Order Code RL32800
Sex Offender Registration
and Community Notification Law:
Recent Legislation and Issues
Updated April 18, 2007
Garrine P. Laney
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sex Offender Registration and Community
Notification Law: Recent Legislation and Issues
Summary
To protect the public, Congress has enacted laws to imprison sex offenders and,
once they are released from prison, to more closely monitor their movement in the
community. With passage of the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, Congress required
states to establish a sex offender registration program. Since 1994, Congress
periodically amended the act, requiring closer scrutiny of released sex offenders,
increased penalties for sex crimes, and training for law enforcement personnel. In
keeping with this approach, the 109th Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248; H.R. 4472) (hereafter, the Adam
Walsh Act), which consolidates and strengthens existing federal laws related to sex
offenses.
The Adam Walsh Act repeals and replaces the Jacob Wetterling Act and related
legislation, with provisions intended to strengthen sex offender registration and
notification requirements. Major provisions of the act include registry requirements
for sex offenders and jurisdictions; penalties for sex offenders and jurisdictions that
fail to comply with registry requirements and oversight; periodic in-person
verification; a sex offender management assistance program, a national sex offender
registry; a national sex offender public website; a community notification program;
federal assistance in identifying and locating certain sex offenders; electronic
monitoring of sex offenders; civil commitment of certain sexual predators; enhanced
federal penalties for sexual crimes against children; prevention of child pornography;
increased penalties for using the Internet for the exploitation of children; and grant
programs and studies designed to protect children and the general public. Also, the
109th Congress added provisions to the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization
(P.L. 109-162) relating to sex offender management and establishment of a national
tribal sex offender registry.
Congress remains interested in the issue of sex offenders. Bills introduced in
the 110th Congress include H.R. 252, H.R. 291 , H.R. 719, H.R. 837, H.R. 876, H.R.
1684, and S. 431. Provisions of these bills would establish and maintain a DNA
database containing DNA information on sexual predators who target children;
establish a National Sex Offender Risk Classification Task Force; require a convicted
sex offender who uses the Internet to provide electronic mail and instant message
addresses; prohibit use of the Internet to facilitate access to or possession of child
pornography; require electronic communication service providers and remote
computer service providers to report any violation of child sexual exploitation and
pornography laws; and require the Department of Homeland Security during
emergencies to share information with law enforcement agencies at all levels on the
location of missing children or registered sex offenders.
This report provides details of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006; identifies and analyzes new legislation that has been introduced in the 110th
Congress; and discusses continuing policy issues related to sex offender registration
and community notification. It will be updated as events warrant.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 . . . . . . . 2
Registration and Notification and Related Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tier Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Information Required from Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Information to be Included in Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Law Enforcement Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Community Notification Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Sex Offender Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sex Offender Public Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Penalty for Failure to Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Federal Penalties, Including Mandatory Minimums,
for Selected Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Child Pornography and Use of the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Treatment and Management of Adult Sex Offenders in
the Bureau of Prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Asset Forfeiture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Public Access to Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Institutions of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Grants and Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Training and Technology Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assistance with Violations of Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART Office) . . . . . 8
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Mentoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Police Athletic League (PAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sex Offender Management Assistance Program (SOMA-grant) . . . . . 9
Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sex Offender Apprehension Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grants to Combat Sexual Abuse of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Crime Prevention Campaign Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grants for Fingerprinting Programs for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fugitive Safe Surrender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Selected Studies and Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Comprehensive Examination of Sex Offender Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Annual Report on Enforcement of Registration Requirements . . . . . . 13
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Studies on
Feasibility of Using Drivers License as
a Registration Requirement for Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sex Offender Risk Classification Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Study of the Effectiveness of Restricting the Activities of
Sex Offenders to Reduce Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Justice for Crime Victims Family Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Additional Provisions Enacted in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
H.R. 252, Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators
Against Children DNA Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
H.R. 291, the Safe NOW Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
H.R. 719 and S. 431, Keeping the Internet Devoid of
Sexual Predators Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
H.R. 837, Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating
the Exploitation of Today’s Youth Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
H.R. 876, Securing Adolescents From
Exploitation-Online Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
H.R. 1684, Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2008 . . . . . 18
Continuing Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Enforcement of Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Effectiveness of Community Notification Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Funding in Support of Registration and
Notification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Training Program to Assist Probation and
Parole Officers or Sex Offender Management
Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
National Criminal History Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Recidivism Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CSOM Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bureau of Justice Statistics Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
List of Tables
Table 1. Recidivism Rate of Sex Offenders Released from
Prison in 1994, by Recidivism Measure and Type of Sex Offender . . . . . . 31
Sex Offender Registration
and Community Notification Law:
Recent Legislation and Issues
Introduction
According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, most sexual assaults,
whether directed at a child or an adult, are committed by someone known to the
victim or the victim’s family. Rather than a stranger, often relatives, friends, baby-
sitters, or persons in positions of authority over the child are more likely to commit
a sexual assault. Although the vast majority of sex offenders are males, females also
commit sexual crimes. In response to community outrage over several particularly
heinous sex offense crimes, Congress, since the mid-1990s, has passed a number of
laws concerning sex offenders, requiring registration with law enforcement agencies
and community notification.
Enacted originally in 1994 these laws were designed to protect the public by
both imprisoning sex offenders for longer periods and tracking their movements upon
release from prison. While there had been some earlier state action on sex offender
registration, with the public’s increasing concern Congress passed the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act of 1994), which included
Title XVII, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act (Wetterling Act).1 Congress further amended the Crime
Act of 1994 with passage of Megan’s Law in May 1996 and the Pam Lychner Sexual
Offender Tracking and Identification Act in October 1996. Collectively, these three
laws required states to establish registration programs and to strengthen state
procedures for monitoring sex offenders. In addition, Congress passed a number of
other amendments to the Wetterling Act that increased the types of crimes for which
sex offenders were required to register, increased penalties for sex offenders, and
allowed states more flexibility in registering and tracking sex offenders.
Because of high-profile crimes committed by sex offenders and complaints from
victims’ rights groups as well as some lawmakers that dangerous sex offenders were
not being monitored, Attorney General Gonzales announced plans in May 2005 for
a new national registry of sex offenders to enable the public to view, via the Internet,
all existing state databases of sex offenders in a single web search.2 On July 20,
2005, the National Sex Offender Public Registry website was launched. The site
allows the public one-stop access to the latest information on the identity and
1 P.L. 103-322 (H.R. 3355); 108 Stat. 2038.
2 See [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/ 052005agremarksnpr.htm].
CRS-2
location of known sex offenders. At present, registries for the District of Columbia
and all states are on the website, with the exceptions of Oregon and South Dakota.3
On July 27, 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-248; H.R. 4472) was enacted. The stated purpose of this act is to respond
to vicious attacks of sex offenders against certain victims and to protect the public,
especially children, from sex offenders by establishing a comprehensive national
system for registering offenders. With passage of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress
again addressed elements of registration and notification laws; procedures for
treating, tracking, and apprehending sex offenders; the recidivism rate of sex
offenders; child pornography and use of the Internet for sexual purposes; sex crimes,
and penalties for sex crimes. In addition, the Walsh Act provides for grants, studies
and reports on some of these sex offender/sex crime issues.
This report summarizes major provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Act. It
identifies legislation introduced in the 110th Congress to further address sex offender
and crime issues, and discusses the various policy issues related to sex offender
registration and community notification.
Overview of the Adam Walsh Child Protection
and Safety Act of 2006
The Adam Walsh Act expands the requirements for state law enforcement and
prison officials in registering and tracking released sex offenders. Among other
provisions, the act requires a review of sex offenders before they are released from
prison to determine whether they are a threat to the public; requires sex offenders to
register more frequently; provides for closer supervision of sex offenders, including
through electronic monitoring; allows collection of DNA from persons who are
charged with or convicted of sex offenses; establishes a national database of sex
offenders; allows public access to information on sex offenders released from
prisons; provides for a stronger sex offender community notification program; and
imposes longer penalties for crimes against children, including mandatory minimum
penalties for certain crimes. To apprehend sex offenders, the Adam Walsh Act
continues federal financial support for technical assistance, and hiring and training
of both law enforcement personnel and support staff, including probation and parole
agents.
The act provides a three-tier classification system for sex offenders that affects
the duration of registration, how often they must verify their address, and whether
they are to be listed on the Internet. Provisions of the Walsh Act require imposition
of penalties on a sex offender who fails to comply with registration requirements.
The Walsh Act provides for federal assistance in apprehending sex offenders who
violate registration requirements. It provides for training of law enforcement
personnel who work with sex offenders and increases authorized funding for local
3 See [http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm].
CRS-3
law enforcement to track sex offenders. The act requires civil commitment of
sexually dangerous persons and provides grants to jurisdictions for that purpose.
