We now have added "Informational Posts" which are tidbits of topical information that may come in handy at some point.
Right now they are mostly about Treatment Costs.

Youth who commit sex offenses: Facts and Fiction

2008 National:

In the push to target dangerous individuals and protect children from sexual violence, lawmakers have indiscriminately targeted some youth with legislation that publicly brands them as sexual predators. This is bad policy because public registries not only fail to protect communities, but they hurt young people by stigmatizing them and alienating them from crime-reducing social networks like families, schools and jobs. This fact sheet debunks some of the most common mis-perceptions about young people convicted of sex

FICTION: Youth commit a large portion of sex offenses.
FACT: Less than 1 percent of all arrests of youth 17 years of age and younger were for sex offenses. 1 In 2006, youth 17 years of age and younger accounted for 18 percent of arrests for sex offenses. Youth under the age of 15 accounted for 9 percent of sex offense arrests in the same year.

FICTION: Youth convicted of sex offenses will become adults who commit sex offenses.
FACT: Research has shown that a young person who commits a sex offense is unlikely to commit another one.
• Recidivism rates are difficult to ascertain and compare because states and localities often define recidivism differently. However, a few academic studies have attempted to determine recidivism rates generally for youth and specifically for sex offenses. Overall, general ecidivism rates for youth convicted of all offenses are higher than recidivism rates for youth convicted of sex offenses. ..Continued.. by Justice Policy Institute

A Better Path to Community Safety: Sex Offender Registration in California: Tiering Background Paper

March 2014 California:

The California Sex Offender Management Board has determined that there is a better path to the goal of achieving enhanced community safety through sex offender registration and notification practices and recommends that key changes be made to the state’s laws in these areas of sex offender management.

CASOMB first recommended in its 2010 report to the Legislature that revisions to California’s registration laws are needed and recently selected the issue as one which deserves increased focus and effort. The effectiveness of sex offender registration policies and practices has also been the subject of national focus recently, with a variety of jurisdictions addressing the importance of updating registration practices to reflect new research and evidence based approaches. Modifying registration practices will, CASOMB believes, improve public safety in California by focusing effort and resources on more dangerous offenders.


  • 1. The goals of sex offender registration.
  • 2. The assumptions behind the sex offender registry.
  • 3. The current California picture.
  • 4. What is known now that wasn’t known then?
  • 5. What is still not known?
  • 6. The problems with California’s current registration system.
  • 7. The registry’s direct financial costs and cost-benefit ratio.
  • 8. Indirect costs and other considerations.
  • 9. Outline of the CASOMB proposal.
...Continued... by CSOMB

Just the Facts: Evidence-based -v- Emotion-based Public Policy Making

February 2014 California:

A ground breaking analysis of the facts by CSOMB:

Fact-1: Residence restrictions would not have protected Jessica

Action: Use resources to enforce registration laws and prosecute the non-compliant. California registration law violations are largely felonies, and are mandated prison sentences, exempt from realignment local custody only sentences.

Action: Use resources for sex offender treatment, to influence what the offender does, not where he/she lives. Note: In the 2010 Legislative Session, ... ..Continued.. by California Sex Offender Management Board

Is there any evidence to support the belief that residence restrictions increase community safety?

September 2011 California:

The most direct and succinct answer that can be made to Question Two is the following: No, there is no evidence to support the assumption that residence restrictions are or would be effective in reducing sexual offending and thereby making communities actually safer.
There is no evidence to support that residence restrictions are effective in reducing sexual offending [or] making communities safer.
There does not seem to have ever been any attempt on the part of those who advocate for and create policies establishing residence restrictions to identify, conduct, sponsor, fund, promote or in any way establish a scientific research basis for such policies.

An absence of scientific support for residence restriction policies does not seem to have hampered their creation and proliferation. The general fear, misunderstanding, and antipathy toward sex offenders makes it easy to persuade the general public that things must be done to protect children from their attacks.

In such a cultural climate, the question about whether there is sufficient reason to believe that such “things” will accomplish the task is seldom seriously asked, much less answered.

The focus of residence restrictions is on the sexual abuse of children. No one seems to make a claim that residence restrictions will do anything to reduce sexual assault against adults. The belief that residence restrictions would be effective in reducing the sexual victimization of children seems to be based on a
set of underlying beliefs and assumptions about how sexual offenses against children occur. These assumptions include: ...Continued at Question 2.. by The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Serve No Purpose

10-29-2013 California, National:

Under Jessica’s Law, sex offenders in San Francisco are barred from residing within two thousand feet of any school or park where children regularly gather. Due to San Francisco’s limited size and dense population, it is nearly impossible to find housing outside of this restricted zone. Consequently, the number of homeless sex offenders living in San Francisco has surged since the implementation of the restriction. This unintended consequence has led to multiple challenges to the restriction’s constitutionality and effectiveness.

The residency restriction is just one of many sex offender management strategies. Electronic monitoring, public registration, and community notification provisions have also been implemented through Jessica’s Law and Megan’s Law. In addition to residency restrictions, Jessica’s Law requires sexual offenders to wear Global Positioning System (GPS) electronic monitoring devices. Under Megan’s Law, sex offenders’ pictures, names, and addresses are made available to the public through a searchable website. The general purpose of both of these laws is to protect society from the threat of further victimization posed by sex offenders.