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.

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010

April 22, 2014 NCJ 244205 National:

Examines the 5-year post-release offending patterns of persons released from state prisons in 2005 by offender characteristics, prior criminal history, and commitment offense. It provides estimates on the number and types of crimes former inmates commit both prior to their imprisonment and after release. The report includes different measures of recidivism, including a new arrest, court adjudication, conviction, and incarceration for either a new sentence or a technical violation.

It also documents the extent to which the released prisoners committed crimes in states other than the one that released them. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Recidivism Study of State Prisoners Released in 2005, which tracked a sample of former inmates from 30 states for five years following release in 2005. The findings are based on prisoner records obtained from the state departments of corrections through the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) and criminal history records obtained through requests to the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III) and state repositories via the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets).

Highlights:

Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—
  • About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
  • Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.
  • More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.
  • Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.
  • A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
  • An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period
  • Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.

..Source.. by BJS: Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., Matthew R. Durose, Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D.

Examining the Concentration of Registered Sex Offenders in Upstate New York Census Tracts

2014 New York:

This study examined the census tract characteristics associated with the spatial concentration of registered sex offender (RSO) residences in 1,823 census tracts across 53 counties in upstate New York. The concentration of RSOs for each tract was measured using excess risk scores that essentially measure disproportionate concentrations of RSOs based on the resident population of the county and tract.

The tract characteristics examined included structural characteristics from the 2010 Census, such as indicators of social disorganization, housing availability and affordability, and population density, legal characteristics describing the presence of residence restrictions, and controls for spatial autocorrelation and regional differences.

Results indicate that registered sex offenders (RSOs) are disproportionately more likely to be found in tracts exhibiting high levels of concentrated disadvantage, available housing, and affordable housing, and disproportionately less likely to be found in tracts with high levels of ethnic heterogeneity. Controlling for spatial autocorrelation (lag) did not change overall results but was significantly and positively associated with excess risk. Implications for future policy and research practices are discussed. ..Source.. by Kelly M. Socia, School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts, 113 Wilder St., H&SS Room 483, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. Email: Kelly_Socia@uml.edu

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
offenses.

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.

THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR
CHANGE TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA

  • 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