How many men are paedophiles? "1 to 5 Percent?" "Authored by?"

July 2014 National:

How many men are paedophiles?
by Wesley Stephenson BBC News

As soon as you give this question a moment's thought, you realise that it's not going to be an easy one to answer. Paedophiles are not easy to identify.

"Because paedophilia is so secretive and so few people are willing to admit it, there is no meaningful way to get a reliable estimate," says Dr James Cantor, a psychologist and sexual behaviour scientist at the University of Toronto. (Full Bio HERE)

"There's no meaningfully ethical way of taking 200 men, hooking them up to detectors, showing them pictures of adults and children and seeing how many respond most to children."

One person who has attempted an estimate is Dr Michael Seto, a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare group.

In 2008 he wrote a book (Pedophilia) in which he put the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population at 5%.

The figure was based on surveys conducted in Germany, Norway and Finland in which men were asked whether they had ever had sexual thoughts or fantasies about children or engaged in sexual activity with children.

But Seto stresses that 5% was an upper estimate, and that the studies were limited in what they revealed.

"What those surveys don't include are questions on the intensity of those thoughts and fantasies, whether they were repeated or not. Someone might say 'Yes' because they once had a fantasy but our understanding of paedophilia would be that that person recurringly had sexual thoughts and fantasies about children."

Now, with more data and better methodology, he has revised his figure down to about 1% of the population, though he makes clear this is still only an educated guess.

Massachusetts Recidivism Study: A Closer Look at Releases and Returns to Prison

This study does not distinguish between recidivism of the same crime -vs- recidivism of different crimes. In other words, with respect to sex offenders, if they returned to prison, did they return to prison for another sex crime -OR- did they return to prison for a different crime? A vey important distinction overlooked.

April 2008

Abstract:
The Massachusetts Recidivism Study is a collaborative effort between the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center and the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) that aims to better understand the experiences of recidivists and how their previous incarceration and time in the community relate to their returns to prison. The study consists of three interrelated components: an analysis of DOC administrative data, interviews with recidivists as they return to prison, and parole officer focus groups. This report provides findings from the analysis of administrative data on the 2002 release cohort comparing recidivists with nonrecidivists. The report compares the two groups across demographics, criminal history, offense type, time served, release type, and in-prison reentry preparation.


Introduction
In Massachusetts state prisons, recidivism statistics show a slight reduction in rates over the past few years.1 At the same time, though, admissions, custody levels, and overcrowding rates are on the rise. From 2004 to 2007, the criminally sentenced custody population at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) increased 10 percent, by 897 inmates. Along with the increase in the custody population, the number of criminally2 sentenced admissions increased by 10 percent during the same time frame. The number of parole violators has also increased and represents approximately 10 percent of admissions among all criminally sentenced inmates over the past four years, second only to new court commitments.

This study was originally based on prison reentry and research staff asking the question, “What happens to inmates when they get out of prison that impacts their ability to stay out of prison?” Furthermore, “How can we improve positive behavior and increase the chances of successful reentry into the community by considering inmates’ previous incarceration experiences?” In our partnership with the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, we looked more closely at recidivism in three ways: interviewing recidivists as they were returned to prison, conducting focus groups with parole officers, and conducting statistical analyses of administrative data comparing recidivists versus nonrecidivists. The companion report, “Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons,” covers the first two points; this report examines the third.

The overall study was designed to improve our understanding of how the experiences of incarceration, transition to community, and living in the community influence recidivism. This report focuses on findings from analysis of the 2002 male release data. Traditionally, the DOC produces annual recidivism reports.3 This report expands on those annual recidivism reports by including additional administrative data in relation to an inmate’s risk to recidivate, including race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, offense type, type of release from prison, type of return to prison, security level of releasing institution, time served, criminal history, and participation in a DOC transition workshop. This report also looks closely at recidivism data in relation to parole, while the companion report explores the process of parole revocations by parole officers. By comparing recidivists with nonrecidivists, we gain a better understanding of the known static variables. This component of the larger study was also intended to provide a conceptual framework to our findings in the survey of recidivists provided in the companion report. The analysis of administrative data provides a basis of comparison for the sample of recidivists interviewed for the study. ..The Full Study.. by Rhiana Kohl, Hollie Matthews Hoover, Susan M. McDonald, Amy L. Solomon

Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons

April 2008

INTRODUCTION.

