to finding accommodation, which is a logical component of reintegration into a community. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State University, Social & Economic Sciences Research Center-Puget Sound Division, 2009. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 6, 2012 at: http://www.ilvoices.com/media//DIR_109112/e8cdcb74bf2b54beffff8825ffffe415.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ilvoices.com/media//DIR_109112/e8cdcb74bf2b54beffff8825ffffe415.pdf Shelf Number: 124880 Keywords: HousingPrisoner ReentrySex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Victorian Law Reform Commission Title: Sex Offenders Registration Summary: The Commission delivered the Sex offenders registration: Final report to the Attorney-General on 22 December 2011. In April 2011, the Attorney-General asked the Commission to review laws governing the registration of sex offenders and the use of information about registered sex offenders by law enforcement and child protection agencies. The Victorian Ombudsman recommended this review in his recent report to Parliament about problems with the management of the sex offenders' registration scheme. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the legislative arrangements for the collection and use of information about registered sex offenders enable law enforcement and child protection agencies to assess the risk of re-offending, prevent further offences, and protect children from harm. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2012. 199p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2012 at: http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/sex-offenders-registration/sex-offenders-registration-final-report Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/sex-offenders-registration/sex-offenders-registration-final-report Shelf Number: 125226 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Connor, David Patrick Title: Prison Wardens' Perceptions of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and Residency Restrictions Summary: There is relatively little known about how criminal justice system actors perceive sex offenders and the fairness, efficacy, and scope of policies aimed at sex offenders. Similarly, there is sparse research that specifically examines the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of prison wardens. Following in the footsteps of earlier research (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011; Tewksbury, Mustaine, & Payne, 2011, in press), the present study addresses these gaps by considering the attitudes and beliefs toward sex offenders held by wardens. This examination includes perceptions about sex offenders as prison inmates, sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restrictions. Further, this research assesses the utility of the 18-item Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) scale (Church, Wakeman, Miller, Clements, & Sun, 2008), which was advocated for use with criminal justice system actors, to determine whether or not the instrument can be effectively utilized with wardens. Findings and policy implications are discussed. Details: Louisville, KY: University of Louisville, Department of Justice Administration, 2012. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed September 25, 2012 at: http://digital.library.louisville.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd/id/2363/filename/5160.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://digital.library.louisville.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd/id/2363/filename/5160.pdf Shelf Number: 126442 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Title: Sex Offender Registration and Notification in the United States: Current Case Law and Issues Summary: The SMART Office has compiled this new resource which summarizes the sex offender registration and notification system within the United States, as well as pertinent case law. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART); Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/caselaw/handbook_july2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/caselaw/handbook_july2012.pdf Shelf Number: 126523 Keywords: Sex Offender NotificationSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Tewksbury, Richard Title: Final Report on Sex Offenders: Recidivism and Collateral Consequences Summary: This report examines the efficacy of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) through its influence on sex offender recidivism and collateral consequences. The first study examines the recidivism rates of two samples of sex offenders, those released prior to SORN and a sample released under SORN in New Jersey. It asks whether or not there are distinct risk profiles among sex offenders with regard to their recidivism trajectories, and if these profiles are similar or different for sex offenders pre- and post-SORN. Additional analyses also include an examination of the influence of demographics, substance abuse, mental health issues, treatment history, sex offense incident characteristics, and criminal history on recidivism trajectories. The second study looks at whether the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post-SORN sex offenders are similar to or different from the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post- SORN non-sex offenders who are released from prison via parole. It also specifically focuses on whether or not a series of collateral consequences are experienced similarly or differently among these post-SORN sex and post-SORN non-sex offender parolees. Recidivism data for both studies in this report were obtained through the New Jersey State Police Computerized Criminal History System and the National Crime Information Center’s Interstate Identification Unit. The first study utilizes two samples of sex offenders, and each was provided by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC). The pre-SORN group included a random sample of 250 male sex offenders released from prison by the NJDOC during the years 1990-1994, while the post-implementation group utilized the same sampling procedure and size and matched according to relevant demographics (age, race, and criminal history), with the exception that they were released during the years 1995-1999. For the second study, random samples of 247 post-SORN sex offenders and 250 post-SORN non-sex offenders released from prison in New Jersey via parole during 1995-1999 were drawn from the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ databases. The samples in both studies were followed for approximately eight years post-release for assessing recidivism. For both studies, official records of re-arrest for new offenses were employed as the measure of recidivism. Semi-parametric trajectory modeling was also used in both studies to estimate the recidivism trajectories of the pre- and post-SORN releasees, and the recidivism trajectories of the post-SORN sex offender and the non-sex offender releasees. The first study finds that there are limited observable benefits of SORN regarding sex offender recidivism and general recidivism. With an overall low rate of sex offense recidivism, SORN status (e.g. whether an offender is or is not subject to SORN) failed to predict whether sex offenders would reoffend sexually. The results are consistent with previous research which has argued that sex offenders have relatively low rates of recidivism, typically significantly lower than non-sex offenders. SORN status was also not a significant predictor of which sex offenders would reoffend in general, including non-sexual recidivism. Although sex offenders and non-sex offenders share the experience of collateral consequences, results from the second study reveal that several collateral consequences including not living with friends, living in group facilities, and residential relocation appear to differentially impact sex offenders. Policy makers and treatment providers should focus their efforts on those sex offenders identified as belonging to the high-risk trajectory with a particular interest in targeting the risk factors related to a high-risk trajectory. A targeted rather than universal application of SORN seems a viable alternative. Ultimately, the two studies in this report suggest that SORN is not likely to be an effective deterrent for sex offender recidivism and may produce an environment with specific collateral consequences that inhibit reintegration efforts post-prison release for sex offenders. Details: Final Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2011. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238060.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238060.pdf Shelf Number: 127476 Keywords: RecidivismRisk AssessmentSex Offender NotificationSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Registered Sex Offenders: Sharing More Information Will Enable Federal Agencies to Improve Notifications of Sex Offenders’ International Travel Summary: In recent years, certain individuals who had been convicted of a sex offense in the United States have traveled overseas and committed offenses against children. GAO was asked to review what relevant federal agencies—including DOJ, DHS, and the Department of State—are doing with regard to registered sex offenders traveling or living abroad. This report addresses the following questions: (1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United States? (2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally? GAO analyzed August and September 2012 data from the U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE on registered sex offenders who traveled internationally. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials and surveyed officials from all 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia to determine the extent to which they identify and use information on traveling sex offenders. What GAO Recommends -- GAO recommends that ICE consider receiving the automated notifications and DOJ and DHS take steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE (1) have information on the same number of traveling registered sex offenders and (2) have access to the same level of detail about each traveling registered sex offender. USNCB within DOJ and DHS concurred with our recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-200: Accessed July 10, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652194.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652194.pdf Shelf Number: 129361 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Bian, Xun Title: Neighborhood Tipping and Sorting Dynamics in Real Estate: Evidence from the Virginia Sex Offender Registry Summary: Given the potential risk of recidivism, recent real estate research has found that registered sex offenders impose external costs, which are capitalized into the value and liquidity of nearby residential real estate. Several studies have shown that registered sex offenders lower nearby residential home prices significantly, in addition to lengthening time on market. These negative externalities might have lower overall costs to society if they were concentrated, or clustered, in particular areas. We demonstrate that, in theory, individuals operating within the market will sort according to their preferences and incentives, resulting in segmentation of these two groups (i.e. sex offenders vs. general populace). We predict that over time, neighborhoods will "tip" one way or another as part of the market process, resulting in clustering of registered sex offenders and segregation of these two groups. Further, we test this prediction empirically and its implications for the real estate market using GIS and other statistical/econometric techniques, exploiting a data set from Virginia that includes more than a decade of real estate transactions and a unique data set of registered sex offenders provided by the Virginia State Police. This research may help real estate academics and practitioners understand residential sorting dynamics with respect to registered sex offenders as well as the implications for the real estate market more generally. Details: Farmville, VA: Longwood University, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338223 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338223 Shelf Number: 132143 Keywords: Real EstateResidential AreasSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Sacco, Lisa N. Title: Federal Involvement in Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Overview and Issues for Congress, In Brief Summary: The federal government plays a role in the management of sex offenders. In a law enforcement capacity, it enforces federal laws involving sexual abuse, online predatory offenses, or other related federal crimes. In addition, Congress has enacted legislation that encourages the development of state sex offender registries, urges states to punish recalcitrant sex offenders, and induces state and local law enforcement to make certain information on sex offenders public, and has taken other steps involving the registration of sex offenders and notification of the community. Federal legislation affecting sex offender policy has largely centered on sex offender registration and notification, and therefore they are the focus of this report. All states have sex offender registration and notification laws; however, these laws vary widely. Congress has attempted to standardize these laws through legislation, most recently through the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), a major component of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act; P.L. 109-248) enacted in 2006. Among other things, SORNA created a three-tier classification system for sex offenders based solely on the crime of conviction. To date, 17 states, 3 territories, and many American Indian tribes have been found to have "substantially implemented SORNA." SORNA stated that jurisdictions that fail to comply with its requirements risk having their annual Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds reduced by 10%. While several noncompliant states have chosen to lose 10% of their JAG funds, the majority of noncompliant states have applied to have these funds reallocated and used solely for the purpose of implementing SORNA. Sex offenses and sex offender management are primarily state and local criminal justice issues; however, the federal government plays a role in sex offender registration and notification as well as other sex offender management issues not discussed in this report. The federal government (1) sets minimum requirements and baseline standards for states for sex offender registration and notification, (2) provides assistance to states via grants and law enforcement support in tracking down noncompliant offenders, (3) maintains a public national website that provides information on registered sex offenders, (4) maintains a national sex offender registry for assisting law enforcement, and (5) receives and transmits information on the international travel of sex offenders. In recent years, several issues with sex offender registration and notification in the United States have been raised by state governments, the media, and academics alike. Congress may decide to address a number of these issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. Issues include notification of offenders' international travel, issues with registration of sex offenders in the military, states' noncompliance with requirements of SORNA, and the effectiveness of SORNA. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: R43954: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=763618 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=763618 Shelf Number: 136278 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US Summary: Under a raft of US public safety laws enacted over the past 20 years, children found guilty of a wide range of behaviors prosecuted as sex offenses not only serve time in prison or juvenile detention, but afterwards are condemned to decades or even a lifetime of stigma and discrimination as an adult. Sex offender registration requirementswhich are applied to both youth offenders and adultsrequire that offenders personal information be made publicly available via online registries, which all too often makes offenders targets of harassment, humiliation, and even violence. The harm suffered by victims of sexual assault, as well as their family members and their communities, can be harrowing, and offenders should be held accountable. But sex offender registration laws, especially when applied to youth sex offenders, do little to further the public safety objectives for which they are designed. Despite the existence of the laws for nearly two decades, this report is the first examination of the collateral consequences of registration and notification for youth sex offenders. This report describes how the restrictions permeate nearly every aspect of a young persons life by severely restricting where, and with whom, youth sex offenders may live, work, attend school, and even spend time. In these circumstances, youth sex offenders are often depressed and even suicidal. And if they miss a deadline to register, youth sex offenders can find themselves back in prison, often for lengthy terms. The laws are ineffective at deterring crime, since youth sex offenders are among the least likely to reoffend, and there is no conclusive evidence that registration has any effect on rates of reported sexual violence. And because they cover a wide range of offenses, from the relatively innocuous to the very serious, the laws require that police monitor all categories of offenders, even the least dangerous. Human Rights Watch calls on states and the federal government to exempt youth sex offenders from registration in combination with community notification. Short of a full exemption, states should remove all youth sex offenders from registration schemes that are not specifically tailored to take account of the nature of their offense, the risk they pose (if any) to public safety, their particular developmental and cognitive characteristics, their needs for treatment, and their potential for rehabilitation. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2013. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2015 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0513_ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0513_ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 136739 Keywords: Juvenile Sex Offenders Sex Offender Registration |
Author: Belzer, Richard B. Title: The costs and benefits of subjecting juveniles to sex-offender registration and notification Summary: Every state and territory in the United States has registration and notification laws that apply to adults convicted of, and juveniles adjudicated delinquent for, certain sex offenses. Most jurisdictions enacted these laws on their own, but expanded them in response to the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (AWA). Registration laws require offenders to appear in person to provide identifying information (e.g., fingerprints, DNA samples) and, at least once a year, to provide an updated current photograph. States vary with respect to the kinds of additional information they require, but the list is extensive. An in-person update also is required for any covered change in life circumstances. These include changes in residential, school, work or email addresses, screen names and even blog avatars. The time allowed to complete each update is short. Failure to register or update an existing registration is itself a felony. Offenders may be covered by multiple states, each with its own rules and procedures. Notification laws make some of this information publicly available via the Internet. Registration is calculated to produce about $200 million in social benefits per year. Social costs are calculated to range from $200 million to $2 billion, depending on the proportion of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. Thus, net benefits are calculated to range from -$40 million to -$1 billion per year, with present-value net benefits that range from -$2 billion to -$20 billion. This result depends on a small number of parameters. First, based on the best available study in the literature, which applies to all sex offenders and not just juveniles, registration is assumed to have reduced sex-offense recidivism by about one-eighth. This translates into an annual reduction of about 800 major sex offenses committed by juveniles. Notification is estimated to produce no social benefits, with social costs per-year that range from $10 billion to $40 billion and present-value costs that range from -$100 billion to -$600 billion. About three-fourths of these costs are borne by sex offenders' neighbors. This occurs because living near a registered sex offender - whether an adult or juvenile - has a substantial "disamenity" value. Costs imposed on juvenile offenders are calculated to range from $400 million to $2 billion per year. Costs on their families are calculated to add another 50 percent to these amounts. Additional costs on third parties are calculated as: $3 billion per year on employers for registry searches; $100-$500 million on employers for adaption and mitigation of employment issues; and $200 million to $1 billion on the public for registry searches. Because notification cannot produce net benefits, the qualitative prospective benefit-cost analysis focuses on ways to reduce the social costs of notification. A number of reform alternatives warrant consideration to reduce the substantial net social costs of notification. These alternatives involve exempting certain fractions of registrants listed due to offenses committed as juveniles. High-quality risk assessment is necessary to minimize false positives Details: Washington, Dc: R. Street Institute, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: R Street Policy Study No. 41: Accessed October 1, 2015 at: http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RSTREET41.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RSTREET41.pdf Shelf Number: 136930 Keywords: Juvenile Sex OffendersNotification LawsSex Offender Registration |
Author: Harris, Andrew Title: Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Preliminary Survey Results Summary: The study's first phase involved a series of semi-structured interviews conducted in 2014 with 105 law enforcement professionals in five States and two tribal jurisdictions. The survey items for the study's second phase were based on themes, experiences, and perspectives derived from those interviews. Participants were invited to complete the survey via targeted email outreach, using a nationwide commercial list of 8,840 police chiefs and command staff and a list of 2,921 county sheriffs obtained from the National Sheriffs Association. A total of 1,247 of those contacted completed the final battery of survey items. The sample included representation from 49 States and the District of Columbia. The final survey item asked for respondents' opinion on priorities for State and Federal policies for the management of sex offenders in the community. The highest priority for the greatest percentage of respondents (63 percent) was to expand penalties for non-compliance with registration requirements, followed by high priority for more aggressive prosecution of non-compliance (61.7 percent); expansion of probation and parole supervision (60.4 percent); dedicate funding to registration enforcement (51.5 percent); improvement in the integration of the registry with other criminal justice information systems (50.4 percent); improvement in classification systems (46.9 percent); and an increase in sexual violence prevention education (45.6 percent). The wording of each survey item is reported, along with responses received for each item. Details: Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249189.