The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender

Registration and Notification: Supplemental Report on Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Author(s): Andrew J. Harris, Christopher Lobanov-

Rostovsky, Jill S. Levenson Document No.: 250114 Date Received: July 2016 Award Number: 2013-IJ-CX-0028 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally funded grant report available electronically.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 1

LAWENFORCEMENTPERSPECTIVESONSEXOFFENDERREGISTRATIONAND

NOTIFICATIONSupplementalReport

Open-EndedResponsesonPolicyRecommendations

July2016

ThefindingsandopinionsexpressedinthismanuscriptreflectsolelytheviewsoftheauthorsandareinnowayendorsedbytheColoradoDepartmentofPublicSafetyanddonotrepresentgovernmentpolicyorviews.

Suggestedcitation:

Harris,Lobanov-Rostovsky,&Levenson(2016).LawEnforcementPerspectivesonSexOffenderRegistrationandNotification:SupplementalReport:Open-EndedResponsesonPolicyRecommendations.Lowell,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsLowell.

ThisprojectissupportedbyAwardNo.2013-IJ-CX-0028,awardedbytheNationalInstituteofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.Theopinions,findings,andconclusionsorrecommendationsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheDepartmentofJustice.

PrincipalInvestigatorAndrewJ.Harris

UniversityofMassachusettsLowellAndrew_harris@uml.edu

Co-InvestigatorsChristopherLobanov-Rostovsky

ColoradoDivisionofCriminalJusticechris.lobanov-rostovsky@state.co.us

JillS.LevensonBarryUniversity

jlevenson@barry.edu

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 2

ABOUTTHISREPORT

Thedatapresentedinthisreportaredrawnfromanationalsurvey,administeredonlineinthespringof2015,asthesecondpartofatwo-phasenationalstudytoelicitlawenforcementperspectivesonthefunctions,utility,andoperationofsexoffenderregistrationandnotificationsystemsintheUnitedStates.Thestudy’sfirstphasefeaturedaseriesofsemi-structuredinterviewsconductedin2014with105lawenforcementprofessionalsinfivestatesandtwotribaljurisdictions.Itemsforthissurveyweredevelopedbasedonthemes,experiences,andperspectivesemergingfromthoseinterviews.

ThesurveywasadministeredthroughtheservicesofCampbellRinker,amarketingresearchandsurveyfirm.Participantswereinvitedtocompletethesurveyviatargetedemailoutreach,utilizinganationwidecommerciallistof8,840policechiefsandcommandstaffandalistof2,921countysheriffsobtainedfromtheNationalSheriffsAssociation.Followinginitialoutreach,prospectiverespondentswerecontactedthroughthreewavesoffollow-up.ThesurveywasopenforfiveweeksbetweenAprilandMayof2015.

Thetransmittalemailincludeddetailsonthesurveyscopeandpurpose,andalinktothesurvey.Respondentswereinformedthatthesurveywasintendedforcompletionbyagencyleadership(e.g.,policechiefs,sheriffs),personnelinvolvedinsexoffenderregistrationandmanagement,andspecializedpersonnelinvolvedinsexcrimeinvestigations.Thesurveyitemspresentedtoeachrespondentvaried,withpipinglogicbasedonstatedagencyfunctions,respondentroles,andjurisdictionalcharacteristics.

Respondentandagencycharacteristicsofthesurveysamplearesummarizedonpages2-4intheinitialsurveyresultsreportavailableathttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249189.pdf.Thefinalsampleincludedrepresentationfrom49states(allstateswiththeexceptionofHawaii),andfromtheDistrictofColumbia.60.0%ofthesurveysamplecamefromlocalpolicedepartments,39.3%fromcountysheriffs,andtheremainder(<1%)fromothertypesofagenciesincludingstatelawenforcementagencies.Respondentswerefairlyevenlydividedamongsenioragencycommandstaff(34.9%ofthesample),line-levelcommandersandsupervisors(29.8%),andline-levelstaff(35.3%total,consistingof26.6%uniformand8.7%civilian).

Theinitialsurveyresultsreport,issuedinAugustof2015,providedthetabulatedstatisticsforthesurvey’sstructureditems.Thisreportpresentstheresultsofthesurvey’sunstructured(open-response)items,particularlythoserelatedtolawenforcementrecommendationsrelatedtopolicypriorities.Thefirstpeer-reviewedanalysisanddiscussionofsurveyresultswaspublishedonlineaheadofprintinCriminalJusticePolicyReviewinJune2016,andisavailableatthislink

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 3

http://bit.ly/2995gfforfromthePrincipalInvestigatorbyrequest.1Additionaltopicalanalysesdrawingfrominterviewandsurveydata,aswellasaProjectSummaryfurnishedtoNIJreflectingthemajorfindingsfromthebroaderstudy,areunderreviewatthetimeofthisreport.UpdatesontheseandotherprojectoutputsarealsoavailablefromthePrincipalInvestigator.

ThePhase1interviewsreflecteddiverseperspectivesonhowpoliciesgoverningSORNsystemsandrelatedstrategiesmightbemosteffectivelycalibrated.Basedoninterviewdata,theresearchteamidentified16commonly-referencedpolicyreformproposals,whichfellintofourbroadcategories:1)enforcementandcompliance;2)operationalimprovements;3)offendermanagement;and4)public-focusedstrategies.Surveyrespondentswerepresentedwitheachofthe16proposalsinrandomizedorder,andaskedtocategorizeeachasahigh,medium,orlowpriority.Afterrankingtheseproposals,respondentswereprovidedwithapairofopen-endedpromptselicitingadditionalthoughtsaboutprioritiesforpolicymakers–theseresponsesaresummarizedinthisreport.

Aggregatedrankingsofthe16policyproposalsmaybefoundonpage28oftheAugust2015surveyresultsreport,withadditionalanalyses(comparingtheperspectivesofagencyleadership,uniformedlinepersonnel,andcivilianregistrypersonnel)includedaspartofthearticleinCriminalJusticePolicyReview.Resultsarebrieflysummarizedbelow:

ENFORCEMENTANDCOMPLIANCE.Policiesrelatedtoenforcementandcompliancecategoryincludedtwoofthethreetop-rankedpriorities,namelyexpandedpenaltiesforSORNnon-complianceandexpandedprosecutionofregistrantnon-compliance.Thisfindingisconsistentwithsentimentscommonlyexpressedbyregistrycompliancepersonnelintheinterviewsthattheireffortsareoftenunderminedbyinsufficientfollow-upattheprosecutionphase.Ofnote,theexpansionofin-personverificationrequirements–asignificantelementintheSORNAstandards--wereplacedcomparativelylowintheirpolicypriorityrankings.

OPERATIONALIMPROVEMENTS.Comparatively,policiesrelatedtooperationalimprovementsweregenerallydeemedacrossthesampletobemoderatetohighpriorities.Withinthiscategory,respondentsplacedthehighestlevelofpriorityonpoliciesandstrategiestoimproveintegrationandinter-operabilitybetweenSORNandothercriminaljusticeandgovernmentinformationsystems,followedbymeasurestoimproveregistryaccuracyandreliability,andtoimprovesystemsofregistrantclassificationsothatcomplianceeffortscouldbemoreeffectivelytargeted.Policyinitiativestopromoteinter-agencycollaborationweresignificantlymoreimportanttolinepersonnel(uniformandcivilian)thantoagencyleaders.

OFFENDERMANAGEMENT.Theexpansionofformalprobationandparolesupervisionforregistrantswasdesignatedasthesinglehighestpolicypriorityamongsurveyparticipantsacrossallcategories.Resultssurroundingtheothertwoitemsweresomewhatmixed,withcivilianregistrypersonnel

1Harris,A.J.,Levenson,J.S.,Lobanov-Rostovsky,C.,andWalfield,S.(2016).LawEnforcementPerspectivesonSexOffenderRegistration&Notification:Effectiveness,Challenges,andPolicyPriorities.CriminalJusticePolicyReview.DOI10.1177/0887403416651671

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 4

placingsignificantlymoreemphasisonstrategiestoaddressRSOhomelessnessandtransiencethaneitheruniformedstafforagencyleaders,andagencyleadershipexpressingmoreconcernthanlinestaffovertheneedforstrategiestoredirectresourcestohigherriskoffenders.Respondentsconvergedinthesentimentthatexpandingcommunity-basedtreatmentforregistrantsshouldbegivenlesspolicyemphasis.

PUBLIC-FOCUSEDSTRATEGIES.Takenintandem,theitemsinthiscategoryrankedaslowerprioritiesthanthoseinotherclusters.Overall,respondentsacrossthesampledeemedthetwostrategiesrelatedtoimprovingtheSORN’sutilityasapublicinformationtool–campaignstoexpandSORNutilizationandmodificationstomakepublicSORNsystemsmoreaccessibleanduser-friendly–asrelativelylowpriorities.Thehighestrankingiteminthiscategoryinvolvedpolicystrategiesfocusedonsexualviolencepreventioneducationforcommunitymembers.

Buildingonthesefindingsfromthestructuredportionofthissurvey,thisreportsummarizestheperspectivesofsurveyrespondentsascapturedthroughtheaccompanyingopen-endedresponseitems.

Forfurtherinformationaboutthisstudy,pleasecontactPrincipalInvestigatorAndrewHarris(Andrew_harris@uml.edu).

Acknowledgments

TheinvestigatorsextendthankstoMelissaWall,forherefficientprojectmanagement,andtoMichelleCubellis,QuratAnn,andScottWalfieldfortheirworkorganizing,analyzing,andpresentingthesurveydata.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 5

DATAOVERVIEW

Thesurveyincludedastructuredseriesofitemsaskingrespondentstoevaluateaseriesofpolicyrecommendations,andtoindicatetheirviewsonwhichshouldtakepriority.Resultsfromthisbatteryofsurveyitemsareincludedinthemainreport.Followingthestructureditems,respondentswerepresentedwithtwoopen-endedpromptsofferingrespondentstheopportunitytooffersupplementalrecommendationstopolicymakersregardingsexoffenderregistrationandnotification.Thesepromptswere:

1. Beyondtherecommendationslistedabove,pleaseindicateanyotherpolicychangesthatyoufeelwouldhaveasignificantimpactonimprovingthepublicsafetyutilityofsexoffenderregistrationandnotificationsystems.

2. Consideringyourexperienceswithsexoffenderregistrationsystemsandwithmanagingsexoffenderswithinyourjurisdiction,isthereanythingelsethatyouwouldliketosharethatcouldbeofassistancetostateorfederalpolicymakers?

ANALYTICPROCESS

Ofthe1239respondentswhocompletedthefinalbatteryofrecommendationitems,263offeredresponsestoatleastoneoftheaboveprompts.

Alldatawerereviewedandindependentlycodedbytworesearchassistants,underthesupervisionoftheproject’sPrincipalInvestigator,withtheassistanceofNVivodataanalysissoftware.BasedonaninitialreviewofallresponsesbetweenthePIandthecodingteam,ninebroadthematiccategorieswereidentifiedwithinthedata.Theseincludedrecommendationsrelatedto:

1. RegistryEnforcement2. RegistryRequirements3. TechnicalAdministrationandSystemDesign4. AgencyResponsibilityandCollaboration5. ExtentandQualityofRegistryInformation6. ProsecutionandPunishmentofSexCrimes7. PublicEducationandEngagement8. RestrictionsTiedtoRegistration9. UseofEmpiricalResearch

Theinitialreviewsalsoidentifiedasmallnumberofresponses(4intotal)inwhichrespondentssuggestedthatnofurtherpolicychangeswereneeded.

Usingtheseninethemesasafoundation,allopen-endedresponseswereindependentlycodedbyeachofthetwocoders,andresultswerecomparedtoensureinter-raterreliability.Followingreconciliationofthisinitialhigh-levelcoding,thecodingteamworkedjointlytoidentifysub-themeswithineachoftheninecategories,reflectingmorespecificpolicyandpracticerecommendations.

Webeginthisreportwithahigh-leveloverviewoftherelativeweightgiventoeachoftheparentthemes.Followingthis,eachparentthemeisbrieflydiscussedandpresented,followedbypresentationoftherelevantsub-themesandillustrativeexamplesforeach.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 6

SUMMARYOFPOLICYRECOMMENDATIONTHEMES

Thetableandfigurebelowpresenttheoverallandrelativefrequenciesacrosstheninebroadrecommendationcategories.Thetable’sfirsttwocolumnsrepresenttheoverallnumberofsubmittedrecommendationsinthatcategory,andthepercentageofallrecommendationscomprisedbythatcategory.Thethirdcolumnindicatesthenumberofuniquerespondentswhosubmittedoneormorerecommendationsfallingintothatcategory.Thebarchartbelowoffersavisualrepresentationofthedatapresentedinthefirstcolumn.

Mentions

%ofMentions

UniqueRespondents

RegistryEnforcement 116 26 104RegistryRequirements 93 21 84TechnicalAdministrationandSystemDesign 68 15 63AgencyResponsibilityandCollaboration 63 14 54ExtentandQualityofRegistryInformation 55 13 51ProsecutionandPunishmentofSexCrimes 16 4 16PublicEducationandEngagement 14 3 14RestrictionsTiedtoRegistration 10 2 10UseofEmpiricalResearch 5 1 5Total 440

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

UseofEmpiricalResearch

RestrictionsTiedtoRegistration

PublicEducationandEngagement

ProsecutionandPunishmentofSexCrimes

ExtentandQualityofRegistryInformation

AgencyResponsibilityandCollaboration

TechnicalAdministationandSystemDesign

RegistryRequirements

RegistryEnforcement

FrequencyofTheme

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 7

THEMES,SUB-THEMES,ANDEXAMPLES

REGISTRYENFORCEMENT

Oftherecommendationsprovidedbysurveyrespondents,26%fellunderthebroadthemeofpoliciesfocusedonregistryenforcement.Thisthemewasreferenced116times,by104uniquerespondents,or40%ofthosewhosubmittedsupplementalrecommendations.Analysisrevealedthreemainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)theadditionofancillarypoliciesdesignedspecificallyforregisteredsexoffenders;2)dedicationoffundingorpersonneltoregistrationenforcementandaddressverification;and3)increasedfocusonnon-complianceenforcement.Therelativefrequenciesofthesethemesarereflectedinthechartbelow.

ANCILLARYPOLICIES

ThedevelopmentofancillarypoliciesdesignedtoaugmentSORNwasthemostprevalentsub-themeofferedbyrespondents.Atotalof40%ofrecommendationswithintheregistryenforcementthemecenteredonthedevelopmentofancillarypoliciesaroundissuessuchassexoffendertransienceandhomelessness,GPSmonitoringofregisteredsexoffender(RSO)movement,andenhancedcapacitytomonitorRSOonlineactivity.

ANewYorkpoliceofficersuggestedthathomelessnesswasthegreatestchallengefacingenforcementofsexoffenderregistration.

“ThebiggestchallengeIhavefacedinthe5yearsIhavesupervisedtheSO'sinourcityismanagingthehomelesspopulation.Itisvirtuallyimpossibletoproveordisprovethattheyareactuallyhomeless.Manyinfactdolivesomewherebuthaverealizedwecannotprovethattheyarenothomeless,sotheygetawaywithit.”

29

41

46

Non-compliance

DedicateFunding/PersonneltoRegistrationEnforcementandAddressVerification

AncillaryPolicies

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

FrequencyofTheme

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 8

Electronicmonitoringwasalsosuggestedasawaytotrackthemovementofoffenders,especiallythoseoffenderslistedashomelessintheregistry.Asupervisoratacountysheriff’sofficeinTennesseesuggestedthathomelessoffendersshouldberequiredtowearelectronicmonitors.

“IwouldliketoseethatanySexOffenderthatregistersasbeinghomelessisimmediatelyrequiredtowearaGPSanklebracelet.Thispersonshouldbemonitoredona24houradaybasis,towatchandkeepupwiththeirmovement.Todaythisisnotrequired,andsomeSexOffendersclaimtobehomelessandreportinonceamonth.Thiswaytheylivewheretheywanttoliveandwehavenoideawheretheyarespendingthenight.”

Citingpotentialaccesstovictimsthatmaybefacilitatedthroughmobiledevicesandcomputers,severalrespondentsindicatedthatthesemethodsofcommunicationshouldbecloselymonitoredforregisteredsexoffenders.ASheriff’sofficerinFloridasuggested

“Cellphones-Icantrackmykidsusingthere[sic]cellphones,eventothepointofbeingalertedwhenthegettoschool.Developmentofanmobileapplication[sic]thatsexualoffenders/predatorswouldhavetohaveonthoseoffendersthathavecellphones.Offendercomputersshouldberoutedthroughalawenforcementrouter.”

ThesesentimentswereechoedbyaNewHampshirepoliceofficerwhonotedalackofresourcesmadeitdifficulttotracktheonlineactivityofsexoffenders.

“Ibelievethemostcrucialthreatistheonlinethreat.Itisverydifficulttomonitoroffendersonlineactivity[sic].Notenoughresourcesarebeingusedtoconductonlinecomplianceandthreatassessment.”

AcivilianstaffmemberatapolicedepartmentinColoradocitedtheneedforpoliciestoreduceredundanciesoccurringintheregistrationsystemwhenRSOsmovefromonelocationtoanother:

“Theremustbeabetterwaytotrackwhenanoffendermoves.Atthepresenttime,unlessasisteragencyletsusknowthatoneofouroffendershasmovedintotheirjurisdiction,wehavenowayofknowingweshouldremovehimfromourrecords.Offendersshouldberequiredtode-registerfromoneagencybeforemovingtothenext.Rightnow,thestateofColoradoonlyrequiresoffenderstoderegisteriftheyareleavingthestate.”

DEDICATEFUNDING/PERSONNELTOREGISTRYENFORCEMENTANDVERIFICATION

Thesecondmostcommonsub-theme,comprising35%ofrecommendationsinthiscategory,focusedondedicatingfundingandpersonneltoregistryenforcementandaddressverification.Respondentsnotedthatfewresourceswereusuallydedicatedtosexoffenderregistrationgenerally,andevenfewerwereallottedforlawenforcementofficerstoconductaddressverification.

Acountysheriff’sofficerinFloridanotedthatasthenumberofregisteredsexoffendersincreases,themanpowerandresourcesdedicatedtoaddressverificationdoesnotincrease.

“Lawsarepassedfrequentlyinattemptstomakecommunityfeelsafer,typicallythereisnoincreaseinfundingormanpowertomanagethenewrequirementsforthispopulation.Thispopulationincreasesdailyalongwithnewrequirements(laws)inadditionadditional

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 9

responsibilitiesareassignedbutmanpowerhasnotincreased.Increasemanpowertoappropriatelevelstomanageandtrackpopulation.”

ApoliceofficerinTexashadsimilarcomments,explaining,

“Thefundingneededforspecializedenforcementandmanagementofthesexoffenderregistrationandnotificationsystemswouldallowlawenforcementtofocusmoretimeandmanpowertothisissue.Wecurrentlydonothavethetimeallottedforaspecializedofficertoenforcetheregistrationandnotificationrequirementsasofthistime.Fundingforthisspecialtywouldallowthisareatobeaddresswiththeattentionitdeserves.”

ADDRESSINGNON-COMPLIANCE

Theremaining25%ofrecommendationsinthiscategorypertainedtonon-complianceandhowRSOswhoarenon-compliantwithregistrationrequirementsshouldbemanaged.Theserecommendationsoftencenteredonthebeliefthatnon-compliancewasnotadequatelyaddressedbyprosecutors,andthereneededtobemoreaggressiveprosecutionofnon-complianceandincreasedpenaltiesfornon-compliantoffenders.

AcivilianstaffmemberatapolicedepartmentinArizonanotedthat

“Offendersfailingtoregistershouldbesentencedtoamandatory10yearsinprison,noparole.Prosecutorsmustbetougherandmoreconsistentinsentencing.”

Ofnote,thissentimentthatcasesofregistrynon-complianceareoftennotsufficientlyprosecutedwasalsoamongtheleadingareasofconcerncitedthroughoutthesurvey’sstructureditems.

REGISTRYREQUIREMENTS

ThesecondmostcommoncategoryofrecommendationsinvolvedadjustmentstostatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsplaceduponRSOs,andoncalibratingthoseresponsesrelativetosexoffenderrisk.Thisthemewasreferenced93times,by84uniquerespondents,or32%ofthosewhosubmittedsupplementalrecommendations.Analysisrevealedthreemainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)recommendationspertainingtoexpandingtheregistryrequirementsforregistrants;2)recommendationssuggestingcontractingtheregistryrequirementsforsomeregistrants;and3)redirectingresourcesfromlowerrisktohigherriskoffenders.Therelativefrequenciesofthesethemesarereflectedinthechartbelow.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 10

EXPANDREGISTRYREQUIREMENTS

Theexpansionofregistryrequirementswasthemostcommonsub-themewithinthiscategory.Atotalof62%ofrecommendationswithintheregistryrequirementsthemesuggestedtheexpansionofregistrationrequirementsasaneededchangetothecurrentSORNsystem.

ADeputySheriffinIndianasuggestedthatoffendersconvictedofsexcrimespriortothepassageofSORNshouldstillberequiredtoregister,noting:

“TherearetwoStatesthathaveex-postfactorulingsthatprohibitregistrationofoffenderswhocommittedtheiroffensepriortoregistrationlawsbeingimplemented.Thatmeanswehaveconvictedoffenderswhoaredangerousthatarenolongerrequiredtoregister.FederallawshouldinsisttheyregisterasfederaloffenderseveniftheMarshalServicehastobetaskedwiththatrequirement.”

ApoliceofficerinFloridasuggestedthatdeterminationsofriskshouldbebasedontheoffenderandtheiroffense,notsolelyonadesignationofPredatorthatisnotnecessarilybasedontheirriskofrecidivating.

“Inmystate,communitynotificationisonlyrequiredforthestatusofPredator.However,whenweconductthreatassessmentsonoffendersthatmoveintoourcommunityandbecomepartofourSexOffenderMonitoringProgram,wefindthatthecrimesandriskassociatedwithoffendersarequiteoftenasegregiousasthoseofPredators.ThestatusofoffendershouldbenolessconcerningtolawenforcementandthepublicthanthestatusofPredator.”

5

30

58

RedirectResourcesfromLowertoHigherRisk

ContractRegistryRequirements

ExpandRegistryRequirements

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70FrequencyofTheme

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 11

CONTRACTREGISTRYREQUIREMENTS

32%ofrecommendationsinthisareafocusedoncontractingregistryrequirementsthroughprocessessuchasderegistrationandnarrowingthelistofsexcrimesrequiringregistration.Someoftheserecommendationssuggestedthatregistrationshouldnotbeextendedtoallsexcrimes,butonlythoseoffensesthatsuggestanoffenderactuallyposesathreattosociety.

AlinesupervisorataCountySheriff’sOfficeinIowasuggestedthatoffendersconvictedofsexcrimesshouldbereassessedbeforeleavingprisontodetermineiftheyactuallywarrantedregistration.

“Truthinsentencingforconvictionsinsexoffenses.Itseemsasifwegivethemprobationandthenrequirethemtoregister.Iftheoffenseistrulyseriousmakethemdotimeinprison.Don'tgivethemprobationandthenrequirethemtobesubjectedtopublichumiliationbymakingthemandtheircrimesknowtoeveryone.Duringtheprisonsentencetheycanbeevaluatedandriskassessmentdoneonwhetherornottheyarelikelytore-offend.Iftheyarelikelytore-offendthentheyshouldbeplacedontheregistry.Ifnottheyshouldnotberequired.Thesexoffenderregistrycreatesafearofapersonwhomightnotactuallyevercommitasexcrimeagain.Itmakesitveryhardforthemtore-integrateintosocietyandwithoutthere-integrationtheywillbemorelikelytocommitanothercrime.Theideathatarestrictionof2000feetwillpreventsomeonefromre-offendingisridiculous.”

ApoliceinvestigatorinNewYorksuggestedthatcertaincrimes,suchasconsensualsexoffenses,shouldnotberequiredtoregisterbecauseindividualsconvictedofthesecrimesdonotnecessarilyposeadangertosociety.

“Certaincrimesthatresultinapersonclassifiedasasexoffendercouldbeeliminatedastheyaremisleadingtothecommunity.Ex.patronizingaprostituteunlessunderage,consensualsexoffensesthatareduetoageandinwhichthepartiesarewithinacertainagedifference.”

AnArkansasCountySheriffnotedthattheregistrieswerenoteffectiveinreducingsexcrimesandcouldactuallyhindertheapprehensionofindividualscommittingsexcrimesinthecommunity.Henoted

“Iwouldsaythatinmyopinion95%oftheSORNisawasteoftaxmoneyinsmallcountieslikeminewhereeverybodyalreadyknowswhotherealthreatsare.Registeringjustmakesonedrivetoanotherareatocommithiscrimes.Italsoopensthedoorforsomeonewhohasnotbeencaughtanopportunitytocommitasexcrimeintheregistrantslocationbecauseeverybodyintheneighborhoodwillnaturallythinktheregisteredsexoffenderdidit.”

REDIRECTRESOURCESFROMLOWERTOHIGHERRISK

Relatedtothethemesofexpandingorcontractingrequirements,somerecommendationsinthiscategoryemphasizedredirectingemphasisfromlowerriskoffendersontheregistrytohigherriskoffenders.Forexample,adetectiveinTexasnotedthatfocusingattentiononlowriskoffenderscouldcreateundueconcernamongcommunitymembers,noting

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 12

“Ithinkit'scrucialtofocusthebulkofourattentiononthehigh-riskgroupandtotrytoavoidneedlesslyalarmingthepublicaboutamemberofthelow-riskgroupwhomightnotactuallybeathreattothegreaterpublic.”

ApoliceofficerinConnecticutechoedsimilarsentimentswhenhestated

“Iunderstandveryclearlywhytheregistrywascreatedandsupportitscausetokeepsexualpredatorsontheradarofthepublicfortheirsafety,butinallhonesty,heroinaddictsarefarmorelikelytore-offendandcommitdozensofcrimesagainstthosewholiveintheareaaroundthemforyearsandyears.Alertingthepublictolowrisksexualoffendersdefeatsthepurposeoftheregistry.Keeptheregistryforthose5%highriskoffenders,thosewhoposeanactualthreattothepublic,andleavetheother95%onalawenforcementaccessibleversionofthesite.”

AGENCYRESPONSIBILITYANDCOLLABORATION

ThisthemeencompassedrecommendationsrelatedtowhoshouldberesponsibleforSORNsystemoperation,aswellasthoserelatedtoincreasinginteragencycollaborationandpublicengagementwithregistries.Thisthemewasreferenced77times,by68uniquerespondents,or26%ofthosewhosubmittedsupplementalrecommendations.Analysisrevealedtwomainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)responsibilityforregistrymaintenance;and2)expandedinteragencycollaborationonsexoffendermanagement.

18

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

IncreasedFocusonInteragencyCollaboration

RegistryMaintenance

FrequencyofTheme

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 13

RESPONSIBILITYFORREGISTRYMANAGEMENT

71%ofrecommendationswithinthecategoryfocusedonthemesrelatedtoresponsibilityforregistrymaintenanceandregistration-specifictrainingforlawenforcementofficerschargedwithregistrymaintenanceandenforcement.Manyrespondentsfeltthatlocallawenforcementshouldnotberesponsibleformaintainingsexoffenderregistries,suggestingthatthefunctionwouldbebetterfilledbystatepoliceorbyprobationorparoleagencies.ApoliceofficerfromNewHampshirestated:

“Insteadofmandatinglocalagencies,especiallythosebarelysurvivingwithminimalmanpower,haveALLoffendersregisteratstrategiclocationsthroughoutthestate.Theselocationscouldbethecountysheriff'soffice,theregionalprobation/paroleoffice,orthecloseststatepolicebarracks.TheregistryisrunbytheNHStatePoliceandshouldbehandledbysuchinwhicheachjurisdictionwouldreceivenotification.Ifanoffenderisnon-compliant,thenthelocalagencywouldreceivethatnotificationandcompletethewarrant.”

Similarly,apoliceofficerfromMichigansuggestedthatprobationorparoleagenciesmaybebettersuitedtomaintainsexoffenderregistriesandenforceregistrationlaws:

“Insofar[sic]asI'mconcernedSORNregistrationshavenobusinessbeingdonebypolicedepartments.Thesearetimeconsuming,resourcekillersandlikeeveryothermandateareunfundedtakingresourcesfromdaytodayoperationalissues.TheProbationandParoleDivisionsshouldberequiredtooperateSOR.”

Severalrespondentsindicatedthatmaintainingsexoffenderregistrationwasanimportantfunctionforlawenforcement,butnotedthattheiragenciesdidnotreceivededicatedofficerstocarryoutthesetasks.Asheriff’sdeputyinIndiananoted:

“IndividualLawEnforcementAgenciesneedtorecognizethatSexOffenderRegistrationisanimportantfunctionwithintheagencyandneedstobestaffedwithqualifiedindividualswhoseprimaryfocusismakingsurethatsexoffendersregister,complywiththerulesandarechargedwithregistrationviolationswhenrequired.”

Respondentsalsonotedthatlawenforcementofficerscouldbenefitfromregistrationspecifictraining.ApoliceinvestigatorinConnecticutnotedthatthistypeoftrainingshouldoccurbecauseitwouldenhancetheabilityoflawenforcementtoexecuteSORN.“Sexoffenderregistrypolicyshouldprovidetimelynecessarytrainingthatallowslocalagenciesaccesstoallavailableoffenderregistryinformationandknowncontacts.Thismayrequireapolicychangeinthefrequencyinwhichthistrainingisofferedtoallowtotalaccesstolocalagencies.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 14

INCREASEDFOCUSONINTERAGENCYCOLLABORATION

Thissub-theme,encompassing29%ofrecommendationsinthecategory,emphasizedtheneedforincreasedfocusoninteragencycollaborationrelatedtosexoffendermanagement.Specifically,respondentsemphasizedthatSORNwouldbemoreeffective,andlocalagencieswouldbestrainedless,throughenhancedcollaborationacrosslocal,state,andfederalagencies.TheimportanceoflawenforcementatalllevelsworkingtogetherwasmentionedbyapoliceofficerinTexaswhenhestated:

“Ijustfeelthatlocal,state,andfederalagenciesshouldworkcloserwhenitcomestotheenforcementofsexoffenderregulations.”

AleaderatapolicedepartmentinMassachusettsstressedtheneedforfundingforinteragencytaskforcesfocusedonsexoffendermanagement,noting:

“LocalLawEnforcementiswheretherubbermeetstheroadonthisissue.Weneedmorefunding($$$)sothatwecandolocalandregionalcompliancetaskforces.Whatiscostlyforoneagencytoachieveisfinanciallyfeasiblewhenseveralagenciesregionalizetosharecostandenforcement.”

Relatedtointeragencycollaboration,somerespondentscitedthepotentialroleofinteragencytaskforces.OnepoliceofficerinTexaswhosuggestedthattaskforcessimilartothoseusedfordrugenforcementcouldbehelpfulforSORNenforcement:

“EstablishingregionaltaskforcesoflocalandcountylawenforcementagenciesallowingSORNinformationtobesharedinthesamemannerasdrugenforcementisconducted.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 15

TECHNICALADMINISTRATIONANDSYSTEMDESIGN

Thetechnicaladministrationandsystemdesignthemeappliedtorecommendationsthatreferreddirectlytothesoftwareortechnologyusedformanagingandoperatingstatesexoffenderregistries.Thisthemewasreferenced68times,by63uniquerespondents,or24%ofthosewhosubmittedsupplementalrecommendations.Analysisrevealed5mainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)investmentinsystemupgrades;2)improvedintegrationwithotherinformationsystems;3)redesigningofthepublicregistrytomakeinformationmoreaccessible;4)improvingcentralizationandconsistencyofregistrationsystemacrossthe50states;and5)dedicationofmorefundingtoregistrysystemadministration.

CREATECENTRALIZED,STANDARDIZEDSYSTEM

Themostcommonlycitedsub-themeinthiscategory,comprising47%ofrecommendationsinthecategory,emphasizedtheneedforcreationofacentralized,consistentregistrationsystemacrossstatesandotherjurisdictions.Theserecommendationstendedtoemphasizetheneedtoclose“loopholes”thatmightotherwisemakeiteasierforregisteredsexoffenderstomovefromonestatetoanothertoavoidregistrationrequirements.Forexample,amunicipalpolicedepartmentcivilianstaffmemberinArizonastated:

“Asmentionedbefore,thereisaneedforconsistencyintheassessment,registrationandnotificationsystemacrosstheUS;OffenderWatchorsomethingcomparableisagoodstart.Therewouldbeno'safezone'forhigherrisksexoffendersifeachstatewereonthesamepage.”

Anotherrespondent,acivilianstaffmemberatapolicedepartmentinRhodeIsland,suggestedthatastandardizedsystemcouldhelpmakere-registrationforoffendersmovingfromonejurisdictiontoanothereasierforlawenforcement,notingthat:

“Astandardizedsystemofregistrywouldbehelpful.Manyofouroffendersmoveinandoutof

2

5

12

17

32

Redesignpublicregistrywebsite

Dedicatefundingtosystemadministration

Improveintegrationwithinformationsystems

Investinsystemupgrades

Createcentralized,standardizedsystem

0 10 20 30 40FrequencyofTheme

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 16

ourjurisdictionfrequently,andtheymustregister/unregistereachtime.AlthoughthedepartmentregistrationpoliciesarereviewedonanannualbasisbytheStateunit,whenmultiplejurisdictionsareusingtheirownpolicyandregistrationmethodology(forms/hours/days/etc.)theprocesscanbeconfusingtobothlawenforcementandtheoffender”.

Ofnote,thisthemeofsystemcentralizationwasalsotiedtothemesrelatedtothedemandforuniformmeansofoffenderclassification.AsnotedbyaNewYorkSheriff:

“ToooftenIseethedifferencebetweenaleveloneandalevel3isthepriceofagoodattorney.Thatisunacceptable.Oneclassification,onesetofrules,onesoftwareproduct.Thatwillgreatlyimprovethesystem.”

INVESTINSYSTEMUPGRADES

Thesecondmostcommonsub-theme,comprising25%ofrecommendationsinthiscategory,focusedoninvestinginsystemupgrades,includingtheuseofmoreadvancedtechnologyandsoftware.OnepoliceofficeinTexasnotedthattheirsystem,asitwascurrentlyimplemented,wasastrainontheofficersandthedepartment’sresourcesbecauseofthelackoftechnologyused,noting:

“Oursystemconsistsofverifying/updatingtheregistrantonline,printingouttheformsforhim/hertosign,andstoringthesignedpaperworkinafile.Afilesystemonlinewithasignaturecapabilitywouldbemuchmorestreamlinedandsavepaper/space.”

AnotherpoliceofficerinDelawarenotedthathehadcomeacrossamoreadvancedtechnologythatcouldallowoffenderstoupdatetheirinformationinthecommunity.However,fundingrequiredtopurchasethistechnologywaslacking.

“IhaveexploredakioskunitthatcouldbepositionedaroundourstatetoassistSexOffenderswithverificationorupdatinginformation.Thiswouldlessentheburdenonindividualswhoarecompliant.However,fundingforsuchanitemisnotcurrentlyavailable.”

IMPROVEINTEGRATIONWITHOTHERINFORMATIONSYSTEMS

Anothersub-theme,encompassing18%ofrecommendationsinthecategory,emphasizedintegrationofsexoffenderregistrieswithotherinformationsystems,includingcriminalhistoryrecords,registryofmotorvehiclerecords,andsocialservicerecords.Onerespondent,apoliceofficerinWisconsin,notedthatalackofintegrationbetweenstateandfederalregistriescauseddelaysinenforcementofSORN,

“ThereisaninformationvoidbetweenthefederalCJsystemforsexoffendersandtheStateSystemforSexOffenders.Fedsystemisawfullyslowandbehindintracking,updating,andnotifyinglocalLawEnf[sic]whenoffendersareplacedincommunities.”

Additionally,apoliceofficerfromMassachusettssuggestedthatsexoffenderregistriesshouldbeintegratedwithothersystemstofacilitatetheabilityoflawenforcementofficerstofindoffenders

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 17

whofailedtoregister.Heexplained

“Thesystemsusedtolocatesexoffendersinviolationshouldgobeyondthelawenforcementcommunityandintothepublicresourcesdomain.IEFoodstamps,EBT,etc.[sic]Witheasilyaccessibleintegrationintothosesystems,findingsexoffendersinviolationwouldbemuchbetterfacilitated.”

DEDICATEFUNDINGTOSYSTEMADMINISTRATION

Fiveresponsesinthiscategory(7%)calledforincreasingtheamountoffundingrelatedspecificallytotheadministrationofsexoffenderregistries.Theserecommendationsadvocatedforfundsforregistrydatabasesandtrainingforthoseofficerschargedwithmaintainingregistrydatabases.ApoliceofficerinMichigannotedtheneedforfundsdesignatedspecificallytoequipmentforsexoffenderregistriesandofficerstaskedwithSORN.

“Ifindividualpolicingagenciesaregoingtobecontinuallytaskedthenmoneyearmarkedforitshouldbeallocatedtocoverstaffingandequipment.Thisshouldn'tbeagrantoranythingalongthatlines[sic],thosefundsshouldbederivedfromOffendersinthejurisdictionproportionally.Againindividualcommunitiesareforcedtodivertresourcestotheseunfundedmandates,justastheplethoraofotherunfundedmandates.”

ApoliceofficerinTennesseenotedthatfundingaimedattrainingthoseindividualsresponsibleformaintainingsexoffenderregistrieswasneeded.Heexplained:

“Fundingandtrainingforthepersonwhoisgoingtomaintaintherecordsoftheseoffendersdependingonwhotheyareeitherlawenforcementorpubliccivilserviceworker.”

REDESIGNTHEPUBLICREGISTRYWEBSITE

Lesscommonwithinthedatawererecommendationssuggestingthatthepublicregistryshouldberedesignedtomaketheinformationmoreaccessibletomembersofthecommunity.ApoliceofficerinNewHampshireexplainedthatbecauseofthecurrentdesignoftheNewHampshireregistry,itwasoftendifficultforthepublictolocateitonline,statingthat:

“Consistency,andfortheNHsystem,makingtheNHStateRegistryeasiertofindwhendoingageneralonlinesearch.Itcanbedifficulttofindifyoudon'tknowwhatyou'relookingfor,whichisbadforthegeneralpublicaccessibility.YouhavetosearchforNHcriminaloffenders,notNHsexoffenders,inordertofindthesite,whichthegeneralpublicwouldnotknow.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 18

EXTENTANDQUALITYOFREGISTRYINFORMATION

Respondentsalsoofferedrecommendationspertainingtothequalityandamountofinformationcontainedonsexoffenderregistries.Thisthemewasreferenced55times,by51uniquerespondents,or19%ofthosewhosubmittedsupplementalrecommendations.Analysisrevealed2mainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)accuracyandconsistencyofregistryinformation;and2)theextentofinformationaboutregistrantsavailableontheregistry.

ACCURACYANDCONSISTENCY

Approximatelyhalf(51%)oftherecommendationswithinthiscategoryfocusedonwaystoincreasetheaccuracyandconsistencyofregistryinformation.ManyrespondentsindicatedthathavingawaytoupdateandverifytheinformationcontainedonregistrieswouldgreatlyimprovetheenforcementofSORN.ApoliceofficerfromIndiananoted:

“Thepurposeofthesexoffenderregistryistohaveaclearinghouseforsexoffenders'namesandresidences.Withoutverifyingtheaccuracyoftheinformationonaregularbasis,theregistrybecomesunreliableandit's[sic]valueisdiluted.”

ACountySheriff’sofficerinNorthCarolinamentionedthatcompliancecheckswouldhelptoensureaccurateinformation.

“IbelievethatallCounty'sacrossNCshouldhaveregularcompliancechecksontheSexOffendersintheirarea.IwishtheprisonsystemwasrequiredtocontacttheagencytowheretheSexOffenderwillberesiding.Iwisheachdepartmentwouldcommunicatebetterespeciallyoutofstate.”

Othersuggestedthatconsistencyinwhatoffensesarerequiredtoregisterandthelengthofregistrationrequiredwouldalsoimprovetheaccuracyofinformationcontainedonregistries.AnofficerataCountySheriff’sofficeinMarylandexplained:

“Allstateshavedifferentlawsthatmayrequireornotrequireaconvictedoffendertoregisterasasexoffender.WithsomanydifferentlawsanddifferentclassificationsitisverydifficulttounderstandwhatTiersomeoneshouldbeclassified.Ihavehadcaseswheretheyhavefinishedtheirregistryrequirementinmystate,howeveriftheymovetoanotherstatetheywouldbeclassifiedadifferentTierandwouldhavetocontinuetheirregistration.”

EXTENTOFREGISTRANTINFORMATION

Theotherhalfofrecommendationsinthiscategoryfocusedonincreasingordecreasingtheamountandtypeofinformationaboutregisteredsexoffenderscontainedonregistries.Somerecommendationsfocusedonincreasingtheamountofinformationaboutoffendersandtheiroffensescontainedonregistries,andincreasingtheinformationmadeavailabletothepublic.ApoliceofficerfromNorthCarolinathoughtregistriesshouldincludemoreinformationaboutthetypeofvictimsanoffendertargetedtohelpdispelbeliefsthatalloffendersontheregistrytargetchildren.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 19

“Ifeelthattheclassificationsystemshouldbeadjustedtoshowadultsexualoffendersandthosewhoarepedophiles.Thegeneralpublicseesallsexoffenderregistrantsaspedophiles.Irealizethatadultoffendersaredangerousaswellbutweneedtobeawareofwhoisoffendingourchildrensothatwecanbemoreawareofwhoisinthecommunity.”

Similarly,apoliceofficerfromConnecticutsuggestedthatmoreinformationabouttheoffender’soffenseshouldbelistedsothatthepubliccouldmoreaccuratelyjudgehowconcernedtheyshouldbeaboutspecificoffendersintheircommunity.

“Theregistrywasdesignedtoprotectthepublicfromsexualpredators.Ifitisnotpossibletoclassifyoffendersontheregistrybaseduponrisk,thenabriefsynopsisofthecrime,evenifonlyoneortwosentences,wouldbevastlyhelpfulinallowingthepublictorecognizewhatthedangerlevelisforthatoffender.”

Recommendationsaboutthetypeofinformationcontainedonregistrieswerenotlimitedtoinformationabouttheoffendersandtheoffense,butalsoinformationabouttheoffender’slikelihoodofrecidivating.ApoliceofficerinFloridasuggestedpsychiatricevaluationsshouldbeconductedtohelpdeterminerisklevelsforregisteredoffenders.

“Anin-depthpsychiatricevaluationshouldbedoneforeachsexoffenderandthatinformationdisseminatedtoLawEnforcementAgenciesastothepercentageamountthatthesexoffenderislikelytocommitasexualoffenceagain.”

Whilenotapopularrecommendation,alinesupervisorfromacountysheriff’sofficesuggestedthatthepublicshouldnothaveaccesstoinformationonregisteredsexoffendersandthisinformationshouldonlybeusedbylawenforcement,stating:“Keepregistrationoutofthepublicareas.”

PROSECUTIONANDPUNISHMENTOFSEXCRIMES

Thisrelativelylimitedgroupofrecommendations(16mentioned,4%ofrecommendations)encompassedthoserelatedtotheneedforharsherpenaltiesand/ormorestandardizedprosecutionofsexcrimes.Manyoftheresponsesfromlawenforcementofficersindicatedthatthesentencesavailableforsexcrimeswerenotsevereenough,orthatregistrationwasnotbeingeffectivelyenforcedbythecourts.

ApolicedetectiveinOklahomabelievedsentencesforsexoffendersshouldbeharsher,noting:

“IbelievethatholdingourJudicialOfficialsaccountableforthesentencingofsexoffendersandviolatorsofSORNAshouldbeahighpriority.OurDistrictAttorney'sandAssistantUSAttorney'sshouldpushforlongersentencingofsexoffendersandunregisteredsexoffenders.Theyaretoopassive.”

AcivilianstaffmemberatacountypolicedepartmentinAlabamathoughtthatprosecutorsandjudgeswerenotenforcingsexoffenderregistrationonoffendersconvictedofsexcrimes.

“WehavejudgesinourareathatareexemptingSexOffendersthatareconvictedofsexcrimesandourCircuitJudgeisexemptingthemfromregistering.WehavecontactedourlocalDA,AttorneyGeneral'sOffice,Marshall'sandanyoneelsewecouldthinkoftogethelpwiththismatterandhavebeenunabletogetanyhelpwiththis.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 20

PUBLICEDUCATIONANDENGAGEMENT

Thiscategoryofrecommendationsfocusedonincreasingpublicawarenessofsexoffenderregistriesandpubliceducationaboutsexualviolenceanditsprevention.Recommendationsinthisthemecenteredoninvestingincampaignstoincreasepublicuseofofficialinternetsexoffenderregistriesandincreasingpubliceducationwithregardtosexualviolenceprevention.Thisthemewasmentioned14times,by14respondents,or5%ofthosewhosubmittedrecommendations.Thepublic’slackofawarenessofsexoffenderregistrieswasmentionedbyseveralrespondentsashinderingtheeffectivenessoftheseregistries.ApoliceofficerinNewHampshireexplained:

“Ibelievemanypeopleinthegeneralpublicdon'tknowthatthesexoffenderregistryexists.Ipersonallygetcallsfrompeoplewhohaveheardthatanoffendermaybelivingintheirneighborhood.Theydon'tevenknowthattheStateregistryexists.Itellthemhowtoaccesstheregistry.Educationforthegeneralpublicontheexistenceoftheregistryandmoretransparencywithintheregistrywouldmakeforasaferandbetterinformedpublicpopulace.”

Severalrespondentsalsonotedthatthegeneralpublicwasoftenuneducatedonsexualoffending,sexoffenders,andtheirlikelihoodforrecidivism.ASheriff’sofficerinTexasstatedthatbecausethepublicwasuneducatedonsexualoffendingandoffenders,theyusuallyhaddifficultyunderstandingsexoffenderregistries.

“Improvepublicawarenessaboutsexoffenders,theirrecidivismratesandactualcrimeintermsthataremoreeasilyunderstood.Forexample,inTexas,'IndecencywithaChild'isafelonyoffense,butinvokesdifferentmeaningstodifferentpeoplethatlearnthatasexoffenderhasbeenconvictedoftheoffense.Whattheoffenderactuallydidtothechildislefttotheimaginationorfortheoffendertogivewhateverexplanationtheoffenderchooses.”

ACountySheriffsofficerinMinnesotahadsimilarcomments,explainingthatbecausecommunitymemberswereunfamiliarwithhowsexoffenderregistriescategorizedoffendersintotiersorlevels,theyweremorelikelytobefearfulofthoseoffenderswhowereunderthegreatestamountofsupervision.

“Publiceducationshouldbeahighpriority.Ifindthatthepublicgetupsetwhenthereisalevel3movingintothecommunitybuttheylacktheinformationthattherearesomanyoffendersoutthereandthatthelevel3arethemostsupervisedandtheotheroffenderthatarenotlevel3donothaveasmuchsupervisionandareinmyopinionamuchhigherrisk.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 21

RESTRICTIONSTIEDTOREGISTRATION

Lawenforcementrespondentsalsoprovidedrecommendationspertainingtorestrictionslinkedwithsexoffenderregistration(10mentioned,2%ofrecommendations).Inthiscategory,respondentsprovidedrecommendationssuggestinghowresidencerestrictionscouldbechangedtomakesexoffenderregistrationmoreeffective.Analysisrevealed2mainsub-themeswithinthisarea:1)recommendationspertainingtotheexpansionofregistrationrestrictions,and2)thosepertainingtothecontractionofresidencerestrictionsforregisteredsexoffenders.

Mostoftherecommendations(8ofthe10)suggestedthatresidencerestrictionsshouldbeexpandedforregisteredsexoffenders.ApoliceofficerinTexassuggestedthatregistryrestrictionsshouldbeexpandedtoincludelocationsthatasexoffenderisnotallowedtovisit.

“Havelocation/interactionrestrictionsonsexoffenders.Texasdoesnotcurrentlyrestrictsexoffendersresidencelocations,visitinglocations,orsocialinteractionandTexasshould.Thepublicisnotawarethatitisperfectlylegalforaregisteredsexoffendertoattendschoolfunctions,playgrounds,daycarefacilities,andothersuchplaces.Wereceivesuchcallsfrequentlyandthereportingpersonisalwaysamazedthataregisteredsexoffenderhasthefreedomtogoplacesthegeneralpublicbelievestheyshouldberestrictedfrom.”

Incontrast,somerespondentssuggestedthatrestrictionstiedtoregistrationshouldactuallybecontractedforregistrants.Somerecommendationssuggestedthatresidencerestrictionsshouldbecontracted,ifnoteliminated,becausetheyeitherdonotpreventoffendersfromrecidivatingortheyprohibitoffendersfromfindingplacestolive.ASheriff’sDeputyinNorthCarolinanotedthatresidencerestrictionsmaynotactuallypreventanoffenderfromgainingaccesstovictims:

“Betterdefinethetermresidence.Tomanyoffenderswhocannotlivewithrelativesduetoadaycareorschoolinthearea,willobtainanaddresselsewherebutspend99%ofthere[sic]timeatthehomeoftherelative,thusdefeatingtheintendedpurposeofobtainingtheotherresidence.Maybegetridoftheresidencerequirementaltogether,orshortenthedistanceofa1,000feetto500feetthusopeningupmoreliveable[sic]room.Pointofinterest;Anoffendercanwalkrightuptoaschoolandstandthereallday,hejustcan'tsleepwithina1,000feet?”

whileaWisconsinCountySheriffsuggestedthatresidencerestrictionsinfringedontheabilityofoffenderstolivewheretheychoose.

“Weneedtoeliminatetheresidencyrestrictionsinmanycommunities.Acommunityshouldnotbeabletorestrictanoffenderfromlivinginthecommunitytheygrewupin.ThisishappeninginWisconsinandisdrivingsexoffendersundergroundandoutofcompliance.”

USEOFEMPIRICALRESEARCHFORSEXOFFENDERMANAGEMENT

Thefinalthemewithintheopen-responsedatareferredtotheapplicationofevidencetosexoffendermanagementpolicies.Whilerelativelyrarewithinthesample(5mentions,1%ofallrecommendations),theserecommendationshighlightedtheneedforpolicymakerstoapplybothempirically-derivedevidencefromresearchersaswellasexperientialevidencegatheredthroughcriminaljusticepractitionersincludinglawenforcement.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Open-Ended Responses on Policy Recommendations

Page | 22

Anofficerfromasheriff’sdepartmentinCaliforniaexpressedtheneedtobasesexoffenderpoliciesonempiricalresearchonsexoffenders.

“Withnoroomleftinthejailortheprisons,thevalueofparoleorprobationisminimal,becausethecriminalsknowthereisnorealthreatofpunishment.WithalltheattentionthatSORNgets,isthereanydataindicatingitmakesanydifferenceinpreventingcrimeorsolvingnewcrimes?Somestudiesshowthelocationofasuspect'sresidencehasalmostnovalueinpredictingthenextsexcrimevictim,becausethevictimsareusuallysociallyknowntothesuspect.TherecidivismrateofsexcriminalsisknowntobemuchLOWERthanmostothertypesofcrime.Whilethesefactsarewidelyknown,theyarenotrecognizedbythepoliticalsystemswhichcauselawsmakingitsourbanareastobantheoffenderstoruralareas,anddestabilizeoffenders.SinceothercountrieshavelowersxcrimeratesthattheUSA,perhapsournationshouldlookelsewhereforalternativewaystomanagesexoffensesbesidesmoreregistrationefforts.”

ApolicesupervisorinGeorgiaexpressedasimilarsentimentwhenhestatedthat:

“Stateandfederalpolicymakershavesufficientdata(statisticalandhistorical)availabletomakeappropriatepolicy.Theyneedtheintegrityandmoralfibertodosoandneedtocompelthecourtstoenforcestatutesalreadyinplace.”

Finally,respondentsexpressedthedesireforpolicymakerstogatherinputfromthelawenforcementofficersresponsibleforimplementingsexoffenderregistration.AsheriffdeputyfromSouthCarolinaexplained:

“Ifeelthatlawsandpoliciesarewrittenandpassedbylawmakersandstateagencypersonnelwithlittleornoinputfromtheofficersanddepartmentsthatarerequiredtoenforcethelawsorpolicies.Manythingscouldbeimprovedbylisteningtothosewhoareintimatelyinvolvedintheprocess.Weseldomhearfromlegislatorsorpolicymakerspriortopassingoflegislationorpolicy.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.