Abstract:
This research brief presents findings from the Returning Home study in Cleveland, Ohio. Returning Home is a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry in Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas based on personal interviews with prisoners before and after their release from prison. Previous reports from the Ohio project examined prisoners’ expectations for life after prison and their experiences in the first few months after release. This final report”One Year Out: Experiences of Prisoners Returning to Cleveland”describes the lives of nearly 300 former prisoners at least 12 months after release, including their ability to find stable housing and reunite with family, and identifies factors associated with getting a job, and avoiding substance use and return to prison (recidivism).
Introduction:With more than 650,000 prisoners released nationwide each year, the reintegration of men and women leaving prison is challenging policymakers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels. Often cited as being of greatest concern is the high rate of recidivism among former prisoners—half of whom return to prison within three years—yet, recidivism is only one outcome in the process of leaving prison and returning home. To examine this entire process, in 2001, the Urban Institute launched a four-state, longitudinal study entitled Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The study explores the experiences of released men and women returning to communities in Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas, and the factors influencing their success and failure.
This research brief presents the final results from the Returning Home study in Ohio, based on the third and final follow-up interviews conducted with nearly 300 former prisoners at least 12 months after release who were living in Cleveland and the surrounding area. We describe the lives of the men during their first year out, including their ability to find stable housing and reunite with family after release, and identify factors associated with getting a job, and avoiding substance use and recidivism. We also discuss the policy implications of our findings and offer specific recommendations for helping released prisoners become healthy and productive members of the communities to which they return.
This research brief is intended to serve as a foundation for policy discussions about how released prisoners can successfully reintegrate into their communities, whether in Cleveland or in similar cities around the country. ..more.. by Christy Visher, Shannon M. E. Courtney
April 28, 2007
One Year Out: Experiences of Prisoners Returning to Cleveland
Juvenile Offenders and Sex Offender Registries: Examining the Data Behind the Debate
SEXUAL OFFENDERS WHO commit further crimes have been a cause of fear among the public for some time. In an attempt to lessen the numbers of them who recommit crime, in 1996 the federal government implemented a law that required sex offenders to register with a local law enforcement agency and also required that the registry be made public. The stated intent for offender registration was to deter sexual offending, punish and incapacitate sex offenders, provide law enforcement officials with an information tracking tool, and to increase the safety of the public (Farkas, 2002). The law, commonly known as Megan’s Law, is quite popular with the public (Proctor, Badzinski & Johnson, 2002; Phillips, 1998). One survey in Washington State found that more than 8 out of 10 respondents ranked the law as “very important” (Phillips, 1998). Even though the law is strongly backed by the general public, there is a debate about whether juveniles who commit sex offenses should be required to register and whether that information should be made public.
Data regarding adult sex offenders indicates that, among sex offenders who have been released from prison, 43 percent were rearrested for another crime and 5.3 percent of them were arrested for another sex crime within three years after their release (Langan, Schmitt & Durose, 2003). In a meta-analysis of research on sexual recidivism, also among adult offenders, Hanson and Bussiere discovered that 13 percent of convicted sexual perpetrators offended again within four to five years (1998). That percentage dropped only one percentage point when investigating recidivism of sexual assault offenders who targeted children (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Research by Lisak and Miller (2002) showed that 120 adult individuals were responsible for a total of 1,225 acts of interpersonal violence, defined as rape, battery, child physical abuse, and child sexual abuse. This translated into an average of 5.8 assaults per offender that were not reported to law enforcement officials (Lisak & Miller, 2002).
The characteristics of the crimes and the victims are varied for both adult and juvenile sex offenders. Half of child molesters were more than 20 years older than their victims and most of their victims were under the age of 13 (Langan, Schmitt & Durose, 2003). The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) illustrated that, of those people who were raped by a single offender, 10.8 percent of victims said the offender was under the age of 18 (Greenfeld, 1997). In a review of studies about juvenile sex offenders, researchers summarized that juvenile sex offenders are more likely to target victims much younger than themselves as compared to peers, and their victims tend to be female (Rightland & Welch, 2001). Moreover, 40 percent of those juvenile perpetrators abused victims under the age of six (Snyder, 2000). In a comparison between male and female juvenile offenders, it was found that, compared to males, females were more likely to target victims of the same sex (Vandiver & Teske, 2006). It should be noted, however, that sex crimes committed by juveniles are small in number. Stahl (2001) estimates that less than one percent of the cases in juvenile court are for forcible rape or other violent sex offenses. Additionally, the FBI reported that those under age 18 accounted for 16.2 percent of the forcible rape arrests in the United States in 2004. One should remember that these statistics are only applicable to those who were caught sexually offending.
In the debate over how to handle juvenile sex offender registration, some scholars have invoked the history of the juvenile justice system. In a summary of its foundation, Greenwood (2002) wrote that the juvenile justice system was intended to reflect the best interests of the child. Unlike criminal courts for adults, the juvenile court system was designed to give treatment and guidance for the young offender, rather than punishment (Greenwood, 2002). What are the implications of this regarding the registration of juveniles as sex offenders under Megan’s Law? Zimring argues in his book American Travesty: Legal Responses to Juvenile Sex Offending (2004) that the juvenile court system has typically been set up to protect juvenile offenders and do what is best for them; however, having juveniles register as sex offenders contradicts that goal. Trivits and Reppucci (2002) share Zimring’s concern, arguing that states requiring juveniles to register as sex offenders lose sight of the original intention of the juvenile justice system, because the goal of the registry is not to rehabilitate the offender, but rather to provide a sense of safety to the community. Furthermore, Letourneau and Miner (2005) hypothesize that applying sex offender policies such as registration and community notification to juveniles may cause adverse consequences for them. Registries may increase the likelihood of future offending by increasing the social isolation of offenders, a factor highly correlated with re-offending (Gutierrez-Lobos et al., 2001). Zimring (2004) does not deny that serious juvenile offenders need to be adjudicated through the juvenile court system, but he appears doubtful that registries are an effective deterrent, even among serious juvenile offenders. Zimring (2004) calls for informed research on this topic when he wrote, “there have been no extensive efforts to compare the characteristics and motivations of adolescent sex offenders with different types of adult offenders” (p. 55).
While this study does not measure motivation, it does purport to compare juvenile and adult sex offenders who are required to register as sex offenders under Texas state law. This descriptive study is intended to discover if there are significant differences between juvenile and adult offenders on a sex offender registry. It is hypothesized that there should be no difference between registered juvenile and adult offenders in terms of offender race and sex, crime committed, or risk level assigned by the state. One may expect to find differences with victim sex, as previous research has shown that juvenile offenders have a higher proportion of male victims as compared to adults (Aljazireh, 1993; Davis & Letienberg, 1987) and the average age of the victim, with juveniles hypothesized to be more likely to have younger victims. Moreover, it is expected that the age differential will be smaller between juvenile offenders and their victims, due to the juvenile offenders’ smaller age range. ..more.. by Sarah W. Craun (University of Tennessee, College of Social Work), and Poco D. Kernsmith (Wayne State University, School of Social Work)
Sex Offenders on Campus: University-based Sex Offender Registries and the Collateral Consequences of Registration
SEX OFFENDERS HAVE long been considered among the most despised and feared criminals in Western culture. Despite the varying circumstances and offenses that may be included by lawmaking bodies as “sex offenses,” the mere mention of the phrase “sex offender” typically conjures up images of sadistic rapists and child predators. Accordingly, prevention of these types of crimes has been a concern of policymakers at all levels of government for many years. Correctional programming for sex offenders and other types of “violent” or “heinous” criminals has traditionally included either simply incarcerating such offenders for purposes of incapacitation, or at times providing treatment in pursuit of rehabilitation for incarcerated offenders. Convicted offenders in community corrections programs have also been subjected to a variety of mandatory treatment programs, medical interventions and strict conditions of probation and parole.
Quinn, Forsyth, and Mullen-Quinn (2004) point out that of the particularly loathed segments of the criminal population, sex offenders rank among the most repulsive, as evidenced by historically harsh sentencing trends and poor treatment by society. A popular practice in the criminal justice response to sex offenders has been the creation of publicly-accessible, Internet-based sex offender registries, currently operating in most states in the U.S. These registries are often coupled with the recent trend of community notification programs that are intended to make citizens explicitly aware of registered sex offenders within communities. Such programs are described by Quinn et al. (2004) as a shaming or “branding” device, a practice that has been used on similar populations throughout history. The ideology behind these mechanisms is essentially to generate a boundary between the targeted group and society, a philosophy that Presser and Gunnison (1999) caution may not be appropriate for dealing with a sensitive population such as sex offenders.
The expressed goals of sex offender registries are to reduce recidivism and promote public safety. It is anticipated that such registries will increase community awareness, making sex offenders feel more susceptible to the risks associated with offending. This line of thinking has led to the growth of not only the traditional state-wide sex offender registries, but also new, more specialized forms of offender registries. One of the most recent innovations is the creation of sex offender registries on college and university campuses across the U.S., allowing members of campus communities to better protect themselves from potential offenders. The outcomes of such registries, however, including the effects of such specialized registries on offenders, have yet to be studied. As a result, policymakers and society as a whole are unaware of the potential consequences and considerations that may be associated with such specialized forms of sex offender registries.
This study is intended to promote a better understanding of college and university-based sex offender registries, allowing for the transfer of important practical and ideological knowledge about such entities to policymakers and the public. The data, to be discussed later in greater detail, is gathered via surveys with a sample of offenders listed on university-based registries. Analysis of their experiences and perceptions provides one way of assessing the utility of sex offender registries—both in general and in this specialized form—as a tool for effectively enhancing public safety and promoting community awareness. The present study also adds to the literature that suggests that offenders’ perceptions of sanctions can provide valuable contributions to the structural and procedural implementation of a sanction. Finally, it is anticipated that the insight gained from the research will help determine if collateral consequences gained through the supplementary listing on a university-based registry are different in form and severity than research has suggested for the listing of individuals on state-wide registries. ..more.. byRichard Tewksbury and Matthew B. Lees, Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville
