4-11-2010 Texas:
Which sex offender is a higher risk to the public?
A. A 20-year-old unmarried man who exposed himself at a party.
B. A 30-year-old married man who molested his 3-year-old niece and 5-year-old daughter.
If you said B, you probably would be wrong - if you're going by the state's assessed risk level for sex offenders, experts say.
You also might be notified by postcard about the man who exposed himself, but maybe not the other, because public notification is based on the risk level.
Authorities warn sex offender risk classifications can be confusing to the public, though state officials are working to improve that.
"It doesn't measure how violent he is," said Adam Taylor Puckett, a sex offender officer with the Lubbock-Crosby County Community Supervision and Corrections Department.
Forty-eight of 411 offenders in the city and county were considered high risks, according to law enforcement listings as of Thursday. More than 150 were considered low or moderate risks.
Nearly one-third of sex offenders in the city and county didn't even have a risk level assigned to them, most commonly because they were convicted and released from prison prior to the 2000 law that requires a risk assessment.
But while the classification may be misleading, it is widely used with little explanation in sex offender registries, which the public can go online to check and see if any offenders live in their neighborhoods.
Locally, residents may go to the police department's or county's Web sites to check.
Residents are notified via postcard when a high-risk offender moves into a neighborhood, but postcards aren't sent for lower-risk levels.
Authorities urge residents to not discount low- and moderate-risk offenders.
"I wouldn't go by the risk level," said Police Cpl. Mark Long. "We've had low-risk offenders re-offend."
Despite the label, a low-risk offender could be someone who committed a serious crime against a child or multiple victims or be prone to violence.
The state's assessed risk level doesn't take into account the individual offender or even his offense.
The classification is determined by a form called Static 99, which is aimed at providing a statistical analysis of the offender's likelihood to repeat an offense.
The form includes 10 questions, and each answer is associated with a point. The risk level is determined by the number of points.
Questions include such things as the number of prior sex offenses, if the victim was a stranger or a family member and the offender's age and the relationship status. The victim's age is not a factor on the form.
For example, single men in their 20s automatically get more points than an older man who is married because statistically they are more likely to re-offend.
"We're not sure what benefit (the classification) has to the public," said Jennifer Mora, a supervisor with the Lubbock-Crosby County office.
She is concerned the classification may cause residents to "have a false sense of security living next to a low-risk offender."
One example of a low-risk offender who lives in Lubbock is a 45-year-old man who was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a 7-year-old girl in 1992, according to the city's sex offender registry. In another case, a man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a 6-year-old boy in 1999.
And once a risk level is assigned to an offender, officials said it is not reassessed unless the offender goes to jail for more than 30 days.
Steven Henderson, director of the Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said officials are still learning the best ways to assess a sex offender.
"We're still in the infancy stage of this," he said, noting the standardized form is recognized nationally.
In 2005, the Texas Legislature directed the Council on Sex Offender Treatment to study dynamic risk assessment, which would include assessing the offender based on multiple factors.
"What it's going to provide is a more accurate predictor of risk," said Allison Taylor, executive director of the council. "The main thing is determining the true predators."
She said the public needs to be notified of how dangerous an offender is, rather than just the sexual recidivism level as indicated on the Static 99 form.
The council has been researching the best tools that would help officials determine the danger to the public.
Once complete, the new risk assessment will take into account other factors, such as the age of the victim and how many victims there have been, and provide a better-rounded glimpse of the offender.
The council implemented a pilot program in 2007, for which data are still being collected and analyzed.
The five-year study period is to end in October, but Taylor didn't know when the new risk assessment would be implemented statewide. ..Source.. Robin Pyle | AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
April 11, 2010
State's sex offender risk classifications can mislead public
July 24, 2009
MN- Sex Offender risk levels
7-24-2009 Minnesota:
Most people have heard of a Level 1, Level 2 and a Level 3 sex offender, but many do not understand what the classifications mean.
These labels, as such, are only given to convicted sex offenders who have served time in prison. Before their release, a committee called the End of Confinement Review Committee assigns a risk level to each sex offender. The committee, which is made up of a group of psychologists, criminal justice professionals and victim advocates, determine what level of risk an individual is likely to re-offend, according to the City of Minneapolis Web site.
