Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law.

2008:

Abstract
Despite the fact that the federal and many state governments have enacted registration and community notification laws as a means to better protect communities from sexual offending, limited empirical research has been conducted to examine the impact of such legislation on public safety.

Therefore, utilizing time-series analyses, this study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act.

Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders.

Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) Paper available from APA PsycNET Direct: by Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(4), Nov 2008, 284-302.

New York State Registry Recidivism Rates

Note Source: Research Bulletin:
Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment pg-3
by NYS Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives

---

WOW, this is interesting.
In this report before the entire NYS Senate,
look how these lawmakers presented the above statistic:

Notice what they left out, actual same crime recidivism. Now what did they say in this report before other lawmakers? Read below from pg-5 of this report.

Recidivism Among Sex Offenders:
One of the primary reasons that these restrictions are in place is to limit a sex offender’s interaction with children. The alarmingly high recidivism rate among sex offenders makes it imperative that they be watched – especially those convicted of preying on children. The New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives reported in 2007 that of 19,837 sex offenders on the sex offense registry, 15 % were rearrested within one year of registration, 24% within two years, 41% within five years and 48% within eight years.

By limiting their access to schools, and other locations where children may congregate, including day care and other locations the State can also limit sex offenders’ access to children, thereby protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Because the intent of SORA and these residency restriction requirements was to protect all children and victims of sexual predators, not just those attending programs tied to a grade school, we must act to close this loophole as well as many others that have been identified.

Did they lie? Nope, did they mislead other lawmakers? Yes, no doubt!
Worse yet, there is no definition of recidivism in either of these reports. Does it mean, rearrest, reconviction, return to prison and does it include TECHNICAL violations which are not new crimes; folks on parole or probation can be arrested for technical violations.

Finally, nowhere in either report is there a single mention of WHERE the RECIDIVISM occurred, or whether where it occurred had anything to do with the place/s this law is trying to protect?

If the recidivism occurred somewhere not related to area of the place/s the law is trying to protect, then this is a misuse of known recidivism rates and such rates will not be affected (a waste of taxpayer money and resources) and no one be will protected. Think about it...

---

A Detailed Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism in New York State

11-17-2007 New York:

New York State provides a wealth of studies on sex offender recidivism. While the thought of statistical studies causes the eyes of many to glaze over, any who are concerned that public policy be based on fact rather than mythology are grateful to have some hard data. It is extremely informative to look at the data gathered over the last 20 years.

The earliest study in this period was a New York Department of Corrections study (Profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986, prepared by Canestrini, K., State of New York Department of Correctional Services) which followed 556 sex offenders released from state prisons in 1986. A total of 49% of these were returned to prison within the 9 year follow-up period. It should be noted that only 6% of these (34 out of 556) were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Most were returned for parole violations (27%) or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. The study includes the clear statement: “These findings suggest that sex offenders are a diverse population and that when looking at sex offender recidivism it is important to distinguish total criminal activity from sexual reoffending.” (p. 34) Unfortunately, politicians and the media often do not do this. It should also be noted that this study was conducted before New York's Megan's Law was enacted.

New York regularly publishes 3 year follow-up studies of all those released from state prisons. Between 1985 and 2001 a total of 11,898 sex offenders were released. Only 253 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison for new sex crimes within three years of their release. (2001 Releases: Three Year Post Release Follow-up, State of New York Department of Correctional Services, p. 18) Of course, as in the above mentioned study, recidivism rates are higher if one counts those returned to prison for parole violations or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. In terms of this overall rate of recidivism, it is important to note that sex offenders have a lower 3 year rate of recidivism (34%) than the general prison population (42%). Only 8% of sex offenders were returned to prison as a result of a conviction for a new crime. Most were returned for parole violations.

The latest sex offender recidivism study, Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment (New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, May, 2007) is unique in that it also includes those sentenced to probation and county jails. Most recidivism studies (including those previously cited) examine only those who were sentenced to prison. The study examined 19,827 offenders on the New York State Sex Offender Registry on March 31, 2005. ..more.. by Rev. Dr. C. David Hess (RIP), New York State Representative of SOhopeful International

Facts about Megans Law and Sex Offenders in New York State

New York July 2007:

Much of the present discussion and debate about sex offenders is based on hysteria rather than fact. This is particularly true about sex offender recidivism. Recidivism statistics are often given without identifying the source. Even when attributed to a source, the statistics given are often misleading.

For example, many New York politicians quote a 49% recidivism rate, giving the impression that 49% of sex offenders will repeat their crimes. This figure is drawn from a New York Department of Corrections study (Profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986, prepared by Canestrini, K., State of New York Department of Correctional Services) which followed 556 sex offenders released from state prisons.

Within 9 years of their release, 49% were returned to prison. Not reported is the fact that only 6% of these (34 out of 556) were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Most were returned for parole violations (27%) or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses.

The study includes the clear statement: “These findings suggest that sex offenders are a diverse population and that when looking at sex offender recidivism it is important to distinguish total criminal activity from sexual reoffending.” (p. 34) Unfortunately, politicians and the media rarely do this. ..much much more.. by David Hess (RIP), NY Representative of SOHopeful International

Criminal history and landlord rental decisions: a New York quasi-experimental study

September 2014 New York:

Abstract
Objectives

Determine the effect of a criminal conviction on landlord decisions to consider prospective tenants and the extent to which landlord responses vary based on prospective tenant’s offense type.
Methods

Using a quasi-experimental audit design, matched pairs of “testers” posing as prospective tenants called landlords across New York State to inquire about the possibility of renting a residence. Criminal conviction type was manipulated amongst equally eligible testers posing as non-offenders (control group) or as having one of three types of prior conviction: child molestation, statutory rape, or drug trafficking (quasi-experimental groups).
Results

Analyses indicate that landlords are significantly less willing to consider prospective tenants with a criminal conviction, particularly when the conviction is for child molestation, although this effect was more strongly apparent with male testers.
Conclusions

The stigma associated with a child molestation conviction greatly impacts housing outcomes, but landlord characteristics and the sex of prospective tenants influence landlord decisions. This study has important implications for offender reentry and policies that should address this issue. ..Source.. by Douglas N. Evans,
Jeremy R. Porter

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

Residence Restrictions and the Association With Registered Sex Offender Clustering

June 2012:

This study examined whether sex offender residence restriction policies were associated with the clustering of registered sex offender (RSO) residences in 3,056 upstate New York block groups. RSO clustering was measured as the average distance between an RSO and the five closest RSO neighbors, and was aggregated to the block group level.

Controls were included for structural characteristics of block groups as well as regional differences within the study area. Results indicate that block groups with relatively newer residence restrictions had decreased RSO clustering (i.e., RSOs living farther apart from each other) compared to block groups without such policies.

However, block groups that had residence restrictions for longer than about 2 years had similar RSO clustering levels to block groups without such policies. Results suggest a nonlinear relationship between how long a residence restriction is in place and RSO clustering levels. Implications for future research and policy are discussed. ..Source.. by Kelly M. Socia, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

EDUCATION FROM THE INSIDE, OUT: THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF COLLEGE PROGRAMS IN PRISON

January 2009:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September of 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which, among other “tough on crime” policies, prohibited awarding Pell Grants to individuals incarcerated in federal or state correctional facilities. This provision effectively left the responsibility to fund higher education programs in prison to the states. In New York State, former Governor Mario Cuomo continued state funding for postsecondary correctional education through the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP), which awards educational grants to low-income students. In 1995 however, the first year George Pataki took office as governor, New York banned inmates from receiving TAP grants.1 Nationwide, nearly all the 350 postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) programs closed2—only four out of 70 remained open in New York—despite the widely held view among correction officials and experts in the field about the benefits of such programs.

The worth of in-prison college programs can be measured in several important ways, each having value for the criminal justice system and the larger community. Studies and conversations with formerly incarcerated people and program practitioners highlight the principal benefits of college programs in prison: reduced recidivism because of the enhanced problem-solving skills and greater opportunities for steady employment provided to inmates, safer and more manageable prison conditions, and a cost-effective option for improving public safety.

Statistical evidence from several highly regarded studies corroborates the Correctional Association’s position that college programming in prison is a highly effective tool in reducing recidivism. A 1991 study released by New York’s Department of Correctional Services found that inmates who earned a degree while incarcerated had a 26.4 percent recidivism rate whereas 44.6 percent of participants who did not earn a degree were returned to custody.3 Another influential study, published in 2004, Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis of Research Conducted 1990-1999, found that “inmates who participated in PSCE recidivated 22 percent of the time and those not participating in PSCE had a recidivism rate of 41 percent.”4

Interviews and observations from program participants and practitioners attest to the importance of college programs in prison. The comments made by men and women who are earning a living and building good lives back in their communities demonstrate the real value in post-secondary correctional education programs. Christina Voight, a former participant in the College Bound Program at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, a maximum security prison for women in Westchester, New York, said, “The people who got an education on the inside had the same problems when released as those who didn’t. But those without college kept falling while those who had an education got back up and kept going.”

Prison administrators, program practitioners, and incarcerated persons alike also recount the positive effects of college programs in prison: providing an incentive for good behavior; producing mature, well-spoken leadership who have a calming influence on other inmates and on correction officers; and, reducing the tension and violent interactions between inmates and staff and among inmates. Jamie Houston, Director of the Correctional Education Program at Indiana State University and former Assistant Warden in the Indiana Department of Correction, characterized inmates attending classes as the best-behaved population in a correctional facility, crediting college programs with creating an incentive to avoid conduct that will be written up as a disciplinary infraction.

In-prison college programs are also a cost-effective method of improving public safety. The cost differences in education versus incarceration in New York, plus the short- and longterm benefits of a better educated population, makes investment in higher education for incarcerated individuals and people in the community smart fiscal policy. One cost-benefit analysis found that the cost to the state per crime prevented by offering education to inmates is about $1,600; the cost per crime prevented by extending prison sentences is $2,800. In other words, “A $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same 4 Chapell, investment in education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration.”5

The Correctional Association selected six in-prison college programs in New York State and across the United States to examine what seems to be working in post-secondary correctional education:

For the remainder of this report: by A Report by the Correctional Association of New York