RECIDIVISM IN MASSACHUSETTS

The rising incarceration rate in America over the past quarter century has resulted in more prisoners being admitted to and released from prison each year. In 2005 alone, more than 698,000 state and federal prisoners returned to communities across the country, a four-fold increase over the past two decades.1 Incarceration and release trends in Massachusetts generally mirror this growth.2 Between 1980 and 2006, the Massachusetts state adult prison population increased more than threefold—from 2,754 to 9,405 individuals.3 The number of people being released from Massachusetts’ prisons has also increased substantially. In 1980, 1,015 individuals were released from the state’s prisons. Over the past two-and-a-half decades, this number more than doubled to 2,337 individuals.4

The phenomenon of prisoner reentry has been increasingly recognized as an important public safety issue not only because of the increasing volume of releases from prison, but particularly because of persistently high recidivism rates. Nationally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that over two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested for a new offense within three years of their release, and over half are back in prison serving time for a new offense or a technical violation of their parole.5

Recent Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) figures6 show that three-year recidivism rates among Massachusetts prisoners, as measured by a return to prison, were lower than the national average, though still substantial.7 Thirty-nine percent of DOC prisoners released in 1999 were returned to a state, county, or federal facility within three years of release.8 The majority of those who recidivated in Massachusetts were reincarcerated for conviction of a new crime, but more than a third were returned for technical violations of parole.9

Research on recidivism has generally focused on static predictors of recidivism and the characteristics of career criminals. It is now widely known, for instance, that a young age at the time of first offense and a higher number of previous arrests are among the strongest predictors of recidivism, and that a small fraction of offenders are responsible for the majority of crime.10 Research also shows that persistent career offenders are more likely to be drug users.11 In addition to substance abuse, the emerging prisoner reentry literature documents the enormous challenges of housing, employment, and health among this population.12

What is missing from recidivism research is an understanding of the processes that lead a released prisoner to reoffend—in other words, why he or she commits a new crime. The postrelease circumstances and experiences of released prisoners as well as their previous incarceration experiences are critical to understanding the recidivism process. Because this information is best gathered through personal interviews, here we present findings from field research with recently reincarcerated prisoners as well as parole officers. This report attempts to deepen our understanding of recidivism in Massachusetts and factors that contribute to returning to prison.

..For the Rest of the Paper.. by Lisa E. Brooks, Amy L. Solomon, Rhiana Kohl, Jenny W. L. Osborne, Jay Reid, Susan M. McDonald, Hollie Matthews Hoover

Once a Sex Offender, Always a Sex Offender? Maybe not.

4-3-2008 National:

Sex crimes evince such strong feelings of revulsion and repugnance that it is perhaps not surprising that people misunderstand their nature. The public, whose opinions are reinforced by portrayals in the media and in popular culture, believes that sex offenders will almost always repeat their predatory acts in the future and that all treatments for perpetrators are ineffective. The truth is not so cut and dried—and gives us cause for hope in certain cases.

Before we discuss these beliefs, a few basics are in order. The two most common types of sex offenses are rape and child molestation, but others exist. In most cases, the victim, usually female, knows the perpetrator, generally male. By some estimates, one third or more of all sex offenders are under the age of 18, with some even as young as five years. Most begin to offend sexually in adolescence. Now what does the research tell us about common beliefs?

Repeat Offenders

First, the notion that recidivism (repeat offending) is inevitable needs a second look. Recently sex crimes researcher Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Florida and her colleagues found that the average member of the general public believes that 75 percent of sex offenders will reoffend. This perception is consistent with media portrayals in such television programs as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in which sex offenders are almost always portrayed as chronic repeaters.

Missouri: Many prison inmates don’t finish sex offender treatment

Missouri 4-9-2008:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Many convicted sex offenders ordered to get treatment while in prison aren’t completing the program. Some refuse or are too sick, but for some there isn’t enough space.

Prison officials said Wednesday that there are 176 people waiting to enroll in the treatment program because there isn’t enough money and space to cover everyone. The treatment is required when someone is convicted of certain sexual offenses such as rape, forcible sodomy and child molestation.