A Level 1 means the person is the least likely to commit another sex crime, and upon such a person’s release from prison, only local law enforcement officials, victims and witnesses are informed of the release or relocation.
Level 2 offenders are thought to pose a moderate risk to re-offend. Along with those who are informed when a Level 1 offender is released from prison, agencies that serve a population at risk of being victimized, and which are located near the offender’s home, are also notified of the Level 2 offender’s presence.
So, if the offender victimizes a child that he or she had access to at a day care, then day care businesses close to the offender’s home would be notified.
Sex offenders most likely to commit another sex-based crime upon release from prison are labeled a Level 3 sex offender. Aside from those notified in the case of a Level 1 or Level 2, the general public is made aware of the Level 3 offender’s presence in the area.
In Minneapolis, everyone living within a three-block radius of the offender’s home is notified via a flyer that has the person’s photo and address. (Check with your city or county to see what that radius is for where you live.) A community meeting is also held by law enforcement where residents can ask questions and raise concerns they might have concerning risks posed by the sex offender.
The vast majority of convicted sex offenders are assigned Level 1 and Level 2 risk status, and Jacob Wetterling Resource Center Director Nancy Sabine says less that 10 percent of all sexual harm is caused by these convicted sex offenders.
“The vast majority,” Sabine adds, “are unreported and caused by never-convicted offenders. They are people we know and trust, and that’s the hard part people hate to hear, but it’s true.”
The Minnesota Department of Corrections supports Sabine’s statements. Its Web site says, “Over 90 percent of all convicted sex offenders knew their victims prior to sexually assaulting them. Contrary to popular belief, most sex offenders do not assault strangers. They look like anyone else. They are our friends, family members, and community leaders. They are most often people we know and trust.” ..Source.. by Star News
June 2, 2009
WA- SEX OFFENDER HOMELESS IN SHELTON
This makes no sense, there are no known set of facts that prove a person is a specific risk level, much less any risk, and now because this man is homeless they assess him the highest risk possible. Effectively this is criminalizing him for his social status!
6-2-2009 Washington:
A sex offender has recently become homeless in the Shelton area and the Mason County Sheriff's Office has raised his assessment. James Cloral Petty, nearly 26, is required to register as a sex offender due pleading guilty in a military court marshall to a charge equivalent to Rape of a Child 3rd Degree.
The conviction stems from PETTY at age 21, having sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. He was also convicted of a charge equal to Violation of a No Contact Order. The Mason County Sheriff's Office has assessed Petty as a Level 2 Sex Offender, meaning he is at a moderate risk to re-offend.
However, now that Petty is homeless, his assessment has been raised to Level 3, the highest level and he is now considered at a high risk to re-offend. James Cloral Petty is a white male, five-foot-ten, 190 pounds with black hair and brown eyes.
James Petty has given his address in Mason County as "Transient/Homeless within Shelton". All homeless sex offenders must check in with the Sheriff's Office every Monday. ..Source.. by Dedrick Allan
March 18, 2008
CA- State spends $24 million to classify sex offenders
3-18-2008 California:
SACRAMENTO – Jessica's Law is requiring the state to spend an extra $24 million this year evaluating sex offenders for the sexually violent predator program, which confines offenders to a mental hospital after their prison terms.
But so far, the 2,000 additional evaluations have resulted in just a small increase in those identified as sexually violent predators, or SVPs.
Amy Phenix, a forensic psychologist who evaluates sex offenders, said few of the newly eligible offenders are diagnosed with the mental condition that qualifies them for the program.
“We conduct many more evaluations, but we don't find many more SVPs,” Phenix said.
To be labeled a sexually violent predator, an offender has to be diagnosed with a mental disorder that makes the person likely to re-offend. Then a judge and a jury must approve.
In the past, the state evaluated offenders who had harmed two victims and had been convicted of one of nine sex crimes.
Back then, Phenix said, 40 percent to 50 percent were diagnosed as a sexually violent predator.
“It turned out that that was a pretty good screening tool,” she said.
Jessica's Law, approved by voters in 2006 as Proposition 83, sought to improve public safety by increasing the number of people eligible to be confined as a sexually violent predator. Now it requires evaluations of those who have harmed one victim and been convicted of any of 35 crimes.