Registration and Notification and Related Provisions
The following sections present major provisions of current law, as amended by
the Adam Walsh Act, in more detail.4
Registration Requirements. The Adam Walsh Act changes registration
requirements for a convicted sex offender. Formerly, a convicted sex offender had
to register an address change with the state law enforcement agencies of both the old
state and the new state within 10 days. The Walsh Act continues the requirement that
a sex offender register in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, is employed,
or attends school. The new law, however, requires initial registration of a convicted
sex offender prior to completion of a sentence of imprisonment or not later than three
business days after sentencing if no term of imprisonment is imposed. It requires an
offender, including a child pornographer, to appear in person in at least one
jurisdiction and report a change of name, residence, employment or student status not
later than three business days after a change has occurred; and requires that the
jurisdiction immediately provide the new information to other jurisdictions where the
offender is required to register. Under provisions of the Walsh Act, for the first time
a juvenile can be required to register as a sex offender. The act provides that a
juvenile who is at least 14 years old must register as a sex offender if the juvenile
commits an offense that is comparable to or more severe than the federal offense of
aggravated sexual abuse.
Tier Classification System. Prior to passage of the Adam Walsh Act, each
state had its own classification system for determining the level of danger a sex
offender posed to the public. The Walsh Act, however, establishes a three-tier
system for states that classifies sex offenders based on the seriousness of their sex
crime. The Tier level determines how long a convicted sex offender must register
and how often. A convicted sex offender must register for 15 years if the offender
is a Tier I sex offender; 25 years for a Tier II sex offender; and for the life of the
offender, if the offender is a Tier III sex offender. A convicted sex offender whose
classification is Tier I must appear in person once a year; a Tier II sex offender,
every six months; and a Tier III sex offender, every three months.
Following are definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III convicted sex offenders:
! Tier I offender is a sex offender other than a Tier II or Tier III.
! Tier II sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense that is
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or is comparable
to or more severe than sex trafficking; coercion and enticement;
transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity;
abusive sexual contact, as well as any offense involving a minor in
4 For more discussion of the criminal justice aspects of this legislation, see CRS Report
RL33967, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis, by Charles
Doyle.
CRS-4
a sexual performance, soliciting a minor for prostitution, or
producing or distributing child pornography.
! Tier III sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense that is
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or is
comparable to or more severe than the federal offenses of sexual
abuse or aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact against a
minor less than 13 years old, kidnapping of a minor, or any offense
that occurs after a person has been designated a Tier II sex offender.
Information Required from Offenders. The law requires the following
information to be provided by sex offenders who are required to register:
! sex offender’s name (or any alias used);
! social security number;
! address where sex offender resides or will reside;
! address where sex offender is employed or will be employed;
! address where sex offender is a student or will become a student;
! license plate number and a description of any vehicle owned or
operated by the sex offender; and
! any other information required by the Attorney General.
Information to be Included in Registries. Jurisdictions must ensure that
the following information is included in the sex offender registry:
! a physical description of the sex offender;
! text of the provision of law that defines the criminal offense for
which the sex offender is registered;
! criminal history of the sex offender;
! a sex offender’s fingerprints, palm prints, and current photograph;
! a DNA sample;
! a copy of a valid driver’s license or identification card upon release
of a sex offender from prison; and
! any other information the Attorney General requires.
Law Enforcement Responsibilities. The law establishes the following
requirements for law enforcement officials:
! requires an appropriate official to inform the sex offender of
registration requirements either shortly before release of the sex
offender from custody, or, if the sex offender is not in custody,
immediately after the sentencing of the sex offender;
! requires an appropriate official to have the sex offender read and
sign a form acknowledging that the duty to register has been
explained and is understood;
! requires an appropriate official to ensure that the sex offender is
registered; and
! requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain a system for
informing relevant jurisdictions of sex offenders entering the United
States.
CRS-5
Community Notification Program. The Megan Nicole Kanka and
Alexandra Nicole Zapp Community Notification Program (as created by the Adam
Walsh Act) requires an appropriate official in the jurisdiction where the sex offender
registers to provide information in the registry to:
! the Attorney General who must include the information in the
National Sex Offender Registry or other appropriate databases;
! appropriate law enforcement agencies (including some probation
agencies) and each school and public housing agency where the sex
offender resides, is employed or attends school;
! each jurisdiction where the sex offender resides, is employed or
attends school;
! any agency responsible for conducting employment-related
background checks;
! social service entities that are responsible for protecting minors in
the welfare system;
! volunteer organizations where contact with minors or other
vulnerable individuals is possible; and
! any organization, company, or individual who asked to be notified
pursuant to procedures established by the jurisdiction.
National Sex Offender Registry. As amended by the Adam Walsh Act,
current law:
! requires the Attorney General to maintain a national database, to be
known as the National Sex Offender Registry, at the FBI for each
sex offender and any other person required to register in a
jurisdiction’s sex offender registry; and
! requires the Attorney General to ensure that updated information
about a sex offender is forwarded electronically to all relevant
jurisdictions.
Sex Offender Public Website. The Adam Walsh Act requires the Attorney
General to establish and maintain the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public
Website, which allows the public to obtain relevant information on a sex offender by
a single query for any given zip code or geographical radius that the user indicates.
Penalty for Failure to Register. As newly established by the Adam Walsh
Act, the law provides that each jurisdiction, other than a federally recognized Indian
tribe, must provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of
imprisonment that is more than one year.
Federal Penalties, Including Mandatory Minimums, for Selected
Crimes. The Walsh Act increases penalties and establishes new and higher
mandatory minimum penalties for persons committing certain sex crimes,
particularly those that involve children, pornography and use of the Internet. These
crimes include:
CRS-6
! sexual abuse;
! child prostitution;
! sexual exploitation;
! sexual abuse of wards;
! abuse and neglect of Indian children;
! sex-trafficking of children;
! production of sexually explicit depictions of children;
! coercion and enticement of children by sex offenders;
! repeated sex offenses against children;
! using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful
material on the Internet;
! activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of
children, or constituting or containing child pornography; and
! Internet sales of date rape drugs (these include gamma
hydroxybutyric acid, ketamine or flunitrazepan).
The penalty for sexual abuse is increased from a maximum of 20 years to a
sentence of life. New mandatory minimum penalties are imposed, where none
existed before passage of the Walsh Act, for crimes such as sex trafficking by using
force, fraud or coercion, or by using a minor under 14 years of age; and for
aggravated sexual abuse where the victim is under 12 years of age, or where the
victim is between 13 and 15 years of age (and is at least four years younger than the
defendant) and the crime is accomplished by force, threat or while the victim is
unable to appraise conduct because of being unconscious. For coercing or
transporting a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, the mandatory minimum
sentence is 10 years and the maximum is 30 years to life; the previous minimum
sentence was five years. For producing a sexually explicit depiction of a minor in
another country with the intention of importing it into the United States the
punishment is a minimum prison term of 15 years and a maximum one of 30 years
for a first offense; prior to the Walsh Act, for this offense, there was no mandatory
minimum penalty and the maximum term of imprisonment was 10 years. The
maximum penalty is 10 years for using a misleading domain name on the Internet
with the intent of deceiving a minor into viewing harmful material; the previous
maximum sentence was four years.
Child Pornography and Use of the Internet. The Walsh Act creates new
federal crimes and requirements concerning child pornography and use of the Internet
to exploit or commit a felony sex offense against a child, providing penalties for the
offender and additional federal personnel to monitor the Internet. It requires anyone
who produces visual depictions of “actual sexually explicit conduct” or “simulated
sexual conduct” to maintain a record of personal information on each performer and
to post where the record is located on each page of a website. The act also provides
mandatory-minimum penalties for persons convicted of violating these record-
keeping requirements.
Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders. The Walsh Act provides for the
civil commitment of a sexually dangerous offender any time after commencement of
probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of a sentence. The
Attorney General is authorized to make grants to jurisdictions for establishing,
CRS-7
enhancing, or operating effective civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous
persons.
Treatment and Management of Adult Sex Offenders in the Bureau
of Prisons. Included in the Adam Walsh Act are provisions for the treatment and
management of adult sex offenders in the Bureau of Prisons. The act requires the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to establish non-residential sex offender management
programs for sex offenders and to provide aftercare during pre-release custody. BOP
also must establish residential sex offender treatment programs as well as provide
treatment to sex offenders who want it and are deemed suitable for it by the BOP.
The act authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to eligible entities for a
program, project, or other activity to help in treating juvenile sex offenders.
Asset Forfeiture. The Walsh Act authorizes civil and criminal asset
forfeiture of property for certain crimes. Offenses for which the property of a person
is subject to civil and criminal asset forfeiture include
! offenses involving obscene material;
! child pornography;
! sexual exploitation and abuse of children; and
! using misleading domain names including obscene or pornographic
material; or
! any property constituting or traceable to gross profits from these
offenses, and any property constituting or traceable to the means for
committing or promoting these offenses.
Military. The Walsh Act continues registration requirements for sex offenders
convicted in a federal or military court.
Public Housing. Public housing is denied to anyone who is required to
register for life as a sex offender.5
Public Access to Information. The Adam Walsh Act provides for the
public to obtain information on sex offenders through the Internet (the Dru Sjodin
National Sex Offender Public Website) or by contacting an appropriate law
enforcement official in the jurisdiction where the sex offender is registered (Megan
Nicole Kanka and Alexandra Nicole Zapp Community Notification Program).
Institutions of Higher Education. Under provisions of the Campus Sex
Crimes Prevention Act, enacted as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000,6 institutions of higher education must inform the campus
community of where to obtain information on registered sex offenders, such as a
5 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-276; 112 Stat. 2641); 42 U.S.C. 13662.
