F-M police: Monitoring sex offenders effective

eAdvocate Note: I do not for a minute believe checking up on RCs, in any way, reduces recidivism. However, this article has some very interesting stats in it, see my highlights.

12-3-16 Minnesota:

MOORHEAD—Tory Jacobson was a detective sergeant with the Moorhead Police Department in 2003 when he came up with an idea about how to keep better track of registered sex offenders.

The law at the time required people convicted of certain crimes to keep law enforcement agencies informed of their whereabouts. The burden was and still remains on the offender to remain compliant, or face possible incarceration.

The problem: Noncompliance wasn't always immediately apparent, leading in some cases to a lag time between when an offender stopped following the rules and when law enforcement became aware of it.

Jacobson's idea was to have officers make random checks to make sure offenders complied with registration requirements.

Shortly after the Moorhead Police Department implemented the program, about a dozen offenders were returned to prison for noncompliance with registration rules, said Jacobson, who is now a lieutenant with the department.

And the program that was started in 2003 as a way to monitor registered offenders continues today, with Moorhead officers now making periodic checks on about 145 registered offenders living in the city.

Most civilly detained sex offenders would not reoffend, study finds

7-21-2013 National:

Other new research finds further flaws with actuarial methods in forensic practice

At least three out of every four men being indefinitely detained as Sexually Violent Predators in Minnesota would never commit another sex crime if they were released.

That’s the conclusion of a new study by the chief researcher for the Department of Corrections in Minnesota, the state with the highest per capita rate of preventive detention in the United States.

--Study examined 105 sex offenders civilly committed between 2004 and 2006.

--MnSOST-3 used to estimate effects of civil commitment on sex offense recidivism.

--Estimated four-year sexual recidivism rate was 9 percent for civil commits.

--Civil commitment reduced four-year sexual recidivism rate by 12 percent.

--Estimated lifetime sexual recidivism rate was 28 percent.

Using special statistical procedures and a new actuarial instrument called the MnSOST-3 that is better calibrated to current recidivism rates, Grant Duwe estimated that the recidivism rate for civilly committed sex offenders -- if released -- would be between about 5 and 16 percent over four years, and about 18 percent over their lifetimes. Only two of the 600 men detained since Minnesota's law was enacted have been released, making hollow the law's promise of rehabilitation after treatment.

Duwe -- a criminologist and author of a book on the history of mass murder in the United States -- downplays the troubling Constitutional implications of this finding, focusing instead on the SVP law’s exorbitant costs and weak public safety benefits. He notes that "Three Strikes" laws, enacted in some U.S. states during the same time period as SVP laws based on a similar theory of selective incapacitation of the worst of the worst, have also not had a significant impact on crime rates.

The problem for the field of forensic psychology is that forensic risk assessment procedures have astronomical rates of false positives, or over-predictions of danger, and it is difficult to determine which small proportion of those predicted to reoffend would actually do so.

Minnesota has taken the lead in civilly detaining men with sex crime convictions, despite the state's only middling crime rates. Unlike in most U.S. states with SVP laws, sex offenders referred for possible detention are not entitled to a jury trial and, once detained, do not have a right to periodic reviews. Detention also varies greatly by county, so geographic locale can make the difference between a lifetime behind bars and a chance to move on with life after prison.

Ironically, as noted by other researchers, by the time an offender has done enough bad deeds to be flagged for civil commitment, his offending trajectory is often on the decline. Like other criminals, sex offenders tend to age out of criminality by their 40s, making endless incarceration both pointless and wasteful.

The study, To what extent does civil commitment reduce sexual recidivism? Estimating the selective incapacitation effects in Minnesota, is forthcoming from the Journal of Criminal Justice. ..Source.. by Karen Franklin, In the News

Minnesota Sex Offender Publications

January 2013:

An Outcome Evaluation of Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability (MnCoSA) - September 2012 (Research in Brief)

An Outcome Evaluation of Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability (MnCoSA) - September 2012 (Full Report)

The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-3.1 (MnSOST-3.1): An Update to the MnSOST-3 - November 2012

DOC Rationale for Using the MnSOST 3.1

The Impact of Prison-Based Treatment on Sex Offender Recidivism: Evidence From Minnesota - March 2010(Research in Brief)

The Impact of Prison-Based Treatment on Sex Offender Recidivism: Evidence From Minnesota - March 2010 (Full Report)

The Effects of Failure to Register on Sex Offender Recidivism - March 2010

Sex Offenders in Prison - January 2011

Megan's Law in Minnesota: The Impact of Community Notification on Sex Offender Recidivism - May 2008

Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota - April 200

Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota - April 2007

Governor’s Commission on Sex Offender Policy

Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues - 2003 Legislative Report

Diagnosis of Substance Use Disorder Among Incarcerated Offenders – 2002 Annual Report 

Sex Offender Policy and Management Board Study Sex Offender Supervision Report (February 2000)

1999 Report to the Legislature of the Community Based Sex Offender Program Evaluation Project (October 1999)

Civil Commitment Study Group Report (January 1999)

1998 Report to the Legislature of the Community Based Sex Offender Program Evaluation Project (October 1998)

..Source..

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

January 2003 (revised 2/04):

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MN- Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota

April 2007 Minnesota:

Executive Summary:
In an effort to curb the incidence of sexual recidivism, state and local governments across the country have passed residency restriction laws. Designed to enhance public safety by protecting children, residency restrictions prohibit sex offenders and, in particular, child molesters from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of a school, park, playground or other location where children are known to congregate. Given that existing research has yet to fully investigate whether housing restrictions reduce sexual recidivism, the present study examines the potential deterrent effect of residency restrictions by analyzing the sexual reoffense patterns of the 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006.

In order to determine whether the 224 cases might have been affected by residency restrictions, four basic criteria were used.

1. Because housing restrictions are geared primarily towards deterring sex offenders—namely, child molesters—from initiating contact with potential victims, offenders had to establish direct contact with the victims, as opposed to gaining access to their victims through another person they know such as a significant other (e.g. wife, fiancée, girlfriend, etc.), friend, co-worker, or acquaintance.

2. The contact had to have occurred within at least one mile of the offender’s residence at the time of the offense.

3. The first contact location had to have been near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area.

4. The victim had to have been under the age of 18 at the time of the offense.

Data on the most recent sex offense for the 224 recidivists were derived from the criminal complaint, the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, the Statewide Supervision (SSS) database, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (DOC) Correctional Operations Management System (COMS) database.

Results
Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law. Only 79 (35 percent) of the cases involved offenders who established direct contact with their victims. Of these, 28 initiated victim contact within one mile of their own residence, 21 within 0.5 miles (2,500 feet), and 16 within 0.2 miles (1,000 feet). A juvenile was the victim in 16 of the 28 cases.

But none of the 16 cases involved offenders who established victim contact near a school, park, or other prohibited area. Instead, the 16 offenders typically used a ruse to gain access to their victims, who were most often their neighbors. ..Source.. by Minnesota Department of Corrections

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