New York State Registry Recidivism Rates

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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).

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).

Conclusions
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

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

MN- Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota

April 2007

Executive Summary:
As interest and concern over sex offenders has increased, so have efforts to control the extent to which they reoffend. As a result, the State of Minnesota has enforced civil commitment statutes, created a sex offender registry, implemented community notification, enhanced the penalties for sex offenders, and increased both the intensity and length of post-release supervision. In examining recidivism among 3,166 sex offenders released from a Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF) between 1990 and 2002, this report addresses the following question: What are the factors associated with sex offender recidivism?

Compared to other offenders, sex offenders are less likely to recidivate in general, but are still more likely to reoffend with a sex crime. Previous research has shown that deviant sexual interests, antisocial orientation, prior non-contact offenses, intimacy deficits, an emotional identification with children, and a history of victimizing strangers are significant predictors of repeat sexual offending. The predictors of non-sexual reoffending are largely different, however, in that only two of these factors—antisocial orientation and intimacy deficits—are associated with non-sex offense recidivism. Although existing research has generally shown that treatment lowers the risk of sexual recidivism, it has not adequately examined whether supervision length, supervision intensity, and supervised release revocations have an effect on reoffending.

This study analyzed the impact of treatment and post-release supervision by studying 3,166 sex offenders released from a MCF between 1990 and 2002. The average follow-up period was 8.4 years, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 16. Measured three different ways (rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration for a new crime) and distinguished by the type of reoffense (sex offense, non-sex offense, any offense), recidivism was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model, a multivariate statistical technique. Because the baseline rate for sexual recidivism is relatively low, all three offense levels (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and felony) were included in this study in order to obtain the most sensitive measure of reoffending. Due to the relatively long follow-up period used as well as the inclusion of all three offense levels, the recidivism findings presented here are not directly comparable to the general recidivism rates reported by the Department of Corrections, which are based on felony-level offenses over a three-year follow-up period.


Results

Sex Offense Recidivism

• After three years, seven percent of the 3,166 offenders had been rearrested for a sex offense, six percent reconvicted, and three percent reincarcerated.

• By the end of the follow-up period (an average of 8.4 years for all 3,166 offenders), 12 percent had been rearrested for a sex offense, 10 percent reconvicted, and seven percent reincarcerated.

• Prior sex crimes, stranger victims, male child victims (i.e. male victims under the age of 13), failure in prison-based sex offender treatment, and a metro-area county of commitment each significantly increased the risk of timing to a sex reoffense.1

• Intensive supervised release (ISR), supervised release, supervised release revocations, and successful participation/completion of sex offender treatment each significantly reduced the risk of timing to a sex reoffense.

Non-Sex Offense Recidivism

• After three years, 24 percent of the offenders had been rearrested for a non-sex offense, 19 percent reconvicted, and nine percent reincarcerated.

• At the end of the follow-up period, 42 percent had been rearrested for a non-sex offense, 39 percent reconvicted, and 19 percent reincarcerated.

• The predictors of non-sexual reoffending were very different from those for sexual recidivism. ..more.. by Minnesota Dep't of Corrections

VA- Assessing Risk Among Sex Offenders in Virginia

2001 Virginia:

Executive Summary:
In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly requested the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to develop a sex offender risk assessment instrument, based on the risk of re-offense, for integration into the state’s sentencing guidelines system. In accordance with Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 333 of the 1999 General Assembly, the Commission embarked on an empirical study of recidivism among sex offenders convicted in the Commonwealth.

The Commission’s goal was to develop a reliable and valid predictive instrument, specific to the population of sex offenders in Virginia, that could be a valuable tool for the judiciary when sentencing sex offenders. If put in place, Virginia would be the first state in the nation to integrate sex offender risk assessment into sentencing guidelines.

Research Methodology
The Commission tracked 579 felony sex offenders who were released from incarceration (or sentenced to probation without an active term of incarceration) during fiscal years (FY) 1990 through 1993. Selecting offenders returning to the community from FY1990 to FY1993 allowed for a minimum five-year follow-up for all offenders in the sample, with some offenders followed for as long as ten years. On average, offenders in the Commission’s study were tracked for eight years. The offenders were selected in such a way that the overall sample reflects the characteristics of a random sample of sex offenders sentenced in Virginia’s circuit courts in calendar years (CY) 1996 and 1997. This design enables the Commission to generalize the results of the study to the population of sex offenders sentenced in circuit courts in the Commonwealth.

Automated data was supplemented through manual data collection. Through examination of narrative accounts found in pre/post-sentence investigation (PSI) reports, rich contextual detail of the sex offenses committed by offenders in the sample was gathered. Criminal history “rap sheets” from the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) system maintained by the Virginia State Police and from the FBI’s Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) system provided recidivism data and supplemented prior record information.

Measuring Recidivism
There are many barriers to accurate measurement of recidivism among sex offenders, including reluctance to report sexual victimization and evidentiary problems resulting in offenders not being charged or convicted of their crimes. Victims and witnesses may refuse to come forward to testify, particularly when the victim is young. These and other obstacles hinder the prosecution of sex offense cases and often mean that charges must be dropped or reduced in a plea agreement. In order to avoid the underestimation of recidivism that is inherent with measurement based solely on reconviction, the Commission elected to define recidivism using official records of arrests. The Commission believes that measuring recidivism by a new arrest more closely approximates the true rate of re-offense behavior among sex offenders. To the extent that sex offenders go on to commit other types of violent crimes, re-arrests for new sex offenses will underestimate the predatory nature of these offenders. The Commission, therefore, chose as its operational definition of recidivism a new arrest for a sex offense or any other crime against the person.


Treatment of Sex Offenders
SJR 333 requests the Commission to consider the impact of treatment interventions on the reduction of recidivism among this particular population of offenders. The Commission, however, determined that assessing the effectiveness of post-conviction treatment services among offenders in the study sample would be extremely difficult.

In 1992, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) determined that, during the time in which the offenders under study were incarcerated, “the Department of Corrections had not promulgated any standards to govern the development of treatment programs in the prisons and field units” (p. iii). JLARC found no agency specific requirements for the service providers, no minimum qualifications for counselors conducting group therapy and no guidelines outlining the basic elements of therapeutic counseling (p. iv-v). Moreover, only half (53%) of imprisoned sex offenders received any treatment services prior to reaching their first parole eligibility date (JLARC 1992, p. iv). Of those receiving treatment services when they become eligible for parole, a large share (40%) were provided only sex offender education programming, and not sex offender therapy. Furthermore, little consistent documentation about participation in prison-based sex offender treatment programs was available in files at the headquarters of the Department of Corrections.

Given these serious limitations, the Commission concluded that the impact of post-conviction treatment and its effect on rates of recidivism among sex offenders returned to the community from FY1990 through FY1993 could not be accurately assessed as part of the current study. Although the impact of specialized sex offender treatment provided after conviction was not examined, the Commission analyzed available automated data indicating whether or not the offender had received some type of mental health treatment or participated in an alcohol or drug treatment program prior to committing the offense under study. A review of literature on the effectiveness of sex offender treatment is provided in this document.

Risk Assessment Findings
In risk assessment research, the characteristics, criminal histories and patterns of recidivism among offenders are carefully analyzed. Factors proven statistically significant (i.e., those with a known level of success) in predicting recidivism can be assembled on a risk assessment worksheet, with scores determined by the relative importance of the factors in the statistical model.

The risk assessment instrument developed by the Commission reflects the characteristics and recidivism patterns of the population of felony sex offenders convicted and sentenced in Virginia. The risk assessment instrument proposed by the Commission can be found in Figure 26 on page 56 of this report. Relevant findings are presented below.

For the remainder of the study: by Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission

Note: Nice Overview of Several SO Studies

Two Important Charts:
Location of Offenses & Victim / Offender Relationship