According to the most recent data available, 460 people who were ordered to get treatment for sex offenders left prison between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007. More than 80 percent participated in the program, but only 241 finished it.

The treatment program is offered at two prisons for men and a separate one for women.

Under state law, those who don’t complete the program aren’t eligible for even conditional release and have to serve their entire sentences. But when those inmates leave prison, they don’t have to follow probation and parole rules.

“We don’t like that,” said Brian Hauswirth, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections. “The whole idea is to release them in the community at some point, and we want them to get treatment and then be under supervision.”

Of the nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders in Missouri, Hauswirth said 1,600 to 1,800 are placed under supervision after they leave prison. But most aren’t convicted of another sex crime.

Over a 23-year period that ended in June, about 5 percent of sex offenders were sent back to prison after committing another sexual offense. More than 10 percent returned to prison after committing a nonsexual offense.

The recidivism rate for those who complete the treatment program is even lower. Hauswirth said that from 1994 to 2002, only about 2 percent of those inmates who completed treatment program were convicted of another sex crime.

Discussion about the treatment program was prompted by a legislative committee reviewing how the Department of Corrections handled the parole of a man who is accused of raping and killing a former St. Louis newspaper editor.

According to media accounts, Brian Walters, who was charged with the killing, admitted that he had fantasized about committing a sexual assault. The Joint Committee on Corrections is examining why Walters wasn’t enrolled in the Missouri Sex Offender Program.

“There are people who are released, and some are released without getting the (treatment) and these are the known sex offenders,” Corrections Department Director Larry Crawford said. “Here’s a person who was not convicted of any sex offense, and if he says he has these tendencies, what should he get?”

Crawford said it’s possible that if Walters had started the treatment program, which is intense and takes more than a year to finish, he would have later denied having the fantasies.

Lawmakers on the committee asked prison officials about the parole process and how probation decisions are made. Several lawmakers also questioned why there was so much focus on a single case.

“You’ve got to question really what we’re doing here,” said committee chairman Mark Bruns, R-Jefferson City. “If the victim would have been a homeless drug addict, would there have been this much attention?” ..more.. by AP

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

Lies, damned lies, and recidivism statistics

January 2008:

Thanks to this post at Sex Crimes, I see that the Numbers Guy at the Wall Street Journal has this effective post asking the important question "How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes?" and this related print story about the challenges of getting accurate data on sex offender recidivism.  Here are snippets of the blog post from the Numbers Guy:

In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes.... But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out.  Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting.  But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “There is no research support for that view, period.” ...

The conventional wisdom on sex-crime recidivism, coupled with high-profile sex crimes against children, has helped spur the spate of registry and neighbor-notification laws, even before they could be properly studied for their impact on recidivism rates. Several researchers, including Dr. Doren, say that residency-restriction laws may be counterproductive. Such a constraint “drives them out of their community, and leads to a lack of stability,” said Karen J. Terry, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York. “Those are some of the underlying conditions that caused them to abuse in the first place.” A consensus on how to measure recidivism, and determine its baseline rate, would help evaluate such laws.

This research is expensive and long-term follow-ups are, by definition, slow to produce results.  Even if we were to know whether rates have declined in recent years, it would be difficult to isolate the cause.  Dr. Doren proposes several alternate explanations for his perception that rates have declined in recent years, including better and more frequent treatment, and closer monitoring.

Critically, the challenging issues spotted by the Numbers Guy attend not only to sex offender recidivism.  The US Sentencing Commission did some very interesting work on recidivism a few years ago (see here and here and here), which found among other things that the recidivism predictor used by the the US Parole Commission two decades ago "is a statistically better recidivism risk prediction instrument than" the criminal history categories incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into the sentencing guidelines.

What's most disconcerting, however, is the common reality that even perfect crime rate studies and data about recidivism cannot alone significantly alter the public viewpoints and political debates.  As we often see in the context of the death penalty, statistical realities and empirical debates often serve —perhaps sometimes just unconsciously —  as cover for the expression of other normative concerns.  Though I sincerely hope lots of smart folks will continue crunching public safety numbers, policy advocates need to invest more time in thinking about how to effectively operationalize solid data insights into sound sentencing reforms.