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249189.pdf Shelf Number: 137225 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Updated Exploratory Sex Offender Recidivism Study: 2004-2006 Probation Sentence & Prison Release Cohorts Summary: This analysis builds on a report that was published by NMSC in 2012. Additional release and probation cohorts were added. The analysis includes offenders who were released from NMCD facilities or began probation for a sex offense that requires registration for calendar years 2004 - 2006. Additionally, in this analysis, NMSC staff were given access to Offender Watch by the New Mexico Department of Public Safety to confirm registration and NMCD probation data to confirm that offenders in the probation cohort received sentences that did not include prison time. Details: Albuquerque: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/updated-exploratory-sex-offender-recidivism-study-2004-2006-probation-sentence--prison-release-cohorts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/updated-exploratory-sex-offender-recidivism-study-2004-2006-probation-sentence--prison-release-cohorts.pdf Shelf Number: 137467 Keywords: ProbationersRecidivismSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring: Statewide Requirements, Local Practices, and Monitoring Procedures Summary: Since OPPAGA's first statutorily required review of sex offender registration in 2005, the number of registered sex offenders in Florida communities has grown by 44% to more than 26,000 offenders. Sheriffs' offices monitor all registered sex offenders and are meeting their statutory requirements for offender registration, address verification, and public notification. Additionally, the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) supervises offenders sentenced to community supervision and those who have been conditionally released from prison. Sex offenders under FDC supervision are supervised at the highest risk level which entails frequent one-on-one contact between a probation officer and offender. Some supervised offenders are placed on electronic monitoring for enhanced monitoring and supervision. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) maintains Florida's sex offender registry. In addition to other information, sex offenders are required to report if they are enrolled or employed at an institution of higher learning and this information is included on FDLE's registry. Our review found this information to be out-of-date for some offenders. Offenders also must attempt to obtain valid state identification cards; however, some are unable to obtain the cards either because they lack the needed documentation or money to pay required fees. Sheriffs' offices have implemented the 30-day transient reporting requirement and report that the more frequent reporting improves accountability. However, the reporting requirement is not tracked consistently throughout the state. Transient offenders continue to be difficult for law enforcement to monitor. Details: Tallahassee: OPPAGA, 2015. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 15-16: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1516rpt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1516rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 139840 Keywords: Offender MonitoringSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Harris, Andrew Title: Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Supplemental Report on Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations Summary: The data presented in this report are drawn from a national survey, administered online in the spring of 2015, as the second part of a two-phase national study to elicit law enforcement perspectives on the functions, utility, and operation of sex offender registration and notification systems in the United States. The study's first phase featured a series of semi-structured interviews conducted in 2014 with 105 law enforcement professionals in five states and two tribal jurisdictions. Items for this survey were developed based on themes, experiences, and perspectives emerging from those interviews. The survey was administered through the services of Campbell Rinker, a marketing research and survey firm. Participants were invited to complete the survey via targeted email outreach, utilizing a nationwide commercial list of 8,840 police chiefs and command staff and a list of 2,921 county sheriffs obtained from the National Sheriffs Association. Following initial outreach, prospective respondents were contacted through three waves of follow-up. The survey was open for five weeks between April and May of 2015. The transmittal email included details on the survey scope and purpose, and a link to the survey. Respondents were informed that the survey was intended for completion by agency leadership (e.g., police chiefs, sheriffs), personnel involved in sex offender registration and management, and specialized personnel involved in sex crime investigations. The survey items presented to each respondent varied, with piping logic based on stated agency functions, respondent roles, and jurisdictional characteristics. Respondent and agency characteristics of the survey sample are summarized on pages 2-4 in the initial survey. The final sample included representation from 49 states (all states with the exception of Hawaii), and from the District of Columbia. 60.0% of the survey sample came from local police departments, 39.3% from county sheriffs, and the remainder (<1%) from other types of agencies including state law enforcement agencies. Respondents were fairly evenly divided among senior agency command staff (34.9% of the sample), line-level commanders and supervisors (29.8%), and line-level staff (35.3% total, consisting of 26.6% uniform and 8.7% civilian). The initial survey results report, issued in August of 2015, provided the tabulated statistics for the survey’s structured items. This report presents the results of the survey's unstructured (open-response) items, particularly those related to law enforcement recommendations related to policy priorities. The first peer-reviewed analysis and discussion of survey results was published online ahead of print in Criminal Justice Policy Review in June 2016, and is available at this link Details: Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250114.