Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:20 pm
Time: 8:20 pm
Results for sex offenders (u.s.)
7 results foundAuthor: Carter, Madeline M. Title: Twenty Strategies for Advancing Sex Offender Management in Your Jurisdiction Summary: The goal of sex offender management is to promote public safety by reducing the risk of recidivism among sex offenders. Significant advancements have been made in the field of sex offender management in recent years. These include a clearer understanding of the adults and juveniles who commit these offenses, of the interventions and strategies that have been demonstrated through research to be effective and that appear to have great potential in reducing risk, and of methods and processes for engaging partners and equipping and supporting staff to manage these cases. This document was developed for policymakers interested in advancing adult and juvenile sex offender management in their jurisdictions. Based upon both research and practice, we offer 20 strategies that hold promise for reducing risk and promoting safe communities. Each strategy is illustrated by a case study representing one jurisdiction’s efforts to thoughtfully advance practice. These policy and practice initiatives, the underlying rationale and available evidence supporting them, and the accompanying jurisdictional case studies together represent the tremendous progress that has been achieved in our nation’s continued efforts to prevent further sexual victimization. Details: Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management, 2008. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2011 at: http://www.csom.org/pubs/twenty_strategies.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.csom.org/pubs/twenty_strategies.pdf Shelf Number: 122094 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitationRisk AssessmentSex Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: McGrath, Robert J. Title: A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Summary: The purpose of the present study was to test models of combining static and dynamic risk measures that might predict sexual recidivism among adult male sex offenders better than any one type of measure alone. Study participants were 759 adult male sex offenders under correctional supervision in Vermont who were enrolled in community sex offender treatment between 2001 and 2007. These offenders were assessed once using static measures (Static-99R, Static-2002R and VASOR) based on participants’ history at the date of placement in the community. A 22-item dynamic risk measure (SOTNPS) was used multiple times to assess participants, shortly after their entry into community treatment and approximately every six months thereafter. Analyses of SOTNPS scores resulted in the development of a new 16-item dynamic risk measure, the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS). At fixed one- and three-year follow-up periods from participants’ initial, second, and third dynamic risk assessments, the SOTIPS and Static-99R, the static risk measure selected for further analysis in the present study, each independently showed moderate ability to rank order risk for sexual, violent, and any criminal recidivism and return to prison. A logistic regression model that combined SOTIPS and Static-99R consistently predicted recidivism and outperformed either instrument alone when both instruments had similar predictive power. Participants who demonstrated treatment progress, as reflected by reductions in SOTIPS scores, showed lower rates of recidivism than those who did not. Details: Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Corrections, 2011. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 22, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Shelf Number: 123424 Keywords: RecidivismRisk AssessmentSex Offenders (U.S.)Treatment Programs |
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: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects Summary: Studies estimate that about 1 in every 5 girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are sexually abused. In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration standards for all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the District of Columbia, and certain Indian tribes. SORNA established the SMART Office to determine if these jurisdictions have “substantially implemented” the law, and to assist them in doing so. The deadline to implement SORNA was July 2009; given that none of the jurisdictions met this deadline, DOJ authorized two 1-year extensions. This report addresses: (1) To what extent has the SMART Office determined that jurisdictions have substantially implemented SORNA, and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced? (2) For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders? GAO analyzed SMART Office implementation status reports from September 2009 through September 2012. To identify any challenges, GAO surveyed officials in the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia; GAO received responses from 93 percent (52 of 56) of them. The survey results can be viewed at GAO-13-234SP. GAO visited or interviewed criminal justice officials in five jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, chosen to represent a range in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents. Their perspectives are not generalizable, but provided insights. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-211: Accessed February 12, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-211 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-211 Shelf Number: 127590 Keywords: Sex Offender Registration and Notification ActSex Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Zgoba, Kristen M. Title: A Multi-State Recidivism Study Using Static-99R and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act Summary: This study seeks to examine important components of our nation’s sex offender tracking and monitoring systems, with a focus on risk assessment and sexual recidivism (measured by re-arrest). The principal aims of this study were fourfold: (1) to compare the nationally recommended Adam Walsh Act (AWA) classification tiers with actuarial risk assessment instruments in their respective abilities to identify high risk individuals and recidivists; (2) to evaluate the predictive accuracy of existing state risk assessment classification schemes; (3) to examine the distribution of risk assessment scores within and across tier categories as defined by the AWA; and (4) to examine the role of offender age in recidivism risk across the adult lifespan. Data were collected from 1,789 adult sex offenders in four states (Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida and South Carolina) to inform these analyses. Variables including offender demographics and criminal history information, coded from state criminal justice records, were used to score actuarial risk assessment instruments and sex offender registry information. On average, we found that the recidivism rate was approximately 5% at five years and 10% at 10 years. AWA tier was unrelated to sexual recidivism, except in Florida, where it was inversely associated with recidivism. Actuarial measures and existing state tiering systems both showed better predictive validity than AWA tiers. Finally, offender age was found to have a significant protective effect for sexual reoffending, with older offenders showing a decreased risk for sexual recidivism. The findings indicate that the current AWA classification scheme is likely to result in a system that is less effective in protecting the public than the classification systems currently implemented in the states studied. Policy makers should strongly consider substantial revisions of the AWA classification system to better incorporate evidence-based models of sex offender risk assessment and management. Details: Final Report submitted to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf Shelf Number: 127640 Keywords: Adam Walsh ActRecidivismRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementSex 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: Hastings, Allison Title: Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and for Abusiveness: Guidelines for Administering Screening Instruments and Using the Information to Inform Housing Decisions Summary: The National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape (Standards) under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) require corrections agencies, as part of their prevention efforts, to screen individuals for their risk of sexual victimization or sexual abusiveness and to use the information to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. To help agencies achieve compliance with the Standards, Vera's Center for Sentencing and Corrections, in conjunction with the National PREA Resource Center has developed guidelines to screen for risk of sexual victimization and for abusiveness, including questions to be asked of inmates, residents, and detainees, and the best use of the information from the screening to inform housing decisions. These guidelines are based on reviews of screening tools and consultations with national classification experts, corrections practitioners, technical assistance providers, and researchers. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/prea-screening-guidelines.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/prea-screening-guidelines.pdf Shelf Number: 135324 Keywords: Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)Prison ViolenceRisk AssessmentSex Offenders (U.S.) |