Effects of South Carolina’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy on Deterrence of Adult Sex Crimes

April 2010:

Abstract
This study examined whether South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policy was associated with a general deterrent effect on adult sex crimes.

Using adult arrest data from 1990 through 2005, trend analyses modeled the intervention effects of 1995 (the year South Carolina’s SORN policy was initially implemented) and 1999 (the year the policy was revised to include online registration).

Results supported a significant deterrent effect for the 1995 intervention year, with an approximately 11% reduction in first-time sex crime arrests in the post-SORN period (1995-2005) relative to the pre-SORN period (1990-1994). This decline equated to averting approximately three new sex crime arrests per month.

Comparison analyses with serious nonsex offenses against persons (assault and robbery) failed to identify similar effects, suggesting that the 1995 effect is attributable to sex offense—specific legislation. Findings are compared with the existing literature on general deterrent effects of SORN and discussed in the context of research examining other effects of SORN.

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 § 42 USC 16911 et. seq. (2006) ..Source.. by Elizabeth J. Letourneau Jill S. Levenson Dipankar Bandyopadhyay Kevin S. Armstrong Debajyoti Sinha

Sex Offenders: Recidivism & Collateral Consequences

March 2012 New Jersey:

Abstract:

This report examines the efficacy of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) through its influence on sex offender recidivism and collateral consequences. The first study examines the recidivism rates of two samples of sex offenders, those released prior to SORN and a sample released under SORN in New Jersey. It asks whether or not there are distinct risk profiles among sex offenders with regard to their recidivism trajectories, and if these profiles are similar or different for sex offenders pre- and post- SORN. Additional analyses also include an examination of the influence of demographics, substance abuse, mental health issues, treatment history, sex offense incident characteristics, and criminal history on recidivism trajectories. The second study looks at whether the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post-SORN sex offenders are similar to or different from the recidivism trajectories post-prison release for post-SORN non-sex offenders who are released from prison via parole. It also specifically focuses on whether or not a series of collateral consequences are experienced similarly or differently among these post-SORN sex and post-SORN non-sex offender parolees.

Recidivism data for both studies in this report were obtained through the New Jersey State Police Computerized Criminal History System and the National Crime Information Center’s Interstate Identification Unit. The first study utilizes two samples of sex offenders, and each was provided by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC). The pre-SORN group included a random sample of 250 male sex offenders released from prison by the NJDOC during the years 1990-1994, while the post-implementation group utilized the same sampling procedure and size and matched according to relevant demographics (age, race, and criminal history), with the exception that they were released during the years 1995-1999. For the second study, random samples of 247 post-SORN sex offenders and 250 post-SORN non-sex offenders released from prison in New Jersey via parole during 1995-1999 were drawn from the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ databases. The samples in both studies were followed for approximately eight years post-release for assessing recidivism. For both studies, official records of re-arrest for new offenses were employed as the measure of recidivism. Semi-parametric trajectory modeling was also used in both studies to estimate the recidivism trajectories of the pre- and post-SORN releasees, and the recidivism trajectories of the post-SORN sex offender and the non-sex offender releasees.

The first study finds that there are limited observable benefits of SORN regarding sex offender recidivism and general recidivism. With an overall low rate of sex offense recidivism, SORN status (e.g. whether an offender is or is not subject to SORN) failed to predict whether sex offenders would reoffend sexually. The results are consistent with previous research which has argued that sex offenders have relatively low rates of recidivism, typically significantly lower than non-sex offenders. SORN status was also not a significant predictor of which sex offenders would reoffend in general, including non-sexual recidivism. Although sex offenders and non-sex offenders share the experience of collateral consequences, results from the second study reveal that several collateral consequences including not living with friends, living in group facilities, and residential relocation appear to differentially impact sex offenders.

Policy makers and treatment providers should focus their efforts on those sex offenders identified as belonging to the high-risk trajectory with a particular interest in targeting the risk factors related to a high-risk trajectory. A targeted rather than universal application of SORN seems a viable alternative. Ultimately, the two studies in this report suggest that SORN is not likely to be an effective deterrent for sex offender recidivism and may produce an environment with specific collateral consequences that inhibit reintegration efforts post-prison release for sex offenders. ..Source.. by Richard Tewksbury, Ph.D. University of Louisville and Wesley G. Jennings, Ph.D. University of South Florida and Kristen Zgoba, Ph.D. New Jersey Department of Corrections

Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Limited Effects in New Jersey

March 2013 NCJ 225402:

Overview
In 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who had been released after serving a maximum sentence. In response to this event and other sex crimes, community members successfully lobbied for the enactment of a law that requires sex offender registration and notification to the public that a sex offender is living and working in the community.

