Results from a survey on sex offenders registry are provided. Questions asked are:
- Citation(s) of statutes(s);
- Registrable offenses with citations;
- And the state agency responsible for maintaining sex offender registry.
The impact of registry restrictions on sex offenders is examined by determining this population’s housing locations, recidivism patterns, and the collateral consequences they experience following residency restriction. Results show that residency restrictions do not significantly decrease the number of sex offenders who live near schools and day care centers, have a small effect on reducing recidivism, and has some effect on the stigma experienced by sex offenders. “As noted the effect of residency restrictions on sex offender residences and behavior is small, and there is evidence that the restrictions may further complicate the reentry process. As such, it is important to consider refining existing proposals to enact residency restrictions and modify current policies” (p. 72).
The assessment, treatment, and risk management of persons who have sexually offended is of considerable interest to a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including legislators and policymakers, court and law enforcement personnel, corrections and community supervision staff, mental health clinicians, victim advocates, and the community-at-large, among others. Many of these stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding the potential for sexual recidivism and other harms posed by offenders released to the community. As a consequence, most jurisdictions have enacted legislative frameworks to manage those risks.
The past 40 years have been witness to significant growth in our understanding of the dynamics of sexual offending, the people who engage in these behaviors and how best to assess their risk for reoffending, and what treatment and supervision interventions are most likely to result in success. In this context, success may be defined as: (1) greater community safety, and (2) safe and humane reintegration opportunities for offenders returning to the community.
This report is intended to provide a comprehensive review of best practices in the assessment, treatment, and risk management of persons who have sexually offended.
The goal of this videoconference is to enhance the ability of probation and parole agency staff (line officers, supervisors, and policymakers/administrators) to supervise sex offenders in the community more effectively. Topics addressed include:
- Overview of sex offenders and their victims;
- The victim-centered approach to sex offender supervision;
- The role of collaboration in a comprehensive approach to supervision;
- The containment approach to supervision;
- Sex offender treatment in the context of community supervision;
- The use of the polygraph as a supervision and treatment tool;
- Assessment of sex offenders;
- Presentence investigations (PSI) of sex offenders;
- Case/planning/maintaining the case file;
- Case work in various settings;
- And responding to violations.
State requirements for the registration of adult sex offenders are compiled and presented. Responses (if given) are reported for: registrable offenses; whether those individuals convicted of staff sexual misconduct need to register; information maintained in sex offender registry; community notification and website; limitations on residency or employment; and duration of registration.
While this report comments on issues related to youth who sexually offend in Illinois, its recommendations are applicable to any state. “The increased availability of high-quality, reliable, youth-specific research findings presents an exceptional opportunity to align law and practice with expert consensus about best practices for responding to youth sex offenses. Most importantly, research over the last few decades has conclusively established that youth are highly amenable to treatment and highly unlikely to sexually reoffend. Research also indicates that strategies used with adults—principally sex offender registries and residency/employment restrictions—are not only unnecessary as applied to youth, but also counterproductive, as they often jeopardize victim confidentiality and can interfere with youth rehabilitation to an extent that undermines the long-term safety and well-being of our communities. In recognition of this research and the vital need to identify evidence-based best practices with regard to this very serious issue, the General Assembly charged the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission with making recommendations to ensure the effective treatment and supervision of youth who are adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense” (p. 6). While some of Illinois’ practices related to sex offending by youth are based on “what works” research, some are not. Thus, the Commission has made three recommendations to align law, policy, and practice with research on effective interventions for juvenile sex offenders: Recommendation 1--Develop and implement professional best practice standards and provide current, objective, and evidence-informed training for professionals who work with youth offenders and victims of sexual abuse; Recommendation 2--Equip courts and communities to intervene effectively with individualized, community-based, family-focused services and supervision; and Recommendation 3--Remove young people from the state’s counter-productive sex offender registry and the categorical application of restrictions and collateral consequences. This website provides access to: the full report (150 pages); the report without Appendices (61 pages); the Executive Summary; the Fact Sheet; the Press Release; and audio from the March 25, 2014 Report Release Conference Call.
Juveniles and adults who sexually offend should be viewed as distinct populations. Tools to assess risk in juveniles are not yet validated and may serve to best inform treatment planning. Treatment can be effective in reducing their risk to reoffend, especially approaches that include group and family therapy.
This three-hour interactive videoconference addresses both adult and juvenile psychopaths who are incarcerated or under community supervision. It covers the following topics: identification, diagnosis, and classification of psychopathic offenders and detainees; assessing their risk for violence (prediction studies); special considerations with psychopathic sex offenders; costs associated with managing these offenders and detainees; the implications for treatment, management, and release; Hendricks v. Kansas, a landmark case concerning commitment beyond completion of sentence; and strategies to address institutional and community safety.
<p>Those people looking for a primer on what is currently known about sex offending and sex offender management need to read this report. "Perpetrators of sex crimes are often seen as needing special management practices. As a result, jurisdictions across the country have implemented laws and policies that focus specifically on sex offenders, often with extensive public support. At the same time, the criminal justice community has increasingly recognized that crime control and prevention strategies—including those targeting sex offenders—are far more likely to work when they are based on scientific evidence. Recognizing the important role scientific evidence plays, the SMART Office developed the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI), a project designed to assess the state of research and practice in sex offender management. Recommendations stemming from SOMAPI informed this report" (p. 1). This report is divided into two sections following a very thorough executive summary. Adult Section: incidence and prevalence of sexual offending; etiology of adult sexual offending; sex offender typologies; internet-facilitated sexual offending; adult sex offender recidivism; sex offender risk assessment; effectiveness of treatment of adult sex offenders; and sex offender management strategies. Juvenile Section: unique considerations regarding juveniles who commit sexual offenses; etiology and typologies; recidivism of juveniles who commit sexual offenses; assessment of risk for sexual reoffense; effectiveness of treatment; and registration and notification of juveniles who commit sexual offenses.</p>