..Source.. by Sentencing Law and Policy

How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes?

January 2008:

In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”

But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “There is no research support for that view, period.” Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”

Yet incorporating convicted sex offenders’ undetected crimes can lead to higher numbers, such as one controversial Canadian study that found long-term recidivism could be as high as 88.3%. (It was debated in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2006.) Critics say that rate was artificially increased by the study’s design.

This isn’t just an academic exercise. The conventional wisdom on sex-crime recidivism, coupled with high-profile sex crimes against children, has helped spur the spate of registry and neighbor-notification laws, even before they could be properly studied for their impact on recidivism rates. Several researchers, including Dr. Doren, say that residency-restriction laws may be counterproductive. Such a constraint “drives them out of their community, and leads to a lack of stability,” said Karen J. Terry, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York. “Those are some of the underlying conditions that caused them to abuse in the first place.” A consensus on how to measure recidivism, and determine its baseline rate, would help evaluate such laws.

This research is expensive and long-term follow-ups are, by definition, slow to produce results. Even if we were to know whether rates have declined in recent years, it would be difficult to isolate the cause. Dr. Doren proposes several alternate explanations for his perception that rates have declined in recent years, including better and more frequent treatment, and closer monitoring.

Meanwhile, the existing research raises tough questions about the relative danger child molesters pose to society. Their likelihood of being convicted for a crime after release is much lower than average for all criminals released from prison, and even for all sex offenders, at least in the short term, as measured by a Bureau of Justice Statistics study and others. Yet their crimes, when they do repeat child abuse, are unusually harmful, and their victims particularly vulnerable. Does that justify the closer monitoring of child molesters after release, compared with other criminals? Dr. Doren isn’t sure, pointing out, for example, that convicted rapists are more likely to re-offend in the years immediately after release, and more likely to commit other violent crimes. “If we’re concerned about violence generically, it’s rapists we should be concerned about” in the short term, he said.

What do you think? What is the best way to measure recidivism rates, and what should be measured? Do the numbers justify registries and neighbor notification? Please let me know in the comments.

Further reading: Other newspapers previously have pointed out that measured recidivism rates appear to contradict conventional wisdom. Some states are attempting to fine-tune their post-release plans for sex offenders based on differing rates of recividism; here’s an article about the plan in Texas. Illustrating the difficulty of measuring the effect of interventions on recidivism rates, a Canadian study found that sex offenders who completed treatment were far less likely to re-offend — but that may not mean the treatment itself was successful. Instead, it might just demonstrate that a willingness to complete treatment is an indicator of other factors that diminish the likelihood of repeating a sexual crime. ..Source.. by Carl Bialik, Wall Street Journal

Still Time to Rethink the Misguided Approach of the Sex Offender Registration and. Notification Act

2008:

Studies, including studies by the Department of Justice, show that the vast majority of sex offenders do not re-offend, that sex offender treatment is effective, and that community support and stability are essential to rehabilitation. Publication on an Internet sex offender registry very often results in job loss, homelessness, disruption of treatment, loss of social and family support, harassment and even violence. When used indiscriminately for low- and high-risk offenders alike, public notification interferes with rehabilitation, thus diminishing public safety, and wastes resources better spent on the relatively small number of offenders who are dangerous and likely to recidivate.

About half the states use a risk-assessment model, which classifies sex offenders according to dangerousness and risk of recidivism and limits public notification accordingly. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), however, requires the states to adopt a harsh one-size-fits-all policy by July 27, 2009, or lose Byrne Grant funds. The SORNA was enacted without hearings. The states were not consulted and current state practices were not considered. Input from organizations with expertise in the area was ignored. It is not too late to rethink this flawed policy. ..Source.. by Amy Baron-Evans (Sentencing Resource Counsel, Federal Public and Community Defenders. FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER. VO L. 2 0, NO. 5, JUNE 2008, p. 357)

Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?

December 2008:

Abstract:
I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C. with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

For the remainder of this paper: by Amanda Y. Agan

Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?

January 2008:

Abstract:
In recent decades, sex offenders have been the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information on sex offenders be made public.

