U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

April 1998, NCJ-168965

Papers presented by

Patty Wetterling    Ralph C. Thomas          Kirk Lonbom    
Dr. Jan M. Chaiken  Elizabeth A. Pearson     Mike Welter     
Marlene Beckman     Dena T. Sacco            Norm Maleng     
Lisa Gursky Sorkin  Robert R. Belair         Rep. Mike Lawlor     
Donna Feinberg      Floyd Epps               Sen. Florence Shapiro
James C. Swain      Kathy J. Canestrini      Roxanne Lieb     
Emmet A. Rathbun    Doug Smith               Scott A. Cooper  
                    Donna M. Uzzell

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of
Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for
Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff,
Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project
director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director. Twyla R.
Cunningham, Manager, and Eric C. Johnson, Writer/Researcher,
Corporate Communications, edited the proceedings. Jane L.
Bassett, Publishing Assistant, provided layout and design
assistance. The federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan,
Chief, National Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 96-BJ-CX-K010,
awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145,
Sacramento, California  95831.  Contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, 1998.

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to
reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part
of the copyrighted material in this publication with the
exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or
printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics.

Contents

Foreword, v

Introduction, vii

                      Keynote address     
Patty Wetterling      The Jacob Wetterling story, 3

                       Nature and management of the problem     
Dr. Jan M. Chaiken     Sex offenders and offending: 
                       Learning more from national 
                       data collection programs, 8

                       Federal panel: Wetterling Act/Megan's Law         
                       compliance issues     
Marlene Beckman        Panel introduction, 15

Lisa Gursky Sorkin     The trilogy of Federal statutes, 16

Donna Feinberg         Justice Department guideline changes 
                       and clarifications, 19

James C. Swain         Applying for a compliance deadline
extension, 22

Federal panel members  Panel question-and-answer session, 24

                       Federal funding support     
Dr. Jan M. Chaiken     Federal funding support for 
                       sex offender registries, 31

                       FBI panel: Interim and permanent solutions     
Emmet A. Rathbun       History and current status 
                       of a national sex offender registry, 37

Ralph C. Thomas        The impact of the Lychner Act, 40

                       Overview of current State laws     
Elizabeth A.Pearson    Status and latest developments in sex 
                       offender registration and notification laws, 45

                       Litigation issues      
Dena T. Sacco          Arguments used to challenge notification laws - 
                       and the government's response, 50

                       Pending legislation    
Robert R. Belair       Status of Federal legislation on sex 
                       offenders and changes to current laws, 54

                       Panel of the States: Systems for 
                       the registration of sex offenders     
Floyd Epps             Review of the New York State Sex
                       Offender Registration Act, 59

Kathy J. Canestrini    The method of risk assessment used for
                       the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, 61

Doug Smith             California's history of sex offender
                       registration requirements and response 
                       to new Federal mandates, 64

Donna M. Uzzell        The Florida sex offender registration
                       and notification system, 68

Kirk Lonbom            The Illinois registration and
                       notification system for sex offenders, 72 

Mike Welter            Development of the Illinois sex offender
                       registration and community notification program, 75 

                       The local responsibility     
Norm Maleng            The local responsibility for control and prosecution 
                       of sex offenders: Behind Washington State's history 
                       of landmark sex offender laws, 81 

                       Panel of the States: Enacting legislation     
Rep. Mike Lawlor       Creating effective sex offender legislation 
                       requires collaboration between lawmakers 
                       and justice agencies, 87

Sen. Florence Shapiro  The big picture of sex offenders
                       and public policy, 92

                       Panel of the States: Community notification and 
                       verification practices     
Roxanne Lieb           The State of Washington study of the efficacy 
                       of notification laws, 101

Scott A. Cooper        Community notification and verification
                       practices in three States, 103

                       Contributors' biographies, 109          
                       Appendix, 117          

Foreword

Americans have become increasingly angry in recent years in
response to a series of violent and highly publicized sexual
assaults, primarily against children, committed by individuals
with extensive prior sexual offense histories. This outrage has
been intensified by the perception, justified or not, that
systems traditionally used by justice agencies to monitor
law-breakers returned to the community do not adequately protect
the public from that unique category of individual known as the
sex offender.

Seeking to address the public's concern, the U.S. Congress
established three statutes that collectively require States to
strengthen the procedures they use to keep track of sex
offenders: the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (enacted in 1994),
the Federal version of "Megan's Law" (enacted in 1996), and the
Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act
(also enacted in 1996). 

In brief, the statutes require States to establish registration
programs so local law enforcement will know the whereabouts of
sex offenders released into their jurisdictions, and
notification programs so the public can be warned about sex
offenders living in the community. (The Lychner Act also
requires the creation of a national sex offender registry, and
it requires the FBI to handle registration in States that lack
"minimally sufficient" programs.) 

The States were assigned a difficult task. They were given until
September 1997 to comply with the Wetterling Act and Megan's
Law, and until October 1999 to comply with the Lychner Act.
Those that failed to meet the compliance deadlines risked losing
10 percent of their appropriation from the Federal Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program,
which provides funding for State and local crime eradication
efforts.

Compliance was complicated by the fact that both Megan's Law and
the Lychner Act amended portions of the Wetterling Act, creating
confusion as to whether the requirements of one statute
superceded those of another.  There were also questions as to
whether the registration and notification programs, once
implemented, would survive constitutional challenges based on
claims of excessive punishment, invasion of privacy and denial
of due process. Another hurdle was the growing number of
individuals who fell under the statutes' requirements. According
to data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number
of sex offenders jumped 300 percent between 1980 and 1994. In
1994, there were approximately 234,000 sex offenders under the
care, custody or control of corrections agencies - 60 percent
under conditional supervision in the community - on any given
day.

States experiencing difficulty meeting the compliance deadlines
were given the opportunity to request 2-year,
"good-faith-effort" extensions. Forty-two of the 56 States and
territories required to comply with the statutes requested
deadline extensions. It appeared the States needed guidance and
clarification to help them comply with the registration and
notification statutes.

To assist the States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, along
with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics, cosponsored the National Conference on Sex Offender
Registries, held July 16-17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington. This
publication presents the proceedings of that 2-day conference.

The conference featured presentations by Federal officials who
explained the requirements of the registration and notification
statutes in detail and who answered the questions of State
representatives. Representatives from several States presented
information on programs that their States had implemented in
response to the Federal requirements. Elected officials provided
a legislative perspective to the proceedings, and experts
updated participants on the status of legal challenges to
registration and notification programs.

Many of the problems and issue areas identified in these
proceedings were subsequently addressed or ameliorated in
Federal legislation and regulations.

The issue of sex offending is as sensitive and emotionally
charged as any faced by society. The federally required programs
are relatively new or redesigned approaches to controlling sex
offenders, and a period of time must elapse before quantitative
study can be conducted to ascertain whether they are effective.
I hope these proceedings serve during this period as a valuable
reference tool and also as a contribution to the ongoing debate
over the methods used to control sex offenders.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Introduction

In October 1989, 11-year-old Jacob Wetterling bicycled with his
brother and a friend to a store near his St. Joseph, Minnesota,
home to rent a video. Ten months later, Houston real estate
agent Pam Lychner prepared to show a vacant residence to a
prospective buyer. In July 1994, Megan Kanka, age 7, accepted an
invitation from a neighbor in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, to
see his new puppy. As they went about their daily routines,
Wetterling, Lychner and Kanka could not have known they were
fated to become crime victims, or that their names would
ultimately become synonymous with Federal laws mandating more
stringent control of sex offenders.

Wetterling's ride home was interrupted by an armed man wearing a
nylon mask who ordered the boy's companions to flee. Wetterling
has not been seen since. Investigators later learned that,
unbeknownst to local law enforcement, halfway houses in St.
Joseph housed sex offenders after their release from prison.

Wetterling's disappearance transformed his mother, Patty, a
self-described "stay-at-home mom," into a tireless advocate for
missing children. She was appointed to a governor's task force
that recommended stronger sex offender registration requirements
in Minnesota.

The more stringent requirements were subsequently implemented on
a national basis when the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was
included in the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. -1[42 U.S.C.  14071.]

The Wetterling Act required States to establish stringent
registration programs for sex offenders - including life-long
registration for a subclass of offenders classified as sexual
predators - by September 1997.

Awaiting Lychner at the vacant house was a twice-convicted felon
who brutally assaulted the former flight attendant. Her life was
saved when her husband arrived on the scene and interrupted the
attack. The experience motivated Lychner to form Justice for
All, a Texas-based victims' rights advocacy group that lobbies
for tougher sentences for violent criminals. 

U.S. Senators Phil Gramm of Texas and Joseph Biden of Delaware
credited Lychner with helping to craft the language of a bill
that established a national computer database to track sex
offenders. The bill was named the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender
Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 -2[42 U.S.C.  14072.]
to honor the activist after she and her two daughters were
killed in the explosion of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long
Island, New York, in July 1996. The Lychner Act amended the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to require
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish the national
offender database and to handle sex offender registration and
notification in States unable to maintain "minimally sufficient"
programs of their own. The Lychner Act compliance deadline is
October 1999. 

The neighbor who invited Megan Kanka to see his puppy was a
twice-convicted pedophile who raped and murdered her, then
dumped her body in a nearby park. Megan's grieving parents said
they never would have let their daughter travel their
neighborhood freely if they had been alerted to the presence of
a convicted sex offender living across the street from their
residence. Congress passed the Federal version of "Megan's Law,"
another amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, in 1996. -3[104 P.L. 145, 100 Stat.
1345.] It required States to establish some form of community
notification by September 1997.

The process of instituting a nationally consistent policy to
control sex offenders is complex. One of the greatest challenges
is the sheer magnitude of the problem. Recent figures show that,
nationally, approximately 234,000 sex offenders are under the
care, custody or control of corrections agencies - 60 percent
under conditional supervision in the community - on any given
day. 

The FBI, directed by the Lychner Act to register sex offenders
and to notify communities in States lacking "minimally
sufficient" programs, used fugitive statistics from four
California field divisions (San Diego, Los Angeles, San
Francisco and Sacramento) and information on noncompliant sex
offenders from the State's Department of Justice to study the
assignment's impact on its resources. The study found that, if
the FBI were made responsible for administering California's
program, every agent working in the four divisions at the time
of the study would have to be assigned full-time just to track
down sex offenders who failed to register as required.

There are thorny legal issues to consider as well. Individuals
subject to registration and notification programs have
challenged the statutes on constitutional grounds, citing
excessive punishment, lack of due process and invasion of
privacy. The courts have generally upheld registration
requirements, but several courts have struck down notification
programs. Many observers believe the notification controversy
will not be resolved until the U.S. Supreme Court settles the
matter.

Designing an effective sex offender registration and
notification program that can withstand legal challenges while
meeting the needs of the community is difficult, especially
within the relatively short time periods for compliance spelled
out in the Federal statutes. States that failed to meet the
statutes' compliance deadlines risked losing 10 percent of their
appropriation from the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which provides funding
for State and local crime eradication efforts. The statutes
allowed States experiencing difficulty in establishing programs
to apply for a 2-year, "good-faith-effort" deadline extension.
Forty-two of the 56 States and territories covered by the
statutes sought the extensions. 

To help States design constitutionally viable programs that meet
Federal mandates, and to contribute to the national debate over
the issue of controlling sex offenders, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice, and SEARCH, The
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
cosponsored the National Conference on Sex Offender Registries,
held in Bellevue, Washington, on July 16-17, 1997. The
conference sought to provide the States with tools needed to
implement effective registration and notification programs, and
also to provide a forum where representatives from a number of
States could exchange ideas and compare experiences. Speakers
educated State representatives on the requirements of the sex
offender-related Federal statutes, updated participants on new
legislation and legal challenges to the current statutes, and
provided as examples programs that several States implemented in
response to the Federal mandates. 

Presenters included officials from the U.S. Department of
Justice and the FBI, representatives from State and national
criminal justice organizations, and State legislators and other
State-level officials. Mrs. Patty Wetterling provided the
keynote address. This document presents the proceedings of that
conference. (Sex offenders are referred to in the male gender
throughout these proceedings, as more than 99 percent of
convicted sex offenders are men.)

Day One of the conference focused primarily on the sex offender
problem from a Federal perspective. A panel of U.S. Justice
Department officials discussed various aspects of the Federal
statutes and conducted an informative question-and-answer
session to address the specific concerns of individual States.
Day Two began with a presentation by FBI representatives
concerning preparations the Bureau is taking to assume control
of registration and notification functions in States unable to
establish their own effective programs.

The agenda then moved to a State perspective. Representatives
from several States explained procedures and programs their
States adopted in response to the Federal mandates. State and
local elected officials enlightened conference participants on
the legislative response to public demands for action. The
conference concluded with an overview of the various
notification options available to States, from passive (where
the public seeks out information) to aggressive (where the
offender is required to notify neighbors of his presence).

Mrs. Patty Wetterling, advocate for missing children and
cofounder of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, delivered the
conference's "Keynote address," in which she related the details
of her son's abduction and the emotional highs and lows that
accompanied the aftermath. She discussed the creation of the
Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which aids in the search for
missing children, and also the concern for individual rights
elected officials expressed when a task force of which Mrs.
Wetterling was a member recommended stringent registration
requirements for convicted sex offenders.

The next speaker, BJS Director Dr. Jan M. Chaiken, discussed the
general topic of the "Nature and management of the problem," in
particular what information national data collection programs
can provide on sex offenders and offending. He provided a
detailed statistical overview of violent sex crimes - including
murders, assaults on children, rape and the criminal histories
of sex offenders - to establish a national context on which to
proceed with the conference.

Dr. Chaiken reported that of the 95,000 sex offenders in State
prisons, 60,000 most likely committed their violent sex crimes
against children under age 18. The majority of those serving
time for violent sex offenses against children committed their
crimes against victims age 12 or under. He endorsed the
implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System,
which collects more detailed crime information, leading to
higher quality crime data and, ultimately, stronger laws.

Next, a panel of U.S. Justice Department officials explained
compliance issues associated with the Wetterling Act and Megan's
Law. The panel was comprised of Ms. Marlene Beckman, Special
Counsel, Office of Justice Programs (OJP); Ms. Lisa Gursky
Sorkin, Chief of Staff, Office of Policy Development; Ms. Donna
Feinberg, Office of General Counsel, OJP; and Mr. James C.
Swain, Director, State and Local Assistance Division, Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA).

Ms. Beckman served as panel moderator and also provided a brief
update on the States' progress in implementing registration and
notification laws in response to the Federal mandates. According
to Ms. Beckman, 39 States had sex offender registration programs
prior to the enactment of the Jacob Wetterling Act; now, all 50
States have registration programs in place. She added that only
6 States had enacted community notification laws prior to
passage of the Federal version of Megan's Law, but as of July
1997, 45 States had passed notification legislation.

Ms. Sorkin spoke next on the interrelationship between the three
Federal statutes. She explained that the Jacob Wetterling Act
places four major obligations on States: they must require
certain offenders to register, maintain accurate registries,
maintain and distribute registry information to law enforcement,
and disclose information to the public when necessary for public
safety. Megan's Law then amended the Wetterling Act to make
community notification mandatory rather than at the discretion
of law enforcement.

She added that the Pam Lychner Act added three more
requirements: it obligates the FBI to establish a national
database to track the whereabouts and movements of sex
offenders, it requires the FBI to handle sex offender
registration in States that fail to meet the Act's definition of
"minimally sufficient" systems, and it amends the Wetterling Act
to make registration requirements more stringent. 

In her presentation, Ms. Feinberg explained the various
registration and notification methods States could implement to
comply with the Federal mandates. Not all States utilize the
same procedures, Ms. Feinberg said, and variations of programs
can be used as long as the basics of the three statutes are met.
She also explained the steps a State needs to follow to apply
for a 2-year, "good-faith-effort" compliance deadline extension. 

Mr. Swain elaborated on Ms. Feinberg's comments on deadline
extension applications, and explained the process BJA staff
would use to evaluate extension requests. Panel presentations
were followed by a question-and-answer session, which provided
an opportunity for individual State representatives to seek
solutions for their unique problems. 

Dr. Chaiken's second address - "Federal funding support for sex
offender registries" - concluded Day One of the conference. He
indicated that programs to improve sex offender registries would
most likely be coordinated with ongoing efforts to improve
criminal history records through the National Criminal History
Improvement Program, which the BJS has administered since 1995.
He also said that if the Federal statutes are to achieve their
desired results, proper safeguards must be designed so the
public receives the information it needs while restricted
information is made available only to individuals authorized to
view it.

Day Two of the Conference began with presentations on "Interim
and permanent solutions" by two FBI representatives: Mr. Emmet
A. Rathbun, Unit Chief, Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division, and Mr. Ralph C. Thomas, Supervisory Special
Agent, Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit, Criminal
Investigative Division. 

Mr. Rathbun spoke on the FBI's efforts to establish a National
Sexual Offender Registry, indicating that the CJIS Advisory
Policy Board (APB) initiated discussions in 1995 on the benefits
of such a registry and began to consider where it should be
housed. Since the Wetterling Act already directed States to
develop offender databases, the APB decided to recommend the
creation of an index at the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) listing the State database or agency that maintained the
detailed registrant information. Sensing no urgency for the
national registry, the APB delayed action until the
implementation of NCIC 2000, Mr. Rathbun said.

He said the timetable changed when President Clinton issued a
directive in June 1996 instructing the Attorney General to
prepare in 2 months a plan to implement a national sexual
predator and child molester registration system. The directive
made it necessary for the FBI to develop an interim national
registry until NCIC 2000 is delivered. He said the FBI's interim
solution called for a link from the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (which is used to track Federal
parolees and probationers) to each State's sex offender
database. The FBI delivered the interim provisions for use in
February 1997, he added.

Mr. Thomas spoke on the "very serious implications" of the
Lychner Act provision requiring the FBI to handle sex offender
registration in States that lack "minimally sufficient"
programs. He said it was difficult to measure the provision's
impact as it had not yet been determined how many States needed
assistance, although it appeared there were more than originally
anticipated. According to Mr. Thomas, registration
responsibilities, address verification, the search for
non-compliant offenders and community notification placed a
significant burden on FBI resources.

Ms. Elizabeth A. Pearson, Staff Associate and Congressional
Liaison for the National Criminal Justice Association, spoke
next, providing an overview of current State sex offender
registration and notification laws. Ms. Pearson said most State
programs contained these common features: 

* The State maintained the registry but information is supplied
by local law enforcement agencies; 

* Information typically collected included the offender's name,
address, photograph, birth date and social security number;

* The timeframe to register ran from immediately after release
to 30 days after release;

* Most registries were updated only when an offender changed his
address; and

* Most laws applied equally to offenders who were convicted in
other States.

Ms. Pearson then discussed differences in State programs and
reviewed the history and evolution of registration and
notification laws. She said California established the first sex
offender registry in 1947 and that 38 States had established
registries since 1994. The State of Washington created the first
notification law in 1990, Ms. Pearson said, and as of July 1997,
only five States had not implemented notification procedures.

Ms. Dena T. Sacco, an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department,
spoke next on litigation issues, in particular, "Arguments used
to challenge notification laws - and the government's response."
She said Federal registration and notification statutes were
usually challenged on three constitutional claims: excessive
punishment, invasion of privacy and lack of due process. 

State and Federal governments countered that the laws were not
designed for punishment but for community protection and that
most of the information released during notification was already
a matter of public record, Ms. Sacco said. Governments also
argued that there were no constitutionally protected privacy
interests, and that due process protections did not apply to the
statutes because they did not threaten the liberty of
registrants.

Ms. Sacco said several lower courts and the Kansas Supreme Court
have struck down notification statutes, and she predicted that
the issue may not be resolved until it is considered by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

SEARCH General Counsel Robert R. Belair spoke next on the status
of two pieces of legislation currently before the Congress which
would clarify portions of the Wetterling Act relating to
registration requirements. -4 [The legislation is H.R. 1683 and
S. 767, both titled the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children
and Sexually Violent Offenders Registration Improvement Act of
1997. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1683 on
September 23, 1997, and sent it to the Senate. The Senate,
meanwhile, referred S. 767 to its Judiciary Committee on May 20,
1997.] Mr. Belair said enactment of the legislation would
enhance the flexibility of current registration requirements,
extend reporting requirements to military and Federal offenders,
and improve the ability to track offenders who live in one State
but work in another. 

The next portion of the agenda, "Panel of the States: Systems
for the registration of sex offenders," featured presentations
from New York, California, Florida and Illinois officials on the
sex offender registration and notification programs their States
implemented in response to the Federal statutes. 

Mr. Floyd Epps and Ms. Kathy J. Canestrini, members of the New
York State Board of Sex Offender Examiners, discussed an
assessment process their program uses to estimate the risk of
reoffense by offenders released into the community. Factors such
as prior felony convictions, number of victims, victim age and
other issues were considered by the Board when assigning a risk
level of 1 to 3 to a released offender. The risk level
determined the breadth of notification. As of July 1997, the
Board assigned a Level 3 risk assessment the highest level
possible - to 52 percent of the 1,540 cases it reviewed.
Thirty-nine percent received a Level 2 risk assessment and 9
percent received a Level 1 assessment.

Mr. Doug Smith, Chief of the Bureau of Criminal Information and
Analysis for the California Department of Justice, related the
history of sex offender laws in his State, which in 1947 became
the first in the Nation to require offenders to register.
California's version of Megan's Law was passed in September
1996, Mr. Smith said. Notification was provided by way of a
CD-ROM, which listed 64,000 registered sex offenders and was
available to view at 400 locations. Information will be updated
four times a year, and the State adds approximately 3,000 new
registrants annually. According to Mr. Smith, California also
allowed police to notify possible at-risk individuals and the
community at large when a registered sex offender was nearby. 

Ms. Donna M. Uzzell, Director of Criminal Justice Information
Services for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE),
discussed the history and implementation of her State's
registration and notification programs. Ms. Uzzell said
Florida's registration program was initiated in 1993 and was
amended several times to add and expand notification features.
The FDLE maintains a World Wide Web site where users can search
for registered sex offenders by county, city or by the
offender's last name. -5 [The Web address is:
www.fdle.state.fl.us/.] Florida also provides a toll-free
telephone number that residents can call to determine whether
any registered offenders live in their communities. -6[The
toll-free number is: 1-888-357-3332 (or 1-888-FL-PREDATOR).]

Presentations by Illinois State Police officials Mr. Kirk
Lonbom, Assistant Chief of the Intelligence Bureau, and Mr. Mike
Welter, Chief of the Violent Crimes Section, concluded the panel
on State registration and notification systems. 

Mr. Lonbom said Illinois used two statewide electronic
information systems to keep track of sex offenders. Mr. Welter,
in turn, reported that notification was carried out in three
phases:

* First, each school and child-care facility was given a list of
sex offenders living in the county where the school or facility
is located. 

* Second, each law enforcement agency in Illinois had the
discretion to provide sex offender information to any group or
individual likely to encounter the offender. 

* Third, any person authorized to view the sex offender registry
could access on-line information at any local police department
or sheriff's office.

The aggressive nature of the Illinois registration program was
demonstrated by the fact that among those registered were an
86-year-old man, a quadriplegic, an individual in the Federal
Witness Protection Program, and a man in a coma at the time of
registration, Mr. Welter said.

King County (Washington) Prosecutor Norm Maleng provided a local
perspective on controlling and prosecuting sex offenders. He
said Washington State enacted the Nation's first notification
law in 1990. Mr. Maleng said the law was prompted by several
highly publicized sex crimes committed by individuals with long
sex offense histories who received no treatment while
incarcerated. Mr. Maleng discussed the importance of
registration programs as an aid to investigations and related a
story concerning the quick apprehension of a suspect in an
attempted rape who was tracked down by officers using registry
information.

In a second panel of the States, Rep. Mike Lawlor of the
Connecticut General Assembly and Sen. Florence Shapiro of the
Texas State Senate explained the legislative response to
community pressure for action.

In a frank presentation, Rep. Lawlor revealed that the
Connecticut Legislature's rush to implement sex offender
programs resulted in several mistakes that took several
subsequent legislative sessions to correct. He said legislators
were unaware, for example, that most individuals tried for sex
crimes against children in Connecticut are convicted of "risk of
injury to a minor," which was left off a list created by the
legislature of crimes that carried a registration requirement.
He advised elected officials to consult with a wide variety of
criminal justice professionals before writing legislation to
address sex offense and other crime-related problems.

Sen. Shapiro said she became involved in sex offense issues
following the 1993 murder of 7-year-old Ashley Estelle, who was
snatched from a playground while her parents were nearby. The
murderer was a convicted sex offender released from prison
shortly before the crime after serving only 17 months of a
10-year sentence, Sen. Shapiro said. She said an investigation
revealed 34 specific errors made by the Texas criminal justice
system in the prosecution and incarceration of the man prior to
the murder of Ashley Estelle.

The incident provided Texas with three harsh lessons, Sen.
Shapiro said: 

1. Clear communication between agencies is critical to ensure
proper monitoring of offenders as they move from one agency's
responsibility to another. 

2. Sound public policy is crucial to the enactment of effective
laws to control sex offenders. 

3. A comprehensive legislative and administrative approach that
takes in all factors of sex offending is necessary to create and
implement successful programs.

The conference concluded with a final panel of the States that
focused on community notification and verification practices
throughout the country. Panel members Ms. Roxanne Lieb, Director
of the Washington State Institute of Public Policy, and Mr.
Scott A. Cooper, Staff Attorney with the National Criminal
Justice Association, discussed sex offender programs that
various States have implemented. 

Ms. Lieb also provided the results of a recent Washington State
study that examined the impact of notification programs on the
recidivism patterns of sex offenders released from
incarceration. She said the study compared the rearrest rates of
a group of offenders released before notification procedures
were implemented to those of a group of offenders released after
notification procedures were in place. 

According to Ms. Lieb, the study found that the two groups
committed about the same number of new sex offenses, but those
who committed new offenses after notification procedures were in
place were arrested after spending 2 to 2 1/2 years in the
community compared to about 5 years for the other set of
offenders. 

Mr. Cooper discussed the approaches three States have taken to
comply with Federal sex offender mandates. He said Alaska
provides passive notification, which requires interested parties
to submit information request forms and pay a $10 fee, while
Louisiana's notification law is unique in that it requires the
offender to conduct his own notification to every residence or
business in a one-mile radius in rural areas, or to every
residence or business in a three-block area in urban areas.
Louisiana courts can also require a convicted offender to put a
bumper sticker on his car or wear clothing indicating that he is
a convicted sex offender, although that provision of the law had
not been enforced as of July 1997, Mr. Cooper said.

New Jersey, like New York, uses a risk assessment scale to
determine the level of notification for released offenders, he
said. Several court decisions based on constitutional challenges
helped clarify New Jersey's law.

Mention and thanks are given here to Mr. Ronald P. Hawley, who
ably served as conference moderator. Mr. Hawley is Assistant
Director of the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation's
Division of Criminal Information and is also Chair of SEARCH's
Law and Policy Project Advisory Committee.

The Jacob Wetterling story

PATTY WETTERLING

Children's Rights Advocate

The Jacob Wetterling Foundation

I am truly honored to be a part of this very exciting
opportunity to make the sex offender registries law better and
more workable in every State. A complete stranger sent me a
verse from a song called "Hope," which we have lived on for the
last 7 1/2 years. It is about beginnings. I would like to start
with that.

Hope is intimately tied to beginnings, of this I'm certain.
You're not going to start anything without hope of a successful
conclusion. Unless you hope strongly, intensely enough, you may
never start at all. In any endeavor, two-thirds of the battle is
won simply by taking the first step. All too often through the
years I've let myself be held back by lack of confidence, fear
of failure, sometimes just plain inertia or laziness. But I've
learned that if you force yourself to make the first move,
mighty forces will come to aid. The act of beginning starts the
flow of power, but those who never begin never feel that power.
Between hope and action lies a chasm deep but also narrow. It
can be bridged by an act of will, a decision that says firmly,
"Yes, I will take steps to make this hope a reality, and I will
take the first step now." Hope, the spark that ignites the
actions that make the dream come true.

We have had a dream for Jacob for 7 1/2 years. I thought it
might be helpful to share with you where sex offender registry
legislation came from and why it is so critical for us.

My husband and I went to a housewarming party on October 22,
1989. We called home to give the children the phone number where
we were. My son, Trevor, answered the telephone and we gave him
the number. 

Our older daughter was not home that night. Jacob, his best
friend, Aaron, and Trevor were babysitting their younger sister,
Carmen. Trevor called back and said, "We're bored. There's
nothing to do. Can we ride our bikes to the store and rent a
video?" From our house to the video store is less than 10
minutes by bike. We live in a town of 3,000 people, but I said
no. It was starting to get dark, and they had never done this
before. Trevor said, "Well, let me talk to Dad." My husband,
Jerry said, "If you wear my jogging vest (which is reflective)
and take a flashlight, and put a white sweatshirt on Aaron, and
if you go straight to the store and come straight back, it
should be okay." 

I truly believe it should have been okay. They called another
time. I do not know if any of you are parents, but this was the
third time we talked to our kids that night. "Carmen doesn't
want to go," the kids said. "Is it okay if Rochelle comes over
to babysit?" These were responsible kids who arranged a
babysitter for their younger sister.

The next call came from a neighbor's dad who told us two of the
kids came back from the store, but somebody had taken Jacob.
They were biking home from the store when they looked up and saw
a man with a gun standing in the road. He told the kids to get
off of their bikes and to lie down in the ditch or he would
shoot them. He asked their ages, which is still confusing to me.
Trevor was 10 years old and Aaron and Jacob were 11 years old.
The man with the gun told Trevor to run into the woods as fast
as he could or he would shoot him, so Trevor took off. He said
the exact same words to Aaron, and Aaron took off. But as Aaron
was leaving, he saw the man grab Jacob's shoulder. When Aaron
caught up to Trevor and they felt safe enough to turn around and
look back, Jacob and the man were gone. 

Nobody saw the man's face. He wore a mask. They did track
Jacob's footsteps to where a car had been parked, so they know
they left in a car. It was a generic tire track on a dusty,
gravel road in October. The police have gathered little
information since then; basically, we have no more than we had
that very first night.

No matter what preparations you make, nothing prepares you for a
high-profile investigation of a missing child case. One local
television station assembled a film clip of activities during
the first year Jacob was missing. The clip shows I was blessed
with a sheriff who left no stone unturned. He had been a sheriff
for years and years. He called in 20-year-old favors, asking,
"Can you do this for me?" He pulled in everybody. 

We had our State crime bureau, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension (BCA), involved. The FBI became involved the first
night because Jacob's classmate was the son of an FBI agent and
because there was a weapon used. They knew this was an unusual
case right away. 

The police used all-terrain vehicles and horses to search for
Jacob. Everybody in the entire Midwest was aware of his
abduction. The Minnesota Vikings wanted to wear "Jacob's hope"
hats at a game. The National Football League said no, so the
Vikings waited for a home game and then they all wore their hats
on the sidelines as Jacob's picture was projected on to the
Metrodome highlight screen. The effect was phenomenal. People
joined hands for Jacob. The line stretched for 5 miles. The
sheriff's department told me the line would have been longer,
but this happened in Minnesota in the winter. People were
huddled together, shivering with cold, in many places. This huge
outpouring of support is still heartening to me. 

We still have no suspect. We have no proof that Jacob is not
alive. 

I remember a sense of helplessness in the beginning. I remember
crawling into bed, pulling the covers over my head and thinking,
"I can't do this. It's too hard." I had this image of Jacob
laying somewhere pulling covers over his head and thinking, " I
can't do this. They're never going to find me."  

At that point, we made a very conscious decision that we were
going to do something about this issue. I began asking
questions. I was lucky enough to be a stay-at-home mom. I knew a
lot about childhood things, but I knew nothing about child
abduction, so I asked a lot of questions. I still ask questions.
I think one of the complicated issues is that most people are
ignorant about those who violate children. We do not function in
their world, which is why sex offenders continue to find
victims. 

When Jacob was abducted, law enforcement had no experience
running a missing child investigation. Police train for all
kinds of situations, but at that point, 7 years ago, there was
not much training for this type of investigation. 

I learned that most abductions are short-term, lasting a few
hours. Most of the time, it is not a stranger who victimizes a
child. The way Jacob was taken was extremely rare. Most victims
get tricked or lured by someone they know. The number one reason
for kidnapping is for sexual purposes. We truly have to stop the
child molester if we are going to stop kidnappings.     

I want to read the profile of the person who may have abducted
Jacob, because I think it is key. Consider how this profile
might be relevant to community notification and sex offender
registration. It reads, "The following is a profile of persons
who have committed crimes similar to the abduction of Jacob
Wetterling. Agents assigned to the FBI Academy's Behavioral
Science Unit at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent
Crime compiled the profile. Construction of a criminal
personality profile is predicated upon careful and objective
analysis of victimology and crime-scene data coupled with
behavioral possibilities arising from study and extensive
research in similar cases. 

"The offender is likely to be a white male between the ages of
25 to 35 years old; very low self-image; likely to have
committed a similar crime in the past; may have some physical
deformity; and is likely to have had a recent stressful event in
his life which would have precipitated the high-risk approach
taken in this crime. The high-risk approach also indicates the
offender may have attempted similar acts recently and failed.
The offender is likely to be in an unskilled or semi-skilled job
that does not include contact with the public. Persons who know
the offender would likely notice heightened anxiety on the
offender's part since the crime occurred."

"What do you need?" I asked law enforcement. "What would help
you find Jacob?"  The police responded, "It would have helped to
know who was in the area at the time of Jacob's abduction." We
found out sex offenders were being sent to our region by another
county, and they were put in halfway houses. Our local law
enforcement did not know these halfway houses were for sex
offenders. When police went to find out who was living in the
halfway houses when Jacob was taken, they were told, "We're not
going to tell you. There are privacy issues to consider." You
could find out who was staying at the Holiday Inn or Super 8
motels.  Information on noncriminals was available, but not
information on sex offenders. Well, police got the information
they were looking for, and then the law was corrected because it
did not make sense. A lot of the things did not make sense at
the time. 

There was a man arrested for burglary in St. Cloud a year and a
half after Jacob's abduction. When police ran a criminal history
check on him, they found he had victimized young boys in his
past. He lived closer to the abduction site than we do, but
police did not know about this person at the time. It would
really help law enforcement to know. Just knowing who is in the
area is a good tool. 

This information can also be used to clear suspects right away,
rather than searching for them for years, finding out they were
not involved and then having to go back to the beginning. I was
appointed to a governor's task force in Minnesota to look at
this problem and to suggest solutions. We did not jump into
legislation right away. I did not have the knowledge at the
time, and I would encourage you to avoid reactionary legislation
because it is not the best way to proceed. It is not well
planned.

Eventually, we came up with a proposal to have sex offender
registration in Minnesota. I was appointed by a governor who
lost his next election. When we went to report our findings, we
had to report to a new governor. We said we wanted to have sex
offender registration. He looked me straight in the eye and
said, "You can't do that. These people have rights." 

That was the wrong thing to say to me at the time. We got our
legislation. We proceeded in Minnesota very carefully. We are
not trying to violate anyone's rights. We tried to give police
some tools we felt that they could use. After we got sex
offender registration legislation passed in Minnesota, we went
for Federal legislation. In 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno
signed a proclamation to develop a system to connect all 50
State sex offender registries. Whether it is working or not, I
think it is a good idea. 

At the signing of the crime bill after our Federal legislation
passed, we met Megan Kanka's parents. Megan, as you know, was
kidnapped and murdered by someone who had committed these types
of crimes before. This was not the first set of parents I met
whose children were victims of crime.  

Jeanna North, who was kidnapped, still has not been found. A man
who was living on the corner where she was last seen who had a
history of victimizing little girls in South Dakota admitted to
kidnapping and murdering Jeanna in North Dakota. He has not been
charged with the crime even though he provided a full
confession. He is serving 30 years in prison for victimizing two
other little girls. I continually hear from these parents. If
only we had known.

That statement implies that increased knowledge will lead to
change. When you are out alerting the public that a sex offender
is going to be released into the community, anticipate change.
That is why you are spreading the information, so people can
respond differently and protect their children. Not knowing is a
greater risk.    

How you release the information is critical. The media like to
highlight cases where notification did not work or where
somebody was harassed. They do not want to report on all the
instances when notification worked. When letting people know
that a sex offender is being released into their community, we
must tell them how they should respond. We are giving them the
information so they can take precautions. The media also like to
play around with the word "stranger." We know stranger is a
ridiculous word. I hear law enforcement using it all the time,
but people do not know who a stranger is. What is a stranger?
Kids do not know. One time, I was talking to a group of social
workers and a little 5-year-old girl said, "Mommy, Jacob was
abducted by a stranger, wasn't he?"  I was impressed; 5 years
old. The girl's mommy said, "Yes, he was." The little girl said,
"I'm so glad we don't know any strangers." Brilliant thought -
once you know them, they are not strangers anymore. 

Sex offenders victimize children by gaining their trust. We are
not just telling kids to beware of the "stranger" who is moving
into their community. We are denying that stranger the
opportunity to befriend children so he cannot victimize them. It
is so important to remember the intent of this bill. I feel we
worked really hard in Minnesota so our intent was clear. Our
intent is to have fewer victims. We want to prevent sex
offenders released from prison from violating other children. 

We are not going to make it easy for them to have innocent
victims because people are going to know their style. They are
going to know what these people have done in the past. Another
question you need to ask is, "Who is good at talking to
communities to calm them down?" People are going to be angry.
They are going to ask a lot of questions.

There is a lot of concern because sex offender registries are
unfunded mandates. The Minnesota registry is unfunded as well.
The Minneapolis Police Department decided that if it was going
to have to notify the people, it was going to do it right.
Before police began the notification process, they held
community meetings and met with people in every single precinct
in the city. They educated the community. These people are
living among us now, the police said. You are only going to be
told about a few individuals, but here is some basic knowledge
to stay safe. The police did that with no additional funding. We
had smaller departments saying, "We cannot afford to do this." 
Minneapolis was not given extra money to do it. The police just
decided they were going to do it, they were going to do it
right, and they were going to do a good job, and they have. 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution just ran an in-depth series on
sexual predators titled "Why Megan's Law is Not Enough." We hear
a lot about what is wrong with notification laws. They are a
start. They are tools that are only as good as those who use
them. I know many people have been arrested in Minnesota simply
for not registering as sex offenders. They are back in jail.
That is a good step.

We set up a model policy task force through our Police Officers
Standards and Training Board, and I was really intrigued by the
process. When Jacob was first kidnapped, I assumed the whole
world was working together to try and find him. Boy, was I
wrong. Agencies do not always cooperate. The sheriff's
department was not necessarily used to working with the BCA and
FBI. All of this was foreign to them, but they did a good job.
They pulled together. 

When I sat through this task force for model policy, I learned
that turf battles happen everywhere. Law enforcement sometimes
blames the Department of Corrections, and the Department of
Corrections blames the probation or parole officers, and they
think the treatment people are at fault, and what about social
services? It is easy to throw blame around. You should think
about this the next time you find yourself saying, "We are doing
our job, but they are not." 

You could call a victim's parents and explain to them why the
investigation is not working and see what you can do to make it
better. See what you can do to improve communication between
agencies. Maybe another visit to the legislature is necessary to
make the notification law more efficient. Education does not
happen just with people in your community. I had to educate our
governor as to why we were going to do this. We are constantly
educating legislators so they know what we need.

Since most sex offenders are not in prison, the people in the
community need to know what they are supposed to be watching out
for - not just for one offender who is going to be released but
for all those already living in the community. When notification
meetings are held in Minnesota, the community hears about
general safety for 30 minutes and then 5 minutes are devoted to
the specific person being released. I think that is important,
because the law does not cover areas that people need to be
aware of. 

A lot depends on attitude. Attitude is everything in terms of
how you go after these people. Our intent is to have fewer
victims. We want to prevent these people from harming other
children. 

We need to educate. We do not want kids walking around scared.
We want them to walk around smart. We get phone calls and
letters from parents whose kids escaped from attempted
abductions because they knew what to do. We are trying for fewer
victims. I do not want to see another family live through what
our family has gone through. 

We need cooperation. There are other agencies within your
communities. There are sexual assault centers with speakers
available. Use resources that are there. Call the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
(1-800-THE-LOST). It can provide an overview of this issue that
none of us are going to get individually. There are also
nonprofits that work for missing children. 

We formed a professional organization called the Association of
Missing and Exploited Children's Organizations (AMECO). These
are organizations that help find missing children and help law
enforcement, and they will also help you get legislation passed.
They have speakers and they go after those who victimize
children. 

You may know about Morgan Nick, who was kidnapped in Alma,
Arkansas. Morgan's mother, my friend Colleen Nick, often says
that one person with a vision is worth 99 people with just an
interest. It will take all of us to build a world worthy of our
children.

I want to thank you for taking the time to work on this problem
together. I want to thank the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, and SEARCH, The National Consortium for
Justice Information and Statistics, and everybody who organized
this conference. It is very exciting. You have a chance to see
what is working in our communities so you can fight to have it
in your community. Find out how we can make registries work and
what needs to change. 

We know kids are getting smarter. We know communities are
getting smarter. We do have the right to go after those who
violate our kids. I cannot ever address a group of children
without talking about hope. The NCMEC has given us information
on many cases involving children who come home after long
periods of time. Most of those come home because of law
enforcement, but not always. Everyday citizens who are aware of
those who victimize children call the police. 

We need to know that all the pieces are in place for our
children to come home. We can never give up. I know of a man
from Minnesota who was reunited with his family after 26 years.
I hope it does not take us that long to find Jacob. I would like
you to personalize these 2 days and take your work to heart.
Never give up, and never forget about our missing kids.

I would like to end with a verse that was given to me by one of
Jacob's classmates. It was written 5 years after Jacob was
abducted. It is called "Ode to Jacob."

My song is twice as loud now because I have to sing for the both
of us. I sing of the joy, pain, and growth I'm living, and for
your life, a life I hope has song. I hope the man who forgot
what innocence is allows you to sing, even if it's in your
heart. I hope one day the song we all sing together will reach
his ears, because that'll be the day you can join us and sing
the harmony.

I want to thank all of you for the work you do every day. I do
not know if you are aware of the impact it has on our lives.
When we need you, you are there and you have something in place
to help us. I want to extend an offer to help you if you need me
in any way to make registry laws more effective so we can
protect our kids. I would like to do that for you. Thank you. I
hope you have a very successful conference.

------------------------------------
Sex offenders and offending:
------------------------------------

Learning more from national data collection programs

DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

National sex offender registries are the outgrowth of increased
technical capability and evolving public awareness of the new
uses that can be made of offender information recorded at each
step in the criminal justice system. The public safety interest
in this information and evolving public demand for greater
knowledge about criminal justice system operations reaffirm the
importance of good criminal history record information and the
benefit of statistically measuring the government's response to
crime. These two issues are fundamental concerns of the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS). 

Understanding sex offending and its consequences require good
record keeping on both offenders and victims. This means the
development of a continuing partnership among the various
government components responsible for responding to sex
offenders and sex-offense victims and for measuring how well we
are addressing this very fundamental public concern. 

NIBRS - The next generation of crime information

Today BJS, the FBI and SEARCH are working toward nationwide
implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS), a statistical and records management system that takes
us to the next generation of information about crime and
offending. Today, we are also talking about the improvement of a
criminal records infrastructure which is complete, accurate,
timely and, most importantly, which can be shared across
jurisdictions. What is known about an offender in one place will
soon be instantly known in other places where that offender may
travel or settle. Together, these two developing national
efforts pave the way toward a more sophisticated understanding
of the many varieties of sex offenders and sex offending. 

Handgun crimes, domestic violence, hate crimes and violent sex
offenses have been the principal stimuli for improving our data
on crime and offenders. These improvements, however, will impact
all types of crimes and victims, and we will know a great deal
more about those who commit crime. 

At BJS, we view NIBRS in this historical context of crime
statistics development: How do we get closer to measuring and
describing the actual crime phenomenon itself? NIBRS data permit
the collection of comparable information across jurisdictions
about the crime, the victim, the offender and the environment in
which their interaction occurs. NIBRS also captures the
uniqueness of the crime problem in each participating
jurisdiction. 

Rather than a narrow group of 8 Index offenses meant to
approximate what is happening with crime, NIBRS collects
information on 57 types of crimes - 46 Group A crimes and 11
Group B crimes. For the first time ever in law enforcement
statistics, NIBRS provides a forum for crime victims by
providing detailed information about who the victims are, how
many offenders they faced in an incident, if they have any
relationship to those who offended against them, and the
consequences of the crime to them in lost property and injuries
suffered. 

Incident data are critical to our knowledge of violent sex
crimes where the victim can be of either sex, where the age of
the victim can be known, where a relationship between victim and
offender, if any, can be described, where the type of sex
offense can be characterized, and where victim injuries can be
catalogued. It is the diary of the violent sex offense victim's
experience as recorded by a police officer. 

In many ways, NIBRS will expand information about violent sex
crimes similar to the way the Supplementary Homicide Reports
(SHR) expand our knowledge and understanding of murder and
non-negligent manslaughter. For example, the SHR allows us to
examine in great detail murders that arise from rapes or sexual
assaults. 

----------------------------------------------------
Detailed knowledge on sexual assault murders
----------------------------------------------------

An estimated 427,000 murders occurred in the United States
between 1976 and 1995. Circumstances surrounding the murder were
known in about 333,000 of these murders, or in about 8 out of
10. In those murders where the details of the crime were known,
about 4,900 murders, or approximately 1 in 68 murders, involved
a rape or other violent sex offense. In 1995, murders involving
rape and other sex offenses accounted for about 0.8 percent of
all murders with known circumstances. That is about the same
percentage as in 1993 and 1994, but well below the peak of 1.9
percent of all murders established in the latter part of the
1970s.

About 95 percent of the offenders in sexual assault murders were
male, compared to 87 percent of the offenders in all other types
of murder. About 6 in 10 sexual assault murderers were white,
while less than half of the offenders in all murders were white.
Sexual assault murderers were, on average, 5 years younger than
all murderers - 26 years old for sexual assault murderers
compared to 31 years old for all murderers. Half were age 24 or
younger. 

Knives were the most commonly used weapons in sexual assault
murders, accounting for 29 percent of the murders. Firearms were
used in 17 percent of sexual assault murders; blunt objects were
used in 13 percent; hands and feet were used in 20 percent; and
other methods, such as asphyxiation or poisoning, accounted for
about 22 percent. 

About 82 percent of sexual assault murder victims were female.
This is quite a large percentage when you consider that, in all
murders, 24 percent of the victims were female. About two-thirds
of sexual assault murder victims were white, while about half of
all murder victims are white. Victims averaged about 32 years of
age, and about 1 in 4 were under the age of 18. 

In fact, among murder victims age 13 to 17, rape or sexual
assault occurred in more than 3 percent of the cases; this is
higher than the percentage found among any other victim age
group. Sexual assault murders were about twice as likely as all
murders to involve victims and offenders who were strangers: 39
percent of sexual assault murders and 21 percent of all murders
involved victims and offenders who had no prior relationship. 

---------------------------------------------------
More data sought on sexual assaults of children
---------------------------------------------------

Except for the aggregate counts of forcible rape of a female
victim from Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics, little is
known from current law enforcement data about the factors
associated with recorded crimes involving rape or attempted
rape. The goal of NIBRS is to extract more useful data from
information collected at a crime scene so we can maximize the
use of that information. With the advent of NIBRS, the kinds of
information about crime previously available only for murder and
non-negligent manslaughter can now be used in the analysis of
other crimes, particularly violent crimes. 

A police chief interested in learning whether more sexual
assaults against children were occurring in his or her
jurisdiction could easily focus attention on those rapes and
sexual assaults - regardless of the victims' sex- where the
victim was under age 18. The chief could then compare the rates
of occurrence, taking into account the number of age-eligible
youth in the population, to other NIBRS jurisdictions. 

Mr. Lawrence Greenfeld, principal deputy director of BJS,
recently conducted a study of imprisoned offenders whose victims
were children under age 18. Utilizing BJS's National Survey of
Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, a self-report survey
conducted among nearly 14,000 State prisoners every 5 years, he
learned something from incarcerated sex offenders that, to our
knowledge, had never been reported anywhere before. Two-thirds
of all offenders serving time in State prisons for rape or
sexual assault had a victim under age 18. 

Since there are an estimated 95,000 sex offenders in State
prisons today, well over 60,000 most likely committed their
violent sex crime against a child under age 18. This finding is
consistent with BJS data on rape from 12 States- which did not
include sexual assault and was limited to female victims that
showed more than half the victims were under 18. 

What is even more shocking is that for the majority of these
prisoners serving time for violent sex crimes against children,
their victims were age 12 and under. This really makes the case
as to why this type of information needs to be collected at the
incident level. BJS repeatedly emphasizes that there are few
things more important for police departments to record about
crime than basic information on the victimization of children,
especially young children. 

-------------------------------------
Examining NIBRS data on rape
-------------------------------------

In order to give a clear example of the utility of NIBRS data
for improving our understanding of violent sex offenses, I will
review some of the interesting findings obtained from the first
batch of NIBRS data submitted to the FBI. (BJS received data
tapes for calendar year 1991 from the first 3 participating
States - Alabama, North Dakota and South Carolina. These 3
States account for about 3.3 percent of the U.S. population. BJS
staff decided to focus its first data analysis on rapes. These 3
States account for 3.4 percent of rapes reported nationwide.)

About 10 percent of the rapes in the 3 States did not conform to
the UCR definition of forcible rape for these three reasons: 

* in 8.7 percent of the rapes, the victims were male; 

* in 0.8 percent, both the victim and offender were female; or 

* in 0.2 percent, the victim was male and the offender was
female. 

Rape victims were about evenly divided between whites and
blacks. In about 88 percent of forcible rapes, the victim and
offender were of the same race. About 80 percent of the rape
victims were under the age of 30, and about half of these were
under the age of 18. Victims younger than 12 years of age
accounted for 15 percent of those raped, and another 29 percent
of rape victims were between the ages of 12 and 17. Among the
youngest victims of rape- those less than 12 years old - the
victim knew the offender nearly 90 percent of the time. 

According to law enforcement agencies reporting these data, 43
percent of these young victims were assaulted by family members,
almost 4 times the proportion found among victims age 30 or
older (11 percent). Older victims (age 30 or older) were about
12 times as likely as the youngest victims (less than age 12) to
have been raped by a stranger (36 percent versus 3 percent). 

Among victims age 18 to 29 - the largest age group of rape
victims - about two-thirds had a prior relationship with the
rapist, but the rapists were 7 times as likely to have been
acquaintances as opposed to family members (57 percent versus 8
percent). Just over 40 percent of the rapists were age 30 or
older, about twice the percentage of victims of this age group
(41 percent versus 20 percent). About 1 in 8 rapists was a
juvenile offender (under age 18). In 9 out of 10 rapes where the
offender was under age 18, the victim was under age 18 as well. 

Just over 60 percent of the rapes took place in a residence.
About 1 in 3 rapes by a stranger took place in a residence,
while 9 of every 10 family rapes occurred in a residence. The 3
States collectively averaged 8 rapes a day, ranging from 11 per
day on Saturdays to 6 per day on Wednesdays. Nearly one-third of
the rapes took place between midnight and 4 a.m. and there was
little variation in time of day by the victim/offender
relationship or by the location where the rape occurred. The
largest percentage of rapes occurred during the 12-hour block
between 8 p.m. Friday and 8 a.m. Saturday. 

Five percent of the rapes involved the use of a gun, 7 percent
involved a knife, and 80 percent involved the use of physical
force only. Rape by a stranger involved the use of a gun 10
percent of the time, about 5 times as likely as family rapes (2
percent). About 8 percent of rapes committed by ex-spouses
involved the use of a gun and another 12 percent involved the
use of a knife. 

Fourteen percent of rapes involving black offenders and black
victims involved the use of a gun, about twice the percentage of
white-on-white rapes (7 percent). Interracial rapes,
black-on-white or white-on-black, were equally likely to involve
use of a gun or knife (22 percent compared to 21 percent). Rapes
occurring in or near a roadway or alley were the most likely
locations where the offender used a gun (13 percent). 

About 40 percent of rape victims suffered a collateral injury,
with 5 percent suffering a major injury such as severe
lacerations, fractures, internal injuries or unconsciousness.
More than half of spousal rapes, rapes by ex-spouses and
stranger rapes resulted in injury to the victim, while about
one-quarter of parent-child rapes resulted in major injury.
Injuries were most common among victims age 30 or older and in
rapes where the offender used a knife. Nearly 6 in 10 rapes
involving a knife resulted in injury to the victim. 

As these examples show, NIBRS fills in the details about crime
which help law enforcement planners target the most common
characteristics of crime and consider prevention strategies
based upon firm knowledge about crime. Questions about whether
violent sex crimes are increasing or whether such crimes
involving children are declining in Bellevue or Seattle or in
any of the other 9,000 cities and 3,000 counties in the United
States are difficult to answer at both the local or national
level other than by mostly anecdotal or impressionistic
evidence. 

NIBRS provides a framework for systematically documenting and
analyzing patterns of violent sexual assault crime and offending
in a local community, for comparing that community to contiguous
or comparable communities anywhere in the United States, and for
comparing one's own community to the Nation as a whole. 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal history records show picture of sex offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal history records are the best formal portraits for
examining the lives of those who commit violent sexual assaults.
In 1995, there were about 130,000 arrests for rape and other sex
offenses. These arrests should have resulted in entries to
criminal history records, since the vast majority of those
arrested for violent sex crimes were adults: 84 percent of those
arrested for rape and 83 percent of those arrested for other sex
offenses were age 18 or older. The number of persons in prison
for sexual assault offenses other than rape is growing rapidly
since 1980, second only to drug offenses. It increased 15
percent per year, compared to an overall average of 7 percent
per year for drug offenses.

The criminal history record can play an important role at each
stage in the case processing of those arrested for violent sex
crimes. One of the most critical case decisions occurs shortly
after arrest when conditions for pretrial release are
established by the court. BJS data from large urban counties
indicate that just over 1 percent of felony filings are for
rape. 

About one-half of felony rape defendants are released from
detention prior to the disposition of their case. Only about 3
percent of rape defendants have no bail set and are not
considered eligible for release. About two-thirds of rape
defendants have additional charges besides the charge of rape.
For most, the additional charges are also felonies. About
one-half of those released prior to adjudication by the court
obtained release by non-financial means, such as release on
recognizance. 

About one-half of the rape defendants in the BJS sample from
large urban counties had a prior history of arrests, with the
vast majority of those arrests having been for felony offenses.
About one-quarter of rape defendants had at least five prior
arrest charges. In fact, an estimated 27 percent of these rape
defendants had a criminal justice status, such as probation or
pretrial release, at the time of the rape arrest. Most rape
defendants with a prior arrest history also had a history of
convictions. About one in eight rape defendants had a prior
conviction history that included violent felonies. 

Among rapists who gained pretrial release, about one in five
violated the conditions of that release by failing to appear in
court, by being arrested for a new crime or by violating some
other condition of release. Clearly, an accurate and current
criminal history record, which incorporates information not only
on prior criminal behavior and convictions but also on
conformity with prior pretrial release conditions, would be a
critical factor in determining whether or not a defendant should
be released.

BJS data reveal that about two-thirds of convicted rape
defendants receive a prison sentence, 19 percent receive a jail
term and 13 percent receive probation following conviction. A
prison sentence for convicted rapists depends heavily on how
their cases were adjudicated. Sixty-three percent of those who
pleaded guilty were sent to prison, while 89 percent of those
convicted by a jury received a prison sentence. When a jury
decided guilt, the average prison term was twice as long as the
term imposed following a plea, a difference of 13 years. 

Research has consistently shown that the gravity of the offense,
combined with the extensiveness and seriousness of the criminal
record, are key factors in the sentencing decision. There is
little specific knowledge, however, about the extent to which
criminal history information is used or the specific weight
given to an individual's criminal record by prosecutors, judges
or juries in rape cases. BJS data on felony case processing
indicate a 20-percentage-point difference for violent offenders
in the likelihood of receiving prison if they have a prior
conviction history. 

About one in five violent sex offenders in prison had been on
probation or parole at the time of the new offense for which
they were incarcerated. In order to play a significant role in
the sentencing decision, such records of justice system handling
should necessarily be complete and accurate and should provide
the capacity to identify those with prior histories of violence
and sexual assault. There is no doubt that courts will rely upon
that record for determining the substance of the sentence they
impose. 

For many offenders, few other entries appear on the criminal
history record following sentencing. Based on a 1995 survey of
State criminal history records repositories, it is clear that
local jails and probation and parole agencies rarely provide
details on the dates of entry to or exit from custody or
supervision and the manner in which supervision is terminated.
Prisons are a bit better because they often fingerprint
offenders at admission and release to ensure the prisoner's
identity. Such fingerprint cards may then be sent to a State
Identification Bureau that enters the information on the state
rap sheet.

An obvious key element of a criminal history record should be
the status and movement information relative to convictions
received. Such information is especially critical for those who
must make decisions regarding sex offenders in the community.
Information about those offenders with prior records of
unsuccessful community supervision would be of enormous value in
completing presentence investigations and determining
dischargeability, level of supervision or risk to the public. 

Recidivism is the best available measure of the public safety
consequences of sentences, whether it is failure following
imprisonment or failure following a sentence to community
supervision. By definition, recidivism must be an outcome that
is determinable from a criminal history record. 

BJS's most recent recidivism study tracked a sample of prison
releases representing 109,000 offenders discharged from prisons
in 11 states in 1983. 

Rap sheets revealed more than 19,000 prior arrests for rape and
sexual assault preceding the most recent imprisonment and 4,000
arrests for rape or sexual assault in the 3 years following
release in 1983. 

Offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault accounted for just
over 4 percent of those released from prisons in the study
States in 1983. Over the 3-year period following release, about
one-half of both rapists and sexual assaulters were re-arrested
for a new crime, more than one-third were re-convicted, and more
than one-quarter were re-imprisoned within the 3-year follow-up.
An estimated 28 percent of released rapists had a new arrest for
violence and 8 percent were re-arrested for rape. A similar BJS
3-year study of felony probationers nationwide found that 20
percent of rapists were re-arrested within 3 years and 3 percent
were re-arrested for a new rape.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-up study of discharged prisoners
------------------------------------------------------------------

BJS is now initiating the largest follow-up study of discharged
prisoners ever undertaken, with the joint support of FBI CODIS
staff and the Corrections Program Office in the Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Plans call for
tracking self-representing samples of releasees from 12 to 15
States and undertaking follow-up of every single sex offender
released in those States. When we complete this effort, we
expect to have about 10,000 offenders convicted of rape or
sexual assault who were discharged in 1994 and followed through
criminal history records for 3 years. If follow-on funds are
obtained, we may continue to track these offenders. 

This is a very opportune time for this kind of study because of
the many improvements that occurred in criminal history records
since our last study. The National Criminal History Improvement
Program (NCHIP) created automated records where we had only
manual records before. NCHIP will allow us to look at arrest
transactions in States other than the State in which the
offender was released. This was something that caused great
difficulty for us in the last study. Most importantly, the
timeliness of arrest reporting and greater completeness of
disposition reporting will provide records that bear little or
no resemblance to the records we used in the last study, where
disposition information was missing more often than not. 

Progress in the battle against sex offending and sex offenders
is dependent upon improved knowledge about the crimes and the
offenders - goals common to both NIBRS and NCHIP. NIBRS, the
crime statistics model for now and the future, will forge a
greater partnership between crime and justice data at the local
and national levels. Such data will provide more information and
descriptions of the context of crime, which are essential for
policy development and funding support at the Federal level. 

The kinds of questions being posed to all levels of government
by our citizens about violent sex offenses and offenders can
only be answered by data which sensitively describe the
conditions under which victims and offenders interact, the basic
reason for NIBRS. It is moving us that much closer to the actual
description of the criminal incident, the place where our
understanding of crime is least likely to be distorted by other
factors. The FBI and BJS are committed to ensuring that all
jurisdictions have the most useful information on how victims
and offenders come together and the consequences of these
contacts. We believe NIBRS holds the promise for this kind of
information opportunity.

Panel introduction

MARLENE BECKMAN

Special Counsel, Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Good afternoon. Today, this panel is going to bring you the news
- the good news and the not-so-good-but-getting-better news. 

The good news is the progress we have made in State
establishment of sex offender registration and notification
programs. In summary, the Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan's Law and
the Pam Lychner Act, -7 [In order to comply with the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act (42 U.S.C.  14071), States must register child
molesters and sexually violent offenders residing in their
States. Megan's Law (104 P.L. 145, 100 Stat. 1345) requires
release of relevant information to protect the public from child
molesters and sexually violent offenders. The Pam Lychner Sexual
Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 
14072) amends certain Wetterling Act requirements and creates
responsibilities for the FBI.] taken together, require States to
develop registration systems for convicted child molesters and
other sex offenders, require States to release to the public
relevant information about registered offenders when necessary
to protect the public, and require the U.S. Department of
Justice to build and maintain a database to track registered
offenders nationwide. 

Since enactment of these laws in 1994 and 1996, we have come a
long way toward establishing a coordinated approach among local,
State and Federal governments to address the challenge of making
our communities safer from sex offenders. Prior to the enactment
of the Jacob Wetterling Act, 39 States had some form of sex
offender registration. Today, all 50 States have sex offender
registration systems in place. Prior to the enactment of Megan's
Law, six community notification laws had been enacted. Following
the passage of Megan's Law, there was a period of intense
activity with 21 States passing notification legislation. Today,
45 States have passed legislation that either authorizes
community notification or allows individuals or agencies outside
the criminal justice realm to access sex offender registration
information. That is the good news.

The not-so-good-but-getting-better news is that the majority of
States do not yet meet all of the Federal requirements of the
Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. They are in danger of losing 10
percent of their Byrne Program money as a result. -8 [Editor's
Note: The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program, administered by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, provides formula grants
to States to improve the functioning of the criminal justice
system, with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders.
Under the Wetterling Act, States must establish a 10-year
registration requirement for persons convicted of certain crimes
against minors and sexually violent offenses and must establish
a more stringent set of registration requirements for highly
dangerous sex offenders, characterized as "sexually violent
predators." If a State fails to comply with the Wetterling Act,
10 percent of the State's Byrne formula grant may be withheld.]
This panel will address the issues surrounding Federal
compliance. 

The first speaker, Lisa Gursky Sorkin, will speak briefly about
the three statutes and their interrelationship. She will also
talk about the development of the Department of Justice's
guidelines for the Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. The second
speaker, Donna Feinberg, will speak more specifically about the
Federal registration requirements. She will also address the
basis on which States will be considered for a 2-year
"good-faith-efforts" extension of the statutory deadline for
compliance. 

The third speaker, James C. Swain, will talk about the policies
and procedures for the States' submissions of their registration
and compliance programs and their requests for extensions of the
deadline to the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Each speaker will be allotted approximately 10 minutes, which
will leave us time for questions. We feel this provides a very
important opportunity for us to hear from you.

-------------------------------------------
The trilogy of Federal statutes
-------------------------------------------

LISA GURSKY SORKIN

Chief of Staff, Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

Good afternoon. I am going to provide a brief overview of the
Federal laws intended to guide States in developing their sex
offender registration and notification programs. A trilogy of
statutes now exists that defines Federal policy concerning
registration and notification for convicted child molesters and
other sexually violent offenders. 

We recognize that there is some confusion about the way these
laws fit together, how they work together and what they mean for
the States. I want to shed some light on these questions, and
also talk about the written guidelines the U.S. Department of
Justice produced to help States comply with the Federal laws.

-----------------------
Wetterling Act
-----------------------

The first of this trilogy of statutes is the Jacob Wetterling
Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act, which was enacted as part of President
Clinton's 1994 Crime Act. -9 [42 U.S.C.  14071.] It requires
States to establish effective registration systems for convicted
child molesters and other sexually violent offenders. It also
requires the establishment of a more stringent set of
registration requirements for a subclass of the most highly
dangerous offenders, who are designated under the Act as
"sexually violent predators." 

The Wetterling Act provides a set of minimum national standards
for the States to follow in developing conforming registration
programs. The States' obligations under the Wetterling Act fall
roughly into four categories, which I will describe in brief.

First, States must require certain offenders to register.
Convicted child molesters and other sexually violent offenders
must register and provide law enforcement with current addresses
for 10 years. Sexually violent predators, the most dangerous
subclass of offenders, must provide the State with more
extensive registration information. They must continue to
register until they are found to no longer be sexually violent
predators. The Wetterling Act contains standards and procedures
for States to follow to determine who is and who is no longer a
sexually violent predator.

Second, States need to ensure that they maintain accurate
registries. What good are registries if they include offenders
with stale, old addresses? The Wetterling Act provides
procedures for States to follow to conduct proactive, periodic
address verification. States need to verify addresses annually
for most offenders, and quarterly or every 90 days for sexually
violent predators.

Third, States must maintain and distribute registry information
to law enforcement. This requirement has several facets. States
must ensure that registry information is contained at a central
State repository. We do not want registry information scattered
throughout numerous counties or cities. When police conduct an
investigation, they need to know where they can find registry
information. The Wetterling Act requires this. 

We also want to ensure clear lines of communication between
local and State law enforcement. The Wetterling Act contains a
number of provisions to help ensure that these folks are working
together during an investigation or just conferring about the
movement of sex offenders in general. This also applies to
communication between States. Under the Wetterling Act, if an
offender tells the State he is moving to a new State, the old
State needs to tell the new State that this offender is on his
way. The Wetterling Act encourages open lines of communication
between different levels of law enforcement, both within and
among States. That is a very important policy goal.

Fourth, States must disclose information to the public when
necessary for public safety. I will discuss this requirement
shortly in connection with the Federal Megan's Law.

I want to emphasize that States do not need to change their laws
or statutes to comply with the Wetterling Act. The Wetterling
Act only requires each State to have a conforming registration
program. States can accomplish this by statute if they want, but
they can also use regulations, administrative practices or
policies to comply. 

The Wetterling Act gives States until September 13, 1997, to
establish conforming registration programs. This is 3 years from
the date of enactment. The Attorney General can extend this
deadline by 2 years for States making good-faith efforts to
comply. States unable to adopt conforming registration programs
by September 1997 will lose 10 percent of their Byrne Formula
Grant funding. 

-------------------
Megan's Law
-------------------   

The second in the trilogy of Federal laws is Megan's Law,
enacted in May 1996.-10 [Pub. L. 104-145, 100 Stat. 1345.]
(Numerous States have enacted their own versions of Megan's Law,
named after 7-year-old murder victim Megan Kanka.) The Federal
law amended the community notification provisions of the
Wetterling Act. Originally, the Wetterling Act allowed States to
release information to the public if they felt it was warranted,
but release of information was not required. 

Megan's Law requires States to release registration information
to the public when it is necessary for public safety. This
requirement is often referred to as "mandatory community
notification." The compliance deadline for Megan's Law is the
same as for the Wetterling Act. States need to have conforming
notification programs by September 1997. The Attorney General
can also extend this deadline by 2 years on the basis of a
State's good-faith efforts. States that fail to implement a
conforming system will lose 10 percent of their Byrne Grant
funds. (This is not an additional 10 percent added on to 10
percent for noncompliance with the Wetterling Act; Megan's Law
is part of the overall Wetterling scheme and is treated the same
way.)

------------------------
Pam Lychner Act
------------------------

The third law in the Federal trilogy is the Pam Lychner Sexual
Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, enacted in
October 1996. -11 [42 U.S.C.  14072.] The Lychner Act imposes a
number of obligations on Federal, State and local governments to
enhance public safety. The Lychner Act has three principal
requirements: 

* First, it obligates the Attorney General to establish a
national database at the FBI to track the whereabouts and
movements of convicted sex offenders. 

* Second, the Act requires the FBI to handle sex offender
registration in States lacking a minimally sufficient sex
offender registration program. The term "minimally sufficient"
is defined in the Lychner Act. 

* Third, the Lychner Act amends the Wetterling Act to prescribe
more stringent registration requirements. For example, under the
Wetterling Act, as originally enacted, most offenders needed to
register with the State for 10 years. Under the Lychner Act, a
number of offenders will need to register for life. These
include aggravated offenders and recidivists, along with
sexually violent predators. 

The Lychner Act establishes two basic requirements for the
States. First, the extent that the Lychner Act amends the
Wetterling Act, the States will need to make sure that their
registration programs enacted under the Wetterling Act meet the
new Lychner Act requirements. Lifetime registration is one
example of a new State requirement. The Lychner Act gives States
3 years from the date of enactment, or until October 1999, to
implement its provisions. 

To put this in perspective, States need to comply with the
Wetterling Act as originally enacted, plus Megan's Law, by
September 1997. Lychner Act requirements take effect 2 years
later. The enforcement provisions under the Lychner Act
amendments to the Wetterling Act are the same as for the rest of
the Wetterling Act. A 2-year, good-faith extension is available,
and 10 percent of the State's Byrne Formula Grant money is at
stake.

The second general requirement for the States under the Lychner
Act is enhanced communication with the FBI about convicted sex
offenders. The Lychner Act imposes a number of freestanding
requirements on the States that are not part of the Wetterling
Act. These requirements are designed to facilitate the FBI's
role in sex offender registration. The FBI needs to have the
most accurate and up-to-date information to maintain a national
database that works. The source of that information is the
States. 

The Lychner Act thus imposes a number of requirements to make
sure States are communicating with the FBI about sex offenders
living in their jurisdictions. These requirements take effect 1
year from the date of enactment of the Lychner Act, or by
October 1997. 

------------------------------------------
Justice Department guidelines
------------------------------------------

This has been a brief overview of Federal sex offender
registration and notification laws. I want very briefly to
address the Justice Department's guidelines for these statutes,
which have generated almost as much confusion as the statutes
themselves. Both seem to change with frequency. 

In April 1996, the Justice Department published final guidelines
for implementation of the Wetterling Act. These guidelines
described the Act's various requirements. They were intended to
help the States develop conforming registration systems. Exactly
1 year after the final guidelines were published, we took the
next logical step and published proposed guidelines. These were
published on April 4, 1997. -12 [62 Fed. Reg. 16180 (April 4,
1997).]

We did this for two reasons: Number one, we had not previously
provided guidance for Megan's Law because it was enacted after
we had published the final Wetterling Act guidelines. We wanted
to provide more information about what Megan's Law meant. Number
two, in the course of working with the States after the previous
final guidelines were published, we learned that we needed to
provide more guidance in a number of areas. 

Several interpretive questions had arisen, and we recognized
that more information was needed. In this latest round of
proposed guidelines, we attempted to resolve some of the
interpretive questions that were raised. 

These proposed guidelines were published for public comment. The
public comment period ended in early June 1997 and the final
guidelines were published in the Federal Register in July 1997.
- 13 [62 Fed. Reg. 39009 (July 21, 1997).]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Department guideline changes and clarifications
------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Donna FEINBERG

Attorney, Office of General Counsel

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

I would like to discuss approaches States may take to establish
sex offender registration and notification programs in
compliance with the Wetterling Act. This information may be
found in the Justice Department's revised guidelines for the
Wetterling Act and Megan's Law, which have been published in the
Federal Register. -14 ["Final Guidelines for Megan's Law and the
Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act," 62 Fed. Reg. 39009 (July 21, 1997)]

Since the original Wetterling Act guidelines were published in
April 1996, a majority of States submitted enacted or proposed
sex offender registration provisions to the Justice Department
for preliminary review. The review process raised a number of
questions, which are addressed in the revised guidelines. The
guideline clarifications concern some of the following issues. 

------------------------------
Registration procedures
------------------------------

Several clarifications cover initial registration procedures.
When an offender is released from incarceration or placed on
probation or parole, the Wetterling Act requires courts and/or
prison officers to follow certain procedures. They must notify
the offender of State registration obligations, obtain
registration information from the offender, and submit it to the
registration agency. Some States assign this responsibility to
probation or parole officers whose responsibilities relate to
correctional matters or the execution of sentences. The revised
Wetterling Act guidelines make it clear that assigning these
responsibilities to such officers is permissible. 

The Act provides that, if a person who is required to register
is released from incarceration, the responsible officer must
obtain the required registration information and forward it to
the registration agency within 3 days of receipt. Many States do
not wait until the release date to obtain the information. They
require offenders to submit the information 30 or 60 days prior
to release. The guidelines make it clear that this approach is
permissible as long as the information is forwarded to the
appropriate agencies no later than 3 days after release.

Once the initial registration information is obtained, some
States require the responsible officer to send it to the State
registration agency and to the local law enforcement agency
concurrently instead of transmitting the information to the
State agency only, which is then required to forward it to the
responsible local law enforcement agency. The guidelines make it
clear that concurrent transmission is permissible if
registration information is promptly made available to both the
State registration agency and the local agency with jurisdiction
over the offender. 

The guidelines make clear that the Wetterling Act does not
preclude a State procedure where the prison officer or court
transmits the initial information indirectly to the State agency
by sending it first to the local law enforcement jurisdiction
where the registrant will reside, assuming the local agency is
then required to forward the information to the State agency.
Procedures of this type will be deemed in compliance as long as
the information is submitted to the local law enforcement agency
within the applicable time frame - no later than 3 days after
the offender's release. The State procedures must also ensure
that the local agency forwards the information promptly to the
State registration agency. 

------------------------------
Address changes 
------------------------------

The Wetterling Act requires registrants to report address
changes to the State registration agency within 10 days of
moving. However, many State programs do not require registrants
to send their address changes directly to the State agency.
Information is submitted to a local law enforcement agency or
other intermediary, such as a parole or probation officer, who
is required to forward it to the State agency. 

The revised Justice Department guidelines make clear that a
registrant can submit address changes through an intermediary as
long as the registrant provides the intermediary with the new
address information within the time frame specified in the Act -
or no later than 10 days after a move - and State procedures
ensure that the intermediary forwards the address change
information promptly to the designated State law enforcement
agency.

------------------------------
 Sexually violent predator
------------------------------

A number of the guideline clarifications involve the sexually
violent predator registration requirements. The Wetterling Act
prescribes more stringent registration requirements for the
subclass of offenders characterized as "sexually violent
predators." Some States require that sexually violent predators
be civilly committed as opposed to making them subject to more
stringent requirements. The revised guidelines clarify that this
approach is permissible. 

The Wetterling Act requires that the sentencing court determine
whether a person is or is no longer a sexually violent predator.
The guidelines clarify that this requirement only means the
determination must be made by a court that is legally competent
to institute the more stringent registration requirements
prescribed for sexually violent predators, which could be the
court in which the offender was convicted of the underlying sex
offense but does not have to be.

Under the Wetterling Act, States have discretion with regard to
the timing of the determination of whether an offender is a
sexually violent predator. A State may decide that the predator
determination be made at the time of sentencing or as part of
the original sentence, but it is not required to do so. The
predator determination could also be made instead by a competent
court when an offender has served his prison term and is about
to be released from custody.

Should a State choose to subject all persons convicted of a
sexually violent offense to the more stringent registration
requirements, it would not be necessary for sexually violent
predator determinations to be made by a competent court with the
assistance of a board of experts prior to the commencement of
the registration obligation. However, it would still be
necessary for a court, assisted by a board of experts, to
terminate the heightened registration requirements of sexually
violent predators. Moreover, even if it is determined that a
person is no longer a sexually violent predator, the guidelines
make clear that this does not relieve the person of the
Wetterling Act's 10-year registration requirement, which applies
to any person convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or
a sexually violent offense.

------------------------------
Length of registration
------------------------------

Another guideline clarification involves the length of
registration. The Wetterling Act requires that released
convicted offenders be subject to registration and periodic
address verification for at least 10 years. However, sexually
violent predators must be made to register for life unless
relieved of the obligation by a competent court determining that
the offender is no longer a sexually violent predator. 

The revised guidelines make it clear that a State would not be
in compliance if it allows offenders' registration obligations
to be waived or terminated before the end of the prescribed
10-year registration period based on findings such as
rehabilitation or that continued registration does not serve the
purposes of the State's registration provisions.

------------------------------
Address verifications
------------------------------

Other guideline clarifications cover address verification
procedures. The Wetterling Act requires annual address
verification with the designated State agency for all offenders,
who are required to return within 10 days an address
verification form sent to the registrant's last reported
address. 

Verification intervals are 90 days rather than annually for
sexually violent predators. Some States delegate address
verification functions to local law enforcement agencies. The
revised guidelines permit this approach to periodic address
verification as long as procedures ensure that the State
registration agency is promptly notified if, through the
process, it is discovered that the registrant is no longer at
the last reported address. The revised guidelines also clarify
that States may require the registrant's personal appearance at
a local law enforcement agency to return an address verification
form rather than returning the form by mail.

------------------------------
Notification methods
------------------------------

Another guideline clarification involves the methods States may
use to notify local jurisdictions about registration and change
of address information. 

After receiving registration information from the responsible
officer or court, the State law enforcement agency must
immediately enter the information into the appropriate record
system and notify the local law enforcement agency where the
person expects to reside. The Wetterling Act allows States to
decide what method they will use to notify local law enforcement
agencies. Permissible options include written notices,
electronic or telephone transmissions, and on-line access to
registration information. 

------------------------------
Extensions 
------------------------------

States currently unable to comply with the Wetterling Act and
Megan's Law should consider submitting requests for an extension
of the September 13, 1997, compliance deadline.

A State should submit its most recent proposed or enacted
registration and community notification program along with a
letter explaining its "good-faith efforts" to comply with the
Wetterling Act and requesting an extension of the statutory
deadline. The letter should describe the State's efforts to
comply with the Wetterling Act, including an explanation of the
concrete steps taken and the progress made since its passage in
September 1994. 

The State should also explain why it has not been able to
establish a compliant program by the deadline. In addition, the
State should describe in detail its plan to establish a
compliant program by the end of the extension period and submit
a timetable specifying the anticipated time frame indicating
when each step of its overall plan will be taken.

--------------------------------------------------
Applying for a compliance deadline extension
--------------------------------------------------

JAMES C. SWAIN

Director, State and Local Assistance Division

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice

As the last member of the panel, it falls on me to sum up and to
review our process for handling extension requests. Ms. Nancy
Gist's June 18, 1997, letter outlines what the States must do to
meet the good-faith extension requirements. -15 [The letter by
Ms. Gist, Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is
included as Appendix 1.]

Today's speakers have made every effort to be helpful and
responsive. Both Lisa Gursky Sorkin and Donna Feinberg spoke not
only about the registration and notification legislation, but
also about the guideline changes made in response to some of the
concerns raised about issues such as local versus State
reporting requirements. 

Additionally, this panel was scheduled in response to your
requests for hands-on assistance with the very difficult matter
of the September 13, 1997, Wetterling Act compliance deadline.
We will continue technical assistance after this meeting through
SEARCH, through our own staff and through our general counsel so
we can bring all the States into final compliance with the
registration and notification statutes. 

As for the extension request letters you have been submitting, I
want to tell you where we stand today. 

All but 14 of the 56 States and territories have now applied for
a 2-year extension to come into full compliance with the
Wetterling Act. We have been able to contact most States to
point out the kinds of problems meeting the criterion set out in
Ms. Gist's letter that we are finding in the extension request
letters already submitted. 

We will review each extension request, and then the staff at the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will contact you to provide
assistance. That is the first step. 

In reviewing the extension request letters you plan to submit,
please consider the following: 

* Does your letter include a copy of your State's proposed or
present legislation or regulation or does it refer to a document
that was already submitted? 

* Does your letter address the good-faith efforts and concrete
steps your State has taken to date to come into compliance? 

* Does it provide a timeline indicating the steps that will be
taken to comply with the Wetterling Act? 

BJA staff will contact each State to go over any elements
missing from your extension request letters. When a letter meets
the basic requirements, we will refer it to Donna Feinberg in
our general counsel's office. She will review the request to see
if good faith is demonstrated and if concrete steps have been
taken to legally justify and warrant a 2-year extension. 

If an extension is justified, we will prepare a very short and
straightforward letter from Ms. Gist to you indicating approval
of a 2-year extension for your State. After you receive that
extension, we want to work with you intensively to bring your
State into full compliance with the Wetterling Act. Technical
assistance will be made available to you. We are going to try to
be very helpful. 

Every time I think about the States and the Federal government
working together, a number of stories come to mind about how the
Federal government is helpful to you as your partner. Former
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark used to tell an old
story that I think is appropriate.

It seems there were these fellows who would travel to a remote
cabin every year to hunt. They would hunt bear, play cards and
drink beer, and not necessarily in that order. The loser at
cards would have to leave the cabin to hunt for bear. If he
found one, he would kill it and bring it back so everyone could
help skin it. The loser on this particular day dutifully left
the card game, which remained in progress, and went to hunt
bear. 

He was confronted by a bear just as he rounded a corner. The man
pulled his rifle to his shoulder and took aim but the gun
misfired. The man took one look at the bear - who was very angry
at this point - threw down his gun, and ran back to the cabin
with the bear in hot pursuit. He pulled open the cabin door and
then jumped behind it, using the door as a shield. The bear
stormed into the room, and the man slammed the door shut. "I've
got your bear," he shouted. " Now skin it." 

We brought you this wonderful bear. Now all you have to do is
skin it and bring back the material we need on this very
important topic. We will work with you and do anything we can to
help you reach compliance. Thank you very much.

----------------------------------
Panel question-and-answer session
----------------------------------

Marlene Beckman, Panel Moderator
Lisa Gursky Sorkin, Panel Member
Donna Feinberg, Panel Member

Ms. Marlene Beckman: I want to mention one thing before we begin
taking questions from the floor. The Office of Justice Programs,
in cooperation with the State Justice Institute and the National
Institute of Corrections, has funded a contractor to establish
the Center for Sex Offender Management. The Center provides
technical assistance and training opportunities. 

If your jurisdiction or State is interested in implementing the
containment theory of sex offender management or exploring the
Arizona model of lifetime probation, which has useful data on
sex offenders and sex offender issues, this is an opportunity
for us to work with you. We expect to begin work very soon with
jurisdictions around the country that want to improve their
management of sex offenders in the community.  

We understand sex offender registration and notification laws
are available, but we can build on these to enhance community
safety. We want to work with jurisdictions interested in going
further in managing sex offenders in the community. With that, I
will open the floor to questions. 

Question: The letter our State received indicating our
compliance with the Wetterling Act included information about
electronically transmitting information to the FBI. If we are
not yet transmitting that information to the FBI, will we lose
10 percent of our Byrne Formula Grant Funds?

Ms. Donna Feinberg: The Wetterling Act only requires that States
transmit conviction data and offender fingerprints to the FBI if
they have not already been sent there. The Lychner Act, which
has more stringent requirements, may be what you are referring
to, but those requirements are not in effect for another 2 years.

Ms. Lisa Gursky Sorkin: You may be referring to an FBI
communication asking States to send information in conjunction
with the National Sexual Offender Registry. The Attorney General
set up a national registry at the FBI in response to a
presidential request. The FBI asked the States to make sure
their offender data are included in the national registry. 

This is related but distinct from the Wetterling Act, Megan's
Law and Lychner Act requirements we talked about. 

Question: Can you explain the requirements for States that
civilly commit sexually violent predators? Must a State board of
experts be established to civilly commit these predators?

Ms. Feinberg: The revised guidelines make clear that civil
commitment is an acceptable alternative to imposition of the
more stringent registration requirements on sexually violent
predators. That is, if your State requires civil commitment of
individuals determined to be sexually violent predators, the
State would not need to impose address verification at 90-day
intervals and lifetime registration and address verification
while the sexually violent predators are civilly committed.
However, the State would still need to have a system whereby a
board of experts assists a competent court in making the
determination as to whether an individual is - or is no longer -
a sexually violent predator.

Question: When you talked about community notification, it was
unclear whether guidelines allowed for the release of
information on adult offenders whose victims were also adults.
In Illinois right now, we cannot release information to the
community on any offenders whose victims were adults. We can
only release information on offenders whose victims were
children.

Ms. Feinberg: The guidelines make clear that the mandatory
disclosure requirement applies to offenders convicted of crimes
against minors and to offenders who have been convicted of
sexually violent offenses, including offenses against adults.
States have discretion to determine when it is necessary to
disclose registration information to protect the public about
registrants convicted of covered offenses against minors and
adults. 

Question: Offenders are required to verify their addresses by
returning forms sent to their last known addresses. Do they have
to send back fingerprints and photographs with the forms?

Ms. Feinberg: That is a Lychner Act requirement. Under the
Wetterling Act, the State law enforcement agency is required to
send out a nonforwardable address verification form to the
offender's last reported address. The offender must sign and
return the form within a specific time period verifying the
offender's current address.

Question: Do they also have to return fingerprints and
photographs?

Ms. Feinberg: Not at this time for compliance with the
Wetterling Act. That is a requirement of the Lychner Act.

Ms. Beckman: States can enact Lychner Act requirements now if
they want, but they are not required to do so for another 2
years.

Question: Does the Lychner Act cover any crime committed by an
adult against a child? What if an 18-year-old steals a
13-year-old's bicycle?

Ms. Sorkin: The Lychner Act does not change the offense category
requirements covered in the Wetterling Act. The Wetterling Act
requires States to register convicted child molesters and other
sexually violent offenders. The statute defines what these
categories mean. The Lychner Act does not enlarge the category
of offenders who need to register.

Ms. Beckman: You need to read the Wetterling Act and the Lychner
Act in conjunction with each other.

Question: I have a question concerning address verification.
Does the language in our State's verification and notification
legislation actually have to describe the verification process?

Ms. Feinberg: No, the State's address verification procedures do
not have to be specifically spelled out in its legislation. If
your State has an administrative policy establishing its
verification procedures, the policy should be submitted to BJA
along with whatever legislation your State has enacted or
proposed so we can review them together for compliance with the
Wetterling Act. 

Question: Is it absolutely necessary to verify an address by
sending a nonforwardable form to the last known address? Most of
our State's residents use post office boxes. They can change
residences as many times as they want and still keep the same
post office boxes. How do we verify addresses under those
circumstances?

Ms. Feinberg: The nonforwardable address verification form is a
statutory requirement of the Federal legislation. 

Question: I am not talking about forwarding a form to a new
address. I am talking about moving from place to place and
keeping the same post office box. My post office box and my
physical location have nothing to do with each other. 

Ms. Beckman: That is a very good point. What you are saying is
the post office box is meaningless for address verification.

Ms. Sorkin: The Wetterling Act contains a very specific
procedure that States need to follow to verify addresses. We
have seen States start to build on that minimum requirement.
There are States that now require house visits, for example. Law
enforcement is actually checking the offender's address to make
sure that person is still living there. But the Wetterling Act
very specifically requires the mailing of the address
verification card.

Question: But what if the verification card does not work?

Ms. Beckman: Your State may want to institute more stringent
registration requirements. The Wetterling Act sets a floor. In
your particular State, you may need to build on that floor. That
is perfectly okay. You can always do something more.

Question: When an offender is on probation or parole in Oregon,
the local police, probation or parole officer is responsible for
sex offender registration. When the offender's probation ends,
the State Police are responsible. If the offender moves while he
is on probation or parole, does the Wetterling Act require us to
inform the State Police? 

Ms. Feinberg: A registrant has an obligation to notify the
designated State agency of any address changes under the
Wetterling Act. If, under State procedures, the registrant
notifies his probation or parole officer of address changes,
that officer must notify the State registration agency.

Question: As the offender's supervising officer, do I have to
notify the State Police when the offender notifies me of his
move?

Ms. Feinberg: Yes, if the State registration agency is the State
Police. In addition, the local law enforcement agency with
jurisdiction where the person has moved must be notified if the
person has moved to another jurisdiction.

Ms. Sorkin: You want to make sure the information at the State
level is accurate and updated. 

Question: When the offender requires supervision, I am the
registration agency. When they no longer require supervision,
the State Police are the registration agency. That is the issue.

Ms. Sorkin: Under the Wetterling Act structure, there needs to
be an overall central repository in the State that contains
information on all the State's sex offenders. If your State
follows the Wetterling Act requirements, then you need to let
the central repository know when an offender changes his
address. You are keeping track of the offender. 

Question: Does the Department of Justice have the right to grant
a waiver to a State that may follow a different procedure to
verify addresses than the one required by the Wetterling Act,
but one that still achieves the same goals? We do not verify
address in our State by using a nonforwardable postcard, but we
still have an effective procedure in place to meet the
verification requirements. Do you have the legislative authority
to grant waivers in these instances?

Ms. Sorkin: No, we do not. We are sympathetic to your concerns
because we have received similar inquiries from other States
with respect to address verification and the Wetterling Act. The
Act is very specific and does not give us the authority to
exempt States from complying with certain provisions. We tried
to give States as much flexibility as we possibly could in our
guidelines. We bent over backwards in interpreting some of the
statutory provisions, but at the end of the day, we still have
statutory language we need to implement.

Ms. Beckman: Let me also say that we are moving toward greater
flexibility. The Justice Department is trying to keep its eye on
the goal of good sex offender registration and notification
systems. There may be five different ways to reach that goal. As
long as we all get to that goal, that is what is important. I
would encourage you to explain in your submission the system you
have and we will do what we can to be flexible, but we are
limited by the words of the statute. We do recognize that the
goal is an effective statute or program that will make sure
people register and ensure that the community is notified. Let
us see if we can work together to get to that point. 

Question: Can you please explain the Lychner Act's 3-year
implementation schedule?

Ms. Beckman: This is the clarification of the Lychner Act
timetable.

Ms. Sorkin: There are a number of sections of the Pam Lychner
Act that directly amend the Wetterling Act. This means that
every State's registration and notification programs must
conform to these new requirements. The compliance timetable for
these provisions of the Lychner Act is 3 years from the date of
enactment, or October 1999. Among these new provision are ones
concerning the length of registration and the lifetime
registration provision I mentioned earlier. There are also
provisions covering who needs to serve on the State boards of
experts that help the sentencing court determine who is a
sexually violent predator. Overall, there are about five changes
that the Lychner Act makes to the Wetterling Act. Congress
allows 3 years for States to comply with these new Lychner Act
requirements. The deadline is October 1999. The Lychner Act also
imposes a number of other requirements on the States to ensure
that the FBI can do its job under the Lychner Act. Those
requirements take effect in October 1997, 1 year from the
Lychner Act's date of enactment.

Question: What are the other requirements that the Lychner Act
imposes?

Ms. Sorkin: The other Lychner Act requirements are scattered
throughout the statute. We can create a specific list for you,
if you wish. They concern making sure the FBI has accurate and
up-to-date registration information, sending required
information to the FBI, and also making sure offenders know what
their responsibilities are.

Question: Does the Wetterling Act cover offenders who are in the
military?

Ms. Sorkin: It is my understanding that sex offenders who are
convicted in military courts are not covered by the Wetterling
Act. Basically, it covers State law offenders who are subject to
registration requirements. There is legislation pending in
Congress right now that would extend registration requirements
to Federal and military offenders.

 Question: Under the Federal guidelines, what systems do States
have to have in place in regard to juvenile offenders and
community notification?

Ms. Feinberg: Under the guidelines, juvenile offenders do not
have to be covered by State registration provisions unless they
are convicted as adults. If they do not have to register, the
State does not have to provide notification to the community
regarding juvenile offenders.

Ms. Beckman: Again, the Federal Wetterling Act and Megan's Law
provide minimum requirements. If a State chooses to go further
and create legislation that covers juvenile offenders, that is
certainly up to the State. 

Question: Are you going to come up with any specific criteria to
help with risk assessment? 

Ms. Feinberg: I do not believe we are going to determine risk
assessment criteria for States to follow. 

Question: Under the Lychner Act, what happens if someone moves
to your State from another State that requires registration, but
the individual does not meet your State's criteria for
registration? 

Ms. Feinberg: The Wetterling Act covers a number of specific
offenses. States have a certain amount of latitude in
determining which State offenses need to be covered under their
systems, but they should be fairly similar. One State may not
cover the exact offense that another State may cover because of
differences in State criminal offenses. Chances are, however, if
someone required to register in one State moves to your State,
he will probably be required to register under your registration
provisions as well because of a conviction for an offense that
your State program needs to cover for compliance with the
Wetterling Act. States need to cover offenders who move to their
States and require them to register within 10 days of
establishing residency. 

Question: How do these three statutes affect individuals who are
registered as sex offenders and who committed their offenses on
Indian land? 

Ms. Sorkin: In our guidelines, we encourage States to require
Federal, military and tribal offenders who live in their
jurisdictions to register because convicted sex offenders pose a
similar public safety risk, regardless of where the offender was
convicted. We have encouraged States to do this, but our reading
of the statute is that the Wetterling Act as it currently exists
does not require them to register.

Question: Do the statutes indicate who should sit on the boards
of experts that consider the sexually violent predator
designation for certain offenders? 

Ms. Feinberg: The State has a lot of discretion in that respect.
The revised guidelines make it clear that the board should be
composed of at least two people who are experts in the treatment
and behavior of sex offenders. Other than that, the board just
has to be authorized under State law and it must have the
authority to assist the court in making determinations about
sexually violent predators. Under the Lychner Act amendments to
the Wetterling Act, the boards should also include
representatives of victims' rights groups and representatives
from the law enforcement community.

Ms. Beckman: The additional Lychner Act requirement is not
effective for another 2 years. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Federal funding support for sex offender registries
------------------------------------------------------------

DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) since
fiscal 1995. This is the kind of program that percolates up from
the States to the Federal level. Pressure and lobbying from
State representatives persuaded Congress to include NCHIP grant
programs in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the
National Child Protection Act. -16 [Brady Act, Pub. L. No.
103-159 (November 30, 1993); National Child Protection Act of
1993, Pub. L. No. 103-209 (December 20, 1993).] Congress then
actually appropriated funds for those grant programs. 

NCHIP has supported efforts to improve databases containing
information about criminal history records, protection orders,
domestic violence and child abuse. The recent Supreme Court
decision concerning the Brady Act does not change the grant
program. -17 [Printz et. al. v. United States, U.S. Supreme
Court Case No. 95-1478, argued December 3, 1996, decided June
27, 1997. Two county sheriffs filed separate actions protesting
an interim Brady Act provision that required Chief Law
Enforcement Officers of local jurisdictions to maintain an
interim system to check the criminal histories of gun purchasers
until a national system is established in November 1998. The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the petitioners that
the provision was a violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution (States' rights), although the provision was ruled
severable from the remainder of the Brady Act, which was left
intact.] We will be continuing in fiscal 1998 and completing the
originally authorized $220 million of funding. 

We believe NCHIP has resulted in enormous strides forward in the
quality, accuracy, completeness and accessibility of State
criminal history records. The statistics are not yet in to prove
this point, but we are confident that when SEARCH completes its
survey of the States at the end of 1997, the comprehensive
nature of the advances brought about by this Federal funding
program will be clear to us all. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Federal focus on sex offender registries
------------------------------------------------------------

The latest NCHIP program announcement, just sent to the States
in draft form, includes a hint that our next planned focus area
will be sexual offender registries. NCHIP applications for
fiscal 1997 cannot request funding for sex offender registries.
A number of you obtained Federal funding for your sex offender
registries through domestic violence grants or other
record-upgrade grants. 

On June 21, 1996, President Clinton issued a directive to the
Attorney General to identify obstacles to building a national
sex offender registry in response to the universal movement
toward State-level sexual offender registries and the fact that
many sexual offenders may be mobile and crossing State lines. As
with many data systems of this type, the Attorney General
delegates the building of the Federal computer components to the
FBI and delegates these functions to BJS: assisting States to
help them participate in the national system; collecting related
statistical and evaluative information; and providing technical
assistance to the States. 

BJS's role is vital to ensure that the FBI's systems are more
than empty computer shells and modems with no useful information
in them. FBI officials refer to this as "populating" the FBI's
computers. It is a good expression, because a national sex
offender registry with no offenders in it may look nifty, but it
is not worth much to law enforcement or the public. On August
24, 1996, President Clinton announced his goal to begin
development of the registry based on plans developed by the FBI,
BJS and other Justice Department components. The President said
he would include $25 million for BJS to provide grants and other
assistance to States in his fiscal year 1998 budget request. 

This request made its way through the Congressional
appropriations process. The funds will be made available to help
improve sexual offender registries across the Nation and to
conduct a more formal review of individual States' reporting
systems, which vary in sophistication.

------------------------------------------------------------
Registry effort coordinates with record improvements
------------------------------------------------------------

Because this Presidential initiative is so closely tied to
ongoing efforts to improve criminal history records and to
provide for the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) as required by the Brady Act, BJS plans to
coordinate it with the overall goals of better and more useable
records on the criminal careers of offenders. The President's
requested funding would be used largely to enhance existing
State systems and databases to better meet the requirements of
the Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan's Law and related State
legislation. Funds would also be used to establish, identify,
collect and maintain a standard level of sexual offender data
for exchange through a National Sexual Offender Registry, to be
managed by the FBI. 

This effort would promote automated input from courts and
corrections, while helping to automate registries currently not
automated. Monies would be made available to develop on-line
access for law enforcement throughout the States. Procedures and
software would be developed for automated input. These funds can
be used to develop systems and procedures for sharing registry
information with the FBI's interim system or for working toward
the permanent system, which is to be part of NCIC 2000. 

As with all of NCHIP, the requested funds will be available to
assist States in complying with either State or Federal law.
Complete, accurate and up-to-date records that are readily
accessible to local law enforcement and that can be linked to
records in the national registry for sharing with other States
are funding priorities. 

States will be permitted to use BJS's Federal funds without
regard to whether offenders are being registered under State law
or according to Federal law or regulations. 

Federal funding applications for each State's sexual offender
registry will be submitted by an agency designated by the
governor to administer the funds. In many cases, this will be
the same as the State's NCHIP agency. We believe this approach
will speed the establishment of registries. As soon as funds are
available, BJS will know the State agency eligible to apply for
funding, and we can prepare an expedited process for applying
for the sex offender registry portion of the NCHIP funding for
fiscal 1998. 

Technical assistance will be made available by BJS directly to
the State agency that needs help upgrading its systems or
interfacing its registries with FBI records. 

------------------------------------------
Public notification issues examined
------------------------------------------
                  
Much study has been devoted to the issue of whether to notify
the public about sexual offenders living in communities. Peter
Finn of Abt Associates, a government and business consulting and
research firm, conducted a study that examined registration and
notification systems in 32 States. He found that, although
registration has been evaluated and shown to be useful in
apprehending repeat offenders, the notification statutes are too
recent for clear evaluation of results. The one empirical study
mentioned in Finn's report found no evidence that notification
reduces recidivism. -18 [U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Sex Offender
Community Notification, Research in Brief series, by Peter Finn,
Abt Associates (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
February 1997).]

Therefore, as we proceed in improving registration and
notification procedures, it is important to keep in mind the
privacy rights being jeopardized, and the number of people who
are being harassed or losing employment or stature as a result
of registration. This provides a counterbalance to the public
benefits of notification. Most of us believe the public benefits
will be large, but we have to be open-minded enough to await
clear evidence and act appropriately if, on balance, the
benefits are small. 

Appropriately enough, Finn cites the BJS's own publication,
"Correctional Populations in the United States," which reports
that the number of sexual offenders is on the rise, jumping more
than 300 percent between 1980 and 1994.-19 [U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1994,
by Jodi M. Brown, et. al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, June 1996) p. 10.] Though there are inpatient and
outpatient treatment programs for sex offenders, treatment is
effective at best with a handful of offenders, and there is a
general perception that recidivism rates are high. In 1983, sex
offenders were less likely than other offenders to recidivate,
but they were much more likely to recidivate into sexual
offending. 

BJS receives numerous requests from individuals who want to
know, "What are the recidivism rates of sexual offenders?" As I
mentioned this morning, the latest national statistical
information we have on this important topic is from 1983. We are
pleased to have obtained funding from the FBI and the
Corrections Program Office within the Office of Justice Programs
recently to field a study that will update these statistics. The
study will focus specifically on sexual offenders and examine
whether DNA data assist in identifying and convicting such
offenders. 

Many States have enacted community notification laws in response
to heightened awareness of the seeming proliferation and
recidivism of sex offenders. These laws are designed to make sex
offender information available on request to individuals and
organizations. They authorize or require probation and parole
departments, law enforcement bodies or prosecutor offices to
disseminate information about released offenders to the
community at large. 

Community notification reflects the perception that registration
alone is inadequate to protect the public against sex offenders,
and that notification provides the public with a better means of
protecting itself. Notification advocates believe that informing
the public about the presence of a sex offender in the community
will allow residents to take action to keep themselves and their
families out of harm's way. Others believe that making offenders
notify communities on their own may be ill-advised, has great
potential for unreliability and is inconsistent with efforts to
rehabilitate offenders. 

However, there is a great deal of work involved to determine the
geographic range of identification; to decide who receives
notice; to consider hearings for offenders who want to contest
their notification status; and the actual process of
notification. For those who do not know, typical information
made available in one or more States includes an offender's
name, address, date of birth, social security number, a photo,
fingerprints, criminal history, place of employment and vehicle
registration. Eight States currently include blood samples for
DNA identification, and Michigan includes a DNA profile in the
registry if it is available. 

Notification laws have been challenged in the courts. I think it
is safe to say that States may encounter two types of legal
problems related to sex offender notification. First, civil
suits may be brought against agencies and individuals involved
in the implementation of the notification statues, perhaps for
failure to remove or expunge an erroneous registration record, a
record that was reversed by the courts, or one that had a time
limit for remaining in the registry. Second, legal challenges to
the statutes themselves could occur. 

While offenders in some States have sued to reduce their
notification status without challenging the constitutionality of
the notification statute, the courts have generally upheld the
notification level originally established. Though all States
have some form of registry in place, certain States have more
elaborate systems and technical resources than others. Some may
only be capable of initiating very limited record keeping to
provide identification of newly convicted eligible sexual
offenders. For these jurisdictions, assistance will be provided
to automate or retrieve relevant records of offenders' past
convictions. States with more advanced registries will want to
focus their grant funds on developing communication interfaces
with the FBI. 

------------------------------------------------------------
National registry:  A powerful tool
------------------------------------------------------------

The National Sexual Offender Registry, with the participation of
the States, has the potential to be a powerful tool for the law
enforcement community. However, the registry will only be as
valuable as the effectiveness of its database. Proper safeguards
must be implemented to assure that the public has access to
information that is supposed to be publicly available while only
authorized persons have access to restricted information about
sex offenders. 

Since the laws on this vary from State to State, the challenges
are obvious, especially if an offender travels back and forth
between two States. Also, to ensure accuracy, the system must be
available for quick and regular updates to reflect current data
in your State and in neighboring States. The development of such
databases is, unquestionably, a big challenge, but the BJS looks
forward to supporting State efforts to develop and enhance the
means of making your communities safer. 

As part of our commitment to you, the BJS funded this
conference. We hope you find it useful. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
History and current status of a national sex offender registry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          

EMMET A. RATHBUN

Unit Chief, Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

I am here today to speak on the history and current status of
the National Sexual Offender Registry. In the Fall of 1995, the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Service's Advisory Policy
Board (CJIS APB) began to discuss the benefits of a national sex
offender registry and where the registry could best be housed. 

Suggestions were made to designate the registry as a National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) "Hot File" or to include it in
the Interstate Identification Index (III). Since the Wetterling
Act -20 [The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program, 42 U.S.C. 
14071.] strongly encouraged States to establish sexual offender
registries, and many States had started to implement them, the
APB determined that a national index listing the State database
or agency that maintained the detailed registrant information
would be appropriate. 

The APB also decided that this index would be designated as a
NCIC Hot File to allow maximum accessibility to all law
enforcement. The Board delayed establishment of the Hot File
until after delivery of the NCIC 2000 system to avoid the cost
of programming both systems since no urgency for the national
registry was evident, either legislatively or from users.

On June 25, 1996, President Clinton issued a directive to the
Attorney General instructing her to develop a plan to implement
a national sexual predator and child molester registration
system. He asked that the plan be ready for his review by August
20, 1996. The President's directive made it necessary for the
FBI to develop a national registry mechanism to operate on an
interim basis until delivery of the NCIC 2000 system. The
directive required the creation of a national system based on
the Wetterling Act that allowed national access to the sexual
offender registration information maintained in each of the
individual State systems. 

The FBI's long-term plans still called for the creation of a
sexual offender Hot File in the NCIC 2000 system, but the Bureau
had to assemble an interim plan to meet the President's goals
for a national sexual offender registry to be available in the
period before the NCIC 2000 system is up and running. 

To address the President's directive, the FBI looked for the
lowest impact solution in terms of development cost and
implementation time. The FBI's interim solution, proposed to the
President under the Attorney General's signature on August 22,
1996, called for a modified version of its existing Flash
Program with a link provided to each State's sex offender
registry through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System (NLETS). (The Flash Program is used to track Federal
parolees and probationers.) 

At its October 1995 Board meeting, NLETS decided that States
should create a "message key" that would permit the electronic
search of State sex offender registry information, just as
driving record information is shared across State lines. NLETS
requested that the message keys be in place by November 1996.

During his Saturday radio address on August 24, 1996, the
President announced he had received the Attorney General's plans
for implementing a National Sexual Offender Registry. He
committed to the Nation that the Attorney General's planned
system would be operational within 6 months, or by February 24,
1997.

Through diligent hard work and determination, the FBI was able
to deliver the interim provisions for use on February 23, 1997. 

The interim provisions encourage States to submit sexual
offender registration data - including the registrant's name,
date of birth, the date the registration began, the date the
registration expires, the case number and the registering
agency's Originating Identification Number (ORI) - to the FBI
for inclusion in the subject's criminal history record. To
ensure that all entries into the FBI's database are based on
positive fingerprint identification, the FBI also requires the
subject's FBI number and State identification number, if the
State has established such a number for the subject. 

The FBI recognizes that some law enforcement agencies may not
have forwarded the records of all convicted sexual offenders for
inclusion in the III. In these instances, the FBI requires the
submission of a criminal fingerprint card along with the
registration data so a record can be established.

To maximize the amount of information contributed to the interim
national sexual offender registry, the FBI accepts input,
modification and deletion data in three formats: Batch tapes;
on-line transmissions to the III; or through the use of the
FBI's "Flash/Sexual Offender Registration/Cancellation Notice"
I-12 Form. 

It is important to note that the submitting State is responsible
for ensuring that the registrant data are current and accurate.
The FBI encourages States to develop the capability to add,
modify and delete registry data via the III. Even States that
are not III participants can use the III for sexual offender
registration purposes.

The registry data are posted to the subject's criminal history
and provided as a part of the subject's record each time an
authorized record request is made. A subject's status as a
registered sexual offender is prominently displayed in response
to both III name searches (QH) and record requests (QR)
transactions. In answer to a name check, the response notes that
the subject of record is a registered sexual offender. To
determine the Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) number, case
number and the registry start and expiration dates, a record
request must be made.

Sexual offender registration will be noted in a subject's rap
sheet in the same manner, regardless of whether the rap sheet is
obtained via the III, in response to a record request (QR) or
via the mail. A notice indicating that the record subject is a
registered sexual offender will appear immediately prior to the
identification information included in their FBI identification
record. Specific registration information will appear at the end
of the FBI identification record similar to the format used for
the inclusion of a wanted notice. 

Registration information presented in the FBI identification
record will include the name the subject is registered under;
the registering agency's name and ORI number; the registering
agency's case number; the date registration began; and the date
registration expires. The expiration date may be "non-expiring"
for individuals required to register for life.  

The registering agency's ORI provided in the rap sheet can be
used to contact the registering agency via NLETS, or by other
means, to obtain specific registration data.

To date, more than 17,000 III records contain sexual offender
registration data. Nine States -21 [Arizona, Georgia, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and
Washington.] are actively registering offenders at the national
level. Several others are testing software for on-line access,
or are preparing to submit paper registration forms. The sexual
offender registries of 9 States -22 [Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, South
Dakota and Tennessee.] are available via NLETS.

Although we are often inclined to focus on the gross statistics,
painful cases such as those that prompted enactment of the Jacob
Wetterling Act, Megan's Law and the Pam Lychner Act remind us of
the importance of each entry into the national index, whether it
is in the interim system or the NCIC 2000 file. The national
index is a tool law enforcement officials can use to identify
citizens in their communities who are known sexual offenders and
respond accordingly. It is intended to serve foremost as a
preventative measure and, secondarily, as an investigative aid.
The tool will only work, however, with the cooperation and
participation of all States.

 The convicted sexual offender registry will be a Hot File in
NCIC 2000. As most of you are aware, NCIC 2000 is being
developed as a replacement system to the current NCIC system. In
addition to providing a new software and hardware environment,
NCIC 2000 will add new capabilities, new data fields, enhanced
security and greater capacity and growth potential.

By maintaining the registry in NCIC 2000, enormous benefits are
anticipated. As a Hot File, the registry information will be
available to law enforcement under routine circumstances. A Hot
File check is done almost every time a vehicle is stopped for a
traffic violation or a traffic stop. The officer checks to see
if the vehicle is stolen or if the driver has any outstanding
warrants. By maintaining the registry in NCIC 2000, sex offender
information will be available to officers conducting routine
traffic stops. 

With this knowledge, the officer may be able to prevent a crime
such as this scenario: A car with a male driver and a young boy
is pulled over for speeding. A check on the name and date of
birth of the driver results in a hit from the registry
identifying the offender as a pedophile. 

Since vehicle information can be included in the registry,
searches by license plate may also identify the individual as a
registered sexual offender. Consider this scenario: An
individual is sitting in his car in front of an elementary
school. An officer's instincts alert him that something seems
out of place. A check on the individual's license plate results
in a hit from the registry.

Also, law enforcement may become aware of offenders who fail to
re-register after moving. Based on the law within a respective
State, an arrest may be permitted under these circumstances.
Unique to the registry is the capability to conduct on-line
searches by ZIP code that may identify possible suspects during
an active investigation.

NCIC 2000 contains two new capabilities that will facilitate the
new burdens required under the Pam Lychner Act. -23 [Pam Lychner
Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, 42
U.S.C.  14072.] First, images (offenders' mug shots) can be
entered by the user and linked to a record. Second, a
fingerprint (right index) can be linked to the record, and a
user can initiate a fingerprint search by scanning the right
index finger of the subject.

All records in the convicted sexual offender registry require an
FBI number to enable flagging of the subject's criminal history
record. This ensures the benefits of the interim system will
continue and allows compliance under the Pam Lychner Act (which
requires that registry information be released for conducting
employment-related background checks under the National Child
Protection Act of 1993). -24 [Pub L. No. 103-209 (December 20,
1993).]

The Wetterling Act does not require Federal agencies to register
sexual offenders. However, the U.S. Department of Justice
guidelines relating to the Wetterling Act encourage States to
require registration of Federal and military offenders. Although
the Wetterling Act, as amended to date, fails to address
responsibilities of other Federal agencies associated with
registering Federal offenders, the amendment imposed by the
Lychner Act has the potential to place a tremendous burden on
the FBI, both in terms of field offices registering offenders
and the CJIS Division processing fingerprints. Mr. Ralph Thomas,
the next speaker, will offer further discussion on the matter. 

------------------------------
The impact of the Lychner Act
------------------------------

RALPH C. THOMAS

Supervisory Special Agent - Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit

Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

I work at the FBI Criminal Investigative Division in the Policy,
Planning and Analysis Unit. This unit addresses policy issues
that could impact the operations of the Criminal Investigative
Division at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., as was well as
FBI criminal investigations being conducted in the field. I want
to provide some background information on the task force we
assembled at FBI headquarters in October 1996 to address the
Bureau's responsibilities under the Pam Lychner Act. -25 [The
Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of
1996, 42 U.S.C.  14072, requires the FBI database be used for
registration of sex offenders for States that do not maintain
"minimally sufficient sexual offender registration program(s)."]
I have been de facto chair of this task force since my co-chair
received a promotion to another position.

The task force is comprised of representatives from various
divisions at FBI headquarters, including the Criminal
Investigative Division, the Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division, the Information Resources Division
(which manages the information that goes into systems used by
the FBI), the Congressional Affairs Office, and our finance
office. Virtually every division of the Bureau is represented
except for the Counterintelligence Division.