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250114.pdf Shelf Number: 147854 Keywords: Sex Offender Notification LawsSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Huebner, Beth Title: Missouri Sex Offender Fail to Register Predictive Model Summary: The criminal justice system treats offenders who have committed crimes of a sexual nature much differently than virtually any other type of offender (Edwards & Hensley, 2001). Due to the especially heinous nature of crimes committed by sex offenders, preventing reoffending is especially important to ensuring the safety of the public. A broad scope of legislation has been passed with the goal of controlling the sex offender population. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, became law in 2006. SORNA established baseline criteria for jurisdictions to follow pertaining to their registration and monitoring of sex offenders. An emerging body of literature concerning the efficacy of registration requirements suggests they have done little to reduce sexual reoffending (Tewksbury & Jennings, 2010; Huebner et al., 2014). By comparison, much less is known about the factors that influence compliance with these laws among sex offender populations. With few exceptions (Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2014), the extant literature has only started to focus on the factors associated with an increased likelihood of absconding or violating registration agreements. The current project aims to determine the characteristics most useful in predicting compliance with sex offender registry requirements among a sample of registered sex offenders in Missouri. Details: Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Highway Patrol, Statistical Analysis Center, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/Missouri%20State%20Highway%20Patrol%20and%20UMSL%20Sex%20Offender%20Project.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/Missouri%20State%20Highway%20Patrol%20and%20UMSL%20Sex%20Offender%20Project.pdf Shelf Number: 147759 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Fisher, Leah R. Title: Washington Residents' Perceptions of Sex Offenders and Sex Offender Policies Summary: Largely feared by the public, sex offenders are often seen as some of the most heinous criminals. Throughout the years, this fear has often been met with legal sanctions and legislation at local and federal levels. While well intentioned, these policies have often been found to be based on misinformation and unfounded assumptions, leading to overall ineffectiveness (Cohen & Jeglic, 2007; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). The most recent federal legislative response to sex offenses is the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (AWA); Title 1, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, is commonly referred to as SORNA. SORNA regulates the community notification and registration requirement for states to protect further victimization of children. This is done by requiring states to implement and adhere to specific standards outlined by SORNA. The most widely known SORNA standard is tiering of offenders, which requires that all convicted sex offenders be placed in Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3, based on their offense of conviction. Tier assignment determines registration requirements, and all offenders in the same tier are subject to the same duration of registration and frequency of in-person verification. In many cases, tier assignment will also help jurisdictions determine what level of community notification an offender is subjected to. SORNA requires registration information for all sex offenders to be made available online. It also requires jurisdictions to update registration information within three business days and provide email notices to appropriate parties when an offender moves to a new location, begins employment or starts attending school. Currently, Washington assigns levels to offenders based on an evidence-based risk assessment. That level then determines frequency of in-person verification. Conversely, duration of registration is based on offense class, with more serious offenses requiring longer periods of registration. Therefore, the implementation of SORNA tiering would require a major policy change. Washington legislators and policy makers recognize that such a major change in the management of sex offenders would need to be approached in a way that ensures public understanding. To do this, it is key to understand the perceptions of Washington residents that may underlie support for Washington's registration and notification policies. Moreover, it is important to understand the knowledge base of citizens so education can be provided in the most effective way possible. This will make a potential policy transition smoother, allowing convicted sex offenders the opportunity to reintegrate as it leads to a more informed citizenry. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: http://sac.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/pdf/perceptions_brief.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sac.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/pdf/perceptions_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 147758 Keywords: Risk AssessmentSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Title: Global Survey of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Systems Summary: Sex offender registration and notification systems have proliferated around the world over the last twenty years. After the United States' first national-level sex offender registration law was passed in 1994, 29 additional countries have enacted sex offender registration laws. A handful of these systems are more analogous to what would be considered a CHRI (criminal history record information) database as opposed to a 'registry', but are included in this overview for the sake of thoroughness. The following countries have laws governing sex offender registration systems at the national and/or provincial level: Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, India, the Republic of Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Maldives, Malta, New