A Grounded Look at the Debate Over Prison-Based Education: Optimistic Theory Versus Pessimistic Worldview

2003:

Abstract:
Debate over prison-based education continues to divide scholars. Central to this debate are two contradictory perspectives on prison education. These perspectives are (a) an idealistic/optimistic view regarding prison education and (b) a pessimistic reaction to prison education. We located the debate on the contemporary political context (prison-based education Pell Grants). Until its elimination in 1993/1994 with the passage of the Crime Bill, Pell Grants were the primary sources of funding for postsecondary, correctional-education programming in America. This recent, external, environmental change on our penal systems has profound political, economic, and social implications that might be too important and too costly to ignore. ..Source.. by Charles B. A. Ubah, Georgia College and State University Milledgeville -and- Robert L. Robinson Jr., Lincoln University of Missouri

The effect of proximity to a registered sex offender's residence on single-family house selling price.(features)

2003:

abstract
This study reports a finding of a significant effect on the selling price of a single-family house given its proximity to a registered sex offender's residence. The effect is an increasing function of proximity that varies with offender classification and with the community notification system employed. For more dangerous offenders, the effect is significant for houses located up to 0.3 mile from an offender. Houses located within 0.1 mile of an offender sold for 17.4 % less, on average, than similar houses located farther away. For less dangerous offenders, the significant effect extends to 0.2 mile from the offender's residence, and the effect is smaller. ..Source.. by James E. Larsen & Kenneth J. Lowrey & Joseph W. Coleman

Differences in the Predictive Validity of Actuarial Risk Assessments in Relation to Sex Offender Type

2003:

Abstract:
This study seeks to expand on the previously reported validity of the Static-99, RRASOR, MnSOST-R, and SORAG in predicting sexual recidivism utilizing a regional sample of offenders. The predictive validity of each test was determined utilizing subgroups of the sample based on each offender's known offense history. The effectiveness of each instrument varied depending on offender type. The Static-99 and SORAG were both significantly predictive of sexual, violent, and any recidivism for extrafamilial child molesters, and all four tests were predictive of violent or any recidivism in this subgroup. For incest offenders, all four tests were at least moderately predictive of sexual recidivism, whereas the Static-99 and the SORAG were highly predictive of violent or any recidivism. None of the four tests established consistent predictive validity across recidivism categories in regard to rapists or hands-off offenders, however, the Static-99 and the SORAG were significant in terms of sexual recidivism.

For the remainder of this paper: by Darci L. Bartosh, M.A., Argosy University, -and- Tina Garby, M.A., Argosy University, -and- Deborah Lewis, Ph.D., Argosy University -and- Steve Gray, Ed. D.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 47, No. 4, 422-438 (2003)DOI: 10.1177/0306624X03253850

MN- LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT ISSUES, 2003 Report to the Legislature

January 2003 (revised 2/04):

Introduction
The Minnesota Legislature requested a report from the commissioner of corrections to address issues regarding residential locations of level three sex offenders (see Appendix A: Minnesota Session Laws 2002, Chapter 385, Sec. 10).

Offender Characteristics
As of December 31, 2002, there are 329 designated level three offenders in Minnesota. Of those, 97 are in residential settings in a Minnesota community. All are male. Fifty of those live in Hennepin County, 14 in Ramsey County, six in Olmsted County, and four in St. Louis County. Twenty-three live elsewhere, with no county having more than two.

Issues
Legislation mandating this report directed the commissioner of corrections to report on eight is-sues concerning level three sex offenders. This section of the report responds to that directive. ..more.. by Minnesota Department of Corrections

==============================

Excerpts:

Findings

1. Proximity restrictions have been adopted in other states, but there has been little experience with actual implementation of these laws. Two states, Alabama and Iowa, recently enacted or revised proximity restrictions. In October 2002, Iowa had the first charge against an of-fender for violating their law. This is considered a test case for the restrictions.

2. Proximity restrictions would severely limit already scarce residential options for level three offenders.

3. There is no evidence in Minnesota that residential proximity to schools or parks affects re-offense. Thirteen level three offenders released between 1997 and 1999 have been rearrested for a new sex offense since their release from prison, and in none of the cases has residential proximity to schools or parks been a factor in the re-offense.

4. There is no evidence that concentration of level three sex offenders increases the likelihood of reoffense within the community. Four of the 13 level three reoffenders were living with other sex offenders at the time of their rearrest. However, in three of these cases, the sex offenders were living together while in county jail, civilly committed, or in a halfway house. In the fourth instance, a level three offender re-offended while he was living with a level two sex offender. This offender provided information to his therapist, which eventually led to the rearrest of the level three offender for a child pornography offense.

5. Information on sex offenders has a negative effect on the perception of safety in a neighbor-hood. Increased information on sex offenders has a negative effect on property values. Increased residential concentration of level three offenders – in addition to other negative neighborhood issues such as crime, housing deterioration, environmental hazards, and traffic problems – expands that negative effect.

6. Proximity restrictions will have the effect of restricting level three offenders to less populated areas, with fewer supervising agents and fewer services for offenders (i.e., employment, education, and treatment). The result of proximity restrictions would be to limit most level three offenders to rural, suburban, or industrial areas.


Recommendations
1. Since blanket proximity restrictions on residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety, the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity restrictions, based on circumstances of an individual offender, serve as a valuable supervision tool. Continued use – through extension of conditional release and specific release conditions and restrictions – is appropriate. Most of these supervision prox-imity restrictions address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or minors, rather than where the offender resides.

2. Public notification of residential locations of level three offenders serves a valuable ser-vice and should continue. Community residents with this knowledge are able to determine what level of interaction they feel is acceptable for their family safety. The information raises awareness, dispels rumors, and allows greater knowledge of safety issues.

3. A legislative hearing on the expansion of housing options should be held. Appropriate housing is the key to dispersal and successful placement of the sex offender population. A legislative hearing to address all the issues related to housing of released level three sex of-fenders would prove valuable. The DOC is currently conducting an interagency work group on offender housing. Included in this group’s study are the unique challenges of finding housing options for level three offenders. Options under exploration are public/private part-nerships, charitable and nonprofit efforts, changes in policy, and other outreach programs.

4. Explore various housing options. The interagency work group on offender housing spon-sored by the DOC is approaching the need for offender housing through several methods. These methods include identifying ways to assist offenders in becoming more attractive ten-ants, as well as identifying ways to encourage and assist landlords in providing housing to of-fenders. Also, the work group is identifying various models of existing housing programs that may be adaptable to address the housing needs of offenders as they transition from prison to the community. Approaches such as master leases and “three-quarter way” houses seem appropriate for the offender population for several reasons – among them the flexibility to expect many offenders to reach and maintain housing self-sufficiency fairly soon after re-lease.

The population that presents the most daunting housing issues is sex offenders who are iden-tified as levels two and three through the community notification process. At present, no spe-cial solutions have been identified for this population.
Although the work group has not completed its task the time of this report, the following rec-ommendations are offered:

a) Increase the number and capacity of halfway houses. In some cases the needs of the offender and public safety are best served when the offender transitions to the community through the highly structured environment of a halfway house. Current halfway house resources are inadequate to meet the number of offenders who need services. Also, there are regions of the state that have no halfway house resources.

b) Provide funding to establish “three-quarter way” houses. These houses provide an-other step in a continuum of housing options. Three-quarter way houses provide afford-able housing for offenders and a positive supportive community within the house. There is no staff on the premises, but some degree of monitoring of the house is done by off-site staff. Such a facility also allows for an increased level of community supervision by agents, law enforcement, and the public. Most often these houses are expected to be nearly financially self-sufficient after an initial start-up period.

c) Provide funding for scattered site lease programs. Housing for offenders can be eco-nomically provided by contracting with housing programs. Housing programs can lease properties from owners and sublease to offenders. Included in this plan is the expectation that the offender is assessed payment on a sliding fee schedule. It is also an expectation that the offender will assume responsibility for all housing expenses soon after release.

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report: February 2006, NCJ 210297:

Introduction
This report is based upon the results from a survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in May–December 2004. Fifty-three jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses were received from all 53 jurisdictions. Throughout this report, the 50 States will be referred to as “States”; the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands will be referred to as “territories,” consistent with prior surveys; “Nation” refers collectively to both the States and territories.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was the source for information relating to the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index (III) system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States, as of
March 1, 2003.

Major findings

Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003 (Table 1):

• Forty-nine reporting States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file.

• Twenty-five States (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico have fully automated criminal history files.

Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 2003 (Table 4):

• All 50 reporting States and Puerto Rico have fully or partially automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index.

• The Virgin Islands has no automated criminal history files.

• Of those States maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the prior manual record is subsequently automated in 20 States. In four States (California, Delaware, Kansas, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Arizona, the new information is added to the manual file. ..For the remainder of the report.. by U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Note: Very important is knowing how the criminal system are broken down. Accordingly, see the description of all of the systems.

VT- Outcome of a Treatment Program for Adult Sex Offenders

2003 Vermont:

Abstract:
This study examined the recidivism rates of 195 adult male sex offenders who were referred to a prison-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program. Of this sample, 56 participants completed treatment, 49 entered but did not complete treatment, and 90 refused treatment services. Although participants were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions, there were no between-group differences on participants’ pre-treatment risk for sexual recidivism as appraised on two actuarial risk measures, the RRASOR and Static-99. Over a mean follow-up period of almost 6 years, the sexual reoffense rate for the completed-treatment group was 5.4% versus 30.6% for the some-treatment and 30.0% for the no-treatment groups. Lower sexual recidivism rates were also found among those participants who received aftercare treatment and correctional supervision services in the community. ..Source..(Purchase) by Robert J. McGrath and Georgia Cumming, Vermont Department of Corrections -and- Joy A. Livingston, Flint Springs Consulting -and- Stephen E. Hoke , Vermont Department of Corrections