Since the mid-1990s, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed similar legislation, collectively referred to as “Megan’s Law.” Underlying these laws is the belief that notifying the public of the presence of sex offenders in their community allows citizens to take protective measures against sex offenders who live nearby.

Researchers for the first time have conducted an independent scientific assessment of the effects of the law in New Jersey.1 They analyzed data from before and after the law was enacted. The study’s primary goal was to examine the impact of the law on the state as a whole and each county within the state. (See “Limitations of the Study” for what researchers were unable to examine.) Researchers studying the impact of registration and notification laws in other states have found similar results. ..Source.. by Kristen M. Zgoba, Ph.D., and Karen Bachar

Do Sex Offender Registries Make Us Less Safe?

June 2012:

Laws purporting to protect the public may be increasing sex offender recidivism rates.

During the 1990s and 2000s, sex offenders became subject to some of the most sweeping and novel crime legislation in the United States. Two early innovations inaugurating this trend were sex offender registration laws, which require that convicted sex offenders, once released, regularly provide valid contact information and other identifying data to law enforcement authorities, and sex offender notification laws, which complement registration laws by making an offender’s registration and criminal history information available to the public, most notably through the nowfamiliar searchable online databases known as “web registries.” Laws of both types, referred to generally as “SORN laws” and mandated by the federal government in some form since the mid-1990s, now exist in every state.

State legislatures enacted SORN laws with the explicit and exclusive aim of reducing sex offender recidivism. Registration laws were designed solely to enable more effective law enforcement supervision (and apprehension, if necessary) of previously convicted sex offenders, who were assumed to be at serious risk for reoffending. Similarly, notification laws were passed with the singular goal of helping potential victims protect themselves from known and nearby sex offenders by facilitating the public monitoring and physical avoidance of these individuals. Proponents of registration and notification laws continue to defend them entirely on these grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded, at least with respect to early versions of SORN laws, that state legislatures intended merely to “regulate” released offenders who may prove to be dangerous, not to punish them for previously committed crimes.

The general idea that we ought to “regulate” released offenders --of any type—to reduce the likelihood of their returning to crime is an attractive one, at least in theory. Criminal recidivism generates significant social harm. As many as two-thirds of all released felony inmates are readmitted to prison within a few years, and the public generally views individuals convicted of sex offenses as among those most likely to reoffend upon release. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public’s impression of sex offender dangerousness, when catalyzed by a few gruesome and headline-grabbing crimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s, produced the first SORN laws, which in turn led to the federal acts that extended SORN laws nationwide.

Nevertheless, despite their now-widespread use, SORN laws became the norm without any systematic study of their consequences. Admittedly, the logic underlying these laws seems at first difficult to gainsay: if a known sex offender poses even a small risk to a potential new victim, how can it hurt if the police are keeping better tabs on that offender or if the offender’s neighbors are made aware that he is a threat so they can take measures to reduce their own risk of victimization? But this question and its implied answer presume that SORN laws have no influence on whether released sex offenders opt to pursue new victims in the first place. If the enforcement of notification laws imposes significant financial, social, and psychological costs on released sex offenders, as an avalanche of evidence suggests it does, then notification may in fact be criminogenic. The result may well be many more attempted attacks by convicted sex offenders and therefore higher recidivism rates on the whole, even if every individual attack attempted becomes somewhat less likely to succeed. ..For the remainder of this paper: by J.J. PResCott

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)

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

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence against Women

September 2010 South Carolina:

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence Against Women. Grant 2006-WT-BX-0001

Abstract:
The study examines the effectiveness of sex offender registration and community notification policies in reducing sexual violence against women and girls. Because registration and notification policies were federally mandated and have been implemented across the country, they represent the most comprehensive attempts at the prevention and reduction of serious sexual violence.