6 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386; 114 Stat.
1537).
CRS-8
local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus or a computer network
address.
Federal Grants and Assistance
The Walsh Act authorizes both new programs and offices and expands some
existing grant programs that are intended to train law enforcement personnel, protect
children, provide mentors for youth, improve relations between police and youths,
assist in the management of sex offenders, including juveniles, and to combat crime.
A description of some of these programs and offices follows.
Training and Technology Efforts. To respond effectively to sex offenders
who use the Internet and technology to solicit or exploit children, the Adam Walsh
Act requires the Attorney General to expand training of federal, state and local law
enforcement personnel. To identify problems associated with using technology in the
exploitation of children, the Attorney General must facilitate meetings that involve
corporations who sell computer hardware and software or provide services to the
public that are related to using the Internet. Further, the Attorney General must host
national conferences to train law enforcement officers, probation and parole officers,
and prosecutors on pro-active approaches to monitor sex offender activity on the
Internet; and must develop and distribute information to them regarding
multidisciplinary approaches to holding sex offenders accountable to the conditions
of their probation, parole, and registration. The Attorney General also must partner
with other agencies to improve coordination of joint investigations among agencies
in combating sex offenders’ online solicitation of children. To carry out this training,
the Walsh Act authorizes to be appropriated $1 million for FY2007.
In addition to providing training to law enforcement personnel, the Attorney
General must deploy technology, that is modeled after the Canadian Child
Exploitation Tracking System, to all Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces
and their partner agencies as well as conduct training in the use of technology. For
these technology provisions, the act authorizes to be appropriated $2 million for
FY2007.
Assistance with Violations of Registration Requirements. The Walsh
Act requires the Attorney General to use resources of federal law enforcement,
including the United States Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and
apprehending sex offenders who failed to comply with registration requirements. For
fiscal years 2007 through 2009, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary for this purpose.
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering and Tracking (SMART Office). The Adam Walsh Act establishes
a new office in the Justice Department, with the following functions and
responsibilities:
! administers standards for the sex offender registration and
notification program of this act;
CRS-9
! administers grant programs on sex offender registration and
notification and other grant programs under this act;
! cooperates with and provides technical assistance to states, units of
local governments, tribal governments, and public and private
entities involved in activities related to sex offender registration or
notification or to other measures that protect children or others from
sexual abuse or exploitation; and
! performs other functions that the Attorney General may delegate.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Mentoring Program. Big
Brothers Big Sisters of America mentors at-risk youth. The Walsh Act authorizes the
administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to make
grants to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to expand its capacity to meet its
objective. The organization is required to submit a biannual report in each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2013 that (1) details the progress it has made in carrying out its
mentoring programs; (2) details how grant funds have been used; (3) assesses the
effectiveness of the mentoring programs; and (4) makes recommendations for future
grants and the amount of funding that would be needed for those grants. For this
program, the act authorizes $9 million for FY2007; $10 million for FY2008; $11.5
million for FY2009; $13 million for FY2010; and $15 million for FY2011.
National Police Athletic League (PAL). PAL is a youth crime prevention
program. Subtitle B — National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of
the Walsh Act, reauthorizes PAL through FY2010. The act changes the name of the
group to the National Police Athletic/Activities League and adds another goal of the
organization, which is to enhance the character and leadership skills of young people.
In addition, it increases the number of chapters and youths that can join PAL. It
authorizes grant funding of $16 million for each of FY2006 through FY2010.
Sex Offender Management Assistance Program (SOMA-grant).7 The
Walsh Act requires the Attorney General to establish and implement a SOMA grant
program. Under SOMA-grant, the Attorney General can award a grant to a
jurisdiction to offset the costs of the sex offender registration and community
notification. A chief executive of a jurisdiction must submit annually an application
to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General determines that a jurisdiction has
substantially implemented sex offender registration and notification provisions of the
Adam Walsh Act, then the jurisdiction is eligible for a bonus payment of 10% of the
total funds received under the SOMA grant program for the preceding fiscal year,
provided the implementation occurred within one year after enactment of the Walsh
Act; and 5% of funds, if implementation occurred within two years of that date. For
SOMA grant, the act authorizes such sums as may be necessary for FY2007 through
FY2009.
7 There is another program called the Training Program to Assist Probation and Parole
Officers, popularly known as the Sex Offender Management Assistance program, that was
originally established in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13941) and was recently reauthorized in Section 108 of the Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162).
CRS-10
Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Grants. With the objective of better
monitoring sex offenders, the Attorney General, for a period of three years, is
authorized to award grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribal
governments for providing sex offenders with electronic monitoring devices and
employing law enforcement officials to operate the program. To allow an assessment
of the effectiveness of approaches used to monitor sex offenders, the act requires the
Attorney General in making these grants to ensure that a variety of approaches to
monitoring offenders are funded. The electronic monitoring units must provide a
single-unit tracking device for each offender that contains a central processing unit
with global positioning system and cellular technology in a single unit and that
provides two- and three-way voice communication. It also must permit active, real-
time, and continuous monitoring of offenders 24 hours a day. The Attorney General
must submit a report to Congress that addresses the effectiveness and value of this
program; compares the cost effectiveness of electronic monitoring to reduce sex
offenses with other alternatives; and makes recommendations on whether to continue
the grant program and at what funding level. The act authorizes appropriations of $5
million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
Sex Offender Apprehension Grants. The Walsh Act authorizes the
Attorney General to make sex offender apprehension grants to states, units of local
government, Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, and multi-
jurisdictional or regional consortia to assist them in enforcing sex offender
registration requirements. For fiscal years 2007 through 2009, there are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary.
Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants. The Walsh Act authorizes the
Attorney General to make grants to units of local government, Indian tribal
governments, correctional facilities, other public and private entities, and multi-
jurisdictional or regional consortia to assist in the treatment of juvenile sex offenders.
For grant purposes, a juvenile sex offender is defined as a sex offender who has not
attained the age of 18 years at the time a sex offense was committed. The act
authorizes to be appropriated $10 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009
for these treatment grants.
Grants to Combat Sexual Abuse of Children. To combat sexual abuse
of children, the Bureau of Justice Assistance is authorized to make grants, based on
need, to law enforcement agencies to (1) hire additional personnel or train existing
staff to combat sexual abuse of children through community education and outreach,
investigation of complaints, enforcement of laws on sex offender registries, and
management of released sex offenders; (2) investigate use of the Internet to facilitate
the sexual abuse of children; and (3) purchase computer hardware and software to
investigate sexual abuse of children over the Internet, access local, state, and federal
databases for apprehending sex offenders, and facilitate the creation and enforcement
of sex offender registries. For these grants, there are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
Crime Prevention Campaign Grant. The Attorney General is authorized
to provide a grant to a national private, nonprofit organization with expertise in
promoting crime prevention through public outreach and media campaigns. These
CRS-11
campaigns are to be coordinated with law enforcement agencies and other local
government officials as well as with representatives of community public interest
organizations such as schools and youth-serving organizations, faith based, and
victim’s organizations and employers. Grantees must use funds to:
! create and promote national public communications campaigns;
! develop and distribute publications and other educational materials
that promote crime prevention;
! design and maintain websites and related web-based materials and
tools;
! design and deliver training for law enforcement personnel,
community leaders, and other partners in public safety and
hometown security initiatives;
! design and deliver technical assistance to states, local jurisdictions,
and crime prevention practitioners and associations;
! coordinate a coalition of federal, national, and state-wide
organizations and communities in support of crime prevention;
! design, deliver, and assess demonstration programs;
! operate McGruff-related programs;
! operate the Teens, Crime, and Community Program; and
! evaluate crime prevention programs and trends.
For this grant program, there is authorized to be appropriated $7 million for FY2007;
$8 million for FY2008; $9 million for FY2009; and $10 million for FY2010.
Grants for Fingerprinting Programs for Children. The Walsh Act
authorizes the Attorney General to establish and implement a program under which
grants for fingerprinting children can be made to states, units of local government,
and Indian tribal governments. Grant funds are to be used to establish a voluntary
fingerprinting program for children, which may include taking palm prints of
children; hiring additional law enforcement personnel or training existing law
enforcement personnel to fingerprint children; informing the community involved
about the fingerprinting program; and providing computer hardware, computer
software or other materials to carry out such a fingerprinting program. For a person
who uses the fingerprinting program for unauthorized purposes, the Walsh Act
provides a criminal penalty of imprisonment of not more than one year, a fine or
both. The act authorizes to be appropriated $20 million for a five-year period
beginning FY2007.
Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). RAINN is a
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that provides help to victims of sexual assault and
educates the public about sexual assault prevention, prosecution, and recovery. The
Adam Walsh Act authorizes the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to make an annual grant to RAINN; issue
regulations to carry out RAINN grants; effectively coordinate all federally funded
programs relating to victims of sexual assault; and provide adequate staff and agency
resources to properly carry out OJJDP’s responsibilities.
