There are three supplemental reports which begin with "Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification" (ex: Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification - Preliminary Survey Results) and each is below with access to them, where ever we could find them.
Preliminary Survey Results
This survey, administered online in the spring of 2015, represents 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 items presented to each respondent varied, with piping logic based on stated agency functions, respondent roles, and jurisdictional characteristics. Questions from the survey were divided into seven categories, including:
- General Registry Purposes and Effectiveness
- Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) Issues and Challenges
- Classification of Offenders on the Registry
- Sex Offender Non-Compliance
- Residence Restrictions
- Inter-Agency Coordination
- SORN Impacts and Policy Recommendations
The survey was completed by 1,485 respondents, with 59.7 percent representing local police departments and 39.6 percent representing county sheriff’s offices. A limited number of respondents represented other types of agencies, including state law enforcement agencies. Respondents were fairly evenly divided among senior agency command staff (34.9 percent), line-level commanders and supervisors (29.8 percent), and line-level staff (35.3 percent, consisting of 26.6 percent uniform and 8.7 percent civilian).
Approximately one-third of participants indicated that they currently spent 25 percent or more of their time on sex offender management duties, and a significant majority (more than 95 percent) indicated that they had performed one or more duties related to sex offender management, community notification, and sex crimes investigation during their careers.
Respondents represent every state, except Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. ..Source.. by Andrew J. Harris, Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, Jill S. Levenson..
Supplemental Report Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations
The data presented in this report are drawn from a national survey administered online in 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 (SORNA) systems in the United States.
The initial survey results report, issued in August of 2015, provided the tabulated statistics for the survey’s structured items regarding SORNA. This report presents the results of the survey’s unstructured (open-response) items, particularly those related to law enforcement recommendations for SORNA policies.
The open-ended prompts elicited thoughts about priorities for policymakers and fell into four broad categories: (..Continued..) ... ..NCJRS Source.. by Andrew J. Harris, Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, Jill S. Levenson
Effectiveness, Challenges, and Policy Priorities
Since the 1990s, sex offender registration and notification (SORN) has assumed a prominent place on state and federal crime control agendas in the United States. Although researchers have examined many aspects of SORN policies and systems, relatively little is known about how SORN is used, perceived, and experienced by law enforcement professionals in the context of their work.
This article presents findings from a mixed-method study, consisting of face-to-face interviews and a national online survey of police and sheriff agencies. We examined law enforcement views on SORN’s general functions and efficacy, barriers to SORN effectiveness, and recommendations for SORN-related policy. Results highlight the challenges associated with SORN’s various functions as a law enforcement information tool, as an offender monitoring mechanism, and as a conduit of public information.
They also indicate differences between the perspectives of agency leadership and those on the front lines of registry enforcement and management, as well as a range of concerns associated with the reliability and utility of registry information, inter-system communication, registrant homelessness and transience, and the public’s capacity to understand registry information. Implications for policy reform and for SORN-related research are discussed. WAR Source ... Sage Source by Andrew J. Harris, Jill S. Levenson, Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, and Scott M. Walfield