Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:04 pm
Time: 9:04 pm
Results for sex offenders (minnesota)
4 results foundAuthor: Minnesota Department of Corrections Title: The Impact of Prison-Based Treatment on Sex Offender Recidivism: Evidence from Minnesota Summary: In evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender treatment in Minnesota prisons, this study does not use a randomized experimental design. Furthermore, due to a lack of available data, it does not control for the possible impact that post-release participation in community-based treatment may have on reoffending. Despite these limitations, however, the present study contains a number of strengths that have been lacking from most prior treatment studies. First, as discussed later in more detail, a propensity score matching (PSM) technique was used to individually match treated and untreated sex offenders. In doing so, this study minimizes the threat of selection bias by creating a comparison group whose probability of entering treatment was similar to that of the treatment group. Second, in addition to being one of the first studies in the sex offender treatment literature to use PSM, this study further controls for rival causal factors by analyzing the data with Cox regression, which is widely regarded as the most appropriate multivariate statistical technique for recidivism analyses. Third, by comparing 1,020 treated sex offenders with a matched group of 1,020 untreated sex offenders, the sample size used for this study (N = 2,040) is one of the larger sex offender treatment studies to date. Fourth, to gain a more precise assessment of the effectiveness of treatment, multiple measures of treatment participation and criminal recidivism were used. Finally, because recidivism data were collected on the 2,040 sex offenders through the end of 2006, the average follow-up period for these offenders was 9.3 years. This study thus provides a robust assessment of treatment effectiveness by tracking offenders over a relatively lengthy period of time. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10SOTXStudy_Revised.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10SOTXStudy_Revised.pdf Shelf Number: 121190 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsRecidivismRehabilitationSex Offender TreatmentSex Offenders (Minnesota) |
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: Minnesota. Office of the Legislative Auditor. Program Evaluation Division Title: Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Summary: Minnesota and 19 other states have laws allowing the courts to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders following the completion of their prison sentences. In most of these states, civilly committed sex offenders are placed in secure facilities that provide treatment. In a few states like Texas and, to some extent, New York, civilly committed sex offenders receive treatment while living in halfway houses or other community settings. The major public benefit of civil commitment is increased public safety. If states use the civil commitment process appropriately, sex offenders who are most likely to reoffend are living in a secure facility and not among the general public. Furthermore, such dangerous sex offenders are not released into the community until the risk that they will reoffend is lowered through treatment or for other reasons. While civil commitment increases public safety, confinement in a secure treatment facility is costly. In Minnesota, it costs the Department of Human Services (DHS) about $120,000 per year to house and treat a civilly committed sex offender in a secure facility. The cost is roughly three times the cost of incarcerating inmates at Minnesota’s correctional facilities. The high cost of civil commitment can be worth the price if civil commitment is reserved for the most dangerous offenders and if treatment is effective in reducing the risk of recidivism for at least some offenders. There are concerns, however, that Minnesota has built an expensive system of civil commitment and has committed some offenders who could be safely treated and supervised in a less costly community setting. The number of civilly committed sex offenders has grown dramatically over the last two decades. From 1990 to 2000, Minnesota’s population of civilly committed offenders grew from less than 30 to 149. As of January 1, 2011, the number has grown to 656, including 605 at DHS facilities and 51 at Minnesota correctional facilities. In 2010, Minnesota had more civilly committed sex offenders than every state except California and Florida. In addition, Minnesota had by far the largest number of civilly committed sex offenders per capita in the country. Current projections indicate that, under current policies, significant growth is likely in the future. According to DHS, the number of civilly committed sex offenders at DHS facilities is expected to nearly double between 2010 and 2020. In addition to concerns raised about the number of sex offenders who are civilly committed, another significant issue is the apparent ineffectiveness of treatment at DHS facilities. No sex offender has been successfully discharged from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) since it was created in 1994. Only one offender has ever been provisionally discharged and that offender was brought back to MSOP due to technical violations of his release conditions. As a result of these concerns, the Legislative Audit Commission directed the Office of the Legislative Auditor to conduct a program evaluation of the civil commitment process and the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Our evaluation focuses on the following issues: How has the population of civilly committed sex offenders grown in Minnesota? How does the size of Minnesota’s population compare with those in other states? What accounts for the high costs of civil commitment? How does the average cost of civil commitment in Minnesota compare with similar facilities in other states and with other public facilities in Minnesota? Is Minnesota committing the most dangerous sex offenders? Are commitment decisions being made in a consistent manner throughout the state? Is MSOP providing appropriate treatment to civilly committed sex offenders? Why have there been no discharges from MSOP facilities? Could some of the civilly committed sex offenders be treated in the community at a lower cost, while still providing significant safeguards for the public? Details: St. Paul: Minnisota Office of the Legislative Auditor, 2011. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2011 at: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/ccso.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/ccso.pdf Shelf Number: 122392 Keywords: Civil Commitment of Sex OffendersSex Offenders (Minnesota) |
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) |