Using detailed information on the timing and scope of changes in state law, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of sex offenses and the incidence of offenses across victims, and check for any change in police response to reported crimes. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders. As we predict from a simple model of criminal behavior, this decrease in crime is concentrated among “local” victims (e.g., friends, acquaintances, neighbors), while there is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers.

We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results correspond with a model in which community notification deters first-time sex offenses, but increases recidivism by registered offenders due to a change in the relative utility of legal and illegal behavior.

This finding is consistent with work by criminologists suggesting that notification may increase recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is to reduce recidivism.

For the remainder of this paper: by JJ Prescott, University of Michigan Law School -and- Jonah E. Rockoff, Columbia Business School and NBER

---

Note: With US registries numbering over 700,000 the finding (community notification reduces offenses) is negated, the finding is only true in a sample of offenders (see their own note from the paper:)

In addition, we find that the creation of a community notification law (regardless of the number of registered offenders) is associated with a reduction in the overall frequency of sex offenses. One potential explanation for this effect, again consistent with our model, is that notification raises the expected punishment for future offenders. Importantly, we find no evidence that notification laws (as opposed to registration laws) reduced crime by lowering recidivism. While notification is associated with a decrease in crime, this estimated effect is actually weaker when a large number of offenders are on the registry. This finding is potentially consistent with a number of explanations. But, as we show below, the evidence on balance supports the existence of a significant “relative utility” effect, in which convicted sex offenders become more likely to commit crime when their information is made public because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime more attractive. (bottom page-5)

Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders: A Failure of Public Policy

2008 National:

INTRODUCTION
The subject of local residency restrictions for sex offenders is not widely discussed among planners and others because sex offenses are abhorrent and the fear of ex-offenders is widespread. The number of sex offenders is large—by one report there are some 550,000 registered sex offenders nationally.1 But as more local and state governments adopt residency restrictions, planners and their lawyers may find themselves at the center of the debate. What are the issues, what do we know, what has been the experience elsewhere, and how can we handle this seemingly intractable issue when it ultimately comes before us?

A few months ago I wrote a first version of this article for the newsletter of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association because I came to believe that we must understand the issues and develop policies to reduce recidivism and prevent further victimization. It is uncomfortable for me to write on this issue, but a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision and an appellate decision in New Jersey prompt me to address the issues for my fellow local government lawyers and planners. Now that I have read as much of the literature as I could find and the case law, I am convinced that residency restrictions do not reduce recidivism, do not offer any real protection for potential victims, are generally not legally defensible, and thwart efforts to reform offenders and return them to society. Indeed, residency restrictions likely increase the potential for reoffending. We must refocus strategies to identify those most likely to reoffend and work aggressively on a targeted basis to restrict the movements of some of them, monitor them more closely, and treat all more effectively. We must be disciplined as planners and government lawyers to respond to sex offenses rationally, not emotionally. ..Source.. by Dwight H. Merriam, FAICP

TREATMENT AND REENTRY PRACTICES FOR SEX OFFENDERS: An Overview of States

2008:

Executive Summary
Over the past 15 years, the response of the criminal justice system to people who have been convicted of a sex offense has become increasingly punitive, relying heavily on incarceration. Yet, a consequent increase in criminal justice costs has led some states to reconsider their response to sex offenders. Concerns about public safety and the protection of victims remain the primary focus, but many states have also invested in treatment and reentry programs as alternatives to incarceration for some people.

Although the content and structure of treatment and reentry programs vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another, few if any resources provide criminal justice officials and policymakers an overview of these programs or a comparative assessment of their effectiveness. This report attempts to address these issues by providing an overview and analysis of existing treatment and reentry practices for sex offenders who are involved with the criminal justice system. It focuses, specifically, on four broad areas of practice: treatment in prison, treatment under community supervision, reentry programming, and community supervision. Interviews with state officials and treatment providers from 37 states that responded to our survey revealed several findings:

•In both prison and community settings, the treatment of sex offenders is generally grounded in evidence-based practices, especially cognitive-behavioral therapy. In general, treatment is much more available in the community than in institutional settings.

• In most of the participating states, communitybased treatment for sex offenders is supported, at least in part, by collecting fees from those in treatment—a circumstance that may limit access to these programs.