RAINN grants may be used to operate the National Sexual Assault Hotline,
which is a 24-hour toll-free telephone line that individuals may use to receive help
CRS-12
and information from trained volunteers. Grant funds may also be used to operate
the National Sexual Assault Online Hotline, which is a 24-hour free online service
that persons may use to receive help and information from trained volunteers. Other
purposes for which grant funds may be used include education of the media, the
general public and populations at risk of sexual assault about the incidence of sexual
violence and sexual violence prevention, prosecution, and recovery; dissemination
nationally of information on innovative and model programs, services, laws,
legislation, and policies that benefit victims of sexual assault; and provision of
technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, state and local governments, the
criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit agencies, and individuals
investigating and prosecuting cases of sexual assault. There is authorized to be
appropriated $3 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010 for the
Administrator of OJJDP to provide grants to RAINN.
Fugitive Safe Surrender. Fugitive Safe Surrender was a pilot program of
the United States Marshals Service, in partnership with public, private and faith-
based organizations, that allowed fugitives to turn themselves in safely and have
nonviolent cases adjudicated immediately at a church that had been temporarily
transformed into a courthouse. Because the pilot program in Cleveland, Ohio was
successful, Congress expanded the program to other cities. The Walsh Act provides
for the U.S. Marshals to establish, direct, and coordinate the Fugitive Safe Surrender
Program to safely, securely, and peacefully apprehend federal, state and local
fugitives in coordination with law enforcement and community leaders in designated
cities throughout the United States. This provision, however, does not limit any
existing authority under any other provision of federal or state law for law
enforcement agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives through task forces or any
other means. Funding authorized to be appropriated to the U.S. Marshals Service for
this program are $3 million for FY2007; $5 million for FY2008; and $8 million for
FY2008.
Selected Studies and Reports
The Walsh Act also calls for a number of studies and reports that assess the cost
and effectiveness of efforts to control, prosecute, manage, treat and monitor sex
offenders. In addition, the act addresses the performance of federal, sate and local
criminal investigators of homicides.
Comprehensive Examination of Sex Offender Issues. The Walsh Act
requires the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct a comprehensive study of
the control, prosecution, treatment, and monitoring of sex offenders. The study is to
focus on the effectiveness of: (1) the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(Title I of the Adam Walsh Act) in improving the compliance of sex offenders with
registration and notification requirements; (2) sex offender registration and
notification requirements in increasing public safety; (3) public dissemination of sex
offender information on the Internet in increasing public safety; and (4) treatment
programs in reducing recidivism among sex offenders. In addition to addressing the
effectiveness of these four approaches to handling sex offenders and protecting
public safety, the study is to consider the costs associated with each approach. The
study must also include recommendations on how to reduce the number of sex crimes
CRS-13
against children and adults and increase the effectiveness of registration
requirements.
NIJ must submit annual interim reports, and not later than five years after
enactment of this act, report the results of the study together with findings to
Congress, through the Internet to the public, to every state governor, the mayor of the
District of Columbia, to heads of territories, and to the heads of Indian tribes. There
are authorized to be appropriated $3 million for this study.
Annual Report on Enforcement of Registration Requirements. By
July 1 of each year, the Attorney General is required to submit a report to Congress
that describes: how the U.S. Marshals Service has assisted jurisdictions in locating
and apprehending sex offenders who have not complied with sex offender
registration requirements; the use of national crime information databases to punish
offenders for failure to register; a detailed account of each jurisdiction’s compliance
with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act; DOJ’s efforts to ensure
compliance with this act; and any funding reductions because a jurisdiction failed to
comply with registration requirements and the basis for deciding whether to reduce
funding; and, finally, any denials or granting of extensions to comply with the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act and the reasons why extensions were
denied or granted.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Studies on Feasibility of
Using Drivers License as a Registration Requirement for Sex Offenders.
To improve sex offenders’ compliance with registration requirements concerning
change of address upon relocation and other related updates of personal information,
Congress requires GAO, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
act, to complete a study on the feasibility of using driver’s licenses in the sex
offender registration process. GAO is to survey a majority of the states to assess the
relative systems capabilities to comply with a federal law requiring all state driver’s
license systems to automatically access state and national databases of registered sex
offenders similar to the Nevada law.8 GAO is to use survey results, and expert
sources, to determine the potential costs to states if such a federal law were to come
into effect. Further, GAO must consult federal and state law enforcement agencies,
particularly the FBI, on the anticipated effects of such a national requirement, both
desirable and undesirable side effects in terms of actual compliance with this act and
related laws. GAO must complete a study of the Nevada law to determine if those
provisions are effective in improving sex offenders’ compliance with registration
requirements; the aggregate direct and indirect costs to Nevada for effecting those
provisions; and how they can be modified to improve sex offenders’ compliance with
registration requirements.
8 Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005. The Nevada law prohibits sex offenders and
offenders convicted of a crime against a child from renewing their drivers’ licenses,
commercial drivers’ licenses or identification cards if they have not complied with offender
registration requirements.
CRS-14
Sex Offender Risk Classification Study. The Attorney General is
required to conduct a study of risk-based sex offender classification systems that
includes an analysis of various risk-based sex offender classification systems,
methods and tools for assessing the risks posed by sex offenders; and a comparison
of the efficiency and effectiveness of risk-based sex offender classification to
offense-based sex offender classification systems in reducing threats to public safety
and assisting law enforcement agencies and the public in identifying the most
dangerous sex offenders. The study should include both an analysis of the resources
necessary to implement risk-based sex offender classification systems for sex
offender registries as well as the legal implications of doing so. Finally, the study
must include an analysis of any other information the Attorney General determines
should be used to evaluate risk-based sex offender classification systems. Within 18
months after enactment of the Walsh Act, the Attorney General must report the
results of the study to Congress. If the Attorney General creates a task force to
conduct the study and prepare the report, the Attorney General must appoint persons
to the task force who represent national, state, and local interests and who have
education, training or experience in sex offender management, community education,
risk assessment of sex offenders and sex offender victim issues.
Study of the Effectiveness of Restricting the Activities of Sex
Offenders to Reduce Recidivism. The Attorney General is required to conduct
a study to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring and restricting the activities of sex
offenders to reduce recidivism through conditions imposed as part of supervised
release or probation conditions. The study must evaluate the effectiveness of
monitoring and restricting activities of sex offenders, including (1) restrictions on
where the sex offender can reside, work, and attend school; (2) limitations on sex
offenders’ access to Internet or to specific Internet sites; and (3) denying sex
offenders access to pornography and other obscene materials. It also must evaluate
the ability of law enforcement agencies and courts to enforce these restrictions; and
the efficacy of any other restrictions that may reduce recidivism. The Attorney
General is required to report the results of this study to the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees no later than six months after enactment of the Walsh Act.
Justice for Crime Victims Family Act. Within six months of enactment
of the Walsh Act, the Attorney General must submit a report to House and Senate
Judiciary Committees that outlines measures needed to improve the performance of
federal, state, and local criminal investigators of homicide. The report must include
an examination of (1) the benefits for criminal investigators of increasing training
and resources such as investigative techniques, best practices, and forensic services;
(2) uniformity among state and local jurisdictions in measuring homicide rates and
clearance of homicide cases; (3) coordination among federal, state, and local law
enforcement, coroners and medical examiners in sharing information; and (4) sources
of funding for state and local criminal investigators of homicide that are in existence
on the date of enactment of this act.
The Attorney General, within six months of enactment of this act, also must
submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that examines
measures to expand national criminal records databases with accurate information on
missing persons and unidentified human remains; improvement of post mortem
examinations, autopsies and reporting procedures of unidentified persons or remains;
CRS-15
collection of DNA information; and use of the Internet to post information on
missing persons and unidentified human remains.
Additional Provisions Enacted in the 109th Congress
In addition to the Adam Walsh Act, the 109th Congress also passed the Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA
2005) P.L. 109-162; H.R. 3402)). Section 108 of the act amends Section 40152 of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13941),
which provides training in the areas of case management, supervision, and relapse
prevention to assist probation and other personnel who work with released sex
offenders. VAWA 2005 authorizes $3 million to be appropriated for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011 for this section. VAWA 2005 adds provisions directing the
Attorney General to contract with any interested Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal nonprofit organization to develop and maintain a national tribal sex offender
registry and a tribal protection order registry. The act authorizes $1 million to be
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this section.
Funds would remain available until expended.
VAWA 2005 also contains new sex offender provisions that authorize the
Attorney General, through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women,
to award grants to encourage cross-training and collaboration among courts, domestic
violence and sexual assault service providers, youth organizations and service
providers, violence prevention programs and law enforcement agencies. To be
eligible for a grant under this section (Section 41202, Access to Justice for Youth),
an applicant must establish a collaborative team that includes a victim service
provider with experience in working on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, or stalking, and the effect of these types of abuse on young people, as well
as a court. Among other entities that may be included on the team are batterer
intervention programs and sex offender treatment programs staffed by people with
specialized knowledge and experience working with youth offenders. VAWA 2005
authorizes $5 million to be appropriated in each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011
for this section.
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Despite enactment of the Adam Walsh Act, additional legislation related to sex
offenders has been introduced in the 110th Congress. Generally, these bills would
provide for a DNA database containing DNA information on sexual predators,
establish a National Sex Offender Risk Classification Task Force; monitor, under
certain conditions, a convicted sex offender’s use of the Internet, require electronic
communication service and remote computer service providers to report any violation
of child sexual exploitation and pornography laws; and require law enforcement
agencies to share information during emergencies on the location of missing children
or registered sex offenders. The following discussion identifies and analyzes these
bills and describes any legislative activity that has occurred.
CRS-16
H.R. 252, Save Our Children: Stop the Violent Predators Against
Children DNA Act of 2007. On January 5, 2007, Representative Jackson-Lee
introduced this bill, which among other provisions, would require the Attorney
General to establish and maintain a DNA database solely to collect DNA information
on violent predators who commit crimes against children. It would provide for the
Attorney General to issue regulations whereby federal, state, and local agencies and
other entities would allow submission of DNA information for inclusion in the
database and comparison against other DNA information in the database. The bill
would authorize to be appropriated $500,000 to establish the DNA database. It also
would authorize to be appropriated such sums as necessary for incentive grants to
each state that has in effect at least one program that decreases the rate of recidivism
among violent predators who commit crimes against children. On February 2, 2007,
H.R. 252 was referred to House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
H.R. 291, the Safe NOW Act of 2007. Introduced by Congressman Paul
E. Gillmor on January 5, 2007, this bill would establish a National Sex Offender Risk
Classification Task Force to create guidelines for classifying a sex offender. This
system would classify a sex offender based on the sex offender’s threat of danger to
the public and would allow law enforcement agencies and the public to use the
classification system to identify the most dangerous sex offenders listed in sex
offender registries. The task force would consist of 20 members, including the chair,
and representatives from a variety of organizations such as advocacy groups, law
enforcement, federal agencies, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy,
psychologists, and three representatives from academia with specialties in risk
assessment of sex offenders.
Duties of the task force would include creation of preliminary guidelines for
establishing a risk-based sex offender classification system; administration of a
demonstration program; and creation of final guidelines. The task force would
provide an initial report to the Attorney General and relevant congressional
committees not later than one year after the date of the first meeting of the task force.
Another final report would be required not later than six months after the date of the
expiration of the demonstration program grants (described below). The final report
would contain final guidelines for establishing a risk-based sex offender
classification system and a summary of information gathered through the
demonstration program.
H.R. 291 would provide for the task force to carry out a demonstration program
under which it would select and award a one-year grant to each of five jurisdictions.
The selected jurisdiction would use grant funds to: (1) implement a risk-based sex
offender classification system using sex offenders registered in the jurisdiction’s sex
offender registry; (2) demonstrate the extent to which the preliminary guidelines
contributed to successfully implementing an effective risk-based sex offender
classification system; and (3) identify ways to improve the preliminary guidelines to
better guide jurisdictions in implementing an effective risk-based sex offender
classification system. The bill would authorize to be appropriated $1 million for each
of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. On February 2, 2007, H.R. 291 was referred
to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security.
CRS-17
H.R. 719 and S. 431, Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual
Predators Act of 2007. H.R. 719 and S. 431 have identical provisions. On
January 30, 2007, Congressman Earl Pomeroy introduced H.R. 719 and Senator
Charles E. Schumer introduced S. 431. These bills would require a convicted sex
offender who uses the Internet to provide any electronic mail address, instant
message address, or other similar identifier that is used to communicate over the
Internet for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and to keep this
information current. Jurisdictions maintaining this information on sex offenders
would be prohibited from disclosing it to the public. The Attorney General would
have to maintain a system that would allow commercial social networking websites
to compare their databases of users to the Internet identifiers of persons in the NSOR.
For failure of a sex offender to provide information that would be required under
these provisions, the penalty would be a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years.
For age misrepresentation with the intent to use the Internet to engage in criminal
sexual conduct with a minor, the penalty for a sex offender would be up to 20 years
imprisonment. H.R. 719 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on March 1, 2007; on
January 30, 2007, S. 431 was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 837, Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of
Today’s Youth Act of 2007. Congressman Lamar Smith introduced this measure
on February 6, 2007. H.R. 837 would prohibit any financial transactions in interstate
or foreign commerce that facilitate access to or possession of child pornography.
Whoever is convicted of these activities would be subject to a fine or imprisonment
for 20 years, or both. The bill would also provide for a fine or imprisonment of not
more than 10 years, or both for any Internet content hosting provider or email service
provider who knowingly engages in activities that facilitate access to or the
possession of child pornography. H.R. 837 would increase criminal penalties for
sexually exploiting children, including activities involving child pornography. The
measure would require commercial website operators to place warning marks on web
pages indicating that they contain sexually explicit materials. The bill would
authorize to be appropriated $30 million for each fiscal year (FY) 2008-2012 for the
Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI). IINI’s mission is to reduce usage of
computers to sexually exploit and abuse children; to identify and rescue victims of
this exploitation and abuse; to investigate sexual predators who use the Internet for
such purposes, and to strengthen, through training and investigative assistance, the
capabilities of law enforcement at the federal, state, local and international levels.
On March 1, 2007, H.R. 837 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
H.R. 876, Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of
2007. On February 7, 2007, Congressman Steve Chabot introduced this measure.
The bill would require electronic communication service providers and remote
computing service providers to report a violation of federal law on child sexual
exploitation and pornography to CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC) or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by
NCMEC. The NCMEC would be required to forward each report received to any
appropriate state, local, or foreign law enforcement agency designated by the
Attorney General. An electronic communication service provider or remote
CRS-18
computing service provider who fails to make such a report would be fined $150,000
for the first failure and $300,000 for any subsequent failures.
H.R. 876 would require the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Attorney
General, and the head of any other relevant federal agency to encourage foreign
governments to stop the production and transmission of child pornography and to
cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies and the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Forces to combat creation and transmission of child pornography.
H.R. 876 would authorize to be appropriated to the Attorney General $25 million for
grants to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
H.R. 876 would authorize the courts, as an explicit condition of supervised
release for a convicted sex offender, to monitor the use of the Internet by a convicted
sex offender. It would require the sex offender to pay a fee, not to exceed $50 per
month, for such monitoring. The measure would increase penalties for using the
Internet to violate child pornography or sexual exploitation laws, providing an
additional term of imprisonment of 10 years. The bill would require the Attorney
General to make publicly available on the DOJ website reports on investigations,
prosecutions and convictions concerning crimes of sexual exploitation against
children. On February 7, 2007, H.R. 876 was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
H.R. 1684, Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2008. On
March 26, 2007, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson introduced H.R. 1684, which
was referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security and reported on March
28. Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite’s amendment, to require the Department
of Homeland Security during emergencies to share information with federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies on the location of missing children or registered sex
offenders, passed committee by a voice vote.
Continuing Policy Issues
As discussed in this report, Congress has passed laws with provisions to protect
the public from sex offenders by confining them and, once they are released,
monitoring their movements. The debate, however, on sex offenders, their
punishment and management continues and, as discussed in the previous section,
additional legislation has been introduced in the 110th Congress.
Issues related to sex offender laws have included the extent to which they are
enforced, their effectiveness, the adequacy or targeting of federal funding to support
registration and notification, and the extent to which they reflect available research
on sex offender recidivism. These issues are discussed below.
CRS-19
Enforcement of Registration Requirements
A major concern of supporters of sex offender registration is whether sex
offenders are actually registering in states. An investigation in 2003 by the
Associated Press suggested that California could not account for 33,000 sex
offenders. A subsequent survey, conducted by Parents for Megan’s Law in 2003,
which has not been published but has been reported in the press, also suggested that
thousands of convicted offenders had failed to register with states as legally required.
Others, while registering, had provided false addresses or changed addresses without
updating registration information. According to the Parents for Megan’s Law survey,
on average, states could not account for 24% of sex offenders who were supposed to
be in their sex offender registries. In addition, 23 states missed between 10% and
50% of their sex offenders, while 17 states could not determine how many offenders
were unregistered.9
Effectiveness of state sex offender registration programs do not appear to vary
with the size of the sex offender population. Florida, a populous state, identified two
reasons for its relatively low rate of noncompliance, 4.7% of 27,689 offenders. One
is that each year the state’s Department of Law Enforcement mails letters to sex
offenders and closely monitors letters that are returned. Certain state agencies have
entire units whose purpose is to follow-up on offenders who fail to respond. The
state employs 11 full-time staff to track offenders who do not register. Another
reason for Florida’s low rate of noncompliance is the state’s use of technology, which
helps keep track of unregistered offenders. For example, Florida requires a sex
offender to carry a state identification card. Several Florida agencies, including those
that issue drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, have direct electronic access
to the sex offender database, and by cross-checking can monitor offenders.10
According to the Attorney General of North Dakota, a state with a smaller population
of sex offenders required to register, 32 of 1,006 convicted offenders had failed to
register. North Dakota’s compliance rate was 97%. The North Dakota Attorney
General attributed the state’s high compliance rate to law enforcement’s placing a
high priority on enforcing the sex offender registration laws.11 Following is a
sampling of noncompliance rates of selected states as reported by the Parents for
Megan’s Law survey: New York, 10% of 18,000 sex offenders were reportedly
unregistered; California, 44% of 76,350 offenders; Ohio, 3.3% of 9,086 offenders;
Oklahoma, 50% of 4,711;12 Tennessee, 50% of 6,300 offenders;13 Florida, 4.7% of
9 Jennifer Coleman, “Lawmakers Review Audit of Megan’s Law Registry,” Associated
Press State and Local Wire, Sept. 23, 2003; Kim Curtis, “Survey: States Have Lost Track
of Thousands of Sex Offenders,” Associated Press State and Local Wire, Feb. 6, 2003; see
[http://www.parentsformeganslaw.com].
10 Ibid.
11 “Sex Offender Registry Failure Cited in State,” Daily Oklahoman, Feb. 7, 2003.
12 Reportedly, this percentage is disputed, but an Oklahoman spokesman could not cite a
number for the state because no study of the compliance rate had been done.
13 This percentage is disputed; the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation reports a
noncompliance figure of 37% of 5,812 offenders.
CRS-20
27,689 offenders; Massachusetts, 44% of 18,000 offenders; and Illinois, 14% of
17,087 offenders.
Both the survey by Parents for Megan’s Law and state audits of sex offender
registries revealed that serious and high-risk sex offenders failed to register and that
state databases contained errors, inconsistencies, and outdated information. In
California, address information had not been updated for at least a year and, in some
cases, updates had not occurred for at least five years.14 Explanations given for the
poor enforcement of sex offender registration by law enforcement agencies vary.
Other than monitoring sex offenders, state and local law enforcement agencies may
also be responsible for tracking domestic violence orders, missing persons,
outstanding arrest warrants, DNA information, and more. Spokesmen for many state
and local law enforcement agencies argue that they lack the manpower and resources
to adequately monitor sex offenders because of budgetary crises. Some at the state
level attribute much of the inaccurate data in the registry to their reliance on local law
enforcement personnel/agencies that provide the information.15
There are several explanations given for the failure of sex offenders to register.
One view is that requirements to register every three months, which apply to certain
sex offenders, place a large burden on individuals who may have difficulty
organizing their lives. Another view is that some sex offenders are ignorant of the
registration requirement and believe that they have to register only once. Some state
that offenders are simply irresponsible and do not take the need to register seriously.
Finally, it is argued that sex offenders fail to register because they just don’t want to
be tracked.16
Effectiveness of Community Notification Programs
While sex offender registration and community notification programs were
created primarily to protect the public, some question whether they are effective.
They challenge the assumptions underlying these programs that communities would
be safe with sex offender laws with harsh penalties; that the recidivism rate of sex
offenders is inordinately high; and that once a sex offender, always an offender.
They suggest that a legislative approach would be more effective that recognizes
pedophilia and some other sexual disorders as both a criminal justice matter and a
public health problem.17
14 California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits, Summary of Report 2003-105, Aug.
2003, p. 2, at [http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary.php?id=407].
15 Ibid., p. 2. Chad Kinsella, “Court OKs Sex Offender Registries: Recent U.S. Supreme
Court Rulings Find State Sex Offender Registries Constitutional, but Implementation Poses
Problems,” State Government News, vol. 46, no. 5 (May 1, 2003), p. 7; “Police Can’t Find
1,313 Michigan Sex Offenders,” Associated Press State and Local Wire, Jan. 13, 2004, p.
2.
16 Anna Uhls, “Some Sex Offenders Off the Grid,” Colorado Daily via U-Wire, University
Wire, June 29, 2004.
17 Testimony of Fred Berlin, Johns Hopkins University, U.S. House Judiciary Committee,
(continued...)
CRS-21
Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of sex offender
registration and community notification programs. Only two states, Washington and
Wisconsin, have conducted evaluations of their community notification programs,
and neither study is particularly recent.
Washington. In 1998, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
released its findings of a telephone survey conducted in the state over a four-week
period in 1997.18 Results of the survey revealed that
! 80% of respondents were aware of the state’s community
notification law prior to the telephone interview;
! About a one-third of the residents knew that released sex offenders
were residing in their communities;
! About three-fourths of respondents attributed their increased
knowledge about sex offenses and how sex offenders operate to
community notification;
! Over 60% of residents believed that the behavior of sex offenders
improved more with community notification than without it;
! Three-fourths of respondents thought that as a result of community
notification, convicted sex offenders would have difficulty
establishing new lives in terms of finding a job, obtaining housing,
making friends, etc., but less than half of the respondents believed
that offenders “should be given every opportunity for a new start as
law-abiding citizens”; and
! Eight out of 10 respondents felt the community notification law was
very important.
In another paper, published in 1995 by the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy, the costs of implementing the state’s community notification law were
addressed.19 Researchers found that the size of a community’s population (urban or
rural), and policy decisions at the local level influenced the cost of implementing
community notification. If a community had a small population and few sex
offenders who were required to register, notification was handled informally, usually
through the county sheriff, resulting in lower costs. Further, in an area with a large
population and many registered sex offenders, the costs would increase because of
the time and manpower required to track offenders after notification and to
investigate an offender’s conduct and charges of harassment of an offender by some
community members.
17 (...continued)
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, June 9, 2005.
18 Dretha M. Phillips, Community Notification as Viewed by Washington’s Citizens
(Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1998), pp. 2-4 [http://www.wsipp.
wa.gov/rptfiles/CnSurvey.pdf].
19 Carol Poole and Roxanne Lieb, Community Notification in Washington State: Decision
Making and Costs (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1995), pp. 13-14,
[http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/cprtcost.pdf].
CRS-22
In addition, policy decisions influence costs associated with community
notification. If a law enforcement agency, as an information repository, relies on sex
offender information supplied by state agencies (such as the state patrol, department
of corrections, etc.) and reviews only those offenders who have been drawn to the
agency’s attention, such as through a special bulletin, costs can be modest. By using
the standard manner of issuing releases, for example, through schools or press
releases, it saves postage costs and officers’ time. The study found that where public
officials make community notification a high priority and officers are assigned
responsibility for monitoring convicted sex offenders, costs are higher. To take these
steps may require an increase in payroll expenses and an investment in equipment
and/or software.20
Wisconsin. Generally, there are three types of notification laws. They require
law enforcement agencies to inform residents of sex offenders moving into
neighborhoods; enable the public to gain access to relevant data on sex offenders; and
require convicted child molesters to identify themselves as sex offenders.
Wisconsin’s community notification statute, however, requires officials only to
inform residents about the release and reintegration of sex offenders in their
communities.
In 2000, a study assessing the impact of the sex offender community notification
law in Wisconsin was published, which examined the effect of this law on residents,
law enforcement resources, parole and probation officer resources, and offenders.
In 1998, 704 persons attending 22 community notification meetings (held from
January 1998 through mid-September 1998) throughout Wisconsin were surveyed
to determine the impact of community notification on residents. Although results of
the study revealed that, generally, community notification was used to improve
community protection, 18% of the residents attending notification meetings thought
the purpose was to discuss removing or preventing an offender from residing in the
neighborhood. While 71% of respondents felt they were better informed, 35% left
the meetings with less anxiety about sex offenders in their communities than before;
38% were more concerned; and 27% left the meeting with the same level of
concern.21
Local and county law enforcement agencies were surveyed to identify agencies’
policies and practices in implementing community notification law. Of 312
questionnaires sent to local and county law enforcement agencies, 188 were returned.
Wisconsin’s law enforcement guidelines for sex offender registration and notification
recommend a collaborative approach among law enforcement, corrections, and other
agencies in executing the notification process. Survey data revealed that 86% of law
enforcement agencies were familiar with the state’s guidelines and 66% reported that
their policies and procedures reflected those guidelines.
20 Ibid.
21 Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas, Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing
the Impact in Wisconsin, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Dec. 2000, pp. 1-4.
CRS-23
Many law enforcement agencies considered community notification to be an
unfunded mandate because of the additional work and costs associated with
implementing it. More than 66% of law enforcement agencies responding to the
survey were concerned about the increase in labor expenditures resulting from
implementing community notification. Agencies found the law’s registration
requirements beneficial because of an increase in information-sharing, but reported
that community notification was less beneficial, with less than 41% believing that it
improved the management and containment of sex offender behavior due to greater
visibility. Based on responses to the survey, the following recommendations were
made. Local and county law enforcement agencies were to consider: continuing the
collaborative information-sharing and problem-solving approach; developing written
policies and training protocols that address the announcement of meetings,
distributing pertinent information about sex offenders such as their release locations,
answering questions, and handling negative or hostile reactions to the release of a
specific offender; and seeking federal or state funding for training and overtime
expenses associated with sex offender registration and community notification.22
Probation and parole agents of sex offenders throughout Wisconsin were also
surveyed for their assessment of the impact of community notification. Survey
findings showed that agents and supervisors who were responsible for implementing
community notification were knowledgeable and trained on policies. The survey
revealed that the caseload for agents in urban areas was much greater than in rural
ones. The average caseload for agents surveyed was 25 active cases, but nine agents
had 40 or more sex offenders to supervise, and six of the nine had 50 or more.
Twenty-nine percent of agents had 30 offenders to supervise and 37% had an average
of 21 to 30 offenders; 12% supervised 11-20 offenders, and 22% had 10 or fewer
offenders. Some of the heavier caseloads involved low-risk sex offender cases
(nonviolent offense, no prior felony, etc.) that did not require the same intensive
supervision that high-risk offenders did; nevertheless, community notification had
considerably increased the workloads of probation and parole units in the state.23
Problems identified by agents and unit supervisors that are associated with
handling sex offender cases, include finding housing for offenders and increased
paperwork associated with supervising high risk sex offenders. An example of these
increased time demands is agents’ participation in community notification meetings.
Forty-six percent of respondents reported that as part of their job they attended at
least one and in some cases more than six such meetings, served as presenters at the
meetings, and assisted local and county law enforcement in planning and organizing
a notification meeting. It was estimated that this involvement with community
notification required about 40 hours of agent time per meeting.24
Finally, high-risk sex offenders were surveyed to determine how the community
notification process affected them. Of the 30 sex offenders interviewed, all but one
stated that the process adversely affected them. Seventy-seven percent told of being
22 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
23 Ibid., p. 7.
24 Ibid., p. 8.
CRS-24
humiliated daily, ostracized by neighbors and lifetime friends, and harassed or
threatened by neighbors or strangers. Although only one was the victim of vigilante
action, all were concerned for their own safety. Two-thirds of survey participants
mentioned the negative impact of the notification process on their family members,
including parents, siblings, and children. Five of the respondents who lived in the
same communities as their victims expressed concern for how notification and
renewed public attention might affect their victims. While only a few of the
interviewed sex offenders thought the notification would prevent reoffending by
making their actions more visible to the public, a majority suggested that the pressure
they felt from the public and the media would “drive many sex offenders back to
prison.”25
Federal Funding in Support of
Registration and Notification Requirements
Federal laws directly or indirectly relating to sex offender registration have
provided substantial funding over time to support a collaborative effort of federal,
state, and local law enforcement both in combating crime and in sharing information
across jurisdictional and state lines. The following review of the purposes and
funding of a few selected programs provides a glimpse of federal assistance to state
and local governments in battling crime, in general, and in supporting sex offender
registration and community notification, in particular. To assist in this law
enforcement effort, the Adam Walsh Act established some new grant programs,
described in more detail earlier in this report. An identification of these programs,
with their authorization levels, follows:
! Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA-grant) program —
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for
FY2007 through FY2009;
! Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde grants — authorized to be
appropriated $5 million for each of FY2007 through FY2009;
! Sex Offender Apprehension Grants — authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary for FY2007 through FY2009;
! Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants — authorized to be
appropriated $10 million for each of FY2007 through FY2009;
! Grants to Combat Sexual Abuse of Children — authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for FY2007 through
FY2009; and
! Crime Prevention Campaign Grant — authorized to be appropriated
$7 million for FY2007, $8 million for FY2008, $9 million for
FY2009, and $10 million for FY2010.
Some other direct sources of grants to assist law enforcement in addressing sex
offender issues include the Training Program to Assist Probation and Parole Officers
(Sex Offender Management Assistance Program), the Crime Identification
Technology Act (CITA), and the National Criminal History Improvement Program
(NCHIP). CITA, administered by DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, is the umbrella
25 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
CRS-25
for every criminal justice technological and communications need. On the other
hand, NCHIP, administered by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, provides funding
primarily for records.
Two general sources of grants to assist law enforcement in reducing crime and
improving public safety have been the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
and the Byrne formula grants, which were consolidated in FY2005 into the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. Purpose areas under these two
grant programs for which funds can be used include sex offender registration;
overtime pay to law enforcement personnel and support personnel; obtaining
equipment, technology and other material related to basic law enforcement functions;
technology improvement programs; and corrections and treatment programs. These
programs are discussed below. (For further discussion of federal crime-prevention
funding, see CRS Report RL32824, Federal Crime Control: Background,
Legislation, and Issues, by Lisa M. Seghetti, coordinator.)
Training Program to Assist Probation and Parole Officers or Sex
Offender Management Assistance Program.26 The Sex Offender
Management Assistance (SOMA) training program provides assistance to states and
local jurisdictions in managing sex offenders under community supervision. (There
is also a provision in the Adam Walsh Act for a SOMA grant program, which is
discussed earlier in this report.) SOMA also addresses problems that parole and
probation officers face in supervising the transition of sex offenders back into the
community. SOMA goals include encouraging jurisdictions to focus on juvenile and
adult sex offenders under community supervision and ensuring that new initiatives
of communities result in a locally tailored collaborative and comprehensive approach
to managing sex offenders; helping jurisdictions to expand their existing sex offender
management strategies; documenting community practices, challenges, and successes
in planning approaches to sex offender management; and collecting and evaluating
information on existing practices and their outcomes. Enacted funding, after
rescissions, for this program for FY2000 through FY2007 was $33.90 million. In
FY2007 alone, $4.90 million, after rescissions, was provided.27
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. As described earlier, the
Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-251) was enacted to
assist states in establishing or upgrading criminal history record systems and to
improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to share information across local
jurisdictions and state lines. One of the 17 specific areas for which grant funds can
be used is enhancing sex offender identification, tracking, and registration systems.
Another area is improving the capability of the criminal justice system to provide, in
a timely manner, accurate and complete criminal record information to state agencies,
26 This program was originally established in the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13941) and most recently reauthorized in the Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162).
27 These figures were taken from the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Committee Conference Reports for each fiscal year and
the Department of Justice Budget Justifications, Office of Justice Programs, FY2006 and
P.L. 110-05, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, Feb. 20, 2007, 120 Stat. 42.
CRS-26
organizations, and programs that assess risk and other activities related to protecting
children, including protecting them from sexual abuse and placing them in foster
care. Also, grant funds can be used for improving criminal justice information
systems to allow state and local participation in the FBI’s National Instant Check
System and establishing an integrated criminal justice system that allows law
enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors, and corrections agencies access to the
same information. For FY2000 through FY2006, total funding appropriated for
CITA was $526.20 million. In FY2006 alone, $28.78 million was appropriated.28
National Criminal History Improvement Program. The National
Criminal History Improvement Program29 is a discretionary grant program that was
initiated in 1995 as part of a federal effort to ensure that law enforcement has access
to accurate records and to protect public safety and national security. NCHIP
provides direct funding to states for improving the quality, timeliness and
accessibility of criminal history records including records of protective orders
involving domestic violence and stalking, and development and enhancement of state
sex offender registries. Funding allows acquisition of advanced equipment,
conversion of manual records to an electronic/automated format, and development
of software. For compatibility, NCHIP requires all record enhancements resulting
from program funds to conform to FBI standards for Interstate Identification Index
participation. NCHIP also provides technical assistance directly to states to help
them upgrade criminal records and improve interface with the FBI’s national
systems, including the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). Beginning with
FY2000, NCHIP has been funded under the Crime Identification Technology Act of
1998 (P.L.105-251). For FY2000-FY2006, NCHIP appropriations were $236.9
million. In FY2006 alone, NCHIP received $10 million.30 According to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, funding for NCHIP has enabled all of the states, the District of
Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to provide
almost 330,000 records to the FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry.31
Recidivism Rates
Recidivism is broadly defined as the commission of a subsequent offense. A
major factor that influenced passage of sex offender registration and community
notification laws is the perception that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is
extremely high. Results of studies of sex offender recidivism vary greatly and
actually contribute to the confusion surrounding the actual rate of sex offender
recidivism. In a 2001 report that examined available research, the Center for Sex
28 Ibid. FY2007 funding is not available at this time.
29 This grant program implements provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(P.L. 103-159), the National Child Protection Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-209), and the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 104-145), as amended, that relate
to establishing, maintaining, or using criminal history records and criminal record systems.
30 FY2007 funding is not available at this time.
31 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National
Criminal History Improvement Program FY2004 Program Announcement, and the
Department of Justice Justifications, Office of Justice Programs, FY2005, Mar. 2004, p. 3.
CRS-27
Offender Management (CSOM) identified several reasons for the contradictory
findings of studies of sex offender recidivism, such as how recidivism is defined, the
sample of sex offenders and behaviors included in each study, and the length of the
time period studied.32
According to CSOM, the definition of recidivism can be measured by
determining whether there is a new arrest, a new conviction, or a new commitment
to a correctional institution. While each of these criteria is a valid measure of
recidivism, each measures something different, leading to varied outcomes. For
instance, when recidivism is measured using new arrests or charges as the criteria,
the recidivism rate will be higher because more individuals are arrested than are
convicted. When a subsequent conviction is the criterion for measuring recidivism,
the rate of recidivism is lower. When the criterion for determining recidivism is a
return to prison, it must be determined whether the return to prison was because of
the commission of a new offense or a technical violation of parole (such as
consuming liquor or being alone with a minor child). Otherwise, a technical
violation could alter the recidivism rate because it could include as recidivists
individuals who may not have committed a subsequent criminal offense.33
Many studies rely on official criminal justice system data to measure recidivism,
which presents problems because crimes of sexual assault are greatly underreported.
Also, researchers must determine the specific behaviors that qualify sex offenders as
recidivists. For example, will the commission of any crime be sufficient to qualify
as a recidivating offense or will only sex offenses be considered? If a sex offense
qualifies as a recidivating offense, then researchers must decide whether to include
felonies and misdemeanors. Answers to these kinds of questions affect the level of
recidivism reported in each study.34
CSOM Studies. CSOM reports that while the vast majority of sex offenders
are males, they are a heterogeneous group. They include persons who have engaged
in sex with children and family members, as well as those who have sexually
assaulted strangers and have committed a wide range of inappropriate and criminal
sexual behaviors. To reduce confusing results of sex offender recidivism, CSOM
states that studies should recognize this heterogeneity and examine specific types of
sex offenders.35
The period in which a study monitors a group of sex offenders can also affect
the reported recidivism rate. Although, to ensure statistical integrity, all individuals
in a study should have the same length of time in a community and, consequently, the
same opportunity to commit subsequent offenses, often that is not the case. In
actuality, some individuals in a 10-year follow-up study may have been in the
32 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, Center
for Sex Offender Management, May, 2001, pp. 2-3. (Hereafter cited as CSOM, Recidivism
of Sex Offenders.)