Under the new guidelines, 7 percent to 10 percent of those evaluated are diagnosed with the mental disorder. This includes offenders who have harmed two victims.
The state had to raise the fee from $100 to $200 an hour to find the trained psychiatrists and psychologists needed to conduct the thousands of evaluations required by the law, said Stephen Mayberg, the head of the state Department of Mental Health, which oversees the evaluations.
The state pays outside professionals a total of $7,000 to evaluate each offender.
Suzanne Brown-McBride, chairwoman of the state Sex Offender Management Board, said she is surprised that the thousands of extra evaluations are not identifying more sexually violent predators.
Brown-McBride said her board will continue to study the results of the extra evaluations.
“We want to make sure that these evaluations are being targeted appropriately,” she said. “When you have limited resources, you need to make sure you are using them in an effective way.”
State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who wrote the law, said he believes the number of sexually violent predators will steadily increase. Runner said the money spent on evaluations is a bargain.
“We think it's worth a few million dollars to prevent someone from going out and raping women and children,” he said. ..more.. by Bill Ainsworth
February 26, 2008
MA- System’s flawed
2-26-2008 Massachusetts:
The publicized case of Corey highlights the deficiencies in our judicial system that will release a clearly dangerous predator before even classifying him (“Measure the risk before it’s too late,” Feb. 14).
Unfortunately the same system is also guilty of victimizing former sex offenders.
In scrutinizing the listing of Level 3 offenders around Malden, I noted that many of their offenses took place over 20 years ago and yet they’re still classified as highly likely to re-offend. Also, having their address and place of work listed may expose them to job termination, eviction and harassment.
The flaws in the current system also create somewhat of a paradox. A sex offender automatically comes under review for civil commitment by the district attorney upon completion of his sentence.
If he is found not be dangerous and released, how can the Sex Offender Registry Board turn around and classify him as Level 3? If he is deserving of Level 3, why was he released? Our sex offender laws need refining, but in a way that will balance the playing field. ..more.. Opinion by Bob Marquis, Director New Beginnings, Inc., First Baptist Church of Wilmington
February 5, 2008
Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present, and Future
2007
Abstract:
Based on a keynote address delivered in conjunction with the Journal's annual symposium, this paper examines several of the major legal and policy issues associated with sex offender registration and community notification laws. Particular attention is dedicated to the Adam Walsh Act, a federal law taking effect in July 2006 that continues Congress' effort to foster changes in state registration and notification regimes as a result of its Spending Clause authority. In addition to discussing the federalism implications of the AWA, the paper examines several of its most significant provisions, including those calling for empirical assessment of registration and community notification, twelve years after Congress first pressured states nationwide to adopt laws in accord with its will. ..more.. by WAYNE A. LOGAN, Florida State University College of Law
October 1, 2007
SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: NOTIFICATION LEVELS AND RECIDIVISM
December 2005
SUMMARY
This report examines the relationship between recidivism and the sex offender notification levels set by Washington State’s End of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC). These notification levels are sent to local law enforcement who make the final determination of the level communicated to the public.
Starting in 1990 the ESRC’s notification risk classification was based upon a review of the offender’s criminal history, institutional behavior, and other relevant information. As a result of 1997 legislation, the ESRC adopted a more consistent approach to classification—the Washington State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool.
The Classification Tool combines two factors: specific notification considerations and an offender’s risk assessment score. The result is three notification levels (I, II, III) that define the degree of risk to the community posed by convicted sex offenders.
Key Findings
• The 1997 statute increased the percentage of sex offenders who received a notification level from 50 percent in 1997 to nearly 90 percent in 1999.
• The notification levels determined by the ESRC do not classify sex offenders into groups that accurately reflect their risk for reoffending. Future reports will address prospects for a more accurate sex offender risk assessment instrument.
The 2004 Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to conduct a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of current sex offender sentencing policies.1 Because this is an extensive topic, we are publishing a series of reports.
In 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed the Community Protection Act, an omnibus bill that included the requirement for sex offenders to register with the sheriff in their county of residence.2 Public officials, for the first time in U.S. laws, were also authorized to release “necessary and relevant” information about sexual predators to the public. In 1990, the multi-disciplinary End of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC) within the Department of Corrections began issuing three types of notifications to law enforcement: Special Bulletins (highest risk), Law Enforcement Alerts, and Teletype.3 The ESRC’s notification decision was based upon a review of the offender’s criminal history, institutional behavior, and other relevant information.
In 1997, the Legislature directed a more consistent statewide approach to notifications.4 The extent of disclosure was to be rationally related to: (a) the level of risk posed by the offender to the community; (b) the locations where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found; and (c) the needs of the affected community members for information to enhance their
individual and collective safety.
The ESRC then adopted the Washington State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool5 to determine a sex offender’s risk to the community. The ESRC notification levels are sent to local law enforcement who determine the level communicated to the public. In a previous report, the Institute analyzed the relationship between recidivism and Washington’s passage of sex offender registration and community notification statutes.6 The report concluded that recidivism rates for sex offenders have decreased since the enactment of these statutes.
This report examines how well the ESRC’s notification levels predict recidivism. A future report will examine the notification levels issued by law enforcement. ..more..
June 27, 2007
Assessing Violent Recidivism in Sexual Offenders
1998:
ABSTRACT:
Forensic and clinical psychologists have long been asked to make predictions about violence, despite the fact that, in the past, such predictions have been notoriously inaccurate. Several states now have sexual predator laws which require predictions to be made concerning the likelihood of recidivism. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) upheld Kansas's sexual predator laws, such requests are likely to increase in the future. Fortunately, there is now ongoing empirical research which has improved psychologists' ability to predict violence in high risk groups. Several schemes for predict violence are in the process of research and development. ..more.. by Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager
June 7, 2007
Evaluating and Improving Risk Assessment Schemes for Sexual Recidivism: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Convicted Sexual Offenders
March 2007 NCJ 217618:
This federally supported study sought to evaluate and to improve the decisionmaking algorithms that have been generated to assess risk in sexual offenders by evaluating the existing risk assessment measures in a sample of sexual offenders on whom long-term follow up were available.
Abstract: Highlights of the results were: (1) for the average predictability over all measures, the Bridgewater Observations sample (BOs) were better predicted than Bridgewater Treatments sample (BTs), despite a significantly lower recidivism rate; (2) the cross-temporal pattern of prediction differed between rapists and child molesters, with rapists being predicted better at shorter follow-up periods and child molesters better at longer intervals; (3) all actuarials showed moderate reliability and predictive accuracy with few significant differences; (4) five factors accounted for all of the predictive variance in the existing actuarials; (5) the Structured Risk Assessment (SRA) Needs Assessment consistently had the highest area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUCs) for the entire sample and for rapists and child molesters separately; (6) age was not found to constitute an important moderator for predicting outcome, and a complex relation among age at index offense, age at discharge, and outcome status emerged; and (7) promising additional subgroup specific predictors for child molesters and rapists were identified. Risk assessment plays a central role in the management of sexual offenders. The study assessed the comparative accuracy of the major risk instruments over time and over sub samples, explored their underlying factor structure, examined the accuracy of a new assessment protocol, the SRA Needs Assessment, and explored the potential for generating improved predictive instruments. To accomplish this, archival files from a prior study which followed 599 offenders referred to the Massachusetts Treatment Center (MTC) from 1959 and 1984 were used. The offenders were referred from both Bridgewater Treatment (BT) and Bridgewater Observation (BO). They were coded on the modern actuarials that have been developed since 1998 and on a new experimental measure, the SRA Needs Assessment. References and tables ..more.. by Raymond A. Knight Ph.D. -and- David Thornton Ph.D.
Link to full study
May 30, 2007
Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response, and Social Policy in the United States and Canada
Abstract:
This article compares the community protection–risk management model for the control of sex offenders with the clinical and justice models that preceded it and with a restorative justice alternative based on the principle of community reintegration. The author discusses how this community protection–risk management model reflects the new penology as well as the fusion of panopticism and synopticism. The author also discusses the model’s actual and potential social costs. He concludes with a brief look at circles of support and accountability. This Canadian approach involves setting up support circles of volunteers who enter into a covenant with persons designated as high-risk sex offenders to help them both to integrate into the community and to reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend. ..more.. by Michael G. Petrunik, Criminology Department, University of Ottawa, Canada
