Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law.

2008:

Abstract
Despite the fact that the federal and many state governments have enacted registration and community notification laws as a means to better protect communities from sexual offending, limited empirical research has been conducted to examine the impact of such legislation on public safety.

Therefore, utilizing time-series analyses, this study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act.

Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders.

Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) Paper available from APA PsycNET Direct: by Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(4), Nov 2008, 284-302.

DOES SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION WORK WITH JUVENILES?

December 2009:

The intention of sex offender registration and notification policies (SORN) is to improve community safety, deter sex crimes, and provide law enforcement with tools for more comprehensive and coordinated approaches to sex crime investigations. The primary aims of this project, funded by the Center for Disease Control, were to empirically examine the effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies with respect to (1) preventing initial acts of juvenile sex crimes, (2) reducing juvenile sexual recidivism, and (3) influencing juvenile judicial decision making. This Brief presents a summary of individual studies that addressed these three project aims, and provides general conclusions and and policy recommendations.

Aim 1: GENERAL DETERRENCE OF JUVENILE SEX CRIMES

Summary: We have completed one study that examined whether South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policy was associated with a general deterrent effect on juvenile sex crimes1. Using juvenile justice data from 1991 through 2004, we analyzed trends of first time juvenile sex crimes across three time periods: prior to 1995 (the year South Carolina’s SORN policy was initially implemented), between 1995 and 1998, and from 1999 (the year the policy was revised to include online registration) to 2004. Initial results suggested a significant eterrent effect of SORN on first-time juvenile sex crimes. Specifically, the probability of first-time sex crime charges declined significantly between the pre-SORN time period and subsequent years. However, comparison analyses with nonsex offenses identified a similar pattern with first-time robbery crimes. Follow-up analyses indicated that the apparent declines identified for first-time sex and robbery offenses were due to another legislative change, also enacted in 1995, that moved the prosecution of 16-year-old defendants from juvenile to adult court. When these cases were included in the database, follow-up trend analyses indicated no significant post-SORN reduction. Thus, neither South Carolina’s original SORN policy nor the modification that required online notificaition for some juvenile registrants was associated with deterrence of juvenile sex crimes.

AIM 2: SPECIFIC DETERRENCE OF JUVENILE SEXUAL VIOLENCE

Summary: We have completed two studies examining the influence of SORN on juvenile sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates. In the first study2 registered and nonregistered male youth were matched on six important characteristics: year of offense, age at offense, race, prior person offenses, prior nonperson offenses, and type of sexual offense (111 matched pairs). Recidivism was assessed across an average 4-year follow-up period. There were just two sexual offense reconvictions, too few to analyze differences between the groups. There were no long-term differences between the groups with respect to new nonsexual violent offense convictions. There were significant differences with respect to new nonperson offense convictions. Specifically, registered youth were more likely than nonregistered youth to have new nonperson offense convictions across the follow-up period. Follow-up analyses indicated that registered youth were more likely than nonregistered youth to be charged and convicted of relatively minor, misdemeanor offenses (e.g., public order offenses). This increased rate of convictions for minor offenses might reflect a police surveillance effect. Results did not support a reduction in recidivism attributable to SORN.

The second study3 examined the recidivism rates of 1,275 male juveniles with sex crime convictions acorss an average 9-year follow-up period. Results indicated that being registered had a marginal effect (p < .10) on increasing the risk of sex crime charges but not new sex crime convictions. Likewise, analyses also suggested that being registered had a significcant effect (p < .01) on increasing the risk of new nonperson crime charges but not new convictions. Thus, relative to nonregistered youth, registered youth were at greater risk for new sex and nonsex/nonperson charges but not new convictions. This increased rate of charges but not convictions suggests that law enforcement more quickly apprehend youth who are registered, perhaps because they are more familiar with these youth (due to in-person registration requirements) and also because they view registered youth to pose higher risks than nonregistered youth. That the charges did not result in convictions suggests insufficient evidence to support a conviction. Results did not support a reduction in recidivism attributable to SORN. For the remainder of this paper: by Elizabeth J. Letourneau

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

---