• Standardized risk assessment tools such as the STATIC-99 are now widely used nationally in both prison- and community-based treatment programs. Needs assessment tools, especially the ACUTE, are becoming more prevalent in community supervision.

• No reentry initiatives were found that specifically target sex offenders. Although eligible for general reentry programming in most states, people convicted of a sexual offense have few, if any, options for reentry programming that addresses their unique needs.

• Correctional institutions and community supervision agencies in most states share information about the case histories and treatment plans of sex offenders who are returning to the community from prison. Research suggests that this type of inter-agency communication can help reduce recidivism.

• In general, community supervision agencies manage risk and provide services. Research suggests that this is an effective approach to reducing recidivism.

• A limited number of states are conducting research on their own treatment, reentry, and supervision initiatives. Almost no studies have examined these programs from a cost-benefit perspective.

For the remainder of this paper: by The Vera Institute of Justice

What will it cost states to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act?

2008:

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)1, which mandates a national registry of people convicted of sex offenses and expands the type of offenses for which a person must register, applies to both adults and children. By July 2009, all states must comply with SORNA or risk losing 10 percent of the state’s allocated Byrne Grant money, which states generally use to enforce drug laws and support law enforcement.

In the last two years, some states have extensively analyzed the financial costs of complying with SORNA. These states have found that implementing SORNA in their state is far more costly than the penalties for not being in compliance. JPI’s analysis finds that in all 50 states, the first-year costs of implementing SORNA outweigh the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne Grant. Most of the resources available to states would be devoted to the administrative maintenance of the registry and notification, rather than targeting known serious offenders. Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses, and may even distract from more effective approaches.

Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with SORNA.

For the remainder of this report: by The Justice Policy Institute

Monitoring Tennessee's Sex Offenders Using GPS Systems: A Follow-up Evaluation

September 2008:

Introduction
Governor Bredesen signed Senate Bill 2235/House Bill 2314 that took effect on July 1, 2007 authorizing the Board of Probation and Parole (hereinafter referred to as BOPP) to continuously monitor offenders convicted of rape of a child using global positioning systems (GPS) for the remainder of their life. This act has been referred to as “Jessica’s Law.” Since passage of this act, BOPP has made GPS monitoring a mandatory condition of community supervision for ALL offenders convicted of rape of a child, with the exception of those who are currently incapacitated.

The passage of Jessica’s Law expanded BOPP’s global positioning system pilot project to a statewide endeavor. Because the legislation expanded the project statewide, it had a fiscal impact on BOPP. Specifically, expansion of the project required additional positions and the associated costs that extended beyond prior project appropriations. A total of $1,890,900 was added to BOPP’s base budget (funding a total of 46 positions) in fiscal year 2007-08. These dollars were in addition to the $1,235,000 that was already part of BOPP’s base budget to fund the operational cost of GPS. The $1,235,000 was added to the base budget in fiscal year 2004-05.

In the fiscal year 08-09 budget, funding for both the statewide expansion of GPS monitoring for rape of a child offenders (Jessica’s Law) totaling $1,890,900, and the appropriation for operating costs, totaling $1,235,000, were made non-recurring. BOPP requested a budgetary improvement (see Appendix A) to restore those dollars to recurring status in BOPP’s base budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. The 46 positions established with the Jessica’s Law appropriation have been filled and the new staff has successfully expanded the original GPS pilot project to a statewide monitoring program for those sex offenders with the highest risk to the public. The total requested includes the $1,235,000 operational funding, the $1,890,900 Jessica’s Law appropriation, and $181,000, the cost of funding the three percent raise received since the appropriation was made (based on the position costs listed in the Department of Human Resource’s classification/compensation plan).

In reviewing the overall GPS supervision program, BOPP recommends the continuation of GPS as a supervision tool. A detailed analysis of the benefits and limitations associated with GPS monitoring follows.