To date, the effects of broad registration and notification policies (e.g., policies that do not distinguish between different offender risk levels and that apply for life) have been almost entirely exempt from empirical review. The present study will evaluate broad sex offender registration and notification policies as applied in South Carolina to determine whether these policies have deterred new sexual offenses (Aim 1) or reduced sexual recidivism (Aim 2).

Additionally, this study will examine whether an unintended effect has occurred: that is, whether the prosecution or conviction of individuals arrested for serious sexual offenses might have declined since policy implementation, perhaps due to perceived harshness of these polices (Aim 3). Because general crime rates have declined over the past decade, data on robbery and aggravated assault will also be examined in the context of some analyses to control for reductions in sex offenses that might be due to non-specific factors.

Data from 1991 to 2003 to be analyzed include all South Carolina "registry" sexual offense charges and convictions; all robbery and aggravated assault charges and convictions (for comparison); and victim reports of sexual offenses (also for comparison purposes). Patterns of pre-policy (1991-1995) charges and convictions will be compared with post-registration policy data (1996-1999) and with post-Internet notification policy data (2000-2003).

This study will represent the first empirical examination of broad registration and notification polices, such as were implemented by approximately half of all U.S. states. These policies have been in effect for over a decade, and examination of their effectiveness is overdue. ..Source.. by Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D., Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Ph.D., Debajyoti Sinha, Ph.D., Kevin S. Armstrong

An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Community Notification and Registration: Do the Best Intentions Predict the Best Practices?

November 2009:

Abstract
This research measures group differences in recidivism before and after implementation of Megan's Law. The pre-post study consists of a total of 550 male sex offenders released during the years 1990 and 2000, of which 250 offenders were released during 1990 and 1994 (i.e., the pre-Megan's Law group) and 300 offenders were released between 1995 and 2000 (i.e., the post-Megan's Law group). Offenders were released from a general population setting and a sex offender specific treatment facility. The main variables of concern include: (1) recidivism levels, (2) days to first re-arrest, and (3) level of harm (i.e., number of sex offenses, violent offenses, and number of child victims).

Statistical findings from chi-square and survival analysis testing indicate significant group differences on levels of general recidivism; however, no significant differences were identified on measures of sex offense recidivism. Implications of these findings on sex offender specific policies are discussed.

For the remainder of this paper: by Kristen Zgoba ; Bonita M. Veysey ; Melissa Dalessandro

WA- SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: HAS COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION REDUCED RECIDIVISM?

December 2005:

SUMMARY
This report examines the relationship between recidivism and Washington’s passage of sex offender registration and community notification statutes.

Have these policies reduced the recidivism rates of sex offenders?

We tracked 8,359 sex offenders released from Washington prisons before passage of the statutes (1986–1989), after passage of the 1990 law (1990–1996), and after passage of the amendments in 1997.

Statistical techniques are used to determine the effect of the law by controlling for observed differences in offenders. Recidivism is defined as a conviction in Washington State for an offense committed during the five-year period after the offender leaves prison.

Three types of recidivism are measured: (1) any new felony conviction, (2) any new violent felony conviction, and (3) any new felony sex conviction.

Findings

• Felony recidivism rates remained the same before and after enactment of the statutes.

• The violent felony recidivism rate of sex offenders released after the 1997 amendments is 2 percentage points below the pre-1990 rate— equivalent to a 20 percent reduction in violent felony recidivism.

• The felony sex recidivism rate for post-1997 offenders is 5 percentage points below the pre-1990 rate— equivalent to a 70 percent reduction in felony sex recidivism.

Violent and sexual felony recidivism by sex offenders in Washington has decreased since passage of the 1997 statute. The causal link to notification laws is not proven by this research. Other conditions may be contributing to this reduction, such as the national and state drop in crime rates and the state’s increased incarceration (incapacitation) of sex offenders.

However, the drop in recidivism rates by sex offenders is clear, and the influence of community notification laws cannot be ruled out.


Introduction:
The 2004 Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to evaluate the effectiveness of sex offender sentencing policies in Washington State.1

A previous report covered recidivism rates of sex offenders in Washington State.2 This report examines the influence of sex offender registration and community notification statutes on recidivism.

The 1990 Community Protection Act and subsequent amendments to the law require sex offenders to register with the sheriff in their county of residence.3 The Act authorizes law enforcement to release information to the public regarding dangerous sex offenders (“community notification”).4

Decision-making by government officials related to community notification has evolved over time. In the early 1990s, a multi-disciplinary committee in the Department of Corrections (DOC), the End of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC), issued three types of notifications to law enforcement: Special Bulletins (highest risk), Law Enforcement Alerts, and Teletype.5

In 1997, the notification law was significantly modified to establish a more consistent statewide approach; the ESRC was directed to set the offender’s risk level (I, II, or III).6 Local law enforcement is allowed to modify the level of sex offenders living in their jurisdictions. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs created model policy for release of information.7 This study examines recidivism rates of sex offenders during three periods: before passage of the 1990 Community Protection Act, after 1990 but before passage of the 1997 legislation, and after the 1997 amendments.

Measuring recidivism requires a five-year period of time in the community (and one additional year for processing in the courts). As a result, only offenders released from prison before October 1999 are included in the analyses.8 We measure three types of recidivism: a conviction in Washington State for (1) any new felony offense, (2) any new violent felony offense, and (3) any new felony sex offense.9 This follows legislative definition of recidivism.10

For the remainder of this study: by Washington State Institute for Public Policy

IA- THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND RECIDIVISM

2000 Iowa:

THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND RECIDIVISM
The Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received funding through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) State Justice Statistics (SJS) Program for the purpose of collection and analysis of data related to implementation of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry. The research had two specific goals:

· To enhance understanding of the State’s Sex Offender Registry through collection and analysis of data on sex offenders before and after the Registry’s implementation.

· To develop and validate a unique Iowa Sex Offender Risk Assessment tool to assist in identifying those offenders who constitute the highest risk to re-offend.

Few studies have addressed the impact of a Sex Offender Registry program on recidivism rates or other variables. It was the purpose of this first study to examine and compare two groups of individuals to determine what effect, if any, the requirement to register as a sex offender had on recidivism rates over a 3-4 year period.

Background
Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994 requiring states to create registries of sex offenders convicted of sexually violent offenses or crimes against children. Megan’s Law, amending the Act in May 1996, placed sex offender information in the public arena by requiring states to disclose information to the general public under specific guidelines. In response to increased public interest, researchers are beginning to address the issue of recidivism in this offender population, as well as questions concerning offender and victim characteristics.

Much of the current work being done in sex offender research is focused on the possibility of reoffense, including predictors of recidivism and the effects of various treatment programs.

Research results vary considerably depending on the definition of recidivism used, length of time for follow-up, and sample selection.

In an attempt to consolidate some of the current research findings on recidivism, Hanson (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of approximately 61 studies, using a 4-5 year follow-up period. He found an overall average recidivism rate of 13.4 percent for sex offenses, 12.2 percent for violent crimes and 36.6 percent for general recidivism. In the reviews, recidivism was defined in several ways, including reconviction, arrests, self-reports, and parole violations.

How many recidivists commit new sex crimes is of utmost importance not only to researchers but also to the general public, who may face the prospect of living near a convicted sex offender.

It appears that sex offense recidivism is relatively low when compared to other reoffenses. Several studies report recidivism rates for sex offenders as high as 45 percent but report recidivism for new sex crimes between three to seven percent (Arizona Department of Corrections, 1999, Eisenberg, 1997, Motiuk & Brown, 1996, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 1996). The majority of reoffenses included other violent crimes, property offenses and/or probation or parole violations. Most of the studies reviewed used a time frame of 3-5 years for follow-up.

What follow-up period is adequate is not easily determined, as most recidivism research fails to go beyond three to five years. However, the Arizona Department of Corrections in 1999 published a fact sheet that outlined the rate of recidivism for new sex offenses by year after release using one to seven years. They found that the majority (79 percent) of recidivists committing new sex offenses did so within the first three years after release. On the other hand, Hanson (1992), in his long-term follow-up study of child molesters, found the greatest risk of recidivism to be between five and ten years from the convicted offense. The Hanson report also stated that 23 percent of the recidivists were reconvicted more than ten years after they were released. Clearly, time to recidivate will be one of the issues to be addressed in future research.

For the remainder of the study: by Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center

Note: Excellent before/after registry chart Table-A

Iowa recidivism percentages are in Table-4

---

Other charts

---