Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of Megan’s law in reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders. The policy of making such offenders more visible to the public through officially notifying communities when they are returned to society is based on the premise that warning potential victims increases the public’s ability to protect itself against future victimization. The community would be better protected because those undergoing extensive notification will know that they are being watched and thus will be deterred from reoffending. Effectiveness was assessed by examining rates of return to prison for conditionally free offenders under correctional control. The study used a four‐and‐a‐half‐year follow‐up period and covered all those in one state who had undergone high level notification from September 1997 to July 1999. Their recidivism patterns were matched with a similar sample in the same state who, while meeting the state’s criteria for public notification, were not dealt with in this way. The results show that, after controlling for relevant demographic and criminal history variables, extensive community notification had no direct effect on the likelihood or unlikelihood of recommitment to prison. No significant differences were found between the high level and low level notification groups in their post‐release behavior culminating in rearrest and return to prison.

Keywords:

• Community Notification
• Sex Offenders
• Sexual Recidivism
• Sexual Victimization
• Preventive Behavior
• Megan’s Law
• Extensive Notification

Notes

[1] For purposes of this research, recidivism was measured by utilizing only one of the four measures commonly used in past research for quantifying the reoffending phenomenon. The percentage of sex offender releasees in each of the two respective groups who were ‘returned to prison with or without a new prison sentence’ was selected because it most clearly reflects what ultimately happens to nearly half of these individuals in Wisconsin. The return rate could not be calculated reliably by dividing the number returned to prison based on a new conviction for a new crime because of the way the State Department of Corrections and State trial courts typically handle such cases. In Wisconsin, conditionally released offenders who are rearrested for new crimes are presumed in violation status, with revocation of their conditional releases and return to prison a likely occurrence. Some of these rearrestees are exonerated and avoid revocation or manage to avoid prison even if found to be in violation by entering the Alternatives to Revocation Program. The prison‐released sex offenders in this study who were rearrested on new crimes or for serious technical violations, all of whom originally had been mandated by State law or DOC policy guidelines as ‘bulletin cases’ subject to different levels of notification at the discretion of local authorities, faced stiff odds in favor of being returned to prison on the basis of revocation of their conditional release status. For purposes of this study, ‘returned to prison’ means institutional commitments to State facilities (or, in one case, to a Federal institution) with new sentences for new crimes (most commonly accompanied by revocation) plus prisoners returned for conditional release violations without new sentences for new criminal convictions. It does not include commitment to county jails or the Milwaukee County House of Correction. Revocation decisions require a hearing, and a decision to return an individual to prison may be the end result, even though the charges constituting the new crime are dismissed or the individual is acquitted. Revocation requires a lesser burden of proof than does conviction on a new criminal charge. Furthermore, ‘returned to prison’ in this context also includes any releasees who were recommitted to State correctional institutions within four and a half years because they were found to have violated a technical condition of their release conditions, quite aside from being arrested for new crimes. Technical violations include things such as failing a drug or alcohol test, failing to meet with their supervising agents, or failing to attend therapy sessions. A recidivism measure based on rearrest for new crimes, or one based on reconviction, would not reflect these recommitments. However preferable ‘return to prison’ may be when compared to other measures of recidivism, it is far from perfect.

With any indicator of recidivism, it behooves the researcher in this field to take cognizance of the compiled victimization survey data indicating that numerous sex crimes are never reported to authorities. Therefore, every measure of recidivism based on official reports should be footnoted as containing this limitation.

[2] Wisconsin State Statute 301.45, effective June 1, 1997, provides local and county law enforcement officials with wide discretion in determining the notification plan for soon‐to‐be‐released sex offenders slated to reside in their respective jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted a three‐tier classification system for soon‐to‐be‐released sex offenders based on their perceived risk. Such a system ranges from low‐ to high‐risk levels. Low‐risk or Level 1 notification is limited to area law enforcement and corrections officials. Medium‐risk or Level 2 notification includes specific agencies or organizations that fall within the behavior identified with the offender (e.g., child molesting). High‐risk or Level 3 notification may include such agencies, but expands upon low‐ and medium‐risk methods, with other methods such as door‐to‐door disseminations, posting of flyers, media releases, or conducting community meetings.

[3] The word ‘prior’ in this context does not include the arrest, conviction, or prison sentence that was the reason the research subjects in this study were in prison in 1997 or 1998 when they were screened by the DOC for notification suitability.

[4] The margin between the lower cumulative rearrest rate and the higher prison recommitment rate for each research group is the percentage of conditionally released subjects who returned because of a serious technical violation, such as failing to report to their supervising agent, failing to participate in sex offender therapy, or failing a drug/alcohol test.

[5] Any comprehensive comparative analysis of the Wisconsin and Washington State data‐sets is problematic given the different time periods reflected in the respective data, differences in offense definitions, as well as important differences in methodologies used to collect both sets of data.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Richard G. Zevitz

Richard G. Zevitz is an associate professor of criminology and law studies at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He holds a doctorate in criminology from the University of California, Berkeley and a law degree from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. His professional experience includes working 11 years for the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department.