The first meeting of this task force was held in October 1996.
We discussed the FBI's sexual offender registration obligations
under the Lychner Act and attempted to assess other policy
issues relating to the Act, including some very serious resource
implications that may arise. At the meeting's conclusion, we
decided that it is the task force's goal to address policy and
procedure for effective implementation of the Lychner Act at
both FBI headquarters and out in the FBI's field offices
nationwide.

It is difficult to determine what the FBI's role will be in
meeting the registration requirements of the Lychner Act. The
Act requires the FBI to register released sex offenders in
States that do not have minimally sufficient registration
programs. Since we do not know how many States will be deemed
"minimally sufficient" in terms of their registration
obligations, we do not fully know what our responsibilities are
going to be. 

Congress created this provision for direct registration with the
FBI as a back-up or fail-safe measure. We were to act as a
back-up in the remote possibility that some States would not
have minimally sufficient sex offender registration programs. It
now appears there may be a lot more States than we ever
anticipated that will not be minimally sufficient when it comes
to their registration programs. 

Therefore, we are in the process of implementing the Lychner Act
guidelines, but we do not know what our responsibilities are
until the U.S. Department of Justice lets us know how many
States will not have minimally sufficient programs. 

In terms of the potential impact of the Lychner Act on FBI
resources, I will reiterate that the FBI must register sex
offenders who reside in States that do not have minimally
sufficient sex registration programs as defined by the Lychner
Act. This registration must include a current address,
fingerprints and a photograph. Registration must continue for at
least 10 years, although the most serious, repeat sex offenders,
called sexually violent predators, must register for life. 

By complying with the Lychner Act, the FBI would have a
significant burden placed on all its field offices, which would
have to actively take part in the registration process by taking
fingerprints and photographs of offenders who are required to
register. This would be problematic, considering that we have
very remote satellite offices in the FBI called Resident
Agencies. We have 56 major field offices, but we also have
one-man, special agent offices scattered throughout the United
States. You can likely foresee some of the registration problems
that could happen with sex offenders located in the remote
plains of North Dakota, for example. Where do they register? Do
they register with the Resident Agency or do they register with
the FBI field office? Will our smaller offices have the
necessary resources to register sex offenders? These are the
types of questions we discuss during our task force meetings. 

In addition, we will have to assign personnel and organize
efforts to input the FBI's registration information into the
interim National Sexual Offender Registry system and,
ultimately, into National Crime Information Center 2000. The
CJIS Division would be required to verify the offender's
fingerprints prior to entry of the registration record in the
national registry. Currently, we have a bit of a backlog with
fingerprints. That is a problem we are going to have to work out
before the implementation of the Lychner Act requirements.

Another issue concerns procedures to record address changes. The
FBI must establish a method to notify appropriate State or local
authorities and to modify the national registry when a
registered offender changes residences. This creates further
burdens on the CJIS and Information Resources Divisions at FBI
headquarters. 

Address verification is another responsibility. The FBI must
periodically verify the addresses of sex offenders it registers.
The address of a sexually violent predator must be verified
every 90 days. That puts substantial demands on the manpower of
our violent crime squads in the field, inasmuch as the only
effective way to verify an offender's address is to physically
contact the offender. Address verification also requires
submission of additional fingerprints and photographs. The FBI's
CJIS Division would once again have to verify the submitted
fingerprints. 

Another major responsibility involves the search for fugitives.
The FBI must locate offenders whose addresses cannot be
verified. If a registered sex offender cannot be located, the
FBI will have to obtain an arrest warrant and include the
offender on the NCIC's wanted persons file. Our field office
personnel would conceivably have to conduct fugitive
investigations to locate these offenders for registration
violations. 

The cost of that burden is very difficult for the FBI to
quantify. Our budget office put together some projections using
fugitive statistics from our California field offices along with
information about noncompliant sex offenders provided by the
California Department of Justice. The results were potentially
staggering in terms of the impact on FBI personnel and
nonpersonnel resources. 

The bottom line, based on the computations, was that we would
have to take every agent in each of our four California field
divisions - San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco
- and assign them full-time to look for sex offenders who are
noncompliant (those who cannot be located or who did not
register). That means every agent in every one of these four
divisions, not just those who investigate violent crimes but
also those who investigate drug and organized crime,
white-collar crime and espionage cases - basically, every FBI
agent in every one of our California offices. 

Community notification is the final issue. If appropriate, the
FBI may release relevant information concerning a registered
offender that is necessary to protect the public. Again, this
would involve FBI personnel from the CJIS Division, the
Information Resources Division, the Criminal Investigative
Division and the Office of Public and Congressional Affairs. We
are currently working on a policy that addresses the community
notification provisions of the Act. One possible strategy would
utilize a centralized database at FBI headquarters that would be
available to our field offices. 

One of the reasons I looked forward to attending this conference
was to learn more about the States' Wetterling/Lychner Act
implementation strategies. Please call me at FBI headquarters to
talk about these issues, because the FBI's registration and
notification obligations under the Pam Lychner Act will not
succeed unless we work closely with the States and with local
law enforcement officials. 

My telephone number at FBI headquarters is (202) 324-3241.
Please call me if you have any questions or need more
information about the Jacob Wetterling and Pam Lychner Act
requirements and how your State can meet them.  

------------------------------------------------------------
Status and latest developments in sex offender
registration and notification laws
------------------------------------------------------------

ELIZABETH A. PEARSON

Staff Associate/Congressional Liaison

National Criminal Justice Association

I want to talk today about the history and evolution of State
sex offender registration and notification laws and their quick
development, especially within the past few years. I want to
briefly discuss the pros and cons of registry and notification
laws and what supporters and opponents of the laws have to say
about them. 

I will also touch on the nuts and bolts of registration and
notification systems, the similarities and differences of State
laws, and legislative efforts certain States undertook in 1997
to change their laws. I do not intend to present an exhaustive
list of enactments, but I will provide a flavor of what is going
on in the States.

Finally, I want to address cost issues and other policy
implications in terms of implementation of these laws. Sex
offender registration and notification is a resource-intensive
proposition, so I want to examine cost issues as well as other
impediments and facilitators to implementation.

------------------------------
Evolution
------------------------------

The first thing I would like to discuss is the evolution of sex
offender registries. Registration laws require sex offenders to
provide certain identifying information to law enforcement and
corrections officials when they are released from custody for
supervision in the community. All States had these laws on the
books as of 1996. 

Massachusetts created its registration and notification
provisions in August 1996, becoming the last State to do so. The
first sex offender registry was created by California in 1947.
Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Alabama followed suit in the
1950s and 1960s. Clearly, the most recent period of activity has
been in the 1990s, with 38 States creating provisions since
1994. 

Notification systems have evolved much more recently. They allow
information from the sex offender registry to be disseminated
either to specific people in the community or in a specific
manner, or to be made available for public view. The purpose of
the information release is to increase public awareness of sex
offenders in a particular area. 

The first notification law was created in Washington State in
1990 when the Community Protection Act was approved. -26 [WASH
REV. CODE ANN.  9A.44.130 (West 1988 & Supp. 1997).] Since
then, 44 other States have created notification systems. Recent
information from the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy indicates that Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and
New Mexico are the five States that currently do not have
notification provisions.

------------------------------
Pros and cons
------------------------------

People who support and advocate for sex offender registration
and notification cite the following reasons for doing so: 

* The significant number of sex offenders under community
supervision. A December 1996 statistic from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics indicates that, on any given day, there are
approximately 234,000 sex offenders under the care and custody
of the States, 60 percent of whom are under conditional
supervision in the community. -27 [U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex
Offenses and Offenders, An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual
Assault, by Lawrence A. Greenfeld (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, February 1997).]

* Fear of recidivism. Research finds that sex offenders commit a
wide range and a large number of sexually deviant acts in their
offending lives and are reluctant to fully disclose their
offense history. 

* Tools for law enforcement to assist in investigations, and
grounds for holding those who do not comply with registration
laws. Law enforcement is aided by laws that help identify people
and that keep offenders under surveillance and in line with
their responsibilities to register.

* Deterring sex offenders. Offenders may be reluctant to commit
new crimes if they know information about the crimes will be
added to the registry and would be passed on to the community. 

* Offering citizens information to protect their children and
their families. 

Those who oppose registration and notification laws cite the
following reasons: 

* False sense of security. Some fear that registration and
notification systems promote a false sense of security. They
fear citizens may rely too heavily on the information being
released and not account for sex offenders who are not
registered because they may be new to an area, or because they
plea bargained to a lesser crime not included in sex offender
registration laws. 

* Vigilantism, harassment. There is concern about vigilantism
and harassment of offenders trying to get their lives back
together. 

* Offenders avoid treatment. Some fear these laws inhibit
offenders from seeking treatment. 

* No data on effectiveness. There is also a lack of evaluation
of proven effectiveness in terms of compliance and arrest rates. 

* Migration. There is the fear that communities with lax or
less-stringent registration and notification provisions will
make it more difficult to track offender movements.

------------------------------
Common features
------------------------------

Information from the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy and other sources indicate that most State registration
laws share several common features. -28 [Staci Thomas and
Roxanne Lieb, Sex Offender Registration: A Review of State Laws
(Olympia, Washington: Washington State Institute for Public
Policy, 1995).]

The first is that these registries are maintained by a State
agency, while local law enforcement is responsible for
collecting information. This is not the case in every State, but
it is common in most States. 

Typically, the information collected includes the offender's
name, address, photograph, birth date and social security
number. In most States, the initial timeframe to register runs
from immediately after release to 30 days. Duration of the
registration requirement is typically 10 years or more. Most
registries are updated only when an offender notifies law
enforcement he is changing his address. Most laws apply equally
to offenders convicted in other States.

------------------------------
Differences
------------------------------

A number of features are different from State to State with
respect to registration laws. 

The first is the lifetime registration requirement. As of 1996,
only 15 States required lifetime registration for some or all of
their sex offenders. 

Another feature that differs is the petition for relief from
registration requirements. According to information published by
Elizabeth Rahmberg-Walsh in her text, "The Sex Offender," at
least 11 States allow offenders to petition for relief from
registration requirements. -29 [Elizabeth Rahmberg Walsh,
Megan's Law   Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Statutes and Constitutional Challenges, THE SEX OFFENDER, Civic
Research Institute, Inc., 1997, p. 24-4.] Rahmberg-Walsh also
conducted research on the difference between expunging records
and petitioning for relief. She found that at least 11 States
have expungement provisions, 10 of which apply when the
conviction is set aside or reversed. Only Connecticut
automatically expunges the offender's record after his
registration term expires. 

As of 1996, 13 States had address verification provisions, most
of which require annual registration. Four States required
verification every 90 days. Of these, New Jersey and Vermont
require address verification every 90 days for all offenders,
whereas New York and Pennsylvania require only sexually violent
predators to verify addresses every 90 days. 

The information I have on the retroactive application of
registration and notification requirements is not the most
up-to-date, but I think it is interesting. In 1995, the New York
State Division of Criminal Justice Services surveyed 44 States
which, at that time, had registration provisions. Twenty-two
States had provisions in place to apply registration
requirements retroactively under certain circumstances. I note
that many of those States had court cases pending to assess the
retroactivity application. I think most decisions based on
retroactive application of registry laws indicated that
retroactive application in this sense was considered regulatory
and remedial and not punitive. It was, therefore, permissible. 

Another unique feature concerns the registration of juvenile
offenders. As of 1996, 13 States required youths convicted as
sex offenders to register. Of course, juveniles tried in adult
court are required to register. 

Sanctions for failing to register and penalties for violation of
registration laws vary significantly. Most States levy
misdemeanor charges for those types of violations, although
several States increase the penalty severity for repeat
offenders. Four other States - California, Mississippi, Oregon,
and Washington - vary the penalty based on the severity of the
offense. 

As of 1996, 9 States allow DNA to be collected and inserted in
the registry. Federal laws do not require DNA collection,
depending instead on fingerprint and photograph identification.

------------------------------
Four notification categories
------------------------------

Notification methods fall into four basic categories: 

* Active or broad notification. State law defines which types of
offenders require community notification, as well as the scope
of the notification effort. In other words, citizens do not have
to seek out information before they are notified. 

* Limited disclosure. Refers to those States that notify certain
groups or agencies about the presence of sex offenders in their
community based on a fear that those groups may be negatively
impacted. 

* Passive notification. Requires community groups or individuals
to take the initiative to request information about sex
offenders in the community. 

* Combination. The fourth category combines ingredients of the
previous three. 

------------------------------
Active notification
------------------------------

The first category I want to address is active notification.
There are three ways States conduct active notification. 

The first is "tiering." Many States have a tiered process to
assess risk and then base notification on that risk assessment. 

In Minnesota, which enacted its community notification law in
1996, the Department of Corrections provides this information.
Risk assessment and notification levels are based on a tiered
process. For example, first-time offenders are considered
low-risk, which corresponds to a level-one notification.
Information sent to law enforcement may be shared with other law
enforcement, victims and witnesses. This is a fairly common
method of notification. Other states that utilize the tiered
process are Arizona, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington and
Wyoming. 

Many States allow law enforcement some discretion in releasing
information they find relevant and necessary to the community.
Two examples are Tennessee and Montana. Tennessee notification
is based on the need to protect the public. Information is
released by county sheriffs, who actively make the notification
determinations themselves. In Montana, notification can begin
when a court order exists allowing the release of information.
When that happens, officials use a press release to distribute
the information to the community.

Many States specifically define the method and scope of the
notification necessary. Examples include Alabama, Louisiana and
Delaware. In Alabama, residents are notified by mail and copies
of registry information are posted in various public buildings.
The scope of notification is dependent on the size and the
population of the area.

------------------------------
Limited disclosure
------------------------------

The second category of notification is limited disclosure.
Several States allow limited disclosure of sex offender
information to organizations or officials who might be
vulnerable to sex offenders in the community. One example is
Indiana, where the statute requires notification to all public
and nonpublic schools; to State agencies that license or hire
individuals who deal with children; and to registered daycare
facilities.

------------------------------
 Passive notification 
------------------------------
Passive notification is the third category. It allows the public
to view sex offender information maintained at a central
location. This process is used in several States, including
Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan and Oklahoma, where the State
maintains a list of registered sex offenders for view at the
local level. 

------------------------------

Combination
------------------------------

The final category combines elements of the previous three.
Several States use a combination of notification methods.
California, for instance, recently released a CD-ROM containing
sex offender information. It also established a World Wide Web
page and a 900-prefix telephone number residents can call to get
information about sex offenders. Here, the passive approach is
combined with a more active approach, which allows law
enforcement agencies to disclose information to the community. 

Wisconsin has a similar system. It established an 800-prefix
telephone number with law enforcement discretion in determining
the scope of community notification. Texas provides notification
via the newspaper in both English and Spanish. Residents of a
particular community can obtain information from their law
enforcement agencies that is directly related to that specific
community.

------------------------------
Risk assessment
------------------------------
Risk assessment is important to the success of registration and
notification programs. According to the Washington State
Institute of Public Policy, risk is most often assessed upon
conviction or release from incarceration. There are several
types of risk assessment. Some States classify risk based on the
history of offense. For example, California's classification is
based on the violent sex offenses and violent non-sex offenses
that the offender has in his criminal history. Other States use
risk assessment tools, objective measures or guidelines to help
determine the offender's risk level. 

Some States allow the court to make the risk determination and
some States use a board or panel of experts to assess risk. 

For example, the Minnesota End of Confinement Review Committee
consists of a treatment specialist, a victims' rights
representative and a law enforcement official to help make risk
determinations for the State. 

No risk level is assigned in broad notification. Notification is
automatically dispensed for certain sex offenders. In Georgia,
for example, the notification requirement applies to all
convicted child sex offenders. 

Finally, in some States, such as Tennessee, law enforcement
officials determine the risk an offender poses to the community.

 
------------------------------
Technology
------------------------------

As many of you are aware, technology has entered the discussion
of registration and notification laws. California just released
a CD-ROM containing registry information. Several States have
telephone banks people can call to access registry information:
they are California, Florida, Wisconsin and New York. In Florida
and Wisconsin, the State provides an 800-prefix telephone
number. California and New York provide a 900-prefix telephone
number. 

Florida, Indiana and Kansas offer sex offender information on
Web sites. One county in Michigan has established a Web site run
by a local newspaper using information provided by the sheriff.
Benton County, Oregon, also has a Web site.

------------------------------
Legislative changes
------------------------------

Various legislative actions have changed certain States'
registration and notification laws over the past year. The first
area I want to talk about is compliance legislation. A lot of
States are struggling to come into compliance with the Federal
law. A couple of States considered and a couple passed
compliance legislation. 

The first I would like to discuss is Illinois. The Illinois
Legislature has approved two bills to amend current law to bring
the State's registration and notification provisions into
compliance with the Jacob Wetterling Act. It is my understanding
that neither bill has been signed. They are awaiting the
governor's signature. He is expected to sign one or the other.
They contain similar provisions to bring Illinois into
compliance with the Wetterling Act and the Federal Megan's Law.

The bills would require a released sex offender to register with
the proper agency within 10 days of release rather than the
current 30 days. The Illinois State Police would conduct address
verification by mail and sexually dangerous individuals would
register with local law enforcement every 90 days for life. 

The second State I want to discuss is North Dakota. In 1997,
North Dakota enacted a compliance bill to create a qualified
board of experts to make sexually violent predator
determinations. -30 [HB 1048, 55th Legislative Assembly, State
of North Dakota, (March 24, 1997) (enacted).] The bill requires
sex offenders to register for 10 years. Sexually violent
predators would be required to register for life. 

Wyoming was one of the States that instituted notification
provisions in 1997. The Wyoming law is similar to the Minnesota
law in that it provides a tiered process to conduct
notification. -31 [HB 0061, 54th Legislature of the State of
Wyoming, (Feb. 20, 1997) (enacted).] It considers a variety of
risk assessment factors. Is the offender under supervision or
receiving counseling or therapy? Does his criminal history
include a high probability of recidivism? What were his
offenses? 

The State of Nevada enacted a significant piece of legislation
related to sex offender laws that included some very interesting
provisions, and I thought I would share them with you. The bill
expands the conditions that a convicted sex offender must meet
while on probation. -32 [SB 325, 97th Legislature of the State
of Nevada, (July 16, 1997) (enacted).] They include abiding by a
curfew, submitting to a polygraph examination and abstaining
from alcohol use. It allows for the collection of DNA samples
and imposes a fee on offenders in certain circumstances to
support collection and testing of that information. It clarifies
that real estate agents are not responsible for disclosing
information to buyers or buyers' agents about sex offenders in
the community. It also extends current law to allow some
collection of information on juvenile offenders. 

Utah and Washington made slight technical changes to their laws.
Utah added some offenses to comply with Federal law and also
added an address verification component. -33 [SB 5759, 55th
Legislature of the State of Washington, (April 22, 1997)
(enacted).] Washington made several clarifications. The revised
Washington law now requires the Washington Association of
Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to develop a model policy for law
enforcement when disclosing information about sex offenders. -34
[HB 0348, Legislature of the State of Utah, 1997 General
Session, (March 5, 1997) (enacted).] It also requires the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Sentence Review
Board to report to the legislature on the number of offenders
who are in each classification level.

------------------------------
Cost
------------------------------

We have cost information from New Jersey detailing what that
State spent supporting registration and notification systems. In
fiscal 1997, New Jersey spent approximately $700,000 from the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and from State funds
to update its DNA database. A reported $400,000 in State funds
and $200,000 in State forfeiture money was allocated to State
prosecutors to try sex offender cases. Some $700,000 in State
funds went to public defenders for tier classification hearings. 

------------------------------
Challenges
------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) prepared a Research in
Action report on this topic, published in February 1997. -35
[U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice, Sex Offender Community
Notification, Research in Brief series, by Peter Finn, Abt
Associates (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office,
February 1997).] In 1996, NIJ representatives talked to 13
criminal justice practitioners in 8 States as well as 2 national
experts on sex offender laws. They found there were few
impediments to implementation and that States are not having a
difficult time implementing these laws, with the exception of
resources. 

However, survey respondents revealed several challenges they
faced. The first was assigning risk. Respondents found it
difficult from time to time to assign risk because they
sometimes lacked the information to apply criteria consistently.
Respondents also reported that the process of tracking and
identifying out-of-State offenders is incredibly difficult at
times. 

The National Criminal Justice Association, the organization I
work with, conducted in-depth case studies of 4 States and their
experiences implementing registration laws. We found the
following impediments to notification and registration:  

* The first is dissemination of registry notification in passive
notification States. One person we interviewed in Alaska said
there were questions in the community and from the public
library about the wider dissemination of the information once it
has been purchased lawfully. 

* Another is the impact of notification on incest victims. I do
not think this study is the first to identify that as a
challenge. There is certainly concern that reporting these types
of crimes would have a chilling effect because of the victim's
fear of being identified when broader community notification is
conducted for incest perpetrators. 

* Finally, there is concern about the accuracy of registry
information. One of our respondents from New Jersey indicated
concern about the dissemination of information and keeping only
accurate information in the database. The respondent also noted
some trouble with vigilantism and harassment in cases where
notification was provided on an unofficial level. 

I want to reiterate a point made earlier. There are many issues
surrounding sex offenders and the laws I discussed today that
have not been fully researched. There is a limited body of
empirical analysis on the efficacy of sex offender registration
and notification provisions. The State of Washington, for
example, conducted some empirical evaluation. 

Other areas that merit study include cost and compliance issues,
the issue of whether these laws can simultaneously address an
offender's rights and community protection, and questions over
the accessibility of information. There is a need to better
coordinate the dissemination of information and best practices
so we make registration and notification laws workable and
implement them in concert with other policies and procedures to
effectively manage sex offenders in the community. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments used to challenge notification laws -
and the government's response
------------------------------------------------------------

DENA T. SACCO

Counsel, Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

As many of you know, sex offenders have challenged registration
and community notification laws across the country. Thus far,
the challenges have been to State laws. The Federal government
has defended many State laws as a friend of the court, filing
amicus briefs in cases in New Jersey, Washington, Connecticut
and New York. 

In these cases, registration itself seldom is a problem.
Virtually every court addressing the issue has found
registration to be constitutional. Community notification is
more problematic. The courts also have upheld it for the most
part, but some lower courts and the Kansas Supreme Court, have
struck down community notification laws as violations of the
U.S. Constitution. As a result, notification is still very much
an open question. It will remain open until a Federal appeals
court, or perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court, addresses it. -36
[The four cases that were pending before the U.S. Courts of
Appeals when this presentation was given have now been decided.
All have held that community notification does not constitute
punishment in violation of the Constitution. In the cases
challenging Connecticut's administrative rule and New York's
statute, the lower Federal courts had overturned the rule or
statute. In both, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court,
holding that the rule or statute's notification provisions did
not constitute ex post facto punishment. See Roe v. Office of
Adult Probation, 1997 WL 546244 (September 8, 1997); Doe v.
Pataki, 120 F.3rd 1263 (2nd Cir. 1997), reh. denied, September
25, 1997. Note that, although the Connecticut case dealt only
with the administrative law and not Connecticut's statute, the
court did mention the statute and there is some indication that
the decision will end up precluding challenges to the statute
itself. In the cases challenging the New Jersey and Washington
statutes, the lower Federal court had upheld the statute. The
Third and Ninth Circuits affirmed those decisions, holding that
the notification provisions did not constitute ex post facto
punishment. The Ninth Circuit also held that Washington's
notification provisions did not constitute punishment under the
Double Jeopardy Clause, and did not violate the offenders'
rights to privacy or due process. See E.B. v. Verneiro, 119 F3rd
1077 (3rd Cir. 1997) reh. denied, September 17, 1997; Stearns v.
Gregoire, 1997 WL 539074 (September 4, 1997). Rehearing
petitions are pending in Roe and Stearns.]

I first am going to discuss the legal issues raised in cases
regarding registration and notification laws. I will try to
provide a picture of where the pending litigation stands and how
soon cases might be resolved. In doing so, I am going to address
the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Kansas v.
Hendricks case, -37 [Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S. Ct. 2072
(1997). In a June 23, 1997, decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld a portion of Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act that
allows the civil commitment of individuals who have finished
their prison terms for sex offenses but who are determined to
still constitute a threat to the public.] which applied some
standards we think will be very helpful in the notification
context, although the decision dealt with a civil commitment
statute rather than a community notification law. 

Litigating sex offenders usually raise three primary Federal
constitutional claims. State law claims are also raised, but
because they are particular to the individual State, I am not
going to discuss them. Constitutional claims center on three
arguments: 

* The first claim is punishment. Sex offenders contend that
community notification laws impose additional punishment after
the fact, on top of the punishment already imposed by their
criminal sentences and that this punishment is excessively
harsh. 

* The second claim is privacy. Sex offenders contend that
community notification invades their constitutional right to
privacy. 

* The third claim is due process. Offenders claim the laws
violate their right to due process. 

I will take each of them in turn and try to explain the
arguments made for and against the laws.

 
------------------------------
The issue of punishment
------------------------------

Punishment is the most frequent claim brought in these cases. In
order to prove many constitutional claims, including ex post
facto (retroactivity) and double jeopardy, an offender has to
prove that the law actually imposes punishment. A sex offender
typically contends that, if the public is informed about his
crimes and convictions, he is going to be subject to public
ridicule, shaming, ostracism, job discrimination and housing
discrimination. Typically he will point to a few prominently
reported incidents of harassment or vigilantism. He will say he
cannot protect himself or his family against these threats.
Offenders also claim notification is going to prevent them
getting a fresh start in the community. They argue that all
these factors put together constitute punishment that the State
is imposing upon them for their crime. 

State and Federal governments make several different arguments
in response. First, they point out that notification acts
actually are intended and designed for public protection, not
for punishment. In fact, community notification does no more
than provide the information necessary to make the public and
vulnerable individuals aware of the potential danger posed by
sex offenders and let them know how to protect themselves and
their families. 

Second, the government points out that sex offender information,
such as an offender's name, address and convictions, is already
a matter of public record, or at least is publicly observable
information. The government argues that any shame, ridicule or
ostracism the offender may experience is the result of the
offender's own act in committing the crime and being convicted
in the first place, not the result of State notification and
dissemination of public information about the crime and the
conviction. 

Third, the States and the Federal government argue that the laws
are not intended to operate against or to punish, ridicule or
instigate illegal acts against the offender. Illegal acts
actually are quite rare and cannot be attributed to the type of
community notification laws that exist in many States. In fact,
most State programs are tied to a determination of public safety
necessity based on the likely danger that the offender poses to
the public. Information usually is given out with caution as to
its proper use. 

The State makes clear that the information is not to be used for
illegal purposes. The State might even warn the public that
illegal acts will be prosecuted and that they could undermine
the effectiveness of the notification laws. New Jersey, for
example, issues these types of warnings along with notification.

Washington holds community meetings to address some of these
issues. I would be very interested to know what other States are
doing to deal with the threat of vigilantism or harassment in
notification.

Finally, the likelihood of vigilantism will decrease as
notification becomes more common and as we begin to understand
how this process works. 

------------------------------
The issue of privacy
------------------------------

The second issue sex offenders raise is privacy. They often
claim that, when the community becomes aware of the offender's
crime, the offender is going to lose his ability to recede into
anonymity and to get a fresh start. State and Federal
governments respond that this is not a constitutionally
protected privacy interest. In fact, the Constitution points the
other way, they argue. 

Criminal convictions are the result of a public trial. There are
certain constitutional guarantees associated with the public
trial for both the accused and for the public. But there is no
constitutional provision that guarantees a convicted offender
the right to conceal or erase the fact of his conviction or the
facts of the crime, or to prevent the State from using the
information for public safety purposes. 

Aside from the Federal Constitution, not even common law
recognizes a privacy interest in the type of information States
disseminate under notification laws, because it is public record
information already exposed to public view. Furthermore, even if
there were a constitutional privacy right in this type of
information, it would be limited because privacy rights involve
a balancing test. One would balance the public interest in
protecting victims or potential victims and in having the public
information available against the offender's right to anonymity
in these circumstances. 

------------------------------
The issue of due process
------------------------------

The third claim that is raised is due process. The Constitution
guarantees individuals the right to due process of law when the
State threatens to take away an interest in life, liberty or
property. Sex offenders often contend that community
notification infringes on their liberty interest and, therefore,
it cannot be imposed without extensive, trial-like procedures. 

The State and Federal government respond that there is no
liberty interest involved in community notification. The laws
provide information only. They do not impose any restraint on
the offender. True, an offender has to register under the
registration laws, but uniform registration has not been found
to be a restraint or to affect liberty interests. It is like
registering to vote or registering a car. Offenders contend
that, as a result of community notification, they will be
shunned and avoided and denied jobs and places to live. That is
not a State-imposed restraint on liberty because these things
are not requirements of or the intent of notification laws. To
the extent that such things even occur, they are the normal
societal consequences of committing a heinous crime. 

In fact, numerous cases, starting with a 1976 Supreme Court
case, -38 [Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976).] have held that
simply labeling a person a "criminal" or making statements that
a person committed a particular crime does not infringe on a
constitutional right, even if the information is not true and
even if third parties rely on the information to refuse to
employ or rent a residence to that person. 

Finally, as with the privacy claim, even if there were a
constitutional liberty interest involved, there would be a
balancing test. One would balance public interest against the
offender's interest. Meeting the due process requirements of the
Constitution can be very minimal. It could constitute a notice
to the offender informing him that notification is going to take
place and giving him the right to present objections. 

These offenders have been convicted of violent sex offenses.
There is a proven statistical correlation between sex offense
convictions and future likelihood to commit sex crimes. The
State has a very strong interest in protecting children and
other potential victims from these crimes. On the other hand,
the offender's right to conceal his public record information is
minimal, assuming it even exists. Minimal due process procedures
may very well be enough, even if there is a due process claim in
the first place.

------------------------------
Pending litigation 
------------------------------

Now that we better understand the issues raised by litigation,
we should examine the current status of pending litigation.
Right now, decisions are expected any day in four cases pending
in Federal appeal courts. Two cases involve the Washington and
New Jersey community notification laws, both of which were
upheld by State supreme courts and lower Federal courts. The
other two involve a New York community notification law and a
Connecticut probation office community notification policy, both
of which were struck down by lower Federal courts. -39 [The
Second Circuit reversed the lower court in both instances. See
Footnote 36.]

Hopefully, decisions in these four cases will clarify the
standards to be applied in these cases and the constitutionality
of community notification laws in general. Until now, there have
been many cases in State courts and in lower Federal courts
dealing with Federal constitutional questions, but decisions
have been a mixed bag. Cases on appeal resulted in split
decisions for notification laws. The Supreme Courts of
Washington State and New Jersey upheld sex offender notification
laws; Massachusetts' highest court approved that State's
community notification law in an advisory opinion. The Kansas
Supreme Court struck down the Kansas notification law last year.
There are cases pending in a variety of other States. The cases
become especially confusing when you consider that we are
dealing with very different, specific laws in each State. 

The offenders who challenge the laws also come from different
positions. Some were convicted or committed their crimes before
the notification law was passed. Others committed their crimes
after the law passed. They are placed in different situations
and make slightly different claims, although they use the same
basic arguments we talked about earlier. 

The Federal appeal courts' decisions on the Federal Constitution
questions will be the most influential. Depending on what
decisions are reached, this issue may well end up before the
U.S. Supreme Court. 

------------------------------
Hendricks case issues
------------------------------

Earlier, I mentioned the Supreme Court's recent decision in the
Hendricks case. The Supreme Court just last month upheld a
portion of Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act which provided
for the involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent
predators who finished serving their criminal sentence but were
determined to be likely to strike again. This is not a community
notification case, obviously, but it does have some import to
the cases we are interested in today. The court held that the
civil commitment law was a valid remedial law and was not
criminal punishment, even though it meant that these people
could be confined to a secure psychiatric facility indefinitely
or for the rest of their lives. 

There are several issues in this case that are helpful for our
purposes. First, if the Supreme Court can uphold as valid and
non-punitive the potential lifetime incarceration of sex
offenders based on a prediction of future dangerousness, it is
hard to imagine that the Court would have a problem with laws
that simply provide public record information on sex offenders
who are at large in the community. We believe that, after
Hendricks, courts should have no trouble finding community
notification laws to be non-punitive. 

Second, the court in the Hendricks decision rejected virtually
every argument raised by offenders who attack community
notification laws. They found that the civil commitment law had
a public safety purpose, that it was not intended to exact
retribution, and that the Court specifically approved the use of
past criminal conduct to predict future danger. The Supreme
Court also rejected the argument that disagreement among experts
about whether sex offenders can be rehabilitated should keep
legislators from acting on this matter. 

Finally, on a more legalistic note, the court clarified the
standard to be used for determining whether something is
criminal punishment. The court ruled that you must first look at
a law's intent. Is the intent of the law punitive or is it for
public safety? If the legislature's intent is not punitive, the
law would be presumed valid unless the sex offender can show by
clearest proof that its purpose or effect is, in fact, so
punitive as to negate the intent. That is a very hard standard
to meet.

I mentioned that the four currently pending cases should
probably apply that standard. We believe it is the appropriate
standard to determining whether community notification laws are
valid. One Federal district court in New Jersey already applied
the Hendricks standard to uphold New Jersey's community
notification law against a challenge from offenders who actually
committed crimes after the law's effective date. That is an
unpublished opinion, but we still think it is quite informative. 

That brings me to my last point. If you take anything from what
I have talked about today, you should take this: The most
important thread running through the litigation is the issue of
public safety. It shows up time and time again in how the courts
view community notification laws. In fact, the Federal law
dealing with notification mandates the States to provide
notification when there is a public safety need. 

Courts in general seem much more likely to uphold community
notification statutes that show a clear reliance on a finding of
public safety necessity and an attempt to tie notification to
the public benefit. When that is apparent in statutes and
methods used to determine when to notify, how much to notify and
whom to notify, the courts seem more deferential to States and
less likely to impose restrictions. 

Conversely, where public safety concerns do not appear to be the
guiding factor, courts are more likely to be open to considering
the harm to the offender and are less inclined to uphold the
laws. For example, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the
Kansas notification statute last year because it provided open
access to sex offender registries, listed all persons convicted
of "sexually motivated crimes," and made the information
available to anyone with no warning, no finding of public safety
necessity, and no limits on its use. 

Kansas seems to be at one end of the spectrum in terms of what
they do with notification. Other States like New Jersey,
Washington and New York have tiers of offenders, formalized
assessments of likelihood to re-offend, and procedures for
determining when and how to notify. New Jersey also provides
extensive procedures for judicial review prior to notification.
That is a matter of New Jersey State law and would not
necessarily carry over to other States. It was not found to be a
Federal constitutional requirement; it was a New Jersey State
law requirement. 

At this point, it is impossible to tell whether one type of
notification law is more likely to survive constitutional
challenge than any other. Hopefully this notification issue will
become a bit clearer in the near future. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Status of Federal legislation on sex offenders
and changes to current laws
------------------------------------------------------------

ROBERT R. BELAIR

General Counsel

SEARCH

I am going to be very brief today, because I am going to talk
about new Federal legislation to amend the Jacob Wetterling Act,
legislation which is fairly straightforward. 

House Resolution 1683 was recently introduced by Rep. Bill
McCollum. The bill has already been reported out of his Crime
Subcommittee, and a hearing on the bill is expected soon by the
full House Judiciary Committee. -40 [H.R. 1683, titled the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offenders Registration Improvement Act of 1997, was introduced
May 20, 1997, by U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Florida).  The
resolution amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 to clarify certain portions relating to sex offender
registration requirements. The House passed H.R. 1683 on Sept.
23, 1997, and sent it to the Senate.]

A companion bill, Senate Bill 767, was introduced by Sen. Judd
Gregg, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice and State. The bill was attached last week to Sen.
Gregg's appropriations bill, which surprised a great many of us.
I am told by Sen. Gregg's staff that they intend to take the
legislation through to the full Senate Appropriations Committee,
and on through to the Senate floor. -41 [S.B. 767 carries the
same title as H.R. 1683, and was introduced by U.S. Sen. Judd
Gregg (R-New Hampshire) on the same day. It was referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. It amends the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 in the same manner as H.R. 1683.]

On the other side, Rep. McCollum is chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Crime. He is a very powerful and influential
member of the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Gregg and Rep. McCollum
are the right sponsors for this legislation. New Hampshire had
problems with its registration and notification laws, so the
State went to Sen. Gregg. Florida had problems, so it went to
Rep. McCollum. Texas has had problems, as have a number of other
States. 

I have noticed during my 20-plus years as a legislative lawyer
that it is always very important for a bill's prospects when
there is no opposition. That is an inside tip. There is, to my
knowledge, no opposition at this point to these bills. I think
the bills are going to become law. The Senate passed similar
legislation during the 104th Congress. I think the means by
which that legislation becomes law are still up in the air. I do
believe the current bills will become law.

------------------------------
Four major purposes
------------------------------

There are four major purposes to these bills. 

First, they enhance flexibility for State registration systems,
allowing registration reporting to be done concurrently. They
provide flexibility in address verification, relaxing slightly
some of the deadlines for offenders to report when they leave
prison, although they still use the word "prompt." 

Second, they follow procedures outlined in the proposed U.S.
Department of Justice guidelines relating to military and
Federal sex offenders. If they do become law, they will assure
that State registration systems identify and track Federal and
military sex offenders. That is probably the biggest, most
important change these laws would bring. 

(The guidelines encourage the States to keep track of military
and Federal sex offenders. These bills require that those
offenders report through the military or through the Federal
correctional prison agencies. They do not require the State
registration systems to keep track of them, but the momentum
seems to be pointing in that direction.) 

Third, the bills improve registration and tracking of sex
offenders who live in one State but who work or go to school in
another State. That is part of the law now. It is addressed in
the guidelines as well for clarity, but the bills provide
further clarification. The bills define "employment" and "going
to school." To some extent, I think you can say they improve the
congruence between State and Federal registration or database
programs. They certainly give the States a little bit more
flexibility in the reporting. They do not otherwise amend the
Lychner Act or provide some of the remedies that the FBI
indicated eventually may be necessary, maybe sooner than later. 

Another important purpose of the legislation is to help States
do a better job keeping track of probationers and parolees who
are sex offenders. The bills hope to do this - and this is very
important - without requiring yet another round of State law.
Obviously, through the Wetterling Act, Megan's Law and the
Lychner Act, there has been a fair amount of pressure on the
State legislatures.

------------------------------
Specific changes
------------------------------
The bills will initiate specific changes. One has to do with the
controversial issue of sexually violent predator determinations.
These bills would allow the Attorney General to waive the State
board requirement, provided that there is an adequate process in
place. They do provide a bit more flexibility in this area. 

The bills also give States more flexibility in advising
offenders of their registration duties and obtaining initial
registration information to report. At present, these tasks must
be performed by a court or by a State prison official. This
legislation would allow designated State agencies, the court or
other responsible officials to carry out those duties. Again,
some of these concerns and issues were addressed by the
guidelines.

As I mentioned, Federal and military offender reporting is the
biggest issue. The bills bring them under the law. That has
always been the spirit of the original law, but there has been a
gap. These bills would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a registration and notification system similar to the
one used by the States. For those of us who have long watched
and worked on information system issues, it is going to be
fascinating to see whether the military can respond to this
requirement in an effective way. 

I do not believe the military has commented on this legislation.
I cannot imagine that it would be opposed to this requirement.
On the other hand, those of us who have looked at the three
military systems - one used by the Navy and Marines, another by
the Army and the third by the Air Force - know that those
systems do compare to the kinds of systems in terms of
capability, accuracy and completeness that are now available on
the adult civilian side. I should add that even though these
bills are fairly far along in the legislative process, they are
still very much works in progress. 

Concurrent registration is addressed in the pending legislation,
which also provides more flexibility in how registration can
occur. Address verification, which has been a big issue, is
addressed very effectively in the guidelines and is further
addressed in the bills. An individual required to register as a
sex offender could use a walk-in system to return an address
verification form rather than mailing it in. 

The bills use the term "promptly," as opposed to the existing
laws, which prescribe set periods of time for offenders to
register once released from prison. They extend law enforcement
immunity provisions to good-faith conduct if a particular agency
assigns related work to an independent contractor.  In an era of
increased outsourcing and privatization, that is obviously very
important. 

There are a couple of other provisions I did not mention. The
bill would prohibit the sale or exchange of sex offender
information for profit. I think we are all aware of the various
kinds of services on the Internet and others that harvest public
record information, court records and other types of public
record information, and make those records available for profit.
These bills would prohibit that.

They also have provisions for dealing with the registration of
State probationers and parolees, and they amend penalty
provisions to permit extradition in cases involving parolees or
probationers who move to different States and then fail to
register. 

FLOYD EPPS

Member, Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders
State of New York

Ms. Kathy Canestrini and I are going to discuss certain aspects
of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act. -42 [S.
11-B, 218th Legislature of the State of New York (Chapter 192 of
the Laws of 1995). Signed by the governor July 25, 1995.
Effective January 21, 1996.] Specifically, we are going to
discuss our risk assessment process and the role of the State's
Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. 

The following is some background information about the New York
State Sex Offender Registration Act. In July 1995, the New York
State Legislature passed, and Gov. George Pataki signed into
law, the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, more
commonly known in the New York area as "Megan's Law." 

The law, which became effective January 21, 1996, is consistent
with the Jacob Wetterling Act, including the requirement for sex
offenders to register and to provide information about
themselves to the State. It also provides that a Board of
Examiners of Sex Offenders be established. The board's primary
function is to provide the sentencing court with a recommended
level of risk that an offender poses to the public. 

On January 21, 1996, Gov. Pataki officially appointed a
five-member Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Board members
are experienced in the fields of treatment, supervision,
research and the prosecution of sex offenders. Ms. Canestrini
and I are members of the board. The board's role, as defined by
the statute, is to develop guidelines and procedures to assess
risk levels based on two factors: the likelihood of reoffense
and the threat the offender poses to the public if he reoffends.
The Board of Examiners is responsible for reviewing and making
risk-level recommendations for all offenders being released from
prisons and local jails. 

There are currently more than 5,000 offenders in the New York
State Registry. The board assisted in assessing the retro-pool
of offenders. Included in the retro-pool are offenders who were
on parole or probation on January 21, 1996.  The board's main
objective is to review cases of offenders released from State
corrections and local jails. We assess those cases on a
continuous basis. 

There are three levels of risk in New York. Level 1 is the
lowest and Level 3 is the highest. Ms. Canestrini will discuss
how we determine risk levels. I am going to give you the floor
plan of what we do, and she is going to build the house, so you
will see and understand the process very clearly. 

Risk level is used in New York to determine the frequency and
duration of registration and the amount of community
notification that can be provided to the public. The levels are
as follows: 

* A Level 1 offender is required to register annually for a
period of 10 years. The only information we dispense on a Level
1 offender is affirmation that he is listed in the registry; no
other information can be given out on the offender. 

* Level 2 offenders are required to register for a period of 10
years, and we can release more information about the offender to
the public - such as the crime of conviction, his modus operandi
and the targeted victims. The only information we cannot release
on a Level 2 offender is his exact address. 

* Level 3, or high-risk, offenders are required to register
annually for a minimum of 10 years and, possibly, for life.
These offenders are required to register with local police every
90 days. All information on Level 3 offenders, including exact
address, can be distributed to the public. 

The Sex Offender Registration Act created three procedures for
informing the public of the presence of sex offenders in the
community. One, it authorized local law enforcement to dispense
information. Two, it established a 900-prefix number the public
can telephone to inquire whether a sex offender is listed in the
registry. Three, it called for the distribution of a high-risk
offender subdirectory to law enforcement agencies. 

The Board of Examiners' review process begins approximately 120
days prior to the offender's release from incarceration. The
offender's case record is forwarded to the board at that time.
The case record includes all relevant information concerning the
presentence investigation, the offender's criminal history or
rap sheet, an institution summary and a statement from the
offender's victim(s). 

There are times the board solicits additional information from
the court, probation departments, parole officers, district
attorney's offices, State police, local police, and any other
division or department that will enable us to provide the most
thorough risk assessment possible to the sentencing court.
According to the statute, each case must be reviewed by three
board members, and each review is conducted independently of the
other reviewers. 

When we come to a risk-level consensus, the primary or first
reviewer is responsible for preparing a case summary supporting
the assessment we provide to the court. 

Within 60 days of the offender's release, the assessment
recommendation is forwarded to the sentencing court with the
summary that sustains the number of points we assess to this sex
offender, including all information we obtained in order to do
our risk assessment. To date, the courts have sustained the
board's recommendation in more than 85 percent of our cases. 

Thirty days prior to the offender's release, the court notifies
and provides the offender the opportunity to be heard. The court
also notifies and advises the offender of his right to counsel
and all of his other rights. Finally, after completion of this
entire process, the offender is informed of his registration
responsibilities and obligations just prior to being released.

This has been a brief synopsis of everything we do. It is our
floor plan and blueprint. Ms. Canestrini will discuss the
specifics of the statistics we have concerning our risk
assessment process. 

------------------------------------------------------------
The method of risk assessment used for the
New York State Sex Offender Registration Act
------------------------------------------------------------

KATHY CANESTRINI

Member, Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

State of New York

With the passage of the New York State Sex Offender Registration
Act in 1995, the State of New York adopted an individual review
process for determining sex offender risk levels, as opposed to
using a "per se" rule in which the conviction crime determines a
person's risk level. The Act specified that a number items
should be considered in the risk assessment process. 

The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders elected to develop an
objective instrument and associated guidelines to measure risk
using these specified factors. The risk assessment instrument
and guidelines were developed under the direction of Mr. Paul
Shechtman, former director of criminal justice services in New
York State, and with the assistance of Ms. Kim English, Director
of Research, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department
of Public Safety.

The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, created
by our State's sex offender registration act, is primarily
responsible for reviewing the cases of persons released from
State incarceration or from definite local terms after serving
time for sex offenses. -43 [S. 11-B, 218th Legislature of the
State of New York (Chapter 192 of the Laws of 1995). Signed by
the governor July 25, 1995. Effective January 21, 1996.] From
the time the act was implemented on January 21, 1996, through
June 13, 1997, the board has reviewed 1,540 cases. We typically
review approximately 100 cases per month. 

Slightly more than half of the 1,540 offenders, or 52 percent of
the cases reviewed by the board, resulted in a Level 3 risk
assessment, the highest level of risk for committing another sex
offense. Thirty-nine percent of the assessments resulted in a
Level 2 recommendation, or that of moderate risk. The remaining
9 percent of the cases resulted in a Level 1 recommendation, or
the lowest level of risk. The board arrives at the risk-level
recommendations by applying the risk assessment instrument and
associated guidelines. 

The risk assessment instrument covers four basic categories:
current offense, criminal history, post-offense behavior and
release environment. The board utilizes a numeric scoring system
that takes a number of factors into account. There is also an
"override" category that allows the board to abandon the numeric
system in certain instances, and a "departure" section that
takes mitigating factors into consideration. I would like to
discuss the override category first.

------------------------------
Override factors 
------------------------------

The assessment instrument considers four factors that override
the numeric system and result in an automatic Level 3 risk
designation. 

Prior Felony Convictions. The first override factor is if the
offender had a prior felony conviction for a sex crime prior to
the offense we are currently reviewing. 

Injury or Death. The second override factor is if the offender
inflicted serious physical injury or caused the victim's death.
(I consistently refer to offenders as men because women
constitute less than 1 percent of our offenders.) 

Threats. The third override factor is if the offender made
recent threats that he will commit another sexual or violent
crime. 

Offender Abnormality. The fourth override factor is if a
clinical assessment determined that the offender has a
psychological, physical or organic abnormality that interferes
with his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior. 

To date, the board has only used the first two override
categories. 

Of the 1,540 cases we have reviewed to date, 9 percent resulted
in a Level 3 risk assessment based on override factors. In the
remaining 90 percent of the cases, we used a risk assessment
scoring system in which we considered a number of individual
items reported in academic literature as predictive of sexual
reoffending or dangerousness. 

Each individual item in the numeric scoring system is added
together to produce an aggregate total score ranging from 0 to
300 points. A score of 0 to 70 points results in a presumptive
recommendation for the offender of Risk-level 1. A score of 75
to 105 points results in a Risk-level 2 recommendation. A score
of 110 to 300 points results in a Risk-level 3 recommendation.

------------------------------
Scoring system categories
------------------------------

The scoring system covers four general categories. The first
looks at the current offense and considers various factors which
describe the nature of the current crime. The second category
looks at the offender's criminal history. The third category
looks at his post-offense behavior. The final general category
looks at the release environment.

------------------------------
Current offense
------------------------------

Under the first general category of current offense, we consider
seven specific items. 

Violence. The first is the use of violence during the commission
of the crime. Ten points are assessed if the offender used
forcible compulsion during offense, and 15 points are assigned
if the offender inflicted physical injury. Thirty points are
assigned if the offender was armed with a weapon during the
crime. To date, approximately 20 percent of the offenses involve
the use of a weapon. When a weapon was used, the victim was
almost always an adult. 

Intrusiveness of Contact. The second item we consider is the
intrusiveness of the sexual contact. Five points are assessed if
the contact occurred over clothing. Ten points are assessed if
the contact was under clothing. Twenty-five points are assessed
if the sexual contact involved intercourse, sodomy or aggravated
sexual abuse. Eight out of every 10 cases the board has reviewed
involved vaginal intercourse, oral sodomy, anal sodomy, or
aggravated sexual abuse which requires a standard of physical
injury. 

Multiple Victims. The third item we consider is evidence of
multiple victims in the crime. Zero points are assessed if there
is one victim. Twenty points are assessed if there were 2
victims, and 30 points are assessed if there were 3 or more
victims involved in the offense. Approximately 20 percent of the
reviewed cases involved multiple victims in the current crime
being reviewed by the board. When there are multiple victims,
the victims are almost always children.

Frequency. The fourth item we consider is the frequency of the
sexual misconduct. Did it happen on more than one occasion?
Twenty points are assessed if there is evidence of a continuing
course of sexual assault against the victim. Approximately
one-third of the cases involved more than one sexual assault,
and some of the crimes involved abuses that occurred over a
period of several years. Again, when this item is scored, the
victims are almost always children.

Victim Age. The fifth category looks at the age of the victim or
victims. Twenty points are assessed if the victim is between the
ages of 11 and 16. Thirty points are assessed if the victim is
age 10 or younger or older than age 62. Victims' ages have
ranged from a low of just a few days old to a high of 85 years
old. Sixty-five percent of the victims were under age 17, and 35
percent were age 10 or younger. This is consistent with most of
the information we have been presented with at this conference.

Victim Helplessness. In item six, 20 points are assessed if the
victim was either physically or mentally helpless. This would
include unconsciousness due to alcohol consumption or sleep or
if the victim was physically helpless, for example, by
confinement to a wheelchair. Only 5 percent of the offenders
have been scored under this category. 

Relationship. The seventh specific item we consider is the
relationship between the offender and the victim. Twenty points
are assessed if the offender was a stranger to the victim or if
the relationship was promoted for the primary purpose of
victimization. In this category, we also consider whether a
professional relationship was used to gain access and to abuse
the victim, for example by a teacher, a priest or a doctor. 

Thirty-five percent of the offenders were scored under this
category primarily as strangers to the victim. I should
emphasize that 65 percent of the offenders were not scored under
this category, which obviously indicates that most victims knew
their offenders.

------------------------------
Criminal history 
------------------------------

The second general category of the risk assessment instrument is
criminal history, which examines the age at which the offender
committed his first sex crime, his prior criminal history, his
most recent commission of a felony offense prior to his current
conviction, and his substance abuse history. 

Age at First Offense. Ten points are assessed if the offender
was convicted or adjudicated of his first sexual crime before he
reached age 21. Approximately one-quarter of our population
falls into this category. 

Prior Criminal History. The next focus area is prior criminal
convictions or adjudications. Thirty points are assessed if
there was a prior misdemeanor sex crime conviction, a prior
charge of endangering the welfare of a child, or a prior violent
felony offense. Fifteen points are assessed for a nonviolent
felony, and five points are assessed for a nonsexual misdemeanor
conviction. Using this category and the information gained from
the override category, a striking 31 percent of offenders had
prior convictions for sex crimes or violent felony offenses. 

We score 10 points if the previous sexual crime or felony
conviction occurred within 3 years of the current conviction. If
the offender was incarcerated for a portion of the previous 3
years, we do not consider that period during our examination of
his history. Approximately one-quarter of the offenders had a
prior felony or sex crime conviction within 3 years of
perpetrating the current offense. 

Substance Abuse History. Drug and alcohol use is highly
associated with sexual offending. We score 15 points if an
offender has either a substance abuse history or if he was using
drugs or alcohol at the time of the current offense. Six out of
every 10 of our offenders fell within this category. 

------------------------------
Post-offense behavior
------------------------------

The next general item on the risk assessment instrument looks at
post-offense behavior. We consider two different factors under
this category. First, we examine the offender's acceptance of
responsibility. Second, we look at the offender's conduct while
confined or supervised. 

Offenders who deny, minimize or mitigate their behavior are poor
prospects for rehabilitation. Ten points are assigned if they
fall into this category. Fifteen points are assigned if the
offender refuses treatment or if he has been expelled from
treatment. To date, approximately one-third of our offenders
were either removed from a treatment program or refused to
participate in a sex offender program.

The second specific issue in this general category is conduct
while confined. Ten points are assessed if an incarcerated
offender has incurred a serious disciplinary infraction while
incarcerated. This would include such offenses as assaulting a
guard or another inmate or possessing drugs or a weapon. Twenty
points are assessed if there was a sexual misconduct offense,
such as sexually assaulting another inmate or writing sexually
suggestive materials to a staff person. To date, 20 percent of
the offenders were assessed as having a serious disciplinary
infraction, and another 5 percent committed sexual misbehavior.

------------------------------
Release environment
------------------------------
The final general category we consider is release environment.
Two factors are taken into account in this category. We examine
the supervision the offender is going to receive and the living
and employment situations that await him. The board focuses on
the supervision category because, when we are conducting our
review, the living and employment situations are typically not
established. 

Zero points are assessed if the offender is released to a
specialized parole caseload. Five points are assessed if he is
released to parole supervision without the benefit of a
specialized caseload. Fifteen points are assessed if the
offender reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence and
he was being released into the community without supervision.
Approximately 65 percent of our offenders are released to a
specialized parole caseload. It is noteworthy that 11 percent of
our offenders are released at their maximum sentence expiration
date into the community with no supervision.

------------------------------
Departure section 
------------------------------

I spoke previously about a departure section in our risk
assessment instrument. This section is premised on the
recognition that an objective instrument, no matter how well
designed, will not fully capture the nuances of every case. 

After the presumptive risk level is determined based on the
scoring system, the case is reviewed to determine if a departure
is warranted. A departure can send the risk-level assessment
either to a higher or lower level. 

To date, the board has only departed in about 11 percent of the
cases. These departures have been distributed equally between
raising or lowering the assessment level. We provide
justification to the court when we do depart. Typically, an item
not already considered by the assessment instrument justifies
the departure. It can be a mitigating factor, such as a victim's
lack of consent based solely on inability to consent because of
the victim's age, or it can be a recognition that the offender
has made exceptional progress and has participated in a
treatment program. Aggravating factors include multiple
convictions for prior misdemeanor sex crimes or the use of
pornography or sexual devices that were not captured by the
assessment instrument.

I would like to end with a quote that I came across recently. I
thought it was very striking, primarily because it was written
50 years ago. "The most rapidly increasing type of crime is that
perpetrated by degenerate sex offenders. Latest figures show
that while the number of crimes is diminishing, the number of
sex crimes continues to increase." That was a quote from the FBI
director cited in American Magazine in 1947. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's history of sex offender registration requirements
and response to new Federal mandates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOUG SMITH

Chief, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis

California Department of Justice

I would like to review the history of California's sex offender
registration requirements and our State's response to recent
Federal mandates requiring States to strengthen their laws
dealing with sex offenders. 

