Sex Offenders: Recidivism & Collateral Consequences

March 2012 New Jersey:

Abstract:

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. ..Source.. by Richard Tewksbury, Ph.D. University of Louisville and Wesley G. Jennings, Ph.D. University of South Florida and Kristen Zgoba, Ph.D. New Jersey Department of Corrections

Transient Sex Offenders and Residence Restrictions in Florida

July 2013 Florida:

Executive Summary:
The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of transient sex offenders in the context of residence restriction laws in Florida. The entire population of registered sex offenders living in the community in Florida was studied (n = 23,523). Higher proportions of transient (homeless) sex offenders were found in counties with a larger number of restrictions, vast territory covered by local laws, wide-distance buffer zones, bus stop restrictions, higher population density, and expensive housing costs.

Together, these factors create a perfect storm for elevated levels of sex offender transience. Broward and Miami-Dade Counties together are home to 13.2% of the state's community sex offenders, but 37% of the state's transients. Sex offenders are more likely than the general population to become homeless.

Transients were more likely than non-transients to have a history of failing to register. Few transients abscond, but when they do, they are more likely to abscond from registration than probation. Because housing instability is a risk factor for recidivism and undermines effective monitoring of sex offenders, lawmakers should recognize that transience is an unintended negative consequence of these laws and reconsider residence restrictions as a sex offender management policy.

Introduction:
Sex offender residence restrictions (SORR) laws prohibit registered sex offenders (RSO) from living within close proximity (usually 1,000 to 2,500 feet) of places where children congregate. Despite their popularity, there is no evidence that sex offenders who live closer to schools or daycare centers reoffend more frequently than those who live farther away (Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2010), or that residential restrictions serve to reduce sexual recidivism (Blood, Watson, & Stageberg, 2008; Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury, 2008; Nobles, Levenson, & Youstin, 2009; Socia, 2012).

These well-intended laws result in limited housing options for sex offenders in many metropolitan areas, and their unintended consequences include transience, homelessness, and housing instability. This exploratory study is the first to specifically identify and examine factors associated with sex offender transience. ..See Press Release.. by Levenson, Ackerman, Socia & Harris

Improving Illinois' Response to Sexual Offenses Committed by Youth

3-25-2014 Illinois:

Recommendations for Law, Policy, and Practice

The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission performed extensive scientific and legal research to understand the complex issues of the behavior, treatment, and rehabilitation of juvenile sex offenders and the extent to which current knowledge has resulted in practical applications throughout the state.

The findings from this research shaped the Commission’s recommendations, which aim to increase public safety, improve outcomes for young offenders, and allocate scarce public resources effectively.

To do this, Illinois should implement evidence-informed policies for professionals who work with victims and youth offenders; provide individualized, community-based, family-focused treatments and services; and repeal counter-productive sex offender registration requirements and categorical restrictions for young people. ..Full access to reports.. by Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission

MN- Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota

April 2007 Minnesota:

Executive Summary:
In an effort to curb the incidence of sexual recidivism, state and local governments across the country have passed residency restriction laws. Designed to enhance public safety by protecting children, residency restrictions prohibit sex offenders and, in particular, child molesters from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of a school, park, playground or other location where children are known to congregate. Given that existing research has yet to fully investigate whether housing restrictions reduce sexual recidivism, the present study examines the potential deterrent effect of residency restrictions by analyzing the sexual reoffense patterns of the 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006.

In order to determine whether the 224 cases might have been affected by residency restrictions, four basic criteria were used.

1. Because housing restrictions are geared primarily towards deterring sex offenders—namely, child molesters—from initiating contact with potential victims, offenders had to establish direct contact with the victims, as opposed to gaining access to their victims through another person they know such as a significant other (e.g. wife, fiancée, girlfriend, etc.), friend, co-worker, or acquaintance.

2. The contact had to have occurred within at least one mile of the offender’s residence at the time of the offense.

3. The first contact location had to have been near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area.

4. The victim had to have been under the age of 18 at the time of the offense.

Data on the most recent sex offense for the 224 recidivists were derived from the criminal complaint, the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, the Statewide Supervision (SSS) database, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (DOC) Correctional Operations Management System (COMS) database.

Results
Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law. Only 79 (35 percent) of the cases involved offenders who established direct contact with their victims. Of these, 28 initiated victim contact within one mile of their own residence, 21 within 0.5 miles (2,500 feet), and 16 within 0.2 miles (1,000 feet). A juvenile was the victim in 16 of the 28 cases.

But none of the 16 cases involved offenders who established victim contact near a school, park, or other prohibited area. Instead, the 16 offenders typically used a ruse to gain access to their victims, who were most often their neighbors. ..Source.. by Minnesota Department of Corrections