Registered Sex Offenders and Reported Sex Offenses

November 2014:

Abstract:
Geographic restrictions on registered sex offenders (RSOs) have become commonplace. Such policies generally assume that sex offenses are likely to be higher near RSOs. Yet, few ecological studies have examined this question empirically.

The current study examines whether incidences of reported sex offenses are higher in proximity to the addresses of RSOs. Specifically, we examine whether there is a relationship between the number of reported sex offenses and the number of RSOs living in square grid cells (and in 1,000, 1,500, and 2,500 ft radii of the cell centroid) in Indianapolis.

Count models indicate that the number of RSOs in an area is not a robust predictor of reported sex offenses, net of controls. ..Source.. by Thomas D. Stucky and John R. Ottensmann

Risky Policies: How Effective Are Restrictions on Sex Offenders in Reducing Reoffending?

10-13-2014 Massachusetts, National:

Sex offenders are one of the most reviled groups of felons. In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in laws and regulations governing virtually every facet of their lives. The policy decisions about how to deal with sex offenders flow largely in one direction: restrict them as much as possible. This one-sided approach has created a complex web of restrictions that ultimately causes more harm than good.

Differentiating sex offenses from other types of offenses is perfectly rational. Further, government should try to address those harms by creating policies that will reduce offenses. In light of what we know today about sex offenses and sex offenders, it is possible to reduce the rate of recidivism, but the policies currently in place are not the answer. They are reactive, based often on outdated misconceptions, and far too broad.

Evidence-based practices have become common in almost all areas of public policy, because it is now well established that conventional wisdom is often inaccurate. But though there is an abundance of empirical data about sex offenders and reoffending, our policies are created without reference to the data. Rather, our policies are based on anecdotal information and inaccurate beliefs about sex offenders and reoffending. As a result, current policies do not address the problems they are seeking to correct. In most instances, the policies are ineffective; in many instances, they also create conditions that may increase the risk of reoffense.

Maybe in my backyard: A correlational study of registered sex offender residences in an urban area from a social disorganization approach

March 2014:

Abstract:
Current post-release sanctions for convicted sex offenders centers on registration, residency restrictions, and treatment. One of the collateral consequences of these policies is the limitation of available housing to registered sex offenders to certain areas.

This quantitative study used a correlational design to examine census records and the sex offender registry for a major metropolitan area in an effort to determine if social disorganization within a community is correlated to the presence of sex offenders within the same community.

The study involved an examination of the community characteristics of the 787 census tracts and the residential addresses of 5,886 registered sex offenders within Harris County, Texas. It was found that there was a statistically significant correlation between social disorganization and sex offender residences within the community. Sex offender residency is discussed in the context of economic considerations rather than social-familial context. Policy and future research considerations are also discussed. ..Source.. by Mark Rubin & Jeffrey Rush

Kids, Cops, and Sex Offenders: Pushing the Limits of the Interest-Convergence Thesis

2013:

Abstract:
Sex offenders are today’s pariahs – despised by all, embraced by none. During the past twenty years, society’s dislike and fear of sex offenders has resulted in a flood of legislation designed to protect communities from them. These laws include residency restrictions, which bar convicted sex offenders from living near places where children are expected to be found. Given this climate, do lawyers who for sex offenders have any hope of winning justice for their clients?

In 2005, the Ohio Justice & Policy Center (“OJPC”) began a three year-advocacy campaign against Ohio’s residency restrictions. At first OJPC lost badly – in both the courts of law and public opinion. But after losing the initial legal challenge, OJPC transformed its seemingly lost cause into a winning effort. It did so by borrowing an idea from Professor Derrick A. Bell.

Professor Bell is famous, among other things, for his interest-convergence thesis. According to Bell, blacks achieve racial equality only when such progress it is in the interests of whites. The classic example of Bell’s theory is his explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. According to Bell, the Court desegregated public schools not for moral reasons but because doing so would improve America’s credibility on racial issues during the Cold War.

OJPC eventually prevailed in its challenges to residency restrictions because it aligned the interests of sex offenders with society’s interests in protecting children from sexual abuse. Not only did OJPC win two important legal challenges but it also transformed the local media narrative about residency restrictions.

Kids, Cops and Sex Offenders: Pushing the Limits of the Interest-Convergence Thesis begins by telling the story of OJPC’s advocacy – both before and after employing an interest-convergence strategy. The article then poses and answers three questions: (1) whether it is appropriate to attach the “interest-convergence” label to OJPC’s sex offender advocacy given that Bell’s thesis is “historically descriptive rather than a recommendation for future-oriented strategies,” according to Professor Stephen Feldman, a leading scholar; (2) whether interest-convergence theory explains the victories OJPC won for its clients; and (3) assuming that interest convergence has value as an advocacy tool, whether it potentially presents a downside for the marginalized clients the lawyer seeks to serve. I conclude the article with a discussion of a course I developed called Complex Problem Solving for Lawyers, which teaches law students to incorporate Bell’s interest-convergence theory into advocacy on behalf of despised groups like sex offenders. ..Source.. by David A. Singleton, Northern Kentucky University - Salmon P. Chase College of Law

Just the Facts: Evidence-based -v- Emotion-based Public Policy Making

February 2014 California:

A ground breaking analysis of the facts by CSOMB:

Fact-1: Residence restrictions would not have protected Jessica

Action: Use resources to enforce registration laws and prosecute the non-compliant. California registration law violations are largely felonies, and are mandated prison sentences, exempt from realignment local custody only sentences.

Action: Use resources for sex offender treatment, to influence what the offender does, not where he/she lives. Note: In the 2010 Legislative Session, ... ..Continued.. by California Sex Offender Management Board

Where for Art Thou? Transient Sex Offenders and Residence Restrictions

12-4-2013 National:

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to better understand transient (homeless) sex offenders in the context of residence restriction laws. Using the entire population of registered sex offenders (RSOs) living in the community in Florida (n = 23,523), transients were compared with other sex offenders on relevant demographics, risk factors, county characteristics, and residence restriction variables.

Significantly higher proportions of transient sex offenders were found in counties with a larger number of local-level restrictions, vast territory covered by these laws, wide-distance buffer zones, higher population density, and expensive housing costs. Sex offenders were more likely than the general population to become homeless.

Transients were more likely than non-transients to have a history of registry violation. Few transients absconded, but when they did, they were more likely to abscond from registration than probation. When implementing sex offender management policies, lawmakers should consider transience as an unintended negative consequence. ..Source.. by Jill Levenson -AND- Alissa R. Ackerman -AND- Kelly M. Socia -AND- Andrew J. Harris

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Releases Its January Recommendations Report

January 2010:

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Releases Recommendations Report:

Key Recommendations:

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) was created to provide the Governor and the State Legislature as well as relevant state and local agencies with an assessment of current sex offender management practices and recommended areas of improvement.

The work of the CASOMB has been divided into several significant committee focus areas. Provided below are the key summary recommendations of each committee. More substantive discussion, data and additional recommendations are located in the body of the report itself.

Re-entry, Supervision and Housing

• In order to mitigate the potential public safety risk of increased offender transience, California should target the use of residence restrictions utilizing a hybrid model of restrictions similar to a 2009 Iowa law:

• Residence restrictions should apply to the most serious offenders (SVP, repeat sex offenders, and offenders convicted of violent sex offenses) who have committed an offense against a child.

• Loitering restrictions should apply to designated Penal Code Section 290 registrants in places where children congregate (child safe zones)

• California cities and counties should not pass sex offender residence restriction ordinances that are in conflict with or exceed state law.

• GPS monitoring should only be utilized in conjunction with some form of community supervision, with the understanding that some high-risk offenders may need to be subject to extended supervision (including lifetime supervision for exceptionally high-risk offenders).

Treatment

• To ensure effective treatment, CASOMB should be provided resources to develop written policies and standards which should be implemented at the State level for programming for sexual offenders. Separate standards are needed for adult, developmentally disabled and juvenile sex offenders.

• Risk level-appropriate and evidence-based sex offender specific treatment should be routinely required for all adult and juvenile sex offenders under supervision in California.

Registration and Notification

• California should concentrate state resources on more closely monitoring highand-moderate risk sex offenders. A sex offender’s risk of re-offense should be one factor in determining the length of time the person must register as a sex offender and whether to post the offender on the Internet; other factors that should determine duration of registration and Internet posting include whether the sex offense was violent, was against a child, involved sexual or violent recidivism, and whether the person was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator.

• Law enforcement should allocate resources to enforce registration law, actively pursue violations, maximize resources and results by devoting more attention to higher-risk offenders.

For the remainder of this report: by The California Sex Offender Management Board


Key Points:

Following is an enumeration of some areas where the CASOMB believes that the availability of accurate information would support better policy decision making. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The order and numbering in the following list are not intended to reflect order of importance.

1. California needs to make a determination of the number of convicted sex offenders being handled at the county level, particularly the number on county probation but also the number serving post-conviction time in county jails.

2. California should conduct an analysis of the true recidivism rate (arrest or conviction) for sex offenders released from custody after serving a sentence in a CDCR prison. Such an analysis could look at recidivism over three-year, five-year and ten-year periods. To be meaningful, it would need to account for actual time at risk in the community and not include time when the individual had been returned to custody and so was not actually at risk to re-offend – a method of analysis not readily accomplished with data currently available. The presence for absence of certain management practices should be noted as well, including supervision, Containment, treatment, GPS tracking and others.

3. A similar analysis is needed for the recidivism of sex offenders sentenced to county probation.

4. Since the state is expending substantial resources on GPS for sex offenders, a large scale outcome evaluation and cost effectiveness analysis of GPS should be conducted. Such a study should include both CDCR and county probation and should take into account the risk level of the sex offenders included in the study.

5. The assumption that residence restrictions actually contribute to public safety should be evaluated. It seems clear that residence restrictions are driving up the numbers of homeless sex offenders and so the recidivism of transient versus those who have stable housing should be compared. Research strategies should be developed to answer the challenging question of whether residence restrictions actually increase public safety.

6. California should develop an accurate analysis of the projected total costs for GPS tracking if lifetime supervision were implemented.

7. If California were to come into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act there would be substantial implementation costs. Although estimates have been generated with regard to some of the AWA requirements, an accurate forecast should be
developed to clarify the actual anticipated costs for all aspects of the new AWA requirements.

8. Under changes required by Proposition 83, increasing numbers of individuals now must be screened and evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria for civil commitment as a “sexually violent predator.” These evaluations are very costly. Some careful analysis is needed to determine whether the benefits of such an extensive use of full SVP evaluations are justified by their benefit to community safety or whether there are other, less costly ways to preliminarily screen and determine whether a particular candidate is likely to meet the criteria for commitment.

9. There is a need to determine the full costs for requiring lifetime registration and notification for all PC290 registrants. Elsewhere in this report it is recommended that California revise its requirements for lifetime registration. A better knowledge of the full cost to the state and to local jurisdictions for maintaining and enforcing the lifetime requirement for all sex offenders, no matter what their risk level or how long they have lived crime free would further clarify the best future direction for California registration requirements.

10. Proposition 83 empowered cities and counties to enact their own residence restrictions for sex offenders. Not only is there no provision for keeping track of the proliferation of these regulations, but their impact is unknown. Research is needed to determine the impact of local ordinances on the housing of sex offenders, their degree of transience and their movement across jurisdictional boundaries as a result of such restrictions.

11. California should gather data tracking of the flow of sex offender cases from initial police report to arrest to conviction to disposition (including length of stay in prison) to supervision period to the post-supervision period. Such data would give a much clearer picture of how the larger system works and what impact various changes, such as longer sentences, have had. It would, for example, help planners determine whether the 25-years-to-life sentences are going to stem the flow into the civil commitment program.

12. Information should be gathered regarding how many sex offenders enter treatment programs and how many never do and whether that makes a difference in recidivism - inasmuch as research seems to suggest it may be the only intervention that does. Such research should also include information about the nature, length and quality of treatment programs.