For the remainder of this paper: by State of Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Recidivism Studies

June 2008:

Following release of these recidivism numbers the California Sex Offender Management Board has released this explanation of these recidivism numbers: A STATEMENT FROM THE CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD (CASOMB) REGARDING THE TWO PAPERS

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has conducted two sex offender recidivism studies that are very interesting. They were published on June of 2008:

Study 1) A 5-year study of 4,204 sex offender parolees, who were released in 2002 and followed until the end of 2007. Of the 4,204 parolees released 135 were returned to prison with a new sex offense conviction, a 3.21% recidivism rate. As to non sex offenses, 197 were returned to prison for a 4.69% non sex offense recidivism rate.

Study 2) A 10-year study of 3,577 sex offender parolees, who were released in 1997 and followed until the end of 2007. Of the 3,577 parolees released 121 were returned to prison with a new sex offense conviction, a 3.38% recidivism rate. As to non sex offenses, 137 were returned to prison for a 3.83% non sex offense recidivism rate.

In both studies the majority of the recidivism occurred in the first year ( 86 of 135 for 64% -v- 79 of 121 for 65% respectively). Again in both studies the majority of non sex offense convictions occurred in the first year ( 114 of 197 for 58% -v- 89 of 137 for 65% respectively). Technical violations of parole, although 47.05% and 49.06% respectively, were far less than other parolees who showed 60-70%.

The two studies virtually validated each other on a few points, remembering, each study had different parolees.

Click on chart to print

Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism

2008:

Abstract:
In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would significantly reduce sexual recidivism. ..Source.. by Grant Duwe, William Donnay and Richard Tewksbury

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS

2008:

Position Statement
NASW, Iowa Chapter, believes the state of Iowa has a responsibility to develop comprehensive programs to interdict sexual predation, incarcerate and rehabilitate offenders, provide services to victims and families, and provide education to
help prevent future sexual crimes. Sex offender legislation should be designed, implemented, and assessed from an evidence-based ¡¥best practice¡¦ approach, with the goal of keeping children and communities safe from all offenders.

Discussion
Sexual crimes, especially against children, are among the most horrific and damaging forms of violence imaginable. Two of society¡¦s most important goals are protecting children and preventing violence. To address the sexual predation of children, Iowa legislators enacted a residency restriction, barring persons convicted of sexual offenses against a minor from living within 2000 feet of a school or day care center.

While the law was laudable in its concern for child and community safety, it was based on flawed assumptions, has had unintended consequences, has been difficult to enforce, and offers little in the way of meaningful treatment.

-- Flawed assumptions
Iowa¡¦s residency restrictions are based on the assumption that children are most at risk of ¡§stranger danger¡¨ and that restricting the residency of known sex offenders is an effective means of limiting would-be perpetrators¡¦ access to children. Research suggests that both assumptions are flawed. Studies show that in 80-90% of sexual crimes, perpetrators were familiar with their victims (Roos & Rood, 2005; Iowa County Attorneys Association [ICAA], 2006). Family members, friends, baby-sitters, and persons who supervise or have authority over children or young people are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault. Additionally, many victims who are sexually assaulted by intimates, friends or acquaintances do not or cannot report these crimes to police. Nationally, only about 38% of sexual assaults against those age 12 or older are reported (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Sexual assault of children under age 12 is more difficult to measure, but it is generally assumed to be equally under-reported. Given the low rate of reporting, the number of convicted sex offenders who are subject to the residency restrictions represents a small percentage of those living in Iowa communities.

Research also has shown no correlation between the proximity of a sex offender¡¦s residence to a potential victim and his/her likelihood of re-offending (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; ICAA, 2006). Thus, residency restrictions may create a false sense of security that children are safely beyond an offender¡¦s grasp when that is not the case. When sex offenders in Florida were asked about the residency restrictions in that state, they commented: ¡§Living 1,000 ft away compared to 900 ft. doesn¡¦t prevent anything,¡¨ and ¡§It doesn¡¦t matter where a sex offender lives if he sets his mind on reoffending. . . . He can just get closer by walking or driving¡¨ (Levenson & Cotter, 2005, p. 174).

Parents, children, and community members must understand that the 2,000-foot residency restriction imposed on convicted sex offenders does not ensure child safety. ICAA (2006) recommends the development of education programs that not only focus on the risks of ¡§stranger danger¡¨ but also highlight the dangers of sexual abuse posed by family members and acquaintances with ordinary access to children. Additionally, any meaningful approach to the problem must include victim services to assist children and families in overcoming the impact of such trauma when it does occur.

For the remainder of this paper: by National Association of Social Workers (Iowa Chapter)

Fear of Crime and Housing Prices: Household Reactions to Sex Offender Registries

October 2008:

Abstract:
Megan's Law requires public dissemination of information from sex offender registries. Opponents to this controversial law have questioned whether households misinterpret or even use this information. One concern was that the information might simply induce a "fear of crime." This study finds evidence for both use and misinterpretation of the publicly available information on sex offenders. Using a unique dataset that tracks sex offenders in Hillsborough County, Florida, the results indicate that after a sex offender moves into a neighborhood, nearby housing prices fall by 2.3% ($3,500 on average). However, once a sex offender moves out of a neighborhood, housing prices appear to immediately rebound. Surprisingly, these price impacts do not appear to differ in areas near high risk offenders labeled as "predators." ..Source.. by Jaren C. Pope, Virginia Tech

IN- Recidivism Rates Compared, 2005 – 2007

2008 Indiana:

Abstract:
Recidivism Rates Compared, 2005 – 2007, is the first comprehensive report published by the Indiana Department of Correction that details the recidivism rates of offenders released from incarceration in Indiana. This report presents recidivism rates for offenders released from the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for the time period 2002 through 2004. This report defines recidivism as a return to incarceration in the Indiana Department of Correction within three years of the offenders release date. For example, offenders released in calendar year 2004, who returned to prison for either a new conviction or technical violation during 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, but within three years of release, would be counted in the recidivism rate for 2007.

Across the United States, definitions of recidivism vary, making comparisons on a state or national level difficult to ascertain. There has been no national standard created that would unify the definition of recidivism throughout. Therefore, the Indiana Department of Correction has relied on its own definition, further detailed on page five, which happens to be in line with the definition used by the Association of State Correctional Administrators.

Over time, the Research and Planning Division of the Indiana Department of Correction will continue to track recidivism rates for offenders released each year and subsequently produce and publish a report that details the results of each recidivism study.

Methodology:
The Indiana Department of Correction defines Recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three (3) years of their release date from a state correctional institution.

An offender is included in this study when they are released via one of the following avenues: Community Transition Program (CTP), Probation, Parole, or Discharged.

Once released, an offender is verified as a Recidivist if they return to the institutional custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision. In instances where offenders have multiple releases within the same year, the earliest release date is used to determine the offender’s recidivism status. Therefore, the statistics listed throughout this report reflect the number of unique releases per year.

Findings:
In 2007, recidivism rates decreased for the second consecutive year, resulting in 37.8% of offenders being re-committed to the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) within 3 years of their release date. Rates for 2005 and 2006 were 39.2% and 38.6% respectively. Male offenders had a higher recidivism rate when compared to female offenders across all three years. 38.6% of male offenders released in 2004 returned to IDOC, versus 32.6% of female releases. On average throughout all 3 years, 46% of African American offenders returned to the Department of Correction, a higher rate than any other race.

Nearly 50% of all offenders released in 2002, 2003, or 2004 for a Weapons related crime as their most serious offense, returned to incarceration within three years of release. Offenders released in 2002, 2003, or 2004 with a Class C Felony as their most serious offense were most likely to return to incarceration within three years of release.

Offenders who recidivate are returned to IDOC for the commission of a new crime at a slightly higher rate than those returned for a technical violation of post-release supervision.

Overall, offenders identified as a sex offender who were released in 2002, 2003, or 2004, returned to IDOC at a higher rate than all other offenders.

While technically a true statement, certain facts not taken into consideration make this VERY MISLEADING:

A) Recidivism is defined as including "technical violations" which are not crimes but mere violations of simple rules such as drinking, failure to report when required, walking where one is not allowed (sex offenders), and other similiar technical factors;

B) Sex offenders have a higher rate of technical violations (see page-21) than any other crime type. This is due to all the new community oriented rules placed on all sex offenders whether they are applicable to that person or not.

Finally, given the 75% technical violation rate, and subtracting that, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism next to murderers. Nothing like trying to confuse the public which is common with DOC's nationally.

For the rest of this report: Prepared by: Aaron Garner, Research Analyst, IDOC