Zealand, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago, United Kingdom and Commonwealth Nations (Bermuda, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, and the Pitcairn Islands), and the United States. The following countries have considered or are considering sex offender registration and notification laws, but such laws have not yet passed: Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Cayman Islands, Fiji, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Samoa, St. Lucia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and Zimbabwe. What follows in this SMART Summary is a brief snapshot of the sex offender registration and notification laws in each of the countries that have enacted such provisions, sequenced in chronological order of the first country in a continent or region to implement such laws. Statutory references, where available, are provided. In addition, the footnotes contain additional references which might assist the reader in finding out more detailed information about the countries' sex offender registration and notification provisions. As this is a rapidly developing area of the law, and many statutes have not been officially translated into English, the reader is encouraged to check for the current versions of any nation's provisions and consult official translations, rather than relying solely on this SMART Summary. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: SMART Summary: Accessed march 4, 2017 at: https://smart.gov/pdfs/global-survey-2016-final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://smart.gov/pdfs/global-survey-2016-final.pdf Shelf Number: 141339 Keywords: Sex Offender Notification SystemsSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Sex Offender Registration Task Force (Illinois) Title: Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force: Final Report Summary: The Illinois Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force was established by the 99th General Assembly. Its mandate was to perform three functions before January 1, 2018: 1. Examine current offenses that require offenders to register as sex offenders, the current data and research regarding evidence-based practices, the conditions, restrictions, and outcomes for registered sex offenders, and the registration process. 2. Hold public hearings at the call of the co-chairpersons to receive testimony from the public. 3. Make recommendations to the General Assembly regarding legislative changes to more effectively classify sex offenders based on their level of risk of re-offending, better direct resources to monitor the most violent and high-risk offenders, and to ensure public safety. From December 2016 through December 2017, the Task Force and its diverse membership carried out these activities with administrative support from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. This report recapitulates and concludes its work. The report reviews sex offenses subject to registration in Illinois; discusses the statutory categories of sex offenders and sexual predator, and what state-level data shows about the sex offender population; offers a brief history of sex offender legislation and policy from a national and Illinois perspective; examines the state's infrastructure tasked with overseeing state and local sex offender management system; and provides the Task Force's findings and recommendations, which are outlined below in this Executive Summary. It is important to note that the Task Force examined the most current and scientifically rigorous research available on sex offender policies and practice and heard testimony from renowned experts in the field. Much of the research reviewed was collected and summarized on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking Office's Sex Offender Management, Assessment, and Planning Initiative. Details: Springfield, IL: State of Illinois, 2017. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2018 at: http://www.icjia.org/assets/articles/SOTF_report_final_12292017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.org/assets/articles/SOTF_report_final_12292017.pdf Shelf Number: 148892 Keywords: Sex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Napier, Sarah Title: What impact do public sex offender registries have on community safety? Summary: Sexual offending is a serious and harmful crime, particularly when it affects children, and often sparks significant community interest in the response by law enforcement and government. The modus operandi of sex offenders can vary widely, and the causes of sexual offending are complex, which means combating sexual offending can present significant challenges. A variety of policies and programs have been trialled internationally with the goal of preventing sexual offending and deterring convicted sex offenders from reoffending once released back into the community. One of these policies has been the adoption of public sex offender registries. In the United States, information on the name, appearance and location of high-risk sex offenders has been available to the public for 20 years. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was introduced, requiring convicted sex offenders released into the community to register with law enforcement. In 1996, Megan's Law was passed federally as a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Act. Megan's Law requires law enforcement agencies to make information on registered sex offenders available to the public, which enables individuals to search for registered sex offenders living in their community. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 550: Accessed May 24, 2018 at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi550 Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi550 Shelf Number: 150423 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Review: Assessment of Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions Summary: Proposition 83 ("Jessica's Law"), passed by California voters in 2006, requires that all convicted sex offenders paroled from prison and required by law to register with local law enforcement shall be subjected to monitoring by global positioning technology (GPS) and to restrictions on where they may reside. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic monitoring of sex offender parolees and the impact of residency restrictions on sex offender parolees at the request of the Senate Rules Committee. The review found: - The annual costs of GPS tracking has decreased over the past five fiscal years. In fiscal year 2009-10, the department spent $12.4 million to monitor sex offender parolees with GPS. By fiscal year 2013-14, these costs were $7.9 million. - There exists little objective evidence to determine to what extent, if any, GPS tracking is a crime deterrent, although a small 2012 study funded by the National Institute of Justice of 516 high-risk sex offenders found that offenders who were not subjected to GPS monitoring had nearly three times more sex-related parole violations than those who were monitored by GPS technology. Despite the rarity of studies defending GPS as a crime deterrent, the OIG's interviews with parole agents and local law enforcement personnel found that they value GPS technology as a tool for its ability to locate parolees, track their movements, and provide valuable information in solving crimes. - GPS technology adds to parole agents' workloads in certain aspects, while affording time-savings in others. For example, agents spend approximately two hours reviewing and analyzing parolees' tracks for a single-day period. On the other hand, GPS facilitates mandatory face-to-face contacts between parole agents and parolees by allowing the agent to locate parolees more quickly than might be the case in locating a non-GPS parolee. - Over 60 percent of parole agents who supervise sex-offender parolees have caseloads exceeding established departmental ratios (parolee-to-agent) when taking into consideration the mix of high-risk vs low-risk parolees per caseload. In addition, the department has a disparity of caseloads across its parole units, with 14 of the 37 parole units that supervise sex offenders reporting caseload sizes exceeding the department's established ratios for all agents assigned to those units. Simultaneously, five other parole units report caseload sizes below the department's established ratios for all of their parole agents. - Field agents whom the OIG interviewed consistently expressed their concerns that the department-issued laptops used for tracking parolee movements in the field should be replaced by smaller hand-held devices such as smart phones, stating that the laptops were not only cumbersome, but may inhibit officer safety in certain situations. Many agents the OIG encountered were using their personal smart phones for GPS mapping and tracking in the field. - The residency restrictions imposed by Jessica's Law, which prohibit paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children congregate, contribute to homelessness among paroled sex offenders. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, there were only 88 sex offenders on parole statewide who were registered as transient when Proposition 83 was passed in November 2006. As of June 2014, there were 1,556 sex offender parolees identified as transient by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While this represents 3.38 percent of all parolees, the incidence of homelessness is 19.95 percent (approximately one in five) among the subset of parolees who are sex offenders. - Transient sex offender parolees are more "labor intensive" than are parolees who have a permanent residence. The OIG interviewed parole administrators in 12 parole districts, who said that because transient sex offenders are moving frequently, monitoring their movement is time consuming. Transient sex offenders must register with local law enforcement monthly (as opposed to yearly for those with permanent residences), thus requiring more frequent registration compliance tracking by parole agents. Adding further to the workload associated with monitoring transients, agents are required to conduct weekly face-to-face contacts with them. - Transient sex offender parolees are more likely to violate the terms of their parole than those who have a permanent residence. Transient sex offenders have committed a majority of parole violations (which include technical violations as well as new crimes) among parolee sex offenders over a recent five-year period. Less than 1 percent of those violations were for sex-related crimes. In the most recently completed fiscal year (2013-14), over 76 percent of the sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating their parole terms were transient. - While Jessica's Law leaves open the option for local governments to impose their own restrictions on paroled sex offenders, parolees are finding relief from residency restrictions through the courts. Several counties have issued stays suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions to those who petition the local court, and San Diego County has issued a stay suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions on sex offenders pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court's decision of the matter In re Taylor (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 210, review granted January 3, 2013, S206143. - The California Sex Offender Management Board's findings and recommendations remain largely unaddressed. While some of the board's recommendations have been implemented, most recently with CDCR's implementation of the sex offender containment model, major recommendations, such as tiering registration requirements, reevaluating residency restrictions, and applying best practices for GPS monitoring, have not. Details: Sacramento: Author, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2019 at: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 155844 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Technology (GPS)Offender MonitoringParoleesProposition 83Residency RestrictionsSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |