..Source..
Showing posts with label Recid 01%-10%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recid 01%-10%. Show all posts
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010
Labels:
Recid 01%-10%,
Recid Follow-up 05 yr,
Recidivism
April 22, 2014 NCJ 244205 with updated
December 2016, NCJ 244205:
Examines the 5-year post-release offending patterns of persons released from state prisons in 2005 by offender characteristics, prior criminal history, and commitment offense. It provides estimates on the number and types of crimes former inmates commit both prior to their imprisonment and after release. The report includes different measures of recidivism, including a new arrest, court adjudication, conviction, and incarceration for either a new sentence or a technical violation.
It also documents the extent to which the released prisoners committed crimes in states other than the one that released them. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Recidivism Study of State Prisoners Released in 2005, which tracked a sample of former inmates from 30 states for five years following release in 2005. The findings are based on prisoner records obtained from the state departments of corrections through the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) and criminal history records obtained through requests to the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III) and state repositories via the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets).
Supplemental Tables (Most serious commitment offense and types of post-release arrest charges of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005) (PDF) (CSV) has been added.
Highlights:
..Continued.. by Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics
As to folks we advocate for the key re-arrest rate is expressed here: "Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in 30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were re-arrested for rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release" See PDF (20,422 X .056 = 1,145 were re-arrested for new sex offense over that 5-year period)
Some TDCJ treatment programs increase recidivism
A friend forwarded me a copy of this recidivism analysis from Texas Department of Criminal Justice prison rehabilitation programs, lamenting that "some of the TDCJ rehabilitation programs demonstrably make people worse."
Which ones? Four of nine programs showed participants' recidivism increased after two years in the free world, though after three years only two programs - specifically the Sex Offender Treatment Program and the Pre-Release Substance Abuse Program, the latter of which has consistently resulted in increased recidivism since the agency began studying it - displayed higher recidivism rates.
The two programs with worse outcomes after two years that came out slightly better after three were the Sex Offender Education Program and the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative.
The SAFP program is the TDCJ rehab program with the best results and was the only one to make a double-digit difference. ..Source.. by Grits for Breakfast
A Detailed Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism in New York State
Labels:
- New York,
2007,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recid Follow-up 03 yr,
Recidivism NY
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
Sex offender treatment available, not always mandatory
12-4-2009 Ohio:CLEVELAND – As the women found dead in and around the home of accused rapist/murderer Anthony Sowell’s home on Imperial Avenue have been identified and laid to rest by their loved ones, many people – particularly women – are left wondering if there are any more men capable of committing such crimes wandering the streets and, if so, how many?
To gain some insight, let’s consider a few already known facts in this case.
One, the accused has a history of rape as he served 15 years in prison after a victim escaped then reported him. Secondly, he was a registered sex offender.
Third, we know he received no treatment while in prison or upon release.
Now, when you examine the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department registry of sex offenders, you’ll find that 2,406 sexual offenders ranging between the three-tiered types of offenses are listed in Cleveland alone. Even Beachwood has 10 while Pepper Pike has one.
Sex offenses include everything from soliciting for sex to rape and, of course, having sex with minors. Tier 1, the lowest, is anything other than a Tier II or Tier III offense.
However, the real questions become: Are there any organizations or support groups to assist men plagued with these kinds of issues as well as what kind of treatment do they receive while in prison? Also, is anyone looking at why people commit such crimes and how to prevent them from recurring?
Facts about Megans Law and Sex Offenders in New York State
Labels:
- New York,
2007,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recid Follow-up 09 yr
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
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.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.
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.
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
Sex offender risk plummets over time in community, new study reports
Labels:
2013,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recidivism - Plummets
11-11-2013 National:Criminals reform. Violent criminals reform.
And now -- drum roll -- the authors of the most widely used actuarial tool for assessing sex offender recidivism are conceding that even sex offenders cross a "redemption threshold" over time, such that their risk of committing a new sexual crime may become "indistinguishable from the risk presented by non-sexual offenders."
Tracking a large group of 7,740 sexual offenders drawn from 21 different samples around the world, the researchers found that those who remain free in the community for five years or more after their release are at drastically reduced risk of committing a new sex offense.
The offenders identified as at the highest risk on the Static-99R saw their rates of reoffending fall the most, from 22 percent at the time of release to 8.6 percent after five years and only 4.2 percent after 10 years in the community. Based on their findings, the researchers say that risk factors such as number of prior offenses are time-dependent rather than truly static or never-changing.
"If high risk sexual offenders do not reoffend when given the opportunity to do so, then there is clear evidence that they are not as high risk as initially perceived," note authors R. Karl Hanson, Andrew J. R. Harris, Leslie Helmus and David Thornton in the article scheduled for publication in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Quoting two of my favorite scholars -- criminologist Shadd Maruna and law professor/forensic psychologist Charles Ewing -- the authors challenge the notion that sex offenders represent a special case of perpetual danger. They question the need for lifelong monitoring and supervision.
Opinion: Sex Offense Recidivism Is Rare, Shouldn't Determine Policy
The crimes featured in a recent Sun Sentinel investigation were tragic. The newspaper found that in Florida, for every one sex offender who was committed to a sex predator treatment center, “nearly two others were released and then arrested on a sex charge.”
What the article does not highlight is that all of the sex offenders released from Florida prisons – 31,0000 of them -- were screened for civil commitment over 14 years.
Sexual Recidivism Rates
Of approximately 31,000 sex offenders who were assessed and released, there were 1,400 recidivists (new arrests for sexual crimes.)
That statistic represents a 5 percent recidivism rate over 14 years.
That means for every one re-arrested, about 20 did not go on to commit new sex crimes. In 95 percent of the cases, the screening team, evaluators, courts and program officials made the right call.
Of the sexual recidivists, there were 14 murders, accounting for about one percent of the recidivistic cases and less than 5 in 10,000 of all sex offenders released from prison.
While these egregious cases are heinous and unacceptable, they are rare events.
Sexual recidivism rates are lower than commonly believed, and are in fact lower than the overall recidivism rate in the state. In most cases the Sexually Violent Predator program did, in fact, do a good job of identifying the worst of the worst. The vast majority of sex offenders did not go on to commit any new sex crime, and most are strictly supervised in the community.
How To Prevent More Sex Offenses
A small but dangerous subgroup of sex offenders are at highest risk for violent re-offending. But passing laws based on anomalous cases is not good social policy.
We should take a close look at the 95 percent of offenders who did not re-offend, so we can identify and enhance the sex offender management and treatment strategies that are working well.
The legislature is now considering mandatory minimum sentencing in response to the concern about violent re-offending by convicted sex offenders. However, as seen by the recidivism statistics when viewed as part of the bigger picture, mandatory sentences might prove to be a very costly response. The sentencing enhancements will likely be unnecessary in the majority of cases.
Mandatory minimums also remove discretion from judges, encouraging plea bargains to non-sex crimes in some cases -- which means those offenders will not receive sex offender probation, monitoring, and treatment.
An alternative might be a risk assessment by a qualified practitioner prior to sentencing, which would offer valuable information to the judge and state attorney to aid in sentencing decisions.
Every dollar spent on hastily-passed sex offender policies is a dollar not spent on sexual assault victim services, child protection, and social programs designed to aid at-risk families.
The legislature is rightly concerned with another series of recent cases in which children died as a result of abuse or neglect. They should be equally concerned with the children who live through childhood trauma. We need to start thinking about early prevention and fund, not cut, social service programs for children and families. Today's perpetrators are often yesterday's victims. ..Source.. by Jill Levenson, Ph.D., LCSW, is an Associate Professor and Researcher at Lynn University. She is considered a national expert in sex crime policy analysis and has published over 80 articles about the treatment and management of sexual offenders.
A Multi-state Recidivism Study Using Static-99R and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act
Abstract:
This study seeks to examine important components of our nation’s sex offender tracking and monitoring systems, with a focus on risk assessment and sexual recidivism (measured by re-arrest). The principal aims of this study were fourfold: (1) to compare the nationally recommended Adam Walsh Act (AWA) classification tiers with actuarial risk assessment instruments in their respective abilities to identify high risk individuals and recidivists; (2) to evaluate the predictive accuracy of existing state risk assessment classification schemes; (3) to examine the distribution of risk assessment scores within and across tier categories as defined by the AWA; and (4) to examine the role of offender age in recidivism risk across the adult lifespan.
Data were collected from 1,789 adult sex offenders in four states (Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida and South Carolina) to inform these analyses. Variables including offender demographics and criminal history information, coded from state criminal justice records, were used to score actuarial risk assessment instruments and sex offender registry information. On average, we found that the recidivism rate was approximately 5% at five years and 10% at 10 years. AWA tier was unrelated to sexual recidivism, except in Florida, where it was inversely associated with recidivism. Actuarial measures and existing state tiering systems both showed better predictive validity than AWA tiers. Finally, offender age was found to have a significant protective effect for sexual reoffending, with older offenders showing a decreased risk for sexual recidivism.
The findings indicate that the current AWA classification scheme is likely to result in a system that is less effective in protecting the public than the classification systems currently implemented in the states studied. Policy makers should strongly consider substantial revisions of the AWA classification system to better incorporate evidence-based models of sex offender risk assessment and management. ..Source.. by Kristen M. Zgoba, PI, New Jersey Department of Corrections -and- Michael Miner, Co-PI, University of Minnesota Medical School -and- Raymond Knight, Co-Investigator Brandeis University -and- Elizabeth Letourneau, Co-Investigator, Johns Hopkins University -and- Jill Levenson, Co-Investigator, Lynn University -and- David Thornton, Co-Investigator, Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center
Sexual Assault Trends and Sex Offender Recidivism in Maine
Labels:
- Maine,
2010,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recid Follow-up 05 yr,
Recidivism ME
October 2010:Forward:
Concern about sex offenders and their behavior is understandably a topic of great public interest. Numerous public policy proposals target the management of sex offenders in prisons and in communities post‐release. Recent examples of such proposals include, but are not limited to, enhanced sanctions for convicted and repeat sex offenders, civil commitment for predatory sex offenders, the development of sex offender registries, and the use of advanced technology to monitor sex offenders and residency restrictions.1 Unfortunately, the quality and extent of the body of knowledge concerning sex offender behavior has not kept pace with either the sophistication or potential cost of some of these proposed policies.
The purpose of this report is to shed light on trends in sex offending and the recidivism of sex offenders in Maine, by replicating the methods of Bureau of Justice Statistics special report, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994. That study followed prisoners released from prison in 15 states during 1994 over a three year period, examining their patterns of incarceration. This report seeks to replicate, to the degree possible, the analysis and resulting data tables for sex offenders released from Maine’s state prisons over a five year period, from 2004‐2008.
This report also examines sex offenders admitted to probation from 2004‐2007. The rationale for this inclusion is that offenders under community correctional supervision are a population of special interest, and that determining the progress of a group which had been subjected to supervision in the community might also have important policy implications. Each group was followed for a period of three years to identify re‐incarcerations.
Funding for this report is provided by BJS to the Maine Statistical Analysis Center, located at the University of Southern Maine’s Muskie School of Public Service. Any points of view or opinions stated are those of the report author and do not necessarily represent the opinion or official position of BJS.
..For the remainder of this report.. by USM Muskie School of Public Service, Maine Statistical Analysis Center
Criminal Recidivism in Alaska: Alaska Judicial Council
Labels:
- Alaska,
2007,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recidivism - All Types,
Recidivism AK
January 2007:Executive Summary:
How well does Alaska’s criminal justice system work to protect the public? What works best? What needs improvement? Can less costly alternatives more effectively promote public safety? Knowing what happens after offenders serve their sentences can help answer these questions.
This report by the Judicial Council is the first general study of recidivism in Alaska. It describes the percentages of offenders who were re-arrested, had new court cases filed, were re-convicted, or remanded to custody for new offenses or for probation or parole violations. The report shows how soon after release these events occurred, and what factors were most closely related to an increased chance that offenders would be involved again in the criminal justice system. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services funded the report.
The Council followed 1,934 offenders, all of whom were charged with at least one felony in 1999 and convicted. Of those, 59% were convicted of a felony, and 41% of a misdemeanor. This report focuses on the 1,798 offenders who had been out of custody for at least three years after they had served their sentence. The Council found that within three years after release from their sentence on the 1999 offense:
• 66% of all offenders in the sample had been re-incarcerated at least once, for a new offense or a probation or parole violation.
• 59% were arrested at least once for a new offense.
For the remainder of this paper: by the Alaska Judicial Council
A few selected highlights about sex offenders:
Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that they were convicted of in the 1999 sample.
No Sexual offenders were convicted of any offense more serious than their 1999 offense.
3% of the persons who were convicted of a Sexual offense in a 1999 case had at least one new Sexual conviction.
Offenders whose 1999 felony charges resulted in conviction of a Sexual offense were among the least likely to be re-arrested, have new cases filed, be re-convicted, or return to custody.
Recidivism rates falling
Labels:
- Indiana,
2009,
Recid 01%-10%,
Recidivism IN
4-10-2009 Indiana:Rehab programs contribute to decrease in repeat offenders
Changing the thinking patterns of criminal offenders is one key to keeping them from reoffending, prison officials say.
From looking at the number of repeat offenders in state prisons, it must be working, as the recidivism rate over the past three years has declined, the Indiana Department of Correction reported.
Officials at the IDOC have studied and monitored Indiana’s recidivism rates for four years and found the overall recidivism rate has gone down for the third consecutive year, falling to 37.4 percent.
DOC officials attribute the improving recidivism numbers to their focus on the successful re-entry of offenders.
At the Miami Correctional Facility, offenders are offered multiple programs aimed at rehabilitation, said public information officer Ann Hubbard.
Hubbard said the DOC tries to make its prisons more than just a place to house criminals. If they choose, inmates can work on issues such as substance abuse and anger management. They can take classes on fatherhood and on character and faith development.
“You can see a change in men who get involved in these programs,” Hubbard said. “They change their way of thinking. They realize there is more to life than just themselves, and they realize what they’ve done to other people.”
To ensure an offender leads a lawful life once released, DOC tries to instill the tools needed for success outside prison walls. Hubbard believes that approach is good for all Indiana communities.
“We have to do something,” she said. “These people in here, most are going to get out, and if we don’t do something to better their lives and improve the quality of their lives, they’re certainly not going to improve the quality of our lives when they get out.”
The IDOC defines recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three years of their date of release from a state correctional institution. An offender is included in this study when he is released via one of the following avenues — Community Transition Program, probation, parole or discharge.
Once released, an offender is verified as a recidivist if he returns to the institutional custody of the IDOC for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision.
For offenders released in 2005, only 37.4 percent had returned to prison by 2008, which is lower than the 2007 recidivism rate of 37.8 percent, according to the IDOC.
Rates for 2005 and 2006 were 39.2 percent and 38.6 percent, respectively. During those four years, the demographics of the offenders studied remained consistent.
In addition, one statistic regarding a class of offenders stands out — the recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05 percent, one of the lowest in the nation.
In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low, said IDOC’s chief communications officer Doug Garrison.
Garrison added that sex offenders often wind up back in prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, but he said instances of them returning to prison for committing a new sex crime were extremely low.
These improving recidivism numbers demonstrate the IDOC’s focus on the successful re-entry of offenders in recent years is beginning to pay off.
“Even though conventional wisdom would have us believe that recidivism is inevitable, I firmly believe that the hard work and dedication of IDOC staff has proven that the successful re-entry of offenders is more than possible,” said IDOC Commissioner Edwin G. Buss. “The third consecutive decline in Indiana’s recidivism rate is good for all, offenders, IDOC staff members, and Indiana taxpayers alike.”
Hubbard acknowledged that some inmates will end up back in prison because they never had intentions of stopping their criminal behavior. Because of that and other factors, she said, the recidivism rate will never reach zero.
“You’re always going to have your bad apples,” she said. ..Source.. by MIKE FLETCHER
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence against Women
September 2010:Executive Summary:
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of one state’s sex offender registration and notification policy in reducing sexual violence. The problem of sexual violence is a national legislative priority as evidenced by numerous sex offender-specific policies enacted at the federal level over the past 15 years. Specifics vary among states regarding criminal justice responses to sex offending, but all such policies have as their primary goals the prevention of sexual violence and the reduction of sexual re-offending.
The present study examined the effects of comprehensive registration and community notification policies on rates of sexual violence in South Carolina. Specifically, the present study proposed to evaluate whether broad sex offender registration and notification policies have reduced recidivism or deterred new sexual offenses. Additionally, this study proposed to examine whether unintended effects of broad registration and notification policies have occurred. Of note, the present study focused almost exclusively on the effects of registration and notification as pertains to offenses committed by adults. Given that registration and notification policies often target juveniles adjudicated delinquent as minors, the investigative team has been involved in separate research pertaining to the effects of these policies as pertains to juveniles (see Letourneau & Armstrong, 2008, Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, & Sinha, 2010; Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009a; 2009b).
Specific Aims
This study examined whether the introduction of sex offender registration and notification laws in South Carolina were associated with reductions in sexual crimes and, if so, whether this reduction could be attributed to an actual reduction in sexual violence and/or recidivism (i.e., an intended effect) or to changes in criminal judicial processing of individuals for registry crimes (i.e., an unintended effect). In the context of this project, “sex offender” typically refers to anyone with one or more sex crime convictions. Specific sex crime charges are listed in Table 1 and include contact and noncontact offenses against children and adults.
Specific study aims included: (1) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the intended effect of preventing first time sexual offending; (2) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the intended effect of reducing sexual recidivism for known sex offenders; and (3) To examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the unintended effect of reducing the probability that individuals who commit sexual crimes will be prosecuted or convicted for such crimes. In addition to these primary aims, we also investigated (4) whether registration violations (e.g., failure to register) were associated with sexual or general recidivism.
The following points highlight the key findings of the study:
1. A significant deterrent effect was noted after 1995, the year that South Carolina first implemented sex offender registration and notification (SORN). An approximately 11% reduction in first-time sex crime arrests was found in the post-SORN period (1995-2005) relative to the pre-SORN period (1990-1994).Conclusions
2. However, there was no significant decline in the six year period after 1999, which was the year that South Carolina implemented its online sex offender registry, indicating that online notification did not influence general deterrence of adult sex crimes.
3. Across a mean follow-up of 8.4 years, 490 (8%) of registered sex offenders had new sex crime charges and 299 (4%) offenders had new sex crime convictions. Registered sex offenders were not less likely to recidivate than non-registered sex offenders.
4. Defendants were more likely to have charges reduced from sex to nonsex crimes over time, with a 9% predicted probability of reduced charges from 1990-1994 (pre-SORN), a 15% predicted probability of reduced charges from 1995-1999 (corresponding with initial implementation of SORN) and a 19% predicted probability after 1999 (corresponding with implementation of Internet notification).
5. Results also indicated that the probability of obtaining a charge reduced from truth-in-sentencing (TIS) to non-TIS increased over time for sex crime defendants.
6. The probability of a guilty disposition changed at each year group, with a predicted probability of 55% from 1990-1994, increasing to 65% from 1995-1999, and then declining to 60% after 1999. This final decline was more pronounced when pleaded cases were removed from analyses.
7. With respect to failure to register (FTR) as a sex offender, no significant differences were found between the sexual recidivism rates of registered offenders with FTR charges and those without FTR charges (11% vs. 9%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the proportion of sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists with registration violations (12% and 10%, respectively). Failure to register did not predict sexual recidivism, and survival analyses revealed no significant difference in time to recidivism when comparing those who failed to register (M = 2.9 years) with compliant registrants (M = 2.8 years).
Results from this program of research indicate that SORN, as implemented in South Carolina, appears to have a positive impact on general deterrence associated with averting approximately three new first-time sex crime cases per month. However, South Carolina’s SORN policy has no effect on deterring the risk of sexual recidivism. South Carolina’s SORN policy does exert unintended effects on judicial decision making with respect to adult sex crime cases. An increased number of defendants were permitted to plead to nonsex charges following the onset of South Carolina’s SORN policy and following its modification to require online notification. The net effects of this change could be to reduce community safety by increasing the likelihood that defendants guilty of sex crimes pleaded to nonsex crimes or were aquitted altogether. Finally, it does not appear that registered sex offenders who failure to register are more sexually dangerous than compliant registrants. For the remainder of this study: by Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D., Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Ph.D., Debajyoti Sinha, Ph.D., Kevin S. Armstrong
California release new recidivism numbers
New recidivism figures: 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report ", but they are not easy to decipher!
Normally we would just look at a chart and know what the recidivism numbers are, however, California has revised their record-keeping system and it requires that we understand certain words and phrases, and know how to interpret the charts when viewing them.
The important terms are: Parole Violation (LAW); Parole Violation (TECHNICAL); Registered Sex Offender; Re-Release; and Term, the definitions are all on this page.
Next, the graphic on the right here is very helpful to understanding a few of the terms: Since their new system is based on "Return to Prison" numbers, that means, numbers include "Parole Violations (Technical) and for sex offenders the picture shows 86% for Technical violations. So when our concerns are "new crimes" we need to recognize where the report is overstated with technical violations.
The next item, new in their new system, is, if someone is incarcerated for "Failure to Register" they consider that a "new sex offense." See note 11 on the very bottom of this page. Accordingly, in the picture it shows 5% for new sex crimes (recidivism), that number is overstated by something, unfortunately we have no way of knowing how much.
Throughout the report they speak of "Flagged Sex Offenders" and "Nonflagged Felons" where "Flagged" means the folks required to register as a sex offender. Unless I've missed it, I haven't see a Technical Violation figure for "Nonflagged Felons."
Next to confuse folks is "Re-Release," say someone is convicted of a sex offense and is paroled, then -while on parole- gets convicted of a nonsex offense and is returned to prison. When they are again paroled (Still serving a sentence for the sex crime) they are put into the Re-Release numbers. Looking at the picture we see some sex offenders, when released (8.9%), go on to commit other types of offenses; they will be re-released at some point. A review of Table-10 makes this easier to see. Also note how they break down sex offenses into six types of offenses, and watch the "Other Sex" category because it includes "Failure to Register" crimes, which truthfully are not sex offenses.
The best chart which seems to get around all their confusion is found at the very end of their report, shown below, that only covers registered sex offenders. One final point, the percentages shown below virtually mirror the Department of Justice study done in 1994, and suggest that public sex offender registries have little or no effect on recidivism. Millions of dollars could be saved, excepting that, politicians are afraid to lose their jobs if they admit error.
On a closing note, California claims to be broke, well if 86% of the imprisoned sex offenders are sent back to prison -because of technical parole violations (I'm assuming non sex offenders numbers are similar)-, that has got to cost California a pretty penny. Maybe the real study necessary is about "Technical Violations." Are those folks really violating bad enough to warrant going back to prison, or have they just ticked someone off, or something inbetween? That should be the next study.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Effects of South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Adult Recidivism
December 2009:Abstract:
Some sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies subject all registered sex offenders to Internet notification. The present study examined the effects of one such broad notification policy on sex crime recidivism. Secondary data were analyzed for a sample of 6,064 male offenders convicted of at least one sex crime between 1990 and 2004. Across a mean follow-up of 8.4 years, 490 (8%) offenders had new sex crime charges and 299 (5%) offenders had new sex crime convictions. Cox’s relative risks and competing risks models estimated the influence of registration status on risk of sexual recidivism while controlling for time at risk. Registration status did not predict recidivism in any model. These results cast doubt on the effectiveness of broad SORN policies in preventing repeat sexual assault. Policy implications, particularly with respect to the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which requires broad notification, are discussed. ..Source.. by Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D.*, Jill S. Levenson, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Debajyoti Sinha, and Kevin S. Armstrong
Denying parole at first eligibility: How much public safety does it actually buy?
August 2009:A study of prisoner release and recidivism in Michigan
Executive Summary
Widely-held assumptions about incarceration and parole are contradicted by Michigan data and national research.
Assumption: Since Michigan’s overall rate of sending convicted felons to prison is below thenational average, Michigan does not incarcerate enough people.
Fact: Michigan’s overall prison commitment rate is below the national average because the state imprisons fewer drug and other nonassaultive offenders. Its commitment rate for assaultive and sex offenders is very high and, because it keeps those offenders incarcerated for a long time, Michigan’s average length of stay in prison is much higher than the national average.
Assumption: Longer prison sentences keep the public safer.
Fact: Increased length of stay does not reduce recidivism and may actually increase it.
Assumption: Half of all released prisoners commit new crimes and return to prison.
Fact: The majority of former prisoners do not return within four years for any reason, even without the support services now provided through reentry programming. Of those released for the first time from 1986-99, whether paroled or discharged on the maximum, 63% did not return at all; fewer than 18% were returned with new sentences for new crimes.
Assumption: Assaultive and sex offenders present a high risk to public safety.
Fact: People who commit assaultive or sex offenses are much less likely to reoffend than those who commit financially-motivated crimes. Homicide and sex offenders rarely commit new crimes against persons. Characterizing these offenders as “high risk” confuses the harm from their past crimes with the likelihood they will commit new ones.
Assumption: Parole is a form of “early release” that was unintended and unanticipated by the sentencing court.
Fact: In Michigan, judges set the minimum sentence according to legislative guidelines that determine how much punishment is appropriate for the offense and the offender. The minimum is often agreed to by the prosecutor during plea negotiations. While the parole board can deny release until the prisoner has served the maximum sentence, it cannot grant release until the person has served the minimum. Parole at the first eligibility date indicates the board has found no reason, based on current information, to extend incarceration beyond what was imposed by the sentencing court.
Assumption: Decisions to deny parole are based on objective assessments of the risk of reoffending.
Fact: Parole has routinely been denied based on the nature of the offense to people who have served their judicially imposed minimum punishment and posed a low risk of reoffending.
Assumption: People who are repeatedly denied parole have terrible institutional records.
Fact: While poor behavior in prison reduces the likelihood of parole for everyone, assaultive and sex offenders are less able to earn release through good conduct. Many of them “max out” despite having no serious history of institutional misconduct.
Assumption: If parole decisions were made “correctly” and more prisoners were required to serve their maximum sentences, all crime by parolees would be prevented.
Fact: The total prevention of new crimes by parolees would require the ongoing incarceration of tens of thousands of people who would not, in fact, commit a new offense if released. The fiscal cost would be astronomical and, because most crimes are not committed by parolees, the impact on overall crime rates would be minimal.
Assumption: Denying parole for an extra year or two keeps the public substantially safer.
Fact: If, from 1986-99, everyone denied parole for up to two years had been released when first eligible, 2,300 fewer beds per year would have been needed but returns with new sentences would have increased only 1.7%.
Purpose of the Research
The Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending examined 76,721 cases of Michigan prisoners sentenced to indeterminate terms after 1981 and released for the first time from 1986 through 1999. The primary goal was to answer the following questions:
Does continuing to incarcerate people who have served their minimum sentences
actually improve public safety and, if so, to what extent and at what cost?
Specifically, does denying parole at the minimum only to release a person a year or two thereafter have a substantial impact on re-offense rates?
The analysis also shed light on a number of other important questions regarding the nature and cost-effectiveness of parole decision making. In particular, because offense groups were analyzed separately, the impact of the nature of the crime on both release decisions and actual recidivism could be identified.
For the remainder of this research: by Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending (CAPPS)
Reviewing this was eye opening and two charts which caught my attention, they follow:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Recidivism Studies
June 2008: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.
Bureau of Justice - Recidivism
1994 through 1997:Below are the figures quoted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on their "Recidivism Page," however, there are considerable points about those figures which the DOJ has left out. Accordingly, I will point out those facts below as (Notes by eAdvocate).
The 9,691 sex offenders were released from State prisons in these 15 States: Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.
The DOJ is quoting from is: Recidivism of SexOffenders Released from Prison in 1994 (NCJ 198281) (PDF), published November 2003, By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics
DOJ recidivism page Shows:
Recidivism: (All types of crimes)
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994 (all types of offenders), an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
(Note, that following release 1.3% of non-sex offenders committed a sex offense [not something they had done before].
Now, sometimes looking at percentages is misleading, so, translating these percentages to real numbers: 5.3% is 517 sex offenders -and- 1.3% is 3,328 non-sex offenders. Looking close shows us that non-sex offenders committed 3,328 sex crimes while sex offenders committed 517 sex crimes.
That means, former non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and committed 6 sex crimes to every one committed by a former sex offender. You might want to review that a few times to get over the shock, lawmakers ignore this fact.)
Sex offenders
On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole (not necessarily for a previous sex crime) at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. (5.3% over 3 years, however, that equates to a annual rate of 1.76%. Further, of the 5.3% of those arrested, 3.5% were actually convicted.)
Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge. ( This is a common fact of all types of crime. The first year following release is the hardest in readjusting to society, and those having troubles readjusting often resort to their old tactics: recidivism.)
Child victimizers
Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison. ( Again, percentages can be misleading. [ 4,300 was actually 4,295 X 3.3% = 141 new sex crimes]. Now, missing is, some non-sex offenders released committed sex crimes against a child 0.4% [262,420 X .4% = 1,042 new sex crimes]. Again, non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and lawmakers ignore this fact.)
Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.
Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.
eAdvocate Note: Here are a few charts created from that study which show the facts clearly. These charts, and more, were on my old Yahoo website, but Yahoo closed those FREE sites. When they did "oocities" preserved the information, links to the charts there are below:
A) Recidivism Rates: All released sex offenders -vs- non-sex offenders
B) Recidivism Rates: Showing offenders who re-offended against a child!
C) Department of Justice: Victim/Offender Relationship Statistics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)