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
35 Ibid., p. 8.
CRS-28
community for eight or nine years, while others were out of prison for only two
years. To correct this problem, CSOM suggests that survival analysis should be used,
which is a methodology that considers the amount of time each subject has been in
the community, rather than a simple percentage. Many researchers believe that an
ideal follow-up period for recidivism studies is five years or more.36
From a public policy perspective, recidivism remains a valuable measure of how
various interventions with criminal offenders are performing.37 The noted caveats
regarding studies of sex offender recidivism notwithstanding, several notable efforts
have been made to provide a synthesis of studies of sex offender recidivism. One of
the techniques used to summarize the findings of multiple studies is meta-analysis.38
Using a meta-analysis approach has some advantages, in that it can reveal the relative
importance of a number of factors affecting recidivism across studies. Also, the
consistent appearance of certain offender and offense characteristics across different
studies allows an estimate of how strongly they relate to recidivism.
In a 1998 study (Hanson and Bussiere) that used the meta-analysis technique,
offender and offense characteristics were grouped by demographics, criminal
lifestyle, sexual criminal history, sexual deviancy, and some clinical characteristics.39
The study found a consistent relationship between sexual offending and being young
and single. Sex offenders were likely to recidivate if they had a prior sex offense,
had male victims, victimized strangers (rather than family members), started sex
offending as juveniles and/or had engaged in diverse sex crimes.
A meta-analysis of 61 research studies found specific patterns of reoffending
across victim types and offender characteristics. The average sex offense recidivism
rate (based on rearrest or reconviction criteria) was 18.9% for rapists and 12.7% for
child molesters over a four- to five-year period. For the same period, the recidivism
rate for nonsexual violent offenses was 22.1% for rapists and 9.9% for child
molesters, while the recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists was 46.2% and
36.9% for child molesters. Overall, this analysis revealed that the factors with the
strongest relationship to sexual offense recidivism were sexual interest in children,
deviant sexual preferences, and sexual interest in boys. The study found that having
general psychological problems was unrelated to sexual offense recidivism, but that
having a personality disorder was related. Another finding was that failure to
complete treatment was a moderate predictor of sexual offense recidivism. The study
also found that being sexually abused as a child was unrelated to sexual offense
36 Ibid., p. 4.
37 Ibid., p. 11.
38 Meta-analysis relies upon a quantitative approach to synthesizing research results from
similar studies. This technique involves more than just a simple grouping together of
disparate studies to obtain average effects. Rather, it entails a statistically sophisticated
approach to estimating the combined effects of various studies that meet certain
methodological criteria; CSOM, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, p. 11.
39 R. Hanson and M. Bussiere, “Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender
Recidivism Studies,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66 (1998), pp.
348-364.
CRS-29
recidivism. Knowledge of these historical or static factors helps to predict the
relative likelihood of reoffending.40
Studies that take into account changes over time (dynamic factors) can inform
about the most useful types of interventions in lowering the risk of recidivism.
Another five-year study conducted in 1998 (Hanson and Harris) focused on dynamic
factors.41 This study collected data on over 400 sex offenders under community
supervision, of whom about half were recidivists who had committed a new sexual
offense during the five-year follow-up period. The study revealed a number of
significant differences in dynamic factors between recidivists and non-recidivists.
For instance, employment status and drug habit of a sex offender were found to play
a role in recidivism. Recidivists were more likely to be unemployed (especially
rapists) and to have substance abuse problems. Non-recidivists were likely to have
positive social influences but tended to have intimacy problems. Attitudinal
differences between recidivists and non-recidivists also were identified. The
recidivists in the study who had committed subsequent sex offenses tended to be less
remorseful or concerned about the victim. They were less likely to acknowledge that
they were likely to reoffend and were less likely to avoid high-risk situations. In this
study, recidivists were more likely to report engaging in deviant sexual activities.
Compared to non-recidivists, the lifestyle of recidivists tended to be more chaotic and
antisocial.42
Bureau of Justice Statistics Study. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
conducted a study involving 9,691 male sex offenders among 272,111 prisoners
released from prisons in 15 states in 1994. For three years after their release, the sex
offenders were tracked. BJS published a report documenting the recidivism rate of
these sex offenders as determined by rates of rearrest, reconviction, and
reimprisonment during the three-year followup period (see Table 1). The report
provides recidivism rates for four overlapping categories — 3,115 released rapists;
6,576 released sexual assaulters; 4,295 released child molesters;43 and 443 released
statutory rapists. Following are the highlights of the survey findings by category.44
40 CSOM, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, pp. 11-12.
41 R. Hanson and A. Harris, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism (Ottawa: Solicitor
General of Canada, 1998).
42 CSOM, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, pp. 12-13.
43 Sixty percent of the children molested by these individuals were age 13 or younger.
44 Patrick A. Langan et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (Washington, 2003), pp. 1-2.
CRS-30
Rearrest for a New Sex Crime.
! Within three years of release from prison in 1994, 5.3% of the sex
offenders were rearrested for a sex crime compared to 1.3% of non-
sex offenders.
! Of sex crimes committed by sex offenders within three years of
release from prison, 40% of the sex crimes were allegedly
committed within the first 12 months.
! The oldest sex offenders (age 45 or older) had the lowest rate of
rearrest for a sex crime (3.3%).
! The more prior arrests sex offenders had for different crimes, the
greater likelihood of their being rearrested for another sex crime
after release from prison. Released sex offenders who had only been
arrested once (for the sex crime for which they were imprisoned) had
the lowest rearrest rate for a sex crime, about 3%; those with two or
three prior arrests, 6%; seven to 10 prior arrests, 7%; and 11 to 15
prior arrests, 8%.
! No clear association was shown between the lengths of prison terms
served by sex offenders and their recidivism rate.
Rearrest for a Sex Crime Against a Child.
! The released child molesters were more likely to be rearrested for
child molestation compared to the entire group of sex offenders and
to the non-sex offenders released from prison. Within the first three
years of release from prison in 1994, 3.3% of released child
molesters were rearrested for child molestation. The rate of rearrest
for a sex crime against a child for all sex offenders (a category that
also includes child molesters) was 2.2%, while the rate for all non-
sex offenders was less than half of 1%.
! Released child molesters with more than one prior arrest for child
molestation were more likely to be rearrested for the same crime
(7.3%) than those with only one such prior arrest (2.4%).
Rearrest for Any Type of Crime.
! Compared to non-sex offenders who were released from prison, the
overall rearrest rate for sex offenders was lower. When rearrests for
all types of crimes were counted, 43% of the sex offenders who were
released were rearrested, while the rearrest rate of the non-sex
offenders who were released was higher at 68%.
Reconviction for a New Sex Crime.
! Of released sex offenders, 3.5% were reconvicted for a sex crime
within the three-year follow-up period of the study.
CRS-31
Reconviction for Any Type of Crime.
! Of released sex offenders, 24% were reconvicted for a new offense;
the new offense included all types of crimes.
Returned to Prison for Any Reason.
! Within the three-year follow-up period of the study, 38.6% of the
released sex offenders returned to prison either because they were
sentenced again for a new crime or because of a technical violation
of their parole (failing a drug test or missing an appointment with
their parole officer).
Table 1. Recidivism Rate of Sex Offenders Released
from Prison in 1994, by Recidivism Measure
and Type of Sex Offender
(percentages)
All sex
Sexual
Recidivism measure
offenders
Rapists
assaulters
Within three years following release:
Rearrested for any type of crime
43.0
46.0
41.5
Reconvicted for any type of crimea
24.0
27.3
22.4
Returned to prison with a new sentence for
any type of crimeb
11.2
12.6
10.5
Returned to prison with or without a new
sentencec
38.6
43.6
36.1
Total released
9,691
3,115
6,576
Source: Patrick A. Langan et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism
of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (Washington, November 2003), table 7, p. 13.
Note: The 9,691 sex offenders were released in 15 states.
a. Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio were excluded from the calculation of percent
reconvicted.
b. “New prison sentence” includes new sentences to state or federal prisons but not to local jails.
Because of missing data, prisoners released in Ohio and Virginia were excluded from the
calculation of percent returned to prison with a new sentence.
c. “With or without a new sentence” includes prisoners with new sentences to state or federal prisons
plus prisoners returned for technical violations. Because of missing data, prisoners released in
six states (Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia) were excluded from
the calculation of percent returned to prison with or without a new sentence. New York state
custody records did not always distinguish prison returns from jail returns. Consequently, some
persons received in New York jails were probably mistakenly classified as prison returns. Also,
California with a relatively high return-to-prison rate affects the overall rate of 38.6%. When
California is excluded, the return-to-prison rate falls to 27.9%.