The Registration and Community Notification of Adult Sexual Offenders

Adopted by the ATSA Executive Board of Directors on October 5, 2005

NOTE: THIS PAPER DOES NOT ADDRESS ISSUES OF NOTIFICATION OF YOUTHFUL SEX OFFENDERS DUE TO THE VAST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADULTS AND JUVENILES. A SEPARATE INFORMATION STATEMENT ON THIS TOPIC IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT.

History

In 1994, following the 1989 abduction of an 11 year old boy in Minnesota, a federal law was passed mandating sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies so that their current whereabouts are known ("Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act," 1994). In 1996, President Clinton signed "Megan's Law," which requires states to disseminate information to the public about sex offenders who live in close proximity. The goal of community notification is to increase the public's ability to protect itself by warning potential victims if a convicted sex offender lives nearby, and to decrease the incidence of recidivistic sexual violence. Currently, about half of the states assign offenders to risk levels and notify the public differentially according to the offender's threat to public safety. The balance of the states employ broad community notification, publicizing the location of all sex offenders without regard for risk assessment.

Community notification statutes have been challenged on issues related to rights to privacy as well as their constitutionality. In the fall of 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases challenging Megan's Law. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute allowing sex offenders to be identified on an Internet registry without first holding a hearing to determine their dangerousness to the community ("Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe," 2003). The case was a victory for the 23 states that have broad notification policies. In an Alaska case, the Court ruled that registration and notification of offenders sentenced before the law went into effect did not constitute ex post facto punishment ("Smith v. Doe," 2003). Immediately following the Court's rulings, the Wetterling Act was once again modified under the PROTECT amendment, and now mandates all 50 states to develop and maintain Internet websites containing sex offender registration information ("Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act," 2003).The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has developed a set of recommendations we believe help assure the original goal of registration and notification - enhanced community safety - are met in an effective manner.

Recommendations

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) believes that development and implementation of social policies should be based on research whenever possible. It should be noted that to date, few research studies about community notification have been conducted. The research that has been completed has not been able to conclude that community notification reduces recidivism or enhances community safety.

ATSA strongly supports sex offenders being held responsible for their actions. When sex offenders are living in the community, it is imperative they be monitored carefully through effective probationary supervision and treatment. In addition, U.S. federal law requires states to inform the public of the whereabouts of sex offenders. Therefore ATSA offers the following recommendations for implementation of Megan's law based on the research about the assessment and management of sex offenders:

1. Some sex offenders are highly dangerous and require more intensive supervision and treatment interventions.
2. Community notification practices should include an assessment of risk factors that have been associated with increased recidivism. Different notification strategies should be used according to the level of threat that an offender poses to a community. This is imperative so the citizenry can more effectively make informed decisions regarding the large number of identified sexual offenders. Broad notification can dilute the public's ability to identify and protect themselves from truly dangerous offenders.
3. ATSA strongly supports collaborative efforts between citizens, law enforcement, offenders, and treatment providers to render management, supervision, and rehabilitation services that promote community safety.
4. Community notification should always include educational efforts, including factual and research-based information about sexual violence and sexual perpetrators.
5. ATSA supports continued study into the impact of community notification and its effectiveness. Funding for research investigating the impact and effectiveness of sexual violence policies should be a priority.

Discussion

Community notification laws have received widespread support, largely due to the perception that the vast majority of sex offenders will repeat their crimes. Research studies by the US Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Government have found, however, that sexual offense recidivism rates are much lower than commonly believed, averaging in five year follow-up studies between 14 and 20%. Certain sub-groups, such as pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, seem to present the greatest risk, with up to half of them reoffending over longer follow up periods. Although extensive media attention is paid to child abductions, such cases occur relatively rarely, and less than 1% of all sex crimes involve murder. Despite myths of "stranger danger," the vast majority (80-90%) of sexually abused children are molested by family members, close friends, or acquaintances. Early studies indicating that treatment was not successful in reducing recidivism have also led to a heightened fear of sex offenders, despite recent data suggesting that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatments can reduce recidivism by as much as 40%.

Public safety can be enhanced, and limited resources used more efficiently, when, the most aggressive notification practices should be reserved for those offenders who are at highest risk to reoffend sexually and therefore require the most intensive interventions. The ability to predict sexual dangerousness has improved markedly over the past decade as a result of studies identifying risk factors for violent and sexual recidivism. Procedures and instruments for assessing risk have been developed and refined, and risk for sex offense recidivism can be estimated with moderate accuracy. By classifying offenders into risk groups based on the existence of known risk factors, communities may be able to identify more accurately those sex offenders who pose the greatest threat to public safety. At the same time, differential notification strategies can improve cost-effectiveness. Risk level systems might also decrease some of the negative effects of community notification on lower risk offenders. In fact, many states have decided that because the consequences of notification are so severe, they will only notify the public about offenders who pose a high risk to minimize disrupting the stability of low risk offenders in ways that may increase their risk. Given the serious implications of decisions based on risk assessments, these assessment tools should always be administered by skilled, trained, and supervised professionals.

The notification process provides an opportunity to inform and educate the general public and those associated with the offender. It can, when used effectively, allow the community to engage in prevention efforts that simultaneously include offender rehabilitation. But public notification without community involvement and education will not likely be helpful. The level of protection afforded by these laws is somewhat limited and unfortunately community notification does not guarantee protection from harm. After nearly a decade of implementation, there is still no research that suggests community notification decreases recidivistic sexual violence. Furthermore, studies that have investigated community notification's impact on stakeholders indicate that notification often results in increased anxiety for citizens. Law enforcement officers and probation agents report concerns about increased labor and expenditures. These resources can be more effectively utilized if there is a risk-based determination of need regarding the type of notification involved.

Victim advocacy groups have also noted that notification may create a negative impact on offenders' children and family members or lead to the inadvertent identification of victims. These possible consequences may discourage victims from reporting sexual abuse by family members or acquaintances, ultimately interfering with the child protection system and decreasing the likelihood that victims will receive therapeutic intervention. Families of offenders can be negatively affected when community notification occurs, whether or not the offender returns to the home. Again, these unintended consequences can be mitigated when risk-based notification decisions are made.

Finally, notification can create the potential for vigilantism, despite the fact that all state notification laws warn citizens that such behavior will not be tolerated. Research suggests that about one-third to one-half of sex offenders subjected to community notification experience dire events such as the loss of a job or home threats or harassment, or property damage. Physical assault seems to occur in 5-16% of cases. About 19% of sex offenders report that these negative consequences have affected other members their households. There is also some initial indication that notification may interfere with its stated goal of enhancing public safety by exacerbating the stressors (e.g., isolation, disempowerment, shame, depression, anxiety, lack of social supports) that can trigger some sex offenders to relapse. Such dynamic factors have been associated with increased recidivism risk. Understandably, sex offenders inspire little sympathy from the public, but ostracizing them may inadvertently increase their danger.

In summary, prevention of sexual violence requires a well-planned, comprehensive, inter-disciplinary response. Prevention efforts must begin with developing clear goals and objectives, implementing strategies based on empirical research, and collecting and analyzing data on an ongoing basis. Emotionally charged reactions to sex crimes often lead to legislation that is not driven by data or science but rather by outrage and fear. Lawmakers and citizens should advocate for research-based social policies that both protect women and children and also support the habilitation of perpetrators to effectuate long-term community safety.

References

Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490-521.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Caputo, A. A. (2001). Community notification laws for sex offenders: Possible mediators and moderators of citizen coping. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(9-B).

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, (01-1231) (U.S. Supreme Court 2003).

Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1999a). Final report on the development of the Minnesota sex offender screening tool - revised (MnSOST-R). Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Vancouver, Canada.

Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1999b). Minnesota sex offender screening tool - Revised (MnSost-R): Development performance, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved 3/1/04, from www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/epperson

Furby, L., Weinrott, M., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 3-30.

Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sexual offense recidivism. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 14(2), 169-194.

Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, CA: Public Works and Government Services.

Hanson, R. K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R. A. (1995). A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 325-337.

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. (No. User report 1999-02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D. P., & Lang, C. (2003). A Multi-site Comparison of Actuarial Risk Instruments for Sex Offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 413-426.

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, Public Law 103-322 (1994).

Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. (2005). The impact of Megan's Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66.

Prentky, R. A., Lee, A. F., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 635-659.

Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, Public Law 108-21 (2003).

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schram, D., & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington Institute for Public Policy.

Smith v. Doe, (01-729) (U.S. Supreme Court 2003).

Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-82.

Zevitz, R. G., Crim, D., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 393-408.