History

California enacted a registration requirement for convicted sex
offenders in 1947. -44 [Statutes of 1947, c. 1124] The number of
sex offenses that resulted in a registration requirement
generally expanded over the years, but the actual registration
and recordkeeping processes remained about the same. 

A notable change occurred in 1986 when juveniles were included
in the registration requirements, although their registration
process is somewhat different than that used for adults.
Generally speaking, convicted adult sex offenders must register
for life. 

Offenses requiring registration are consistent with Federal
requirements. The number of individuals required to register
grew steadily for the first 40 years to about 70,000. More than
10,000 subjects were then purged when two misdemeanors - lewd
conduct and indecent exposure - were reclassified as
nonregisterable offenses. The renewed focus on sex offenders in
the 1990s has pushed the number of individuals required to
register above 75,000. 

------------------------------
Registration improvements
------------------------------

The Attorney General established an enforcement arm of the
Sexual Habitual Offender Program under the Thompson-Presley
Violent Crime Information, Investigation and Technology Act of
1994. -45 [Statutes of 1993-94, 1st Ex. Sess., C.6 (S.B. 12).]
The Attorney General also established a computer system to
enable law enforcement officers throughout the State   from
street patrol to detectives   to share critical information
about known offenders and unsolved crimes. Funding and policy
direction provided by the Technology Act resulted in the
following accomplishments: 

* The Nation's first automated system for DNA and RFLP analysis
was created. California took the lead in developing the next
generation of genetic markers for law enforcement. To date, more
than 34,000 convicted offender samples have been analyzed and
entered into the data bank. 

* The records of 65,000 sex offender records were reviewed and
updated. 

* Sex offender and arsonist registration information was made
accessible to local law enforcement authorities through the
Violent Crime Information Network (VCIN) -46 [The VCIN provides
a communication doorway for State and local law enforcement.
VCIN contains information on career criminals, parolees,
probationers, people missing under suspicious circumstances,
registered and habitual sex offenders, registered arsonists and
violent offenders. A specialized crime analysis unit provides
VCIN information from the investigation of unsolved, violent
crimes. With one call, an investigator can reach specialists who
access the network. VCIN will eventually be available to
investigators at their own workstations. In Phase I of VCIN,
missing-person case files are provided; the California
Department of Justice has the ability to scan, store and
retrieve photographs; sex and arson offender and supervised
release information are available via CLETS; and sex and arson
offender registration and supervised release information is
available through the network.] via the California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (CLETS). 

* Sexual Predator Apprehension Teams were established in San
Francisco, Fresno and Los Angeles. The teams augmented the
Behavioral Profiler Section of the California Department of
Justice. 

* Supervised Release Files were activated on-line with CLETS,
making it possible for a patrol officer to determine an
individual's release status when checking for "wants and
warrants."

* The driver license and vehicle registration files of sex
offender registrants were flagged to keep authorities informed
of address changes, vehicle information and personal data. 

------------------------------
Registration updates, inquiries
------------------------------

Historically, sex offender registration has been a
fingerprint-based manual record process initiated by the local
law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the registrant's
place of residence. Address changes and other updates were
submitted to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for
central record maintenance. VCIN implementation made the process
much faster and less redundant. VCIN provides more useful and
current information. Local law enforcement agencies can enter
information directly into VCIN. The DOJ still conducts
fingerprint comparisons and continues to centralize verification
of registration requirements, but initial entry and updates can
be done remotely.

VCIN can provide information about registrants when routine
inquiries are made. More importantly, an inquiry into the Wanted
Persons System (WPS) automatically connects to the Supervised
Release File (SRF) where the sex registrations are filed. The
individual making the inquiry is provided with information on
the registration requirement along with any warrants, probation,
parole or violent criminal notification. Contact information can
be noted in the file, which also works to track notification in
response to Megan's Law.

------------------------------
Current data
------------------------------

Today, more than 77,000 Californians are required to register as
sex offenders. The volume of new registrants is approximately
3,000 per year. Ninety-nine percent of those required to
register are male. This equates to about 1 in every 150 adult
males in California. Juveniles comprise only about 1 percent of
the sex offender file. 

To meet the requirements of our State's Megan's Law, we have
designated 1,617 of these offenders as "high-risk" and 62,303 as
"serious offenders." The names of these individuals and other
pertinent data about them are included in the CD-ROM and fall
into the proactive notification categories for law enforcement
agencies. 

The 13,000 registrants not subject to Megan's Law requirements
are included in our "other" category, which includes those
convicted of indecent exposure, spousal rape and possession of
illegal pornography. 

Approximately 7,000 of the 77,000 offenders who are required to
register have never registered. In addition, we estimate that
the address information on currently registered sex offenders is
about 75 percent accurate. We presume some of the subjects are
deceased. Exposure provided by the Megan's Law CD-ROM will
improve the information we currently have available.

California DOJ activated the Child Molester Identification Line
in July 1995. Through a 900-prefix telephone number at a cost of
$10 or by mail-in request at a cost of $4, the public can check
whether suspected individuals are a threat to their safety or
their children's safety. In addition, a hard copy binder of 892
high-risk offenders was distributed in 1996 to law enforcement
agencies across the state. In 1997, the identification line was
expanded to cover all the subjects who fall within the Megan's
Law notification parameters.    

Inquiries have been made on 13,100 subjects during the
identification line's 2 years of operation. About 1,000 of these
have been identified as registered sex offenders. Based on
information provided by callers, these thousand registrants had
access to more than 100,000 children and adults. While the
estimate of the number of individuals at risk is not carefully
defined, controlled or verified, the magnitude cannot be
ignored. The public exposure is staggering at half or even a
quarter of the number of people believed exposed. 

------------------------------
'Megan's Law' activity
------------------------------

The California version of Megan's Law took effect in September
1996. -47 [Statutes of 1996, c. 908 (AB 1562).] All components
of the law are now in place throughout the State. The most
visible feature  and in some ways the easiest to implement   is
the availability of the CD-ROM containing information on serious
and high-risk offenders. Since July 1, 1997, members of the
public can visit their local sheriff's office and many police
departments throughout the State to view a CD-ROM computer disk
that lists approximately 64,000 registered sex offenders in
California. 

This information is available at approximately 400 locations.
The CD-ROMs are updated four times annually. Searches can be
conducted by name, county or ZIP code. Approximately one-half of
the entries include a photo of the sex offender. More photos
will be included in future editions. 

Megan's Law requires California to maintain a list of its
1,600-plus high-risk, "worst-of-the-worst" offenders. More than
80 percent of these high-risk offenders have their photos
included on the CD-ROM. (This CD-ROM replaces the Child Molester
Identification Line Subdirectory distributed to law enforcement
agencies in January 1996.)

In addition to giving law-abiding citizens the resources to
inquire about registered sex offenders, Megan's Law also equips
law enforcement with three different methods to notify the
public if it is under potential threat by a registered serious
sex offender. Law enforcement lacked these options prior to
Megan's Law. The options are:

1. While on patrol, an officer may notify individuals whom the
officer deems at risk that they are in proximity to a registered
serious sex offender. For example, if an officer contacts an
individual near a playground and determines that he is a
registered serious offender, the officer can then tell parents
in that park that their children are playing near a registered
serious sex offender. 

2. Local police may also warn residents, schools, churches or
any other community members at risk that a registered serious
sex offender resides nearby. Officers distributing fliers
door-to-door with information about the individual typically
accomplish this type of notification.

3. The final notification method applies to the high-risk
offenders. When an offender's name is on the
"worst-of-the-worst" list, local police officials may advertise
his identity and whereabouts in any manner they see fit to warn
the community they protect and serve. 

Media interest in the sex offenders' CD-ROM has been high since
its release. Public interest, while not overwhelming, appears to
be increasing. Information provided to the public includes a
registrant's name, physical description, county of residence,
ZIP code, the offense or offenses that lead to the registration
requirement and a photo, if available. 

We expect to improve the photo availability and quality because
initial registration and annual updates submitted to VCIN now
require that photos be included. This same CD-ROM has a law
enforcement access feature that allows agencies to obtain
information on all registrants, including those listed in the
"other" category. Additional information is included, such as
specific street address, along with the ability to search by
additional elements and to create lineup cards and posters. 

A task force representing police chiefs, sheriffs, peace
officers and the DOJ developed model guidelines for
consideration by each agency. Numerous training seminars were
held throughout the State. In addition, the State Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training produced and distributed a
law enforcement training video that was telecast via satellite.
Since local police are best positioned to determine what level
and method of notification is appropriate for their community,
the specifics of implementation are local policy matters.
However, most agencies in regional areas realize that their
approaches should be consistent with one another. 

------------------------------
Pending issues
------------------------------

We feel we are very close to complete compliance with the Jacob
Wetterling Act as amended by Megan's Law. Legislation is pending
before the California Legislature to provide minor
clarifications. 

Schools have taken a great interest in how Megan's Law affects
their operations, both in terms of responsibilities and
benefits. We are working directly with the schools and the State
Department of Education to explore the best methods of
protecting the school-age population and staff through a
combination of criminal history checks, Megan's Law
notifications, and proactive law enforcement and community
involvement. The schools also play a major role in public
notification. 

As mentioned earlier, we have an ongoing problem locating some
registrants. A national registration file will help as
individuals move across State lines and are required to continue
to meet basic registration requirements. A proposal currently
before the California Legislature would require regular,
biometric identification-based location verification for
high-risk offenders on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
Individuals could also be required to confirm their location by
telephone using a system currently used in some parole and
probation supervision efforts. The telephone number would be
pre-established for location and a voice print match would
provide the biometric identification. 

Public reaction to new sex offender information provided by
notification via direct access or by proactive law enforcement
is not clear at this time. The level of public interest and
concern and how this interest is expressed will dictate the
impact of the new laws. 

California's laws and programs are intended for public
protection and awareness. In announcing the availability of the
Megan's Law CD-ROM, California Attorney General Dan Lungren
stated, "Critics of Megan's Law argue that public awareness of
these convicted sex offenders constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. The purpose of Megan's Law is not to further punish
convicted sex offenders, but rather to empower law-abiding
members of the public with information they can use to protect
themselves, their families and their neighbors."

------------------------------
Cooperative efforts
------------------------------

It was not easy for California to take the steps it did to
respond to new sex offender mandates. As you can see, our system
is not perfect. However, our response has been a good example of
cooperation between many levels of government and how the
cooperation can result in major achievements. We brought
together the considerable resources of law enforcement agencies,
local and State legal staff, the State legislature, the private
business sector and the general public to mold an effective
program for using information and resources to protect the
public. 

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida sex offender registration and notification system
----------------------------------------------------------------

DONNA M. UZZELL

Director, Criminal Justice Information Systems

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

I have listened to representatives of the Federal government
describe their frustration in trying to incorporate the changes
in registration and notification laws mandated by recent
legislation. I am reminded of a story about a gentleman stopped
on a Florida highway by a law enforcement officer. The officer
steps up to the gentleman's vehicle and asks, "Can I please see
your driver's license?" 

The gentleman glares at the officer, grits his teeth and
responds, "Can't you people please get organized?" The officer
is taken aback. The gentleman then says to the officer, "You
stopped me yesterday and took my license away. You stop me today
and ask me for it. Can't you people please get organized?" 

I sometimes wonder if that is what some folks say about us and
our Federal partners in our State. Will you people please get
organized and get these programs going? It has been a difficult
task.

------------------------------
Sexual predator notification
------------------------------

Florida initiated a program in 1993 to register sexual
predators. The program was changed in 1995 to add limited
community notification of a sexual predator's presence via
newspaper ads. The program was changed again in 1996 to allow
for more broad-based community notification. During the 1997
legislative session in Florida, the Legislature passed the
Public Safety Information Act, -48 [H.B. 1029 (The Public Safety
Information Act), approved by the 1997 Session of the Florida
Legislature, effective October 1, 1997.] which greatly expands
our sexual predator program to include other categories of sex
offenders. The Act becomes effective on October 1, 1997.

Florida courts designate individuals as sexual predators based
on statutory criteria. Those designated have, generally, been
convicted of first-degree felonies or capital felony offenses.
Individuals convicted of second-degree felonies may also be
designated as sexual predators if they were convicted of other
sex offenses within the past 10 years. 

Florida's sexual predator statutes require the chief of police
and the sheriff to notify a community of a sexual predator's
presence. Changes made to the registration and notification law
by the State Legislature in 1997 allow notification to be
conducted in a manner deemed appropriate. The law also requires
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to develop a
protocol on tips for community notification. We produced that
protocol in 1996. We are expanding the protocol in 1997 to
reflect the changes made by the Legislature. 

Other provisions of our law require the FDLE to maintain a
toll-free telephone number to make information available on
sexual predators and sexual offenders.-49 [The toll-free number
is 1-888-357-7332, or 1-888-FL-PREDATOR.] Florida does not
require callers to provide specific names. No one has to ask,
"Is John Doe a sexual offender or sexual predator?" The majority
of callers ask if there are sexual offenders in their counties. 

Under our old law, when we had a stricter interpretation of the
term "sex predator" based on the commission of the offense, we
only had 300 to 400 people in our registry. As of October 1,
1997, with the expansion of the law to include sex offenders who
have committed a broader range of offenses, there will be 10,000
offenders in the community under supervision and 7,000 who will
be incarcerated as of that date. We are authorized by law to
charge a reasonable fee to provide written information to
persons who request photos of offenders via the toll-free line.
One helpful aspect of the Public Safety Information Act is that
it requires the FDLE to place sexual predators' photos and
information on the Internet, so not everyone will have to obtain
sex offender information over the telephone. -50 [The FDLE's Web
site address is: www.fdle.state.fl.us/.]

Florida is a "sunshine State." Florida's records are "in the
sunshine," or open for public view. I hated that during my years
in law enforcement. I am beginning to love the "sunshine" laws
now because they help provide answers to questions about sex
offenders. We just put the information out there. Florida's
courts have ruled we have the authority to do that.

------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet: A new information tool
------------------------------------------------------------

Florida's Internet site is entered through a World Wide Web
page. The Web page offers other information about FDLE and
includes a page on missing children. We think that is a very
important feature. Users can also "click on" or select the
sexual predators' section of the Web site and obtain information
that lets them know about some important qualifiers. 

Positive identification is based on a fingerprint comparison,
and it is illegal to use this information in the commission of a
crime. You can search for offenders on our Web site by county,
by city or by the offender's last name. -51 [As of October 1,
1997, the FDLE Internet site allows sex offender searches by ZIP
code. The Web site has been the method most used by the public
to obtain sex offender information. In the first 3 weeks that
sex offender information was available, FDLE staff responded to
more than 900 requests from the public for information. The
toll-free line receives from 20 to 200 calls per hour, depending
on media-generated publicity.]

We are planning to create separate categories for offenders who
are at large, for those who are incarcerated, and for those who
are out-of-State. Offenders are currently categorized by county.
Some counties with large correctional facilities in their
jurisdictions have an inordinate amount of offenders listed on
the Internet, so we decided to create a separate category for
these. 

We have 67 counties in Florida. If you wanted information on
offenders in Dade County, you would enter "Dade County" into the
appropriate area of the Web site and find out that there are 63
registered sexual predators in the county. You can click on any
one of those predators to view a thumbnail sketch. For more
information on the individual, you select another option that
provides the offender's photograph in a flyer format. Law
enforcement agencies interested in conducting a notification
procedure can print flyers directly from the Internet to post
for notification. The flyers list the date the record was last
updated, the offender's address and his modus operandi.  

We asked our State Legislature to change the law because the
previous notification procedure identified victims in some
custodial incest cases. We now report that a victim was a minor,
but we do not give the victim's age.

There has been tremendous interest in our Web site. Since
January 1, 1997, there have been more than 107,000 sex offender
inquiries on the site. (More than 40,000 occurred during in the
first 3 weeks following implementation of the new sex offender
laws.)

Other provisions of the Florida law require predators or
offenders to update their addresses with the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. This will be extremely
important as the number of registered offenders increases. It is
just too labor-intensive and cost-prohibitive to conduct
separate manual data entry of sex offender information.
Florida's process uses an existing telecommunications link with
the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles information
through which we electronically download sex offender
information. This information updates our databases. 

Each Florida county has an office of the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles which has the capability to take
digitized photographs. Those photos will be transmitted to us as
well. By midsummer 1998, the Florida Crime Information Center
(FCIC) II - our version of National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) 2000 - will be up and running. A local law enforcement
officer conducting a criminal history check from either a
communications center or a patrol car could obtain a criminal
history that includes a photograph. The photograph would be
transmitted over our network and to the police officer's desk or
patrol car. An offender who fails to register or report an
address change could be arrested and charged with a third-degree
felony. 

------------------------------
Registration processes
------------------------------

A court must make the sexual predator determination. When the
determination is made, the court clerk submits a fingerprint
card, a photograph and the court finding to the FDLE. The FDLE
enters that information into a sexual predator database, which
we are now developing. This database will have historical
information on address changes, photographs and the offender's
modus operandi. This information is automatically uploaded into
two very important sites - the Internet and the FCIC
telecommunications system. In the latter, the information is
placed in a "hot file" available to local law enforcement.

As part of the registration process, the State notifies any
criminal justice or law enforcement agencies when predators move
into their jurisdictions. The offenders' drivers' licenses and
vehicle tags are "flagged" in the Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles' database. Thus, when an officer makes a
vehicle stop and checks an offender's driver's license or
license plate, the officer is informed that a sexual offender is
in his or her presence. This is how our sexual predator
registration process works. 

Because of changes made to Florida's law, there are some
differences in the way registration is conducted for sex
offenders. The Department of Corrections, which includes
probation and parole officers, is required to electronically
download all the information on a released sexual offender into
the sexual predator database. Again, the Internet and the FCIC
telecommunication system are automatically updated, and all
local law enforcement agencies are notified of the release. At
the time this process takes place, it actually constitutes
pre-registration because the individual is either still
incarcerated or under some other form of supervision. When
offenders change their addresses while on supervision, they must
notify probation and parole officials, who are required to send
the information to the State. The State then forwards the new
address to local law enforcement. 

When offenders are released from the Department of Corrections
back into the community, they can register either with local law
enforcement or directly with the FDLE. Offenders are
fingerprinted during registration so officials can access the
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to double
check that the right person was released from prison and is
registering. The offender's fingerprint and photograph are sent
to the FDLE for entry into our sexual predator database. 

Hopefully, the offender will have served some time in the care,
custody and control of corrections so we will already have his
photograph and basic information. When the State receives the
new registration information, we again check the fingerprint
with the AFIS just to make sure the person is who we believe he
is and that all other information currently in our database is
correct. 

Keeping track of offender addresses

We update and amend the records as needed. The Internet and the
FCIC telecommunications system are automatically updated and our
agencies are notified by fax service. We tell the service what
county the offender will be living in, and the service faxes the
information to every appropriate law enforcement agency. Again,
we flag the offender's driver's license and vehicle
registration. 

This is very important, because it alerts the proper authorities
when the offender goes to the Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles office to change his address. Any offender who
does not have a driver's license or who has his driver's license
taken away is required to obtain a Florida identification card,
which is administered through the same department. Any change of
address will be electronically transferred to the appropriate
databases and local authorities.

I do not know how many of you have experience with sex
offenders' address changes, but these people do not buy houses
and live in them for 30 years. When our sexual predator registry
contained only 300 to 400 people, we had some registrants with 3
to 5 address changes.

The FDLE also provides press releases for community
notification. Every time we are notified of address changes, our
public information officers around the State send press releases
to community newspapers reporting that sex offenders are living
in certain communities or have been placed in certain
communities. The newspapers use their own discretion to
determine whether they are going to print the information. 

Some newspapers avoid using the information totally. Others take
advantage of the information and print some form of
notification. The press is the most effective method to ensure
that offender information is current and correct. The minute
information is transmitted on the Internet and included in a
press release, reporters are out knocking on doors. If the
information is incorrect, the press is the first to tell you.

Florida has conducted two sexual predator sweeps with task
forces comprised of probation and parole officers, local law
enforcement and FDLE agents. One concern when posting sex
offender information on the Internet is that offenders will
avoid registering or reporting address changes. Surprisingly, of
the 250 to 300 predators contacted during sweeps, only seven
were not where we thought they were. We issued seven warrants.
The system is relatively new, so I am keeping my fingers crossed
that this pattern continues.

One other benefit of listing sex offenders on the Internet and
doing these kinds of sweeps is the type of information
uncovered. Authorities learned of a situation where one predator
was attending Boy Scout meetings. Someone saw his name on the
Internet and called police. Police also learned of a predator
who was volunteering as a soccer coach. Another predator lived
with his wife, who provided daycare in their home. These cases
show that the system is beneficial. 

------------------------------
New initiatives
------------------------------

Florida also has a service called automated warrant
notification. This system notifies authorities any time a
warrant is issued for a sexual predator or a sexual offender.
The warrant is turned over to law enforcement agents, who
conduct a fugitive apprehension of the sexual predator. We do
not care whether the warrant was issued because of a violent
offense, a violation of probation or a misdemeanor. We know the
warrant provides the opportunity to get the offender off the
street. 

We are very proactive on DNA collection. We have a flag in our
criminal history database that informs users whether DNA was
collected for an offender's file. We are trying to collect DNA
samples from anyone who is on our list of sexual predators and
offenders who, for some reason, did not have it collected when
they were incarcerated. 

States can access our information via the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). Inquiries to our
State go directly to our sex offender "hot file." -52 [Florida
now contributes data to the National Sexual Offender Registry.]

There are a few other points I would like to make. The Public
Safety Information Act requires a law enforcement officer
investigating or arresting a person for a sex offense to check
with the Department of Corrections and with probation and parole
authorities to determine whether the person being arrested is on
probation. If he is, the officer must notify probation and
parole authorities that he or she is either investigating or
planning to arrest the subject. 

The other point I would like to make concerns a tragic
missing-child case involving a boy named Jimmy Ryce. Jimmy's
parents, Claudine and Don Ryce, fought tremendously for our
State's first broad-based, community notification legislation,
which was called the Jimmy Ryce Act. That is the law that was
amended by the Florida Legislature in 1997. 

The Ryces, who live in the Miami-Dade County area, convinced the
Dade County School Board to adopt a policy that requires the
school district to obtain sex offender information from the
Metro-Dade Police Department and from the Internet and then mail
it to the parents of schoolchildren. 

------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois registration and notification 
system for sex offenders
------------------------------------------------------------

KIRK LONBOM

Assistant Bureau Chief, Intelligence Bureau

Illinois State Police

Illinois has encountered many of the same problems other States
faced when trying to implement their registration and
notification programs - data integrity, data quality, data
consistency and reaction to legislation. We fought hard in
Illinois to get realistic legislation and to make sure we could
deliver what the legislation required. 

We have had many concerns about data problems and the reporting
of convictions, especially since we deal with 102 counties
statewide. We had to develop a program that would work in cities
as large as Chicago and in rural counties throughout the State.
We developed a comprehensive sex offender registration program.
Our goal is to remember the aspirations of the Wetterling family
and others. 

Our registration program goes beyond data, it goes beyond forms,
and it goes beyond computers. It comes down to preventing
crimes, solving crimes and providing law enforcement with the
tools it needs to do its job. Ultimately it comes down to
compiling baseline data we can use for further studies, further
research and further analysis. We are confident our program will
have a significant impact on sex offenses in Illinois. 

I am happy to report that Illinois House Bill 1219 is currently
on our governor's desk. This bill will bring us into total
compliance with the whole trilogy of Federal direction. -53 [The
Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Program, Megan's Law and the Pam Lychner
Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996.] We
have been waiting for word that the governor signed this bill.
-54 [H.B. 1219, 90th Session of the State of Illinois
Legislature, signed by the governor July 24, 1997.]

The success of our program is the result of hard work by some
extremely talented people. They worked very hard to bridge the
gap between obtaining registration information from sex
offenders and using it to solve and prevent crimes. We must not
forget that our real goal is not only to register sex offenders
but also to use their registration information to stop further
offenses. 

We have heard speakers at this conference use the term "zero
tolerance" for sex offenders. I think we have accomplished that
in Illinois. We have some great stories. We registered an
86-year-old man in a nursing home, a quadriplegic and an
individual in the Federal Witness Protection program. We even
registered a man currently in a coma, so I think our program has
been pretty aggressive. 

We have used our Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS) as
the baseline for the reporting and the extraction of sex
offender registration information in Illinois. The advantage of
this system is that it is available to officers and
investigators when they need it, even for on-site investigative
queries. LEADS is available on computer terminals throughout the
State so local law enforcement can help us carry the ball by
entering information such as address changes, for example. We
have had experiences similar to other States with offenders
making significant numbers of address changes. We really need to
stay on top of that. 

All sex offender information is contained in the offender's
LEADS file. An officer seeking information on an individual is
notified immediately that the individual is a sex offender who
had been notified of his duty to register. If the individual has
not registered, he is in violation of the law. 

The inquiring officer has the ability to add information from a
remote location to the offender's file. We frequently review sex
offender records and intelligence personnel in Springfield
examine the movements of these individuals to conduct proactive
risk assessments in addition to crime solving. Directed messages
are available through the Illinois' LEADS system similar to the
way messages are sent from State to State over the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) system. We are trying to use
electronic media to exchange information, and we are also using
more advanced electronic systems within Illinois State Police
headquarters. 

Let me provide a quick overview of how information enters the
LEADS system from our probation department when a court releases
a sex offender on probation. Each county is required to set up a
location where it can access a LEADS terminal or the county must
designate an agency to establish the contact. Information is
entered into the LEADS system informing the county that the
released offender is required to register and that he has been
notified of his registration requirements. 

State officials know that an individual has been notified of his
registration requirements and where the individual is supposed
to live and register so they will know if the individual fails
to show up in a community and register as required. Police and
sheriffs deputies can extract and provide information to the
LEADS system. We use the LEADS system to formulate and print out
reports that are accessible to the local officer. If a resident
of a certain community wants to know who is registered as a sex
offender in his or her town or county, law enforcement can
extract that information from LEADS. 

We use LEADS to populate other databases so we can run special
reports or use LEADS information for community notification. We
send quarterly mailings to schools and child-care facilities.
LEADS is available 24 hours a day. We have some gratifying
success stories about local officers who have made traffic
stops, obtained LEADS "hits" on sex offenders and found children
in their cars. In some cases, officers found paraphernalia in
the car indicating that the subject was planning a sex offense.
Police were able to intervene and prevent the offense from
taking place. 

We are trying to build a bridge between having a registration
program and using the registration information proactively for
intelligence and crime solving purposes. An example is using
this information to create maps of areas where crimes occur. The
map shown in Figure 1 was prepared following a series of sex
offenses that occurred in suburban areas of Chicago. A similar
modus operandi was used in each attack, and they all took place
in parking lots.  Using this map, we were able to conduct some
spatial analysis to determine which offenders lived near the
crime sites so we could provide suspect information to the
officers investigating the crimes. Investigating officers often
lack any real suspect information. 

When notification of an offender's presence is warranted, we
cannot spend all day knocking on everyone's door to get the word
out, so we are trying to find a way to prioritize assignments to
agents and officers in the field who conduct address
verification. Certain risk factors are taken into account, such
as the offender's proximity to schools and other facilities
where children can usually be found. We now concentrate analysis
on specific tactical case issues and we are trying to get into
more strategic products, such as maps detailing the location of
schools, victims' and offenders' residences and all of the other
factors we have to consider. 

Let me talk briefly about VITAL, the Violent Crime Information
Tracking and Linking system. VITAL is Illinois' first real move
toward a totally electronic police-reporting environment. We use
the system for intelligence reporting. VITAL gives an officer
the ability to prepare an on-line intelligence report, transmit
it electronically to a supervisor for approval, and then use
technological tools to make the report available to other
officers more quickly. 

VITAL has the capability to include graphic presentations. We
are making significant progress in our goal to enter all
information about sex offenders into the VITAL system so it is
available to our officers in the field. If an officer has only a
nickname to work with at 2 o'clock in the morning, the officer
can access the VITAL system to seek a connection and, hopefully,
solve a crime more quickly. 

Law enforcement throughout Illinois can add information to LEADS
records. This improves law enforcement's ability to track
offenders' movements. If we find an individual outside of his
area of parole or probation or if he is just traveling the
State, it may indicate an increased threat. We also have the
ability to develop a suspect list. 

Some of us were talking yesterday about the relocation of
offenders outside Illinois. We were thinking that States
bordering each other should explore the creation of some type of
system to share information. I know there are information
systems being developed to facilitate that goal nationally, but
focusing our efforts in specific geographic areas would also be
a great help. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Development of the Illinois sex offender registration
and community notification program
------------------------------------------------------------

MIKE WELTER

Chief, Violent Crimes Section

Illinois State Police

The Illinois program for sex offender registration and community
notification parallels the Federal guidelines except for a few
exceptions. -55 [In Illinois, sex offender registration is
required in these instances: 1) felony sex crime conviction
(including attempts); 2) misdemeanor sex crime conviction if
victim is under age 18; 3) convictions in other State or Federal
courts; 4) offender not guilty by reason of insanity; 5) subject
of a finding not resulting in an acquittal; 6) first-degree
murder of a child; 7) kidnapping or unlawful restraint; 8)
sexually dangerous persons; and 9) juveniles convicted in
criminal court.]

In terms of our registration process, we register people
convicted in other States and in Federal courts. Those of you
with this responsibility know how difficult it is to identify
these people and to bring them into compliance. Our registration
program also includes people who are not necessarily found
guilty, such as people found unfit for trial or not guilty by
reason of insanity. We do not register juveniles who have been
adjudicated, but we do register juveniles convicted in criminal
court.

The duration of our registration parallels Federal guidelines.
Sexually dangerous persons must register every 90 days for the
remainder of their natural lives. Other convicted sex offenders
must register annually for 10 years. That period starts either
from the offender's date of conviction if he is sentenced to
probation or from the date of release if he has been confined.
Our laws established retroactive registration requirements going
back 10 years. Trying to identify offenders now required to
register because of the retroactive provisions and trying to
bring them into compliance with the law is a fairly significant
task.

------------------------------
Offender registration
------------------------------

We have a process in Illinois whereby sex offenders are notified
of their responsibility to register and are provided the various
admonitions as required by law. The court informs the offender
of this responsibility at the time of conviction if sentenced to
probation. Corrections agencies inform the offender at the time
of release from confinement. (It is important to note that even
though the offender is not considered formally registered at
this point, information on that person's status as a sex
offender is available to the public. As soon as we become aware
of this individual's responsibility to register, we start
providing this information to the public.)

If the sex offender has been confined through our Department of
Corrections, registration information is electronically
transferred into our statewide Law Enforcement Agencies Data
System (LEADS) on a daily basis. This eliminates manual input as
much as possible, and it provides very precise information on
these sex offenders and on each offender's intended county of
residence and address (which change many times along the way).
Sex offender data from courts enter LEADS through normal sources.

When this information is entered into LEADS, it alerts law
enforcement that a sex offender is coming to town. It also
establishes a "tickler" to ensure first-time and renewal
registrations. The sex offender must register in person within
10 days with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. If
the offender fails to show up in 10 days, LEADS alerts us that
the offender's status is reclassified to "non-compliance."
Because of the tickler system, we can take immediate enforcement
action.

As mentioned, sex offenders must register with their local law
enforcement agencies. There are several reasons why Illinois
legislators took that approach. They think it builds
accountability with the offender and with the local agency.
Legislators assumed that the agency would get more involved in
sex offender registration when the offender actually reported to
them. Involvement by local agencies and the community is
essential to the success of the program.

When the sex offender comes to register at the agency, the
agency runs a criminal history check that will, hopefully,
determine that the person is required to register. A
registration form is completed that again admonishes the
offender of his responsibility under the system. The agency must
ensure that the offender reads and signs this form. The agency
must enter the registration information into LEADS within 3
days. The agency also takes a photo of the offender that is
scanned into our Violent Crime Information Tracking and Linking
(VITAL) system. This process establishes another tickler. The
system knows the offender is registered, and that he must come
back and register again in 1 year (or in 90 days if he is a
sexually dangerous person). If an offender fails to register, we
are notified and can start taking action.

------------------------------
Community notification
------------------------------

Our community notification law differs a bit from those of other
States. Ours is similar to the Kansas law: we consider all sex
offenders to be high-risk so we inform the communities of all
sex offenders who are required to register regardless of their
registration status. We use a three-phase process, with
mandatory, discretionary and public access phases.

First, each school and child-care facility in Illinois is given
a list of sex offenders residing in their county; if they serve
multiple counties, they receive multiple lists. This list is
provided a minimum of four times a year, or more often if
necessary. We had numerous instances involving schoolteachers,
vendors, part-time lunchroom assistants and so forth who were
identified as sex offenders. We were able to eliminate their
relationship with the school or child-care facility.

The second phase of community notification is discretionary.
Every law enforcement agency has the discretion to provide sex
offender information to any group or person who is likely to
encounter the offender, such as youth groups, victims,
neighborhoods and other communities. Just recently, we shared
our registry information with a variety of groups that serve
Illinois, and we provided our list to the national Boy Scouts. 

On the first run, they had 148 hits off our sex offender
registry list. That does not mean all 148 hits were sex
offenders, but the Boy Scout organization did go through the
list carefully. There were a significant number of offenders
coming into contact with Scouts. The first two times we gave the
list to the Greater Cook County Council, a Scout leader was
discovered on each list. They were removed from their posts, and
an investigation is continuing as to whether any crimes were
committed during their association with Scout troops.

Most of our success with the registration and notification
program occurred in these two areas, because we are able to deny
sex offenders access to potential victims. The police chief in
one community compiled a list of the people involved in 72 youth
groups. He checked first to make sure the groups' directors were
not on our list. He then let the directors know the sex offender
registry information was available to them, and he added the
directors' names to a mailing list so they would receive
regularly updated registry information on the same schedule as
schools and child-care facilities. 

The first time around, he found four sex offenders involved with
community youth groups. We also found sex offenders who owned
youth camps and every other situation you can imagine. This is
where we really experienced the benefits of our registration and
notification program.

The third phase of community involvement is public access. Any
person authorized to access the registry list can go to his or
her local police department or sheriff's office to see the
information currently on-line.

------------------------------
Illinois successes
------------------------------

We achieved some noteworthy success with the process we used to
develop our sex offender registration and community notification
program.

The method we used to develop and publicize our program deserves
mention. We established a statewide working group comprised of
judges, prosecutors, probation and corrections officials, school
superintendents, Department of Children and Family Services
officials, police chiefs and sheriffs. This was a fairly large
group, but it was incredibly focused. 

Group members provided input in the development of an operating
procedure guide, which was provided to every Illinois criminal
justice agency. The guide was designed to be fairly simple and
straightforward. It gives the agencies a glimpse as to how the
system should work. 

Working group input was also beneficial in establishing
administrative rules and tailoring those rules to deal with the
problematic portions of the legislation. We have seen reactive
legislation that gets passed sometimes. We have to comply with
the bad legislation in addition to the well-founded legislation.
Providing input on administrative rules is something you can do
along the way to reduce the impact.

Another accomplishment worth noting is the effective partnership
we developed with State lawmakers. It is critical to establish a
good relationship with your legislature, and not just when you
need something or when you are asking for money. We developed an
ever-increasing core of legislators willing to sponsor bills.
Our most recent bill was written completely by the State Police
in conjunction with the State Criminal Justice Authority. We
actually had legislation completely drafted within the criminal
justice community and sponsored by State legislators. It passed
both of our houses unanimously and without comment. 

It is also important to share information with legislators. We
send a brief report to members of our General Assembly every 2
months to update them on the status of our registration and
notification program, including all our successes and problems.
A partnership with the State legislature is very important.

Another success has been the development of a statewide
comprehensive training program. We had 3 significant changes in
our legislation in the last 2 years, so we provided three
training phases to all 102 Illinois counties. The training is
provided to the entire criminal justice community, to schools
and to the State Department of Children and Family Services.
This training effort costs only a few thousand dollars a year,
but the benefits are incredible. We recommend you consider
including a training component in your program.

------------------------------
State initiatives and benefits
------------------------------

Collecting information on the location of sex offenders allows
us to pursue State-level initiatives that provide a number of
benefits. We can produce maps that illustrate the locations of
recent sex offenses and registered sex offenders living near
those locations, for example. We actually had a school route
designated as a dangerous route because children were walking by
a sex offender's residence. The school provided busing to
children who would have had to walk by the offender's house.
This is another benefit of our registry program   

Using the VITAL system, we were able to develop a composite of
an individual suspected of committing a number of sex crimes in
the Chicago area. The system allowed us to examine certain
factors, especially physical descriptors, to develop a suspect
list. Developing suspect lists is very beneficial from both the
State and local law enforcement perspective.

Like several other States, we collect blood from our convicted
sex offenders for genetic marker indexing. We compare that data
to all the crimes committed in the past where we collected DNA
samples. We will use that information for comparison in all
future crimes. Genetic marker indexing is a tremendous law
enforcement tool. We are already getting what we call "cold
hits," whereby individuals are implicated in crimes for which we
had no other evidence other than their DNA to indicate their
involvement.     

With the current information we have, we know a large number of
registered sex offenders relocate in other States and countries
outside Illinois, particularly in the States of Missouri (134
offenders), Wisconsin (101 offenders) and Indiana (106
offenders). These offenders can establish artificial havens
using jurisdictional boundaries; they move around not only
within our State but also outside of our State. Because of this,
it is important to share out-of-State information. We provide
lists to other jurisdictions of the sex offenders we believe may
be relocating to those jurisdictions. These offenders may not
necessarily be required to register in their new States of
residence, but we provide registry information on a continuing
basis so if they do move to new States, law enforcement in those
States can take action to register them if necessary. 

The Illinois State Police is a full-service agency. We combine
troopers, investigators and crime laboratories in one agency.
The State has taken a multi-faceted approach to sex offender
registration which goes far beyond the registration process. We
have 21 district headquarters statewide. A State Police officer
is designated as a district coordinator in each of these
district offices. The officer is responsible for ensuring that
sex offenders register and comply with the law. The coordinating
officers also act as a liaison to the local law enforcement
agencies and he or she assists in the investigation of local
rape cases and other sex offenses.

We established a team approach to handle sex offender
registration compliance throughout the southern third of
Illinois. This strategy has been very successful. When the team
began, as I recall, we had approximately 600 individuals in that
area who were not complying with their registration
requirements. That number has been reduced to about 22 or 23
people who are out of compliance right now. I would certainly
recommend you contact us if you are contemplating a program like
this because we have a wealth of experience. In addition to
State Police investigators, this team also includes people from
the State Attorney General's Office to assist with prosecutions
and so forth. We are considering expanding this concept to all
of Illinois.

------------------------------------------------------------
The local responsibility for control and prosecution of sex
offenders: Behind Washington State's history of landmark sex
offender laws
------------------------------------------------------------

NORM MALENG

Prosecuting Attorney

King County, Washington

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of
this conference, sex offender registration, and to welcome
panels of experts to our community. This is a learning
opportunity for us all. We can learn so much from you, and we
have an opportunity to share our information as well. It is
gratifying to deal with a subject like sex offender registration
- a subject that so dominates the agenda for local and State
governments, a subject that has spread like a prairie fire
across the United States and that has grabbed the attention of
Congress - because we are dealing with a hurtful subject that
was ignored for too long.

The State of Washington has been a leader in criminal justice
system reform for the past several decades. We enacted new
sentencing guidelines in 1981, the omnibus drug act in 1988,
comprehensive sex offender legislation in 1990,-56 [Sex
offenses, and the need for more information on sex offenders,
were addressed in the Washington Legislature in 1990, in laws
dealing with civil commitment of sexually violent predators,
mandatory registration, release of information and
victim/witness notification. One part required persons,
including juveniles, convicted of a sex offense, to register
with the county sheriff for the county of the person's residence
(RCW 9A.44.130). Two laws are enacted authorizing public agency
(including Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration) release of
"necessary and relevant" information regarding sex offenders
when the information is necessary for public protection (RCW
4.24.550 and RCW 13.40.217). A law is enacted providing for law
enforcement, victim and witness notification when a juvenile
offender, found to have committed a violent or sex offense, is
to be discharged, paroled or placed on any authorized leave or
release or transfer (RCW 13.40.215). The law is amended in 1993
to include juveniles found to have committed a crime of
stalking.] and in recent years, domestic violence legislation.
We took a lot of these concepts and modeled them. We have the
first office in the Nation to establish a special unit to
prosecute crimes of physical and sexual abuse of children, for
example, and we established a model domestic violence program.

------------------------------------------------------------
Research, information, statistics
------------------------------------------------------------

No State can put together a perfect system, but when I consider
what Washington State has done over the last few decades, it is
clear those efforts were based to a large degree on research,
information and statistics. At the very center of this
intersection between policy and research is Roxanne Lieb,
Director of the Washington State Institute of Public Policy, who
will be on a panel this afternoon. 

Roxanne is one of the most talented individuals I know. She was
at the center of every major project I was involved in over the
last couple of decades. Any time the Governor asked me to
undertake a new and innovative task, one of the agreements I
always struck was that I could have the services of that
remarkably talented woman. When I look around the room, I
imagine that if I went to your State, you would hear similar
comments about yourselves or others you work with. It really is
important to base these public policy issues on research,
information and statistics, and not just on the latest fad or
somebody's idea.

One of our local newspapers profiled my career several years
ago. A reporter interviewed me for more than an hour on some of
the issues I was involved with since I was elected prosecutor in
1978. Then the reporter asked me a question that was simple in
one sense, but difficult in another sense. The question was
this: "What would you name as the single most important
accomplishment during your career?" Now, that sounds simple, but
turn that question around and ask it to yourself because you may
have been involved in many important things during your career. 

Yet, it took me no more than a second to respond. I responded
that my efforts to try and reform the criminal justice system in
terms of how we deal with sex offenders and, particularly, how
we deal with violent sex offenders is my single most important
accomplishment. I am proud of this accomplishment, not only
because it is a very important topic, but also because it is a
subject that touches people's lives. Every crime touches
people's lives, but there is no crime that is so associated with
pain, hurt and loss than sex crimes, particularly sex crimes
against children.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims are common denominator in sex offender registration laws
------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to take a moment to tell you why this was such an
important experience for me as a prosecutor and a person, and
why each one of your jobs is so very vital to public and
community safety in communities across the United States.

As you know, all 50 States today require sex offender
registration. Have you ever wondered what the common denominator
is for these different laws? Generally, they all have a name
like Megan's Law or the Jacob Wetterling Act. If you look at
each one of these laws in all 50 States, many times the name
associated with the law is the name of a child.

Our experience in Washington State is no different. Our sex
offender laws were passed in the wake of several outrageous
sexual assaults that occurred in our State in 1988 and 1989, the
types of cases that galvanized the community. Both offenders,
whom I will discuss in brief, were recidivists. Everyone
associated with these particular cases knew the individuals
involved were time bombs. The question was not if, but when they
would repeat their outrageous behavior. But the system required
their release, and this is what happened.

In the first case, Gene Kane was finishing a 13-year prison
sentence for attacking two women. He received no treatment while
incarcerated in the State prison system. The prison psychologist
said he was not a good candidate for release. Everyone knew what
he would do. Nevertheless, Mr. Kane had just about completed his
sentence in the fall of 1988 when he was placed in a
work-release facility in downtown Seattle. He was there for
about 2 months when he hid in a parking garage. A short time
later, he abducted and murdered Diane Ballasiotes. He was
convicted of sexual assault and murder and sentenced to life in
prison. Diane's mother, Ida Ballasiotes, who is now a State
legislator who devotes her life to strengthening our criminal
justice system, demanded answers from State officials. They had
no answers as to why this type of person was free in our
community.

In the second case, Earl Schriner had a 24-year history of
assaults on children dating back to the period when he murdered
a 15-year-old classmate when he was 16 years old. After his
incarceration and subsequent release, he committed more crimes
and was sent to State prison for 10 years. While in prison, he
told prison officials exactly what he would do when he got out.
Mr. Schriner was considered too dangerous to be placed in a
work-release facility for the last couple of months of his
prison term. He was released, of course, and in early 1989, he
sexually mutilated a young boy in Tacoma. He will also spend the
rest of his life in State prison.

The response to these tragedies from criminal justice
professionals was predictable. They said, "There's nothing we
could do because their sentences were completed." This response
is not acceptable to average citizens. They demanded that the
State respond. Then-Governor Booth Gardner appointed the
Governor's Task Force on Community Protection in response to the
public outcry over these tragedies. The Task Force was comprised
of a whole series of people with experience in the criminal
justice system. Regular citizens, including Ida Ballasiotes,
were also members.

The task force held hearings in six communities around the State
of Washington. Hundreds of people came forward to offer their
stories - stories of hurt, loss and suffering. They did not
particularly have suggestions as to what should be done about
the sex offender problem, but it was almost therapeutic for
these people to come forward and tell their stories before a
panel of people who cared about their pain.

------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State enacts landmark sex offender laws
------------------------------------------------------------

What came out of these hearings was simply this: We have
underestimated the hurt associated with this type of crime for
too long, and we have undervalued the seriousness of the crime
as well. The task force forwarded draft recommendations to the
governor and the legislature. The legislative package was passed
without a single dissenting vote. It was a five-part program
that we believed would be comprehensive, balanced and effective.
It had these components:

We addressed tougher criminal sentences by literally doubling
the length of our prison sentences.

We provided treatment programs, not only within the State prison
system but outside as well, including what is probably the first
treatment program for juvenile sex offenders.

We originated the first civil commitment law in the Nation; one
that was later adopted by Kansas and recently upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

We provided for a community notification program that allows law
enforcement to decide how the community should be notified in
particular cases.

We provided a sex offender registration program, which I
believed would be a good investigative tool for law enforcement.

With other legislation we have in Washington, such as "three
strikes and you're out" - and, quite frankly, with sex offenders
today, it is "two strikes and you're out" - we most likely have
the Nation's toughest sex offender laws. The linchpin to the
prevention of these types of crimes is sex offender registration.

------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of registration
------------------------------------------------------------

Sex offender registration is an important tool in its own right,
but it is also a dramatic example of that old clich, "The whole
is greater than the sum of its parts." Sex offender registration
programs are even more effective when they are combined with
longer prison sentences, community notification and treatment
programs. Registration becomes a vital component of a
comprehensive program.

Why do we require sex offenders to register, and not robbers or
burglars? You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure
that out. Sex offenders are different. They are different in so
many different ways, and our laws have treated them in a
different fashion. That is why law enforcement must know who the
offenders are, where they are and what they have done in the
past.

We know sex offender registration laws can help solve crimes. A
good example of this is a recent case in our community. A
14-year-old girl was walking through a park in Lake Forest Park
- a very small community just north of Seattle - in the middle
of the afternoon in November 1996 when she was grabbed by a man
and dragged into the bushes. She fought very, very hard, and she
fought very, very bravely. Her assailant decided to discontinue
the assault. He released the young woman and fled the scene. 

The young victim had a good look at her assailant, and another
citizen in the park saw the man depart in a tan Volkswagen
automobile. There were no other leads.

What was the first course of action the Lake Forest Police
Department took in its investigation into the assault?
Investigators examined the list of registered sex offenders who
lived in the area. They were able to reduce the number of
potential suspects because the girl provided a general
description of her attacker. During a subsequent records check,
they discovered that a convicted rapist named Evan Best lived
just two blocks from the park. His mother owned a tan Volkswagen
registered to her. 

The victim identified Best from a photo montage and, later, from
a line-up. The case is presently before our office for
prosecution. The is a prime example of a sex offender registry
being used as an effective investigative tool. Best is also the
first "two-strike" candidate in King County. If he is convicted
of this assault, he will spend the rest of his life in prison
without the possibility of parole. This is a good example of how
this registration statute gave a kick-start to an investigation.

Setting public safety priorities

While the public and the State legislatures treat sex offenders
as a high priority, the criminal justice system frequently sets
different priorities. I want to ask you this question: What
priority does the justice system give to sex offender
registration statutes? I would say, "Not much," because of the
way institutions set priorities.

Let me talk for a moment about how institutions, such as police
departments, go about setting priorities. You begin with the
street cop and the detective. Police officers would say their
most important responsibilities or priorities are serious crimes
like murder. If you asked detectives in a sex crime unit, they
would probably say the most serious crimes are murder
accompanied by sexual assault or aggravated rape. They would
never respond, "Our number one priority is to go around and find
people who are violating our sex offender registration laws."

For that detective, his or her response is appropriate and
correct for a person focused on crime. But what should we expect
from the institution, the police department, the chiefs of
police or the prosecutors in our community? We should expect a
different response. That does not mean murder and violent
aggravated rape will not continue to be priorities. They will,
but we also have to elevate the priority of sex offender
registration, because we are not only interested in the nature
of the crime, but the nature of the criminal.

Someone once asked me, "Norm, what is your most important
responsibility as a prosecutor?" I always respond, "My
responsibility is to kick the system in the butt to make it
realize what the important priorities really are." Sex offender
registration is equally as important as those serious crimes
because we are trying to prevent those outrageous and heinous
crimes from occurring in the first place.

An estimated 3,200 sex offenders live in King County, and each
is obligated to register. About 600 more come out of the State
prison system each year, so we are dealing with significant
numbers of offenders. Despite this, until recently, a grand
total of two detectives in King County were assigned to
investigate failure-to-register cases. Two detectives! King
County contains one-third of our State's population; slightly
more than 1.5 million people. More than 3,200 offenders are
required to register, 600 more offenders are exiting prison each
year, and we have two detectives assigned to that task.

There are a number of reasons for this low priority. One reason
is the problem institutions have in setting priorities
correctly. Another reason is that, until recently, violation of
our sex offender registration statute was a misdemeanor in most
cases. If you work in a police agency, are you going to start
investigating the misdemeanors or the felonies? Thankfully, the
laws were changed in the last session of the legislature to make
nonregistration a felony offense. Felony means priority within
the criminal justice system.

------------------------------
Tackling backlog of cases
------------------------------

I am very proud of our ongoing efforts to establish an
interjurisdictional task force. This task force has the personal
support of the Seattle Chief of Police, myself as prosecutor,
the King County Sheriff, and other law enforcement leaders. It
will be comprised of police, prosecutors and Department of
Corrections personnel, who will tackle the backlog of cases that
were not adequately investigated. We are going to give these
cases priority treatment. We expect this to be an ongoing effort
to give priority treatment not only to the crime, but also to
the criminals.

There are challenges ahead. One, of course, is to make sure sex
offender information is available in the statewide computer
database so police officers will have access to an individual's
sex offender status during a traffic stop. Another challenge is
to develop communication between local police agencies. King
County has 35 cities and 24 police agencies. The sheriff's
office performs contract work for some of the smaller police
agencies. That requires a lot of coordination to eliminate
duplication and to assure that we can work across jurisdictional
lines. I am very proud of the efforts we made in the State of
Washington to address the whole issue of sex offenses.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to you today. Maybe
now you can appreciate the answer I gave to the questions posed
by the newspaper reporter who wanted to know the most important
accomplishment in my career. I honestly answered that it was the
work I did reforming our laws controlling sex offenders,
particularly violent sex offenders. This topic involves a lot of
hurt and pain and loss on the part of victims that can never be
adequately measured. We in the criminal justice system can never
say we feel your loss, but we can have some appreciation and
understanding for it and to try to do something about it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Creating effective sex offender legislation requires
collaboration between lawmakers and justice agencies
------------------------------------------------------------

MIKE LAWLOR

Representative

Connecticut General Assembly

I have been asked to shed some light on the process of making
sure enacted legislation does what it is supposed to do. Also, I
would like to share some insights I learned about the
legislative process, both in the Connecticut Legislature and in
talking to my colleagues from around the country. 

I missed the first part of this conference, but I understand you
gave some of the Federal Government representatives a hard time
when they were complaining about spending money to implement
these registration and notification programs. It is about time
the tables were turned. Each of us in our own States understands
how our own system works. The Federal Government often steps in
and tells us how to retool our specific justice systems to meet
its goals. While the government's intentions are good, it is
sometimes disruptive because the rules the government wants to
implement have more to do with the needs of the home States of
the various congressional committee chairs than they do with our
States.

I think this has been a source of great frustration for many
State legislators around the country. I want you to know we
share your frustration that, perhaps, things are becoming overly
complicated. My message to the Federal Government is this: "Just
send us the money!" We will figure out how to spend it on these
registration and notification programs. Every State is
different, but we have the same goal.

------------------------------
One size does not fit all
------------------------------

I have been surprised at the variety of the criminal justice
systems around the country. In Connecticut, for example, we do
not have any county jails. Our prosecutors are not elected. Our
attorney general has no criminal jurisdiction, These three
factors seem to be unique to our State. "One-size-fits-all"
Federal requirements really do not apply to Connecticut. 

I think when we talk about registration and notification
requirements, we must understand that every State is very
different. We should determine our general goals and try to
retool our specific State systems to meet these general goals
rather than try to implement a "one-size-fits-all" Federal
system that helps States in theory but not in application.

We need to understand that, even though every State legislature
has taken a stab at sex offender registration, notification,
Megan's Law and civil commitment, there is no one model we
should emulate. Each State is testing its specific practical
problems related to these issues. At forums like this, we can
share our experiences and learn from one another's failures and
successes. I think that is very important, and that is why I am
pleased the Federal Government has decided to invest in
conferences like this, hiring experienced organizations like
SEARCH and others to bring us together so we can talk these
issues through. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Debate centers on how to reach common goal
------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you are talking to liberal or conservative legislators,
Democrats or Republicans, or elected officials from urban or
rural areas, I think it is fair to say that everyone agrees that
controls on sex offenders must be made more stringent. I am also
sure that everyone in this room agrees that violent, predatory,
pedophilic sex offenders ought to be incapacitated for as long
as possible. That is a central goal that no one disagrees with. 

There is a lot of disagreement, however, about the types of laws
necessary to accomplish that goal. That is important to keep in
mind, because many of the debates taking place around the States
are between this faction and that faction. People get the
impression that some think it is okay for sex offenders to be
wandering around our communities with minimal restrictions. That
is really not the case. Most of the debate centers on how to
write the rules, not the central goal. It is very important to
keep that in mind.

From a political perspective, there are two ways to look at this
problem. (Most people do not look at problems from a political
perspective, but then they do not have to run for office every 2
years.) The first issue we have to look at is policy. What is
good policy? The other issue is politics. What are good
politics? Both issues are very important to almost every
legislator. 

The sex offender issue, as much as any other issue in the
political universe, is good politics. Each and every one of us
likes to talk about this issue on the campaign trail because
people pay attention. It grabs the public's attention and that
means votes. So it is very important for us to be able to talk
about sex offender issues, but it has to be just as important to
write policies that respond to the problem. If it works on the
campaign trail, then we have to make sure it works in the police
stations, in the courthouses, in the probation offices, in the
prisons and in the community. That is my goal as a policy maker. 

In order to accomplish this, we need to understand that the real
problem is public frustration. Citizens are frustrated by the
perception that the criminal justice system cannot deliver
public safety. That is what people are upset about, and they
focus on this issue because they read in the newspapers that
multiple-conviction sex offenders are living in their
communities. These offenders are not on parole or probation any
more. They are roaming around and preying on new victims and
that gets into the newspapers. "How come the criminal justice
system let these people slip through the cracks?" the public
asks. That is what people are upset about. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut's experience drafting sex offender laws
------------------------------------------------------------

We started to address some of these problems in Connecticut 4 or
5 years ago and, naturally, we made some mistakes. I am sure
that similar mistakes were made in other States. We also had
some great achievements, but we should keep the public's
frustration in mind. The public does not seem upset about the
handling of every sex offender, such as people convicted of
statutory rape. Rather, the public is upset about predatory
pedophiles. 

The rules we write in the State legislatures can do a lot of
good, but they can also do a lot of damage. The most damaging
problem is directing financial resources to areas that,
ultimately, do not contribute to public safety. My greatest fear
is that many States may end up creating systems that generate a
lot of paperwork and a lot of forms for police and probation
officers to fill out, but that do not contribute to public
safety. 

Here is an example of a problem we had in Connecticut. We
originally passed a sex offender registration law that required
persons convicted of felony sex offenses to register. That made
perfect sense to the politicians. We were debating on the floor
of the chambers about what offenses should carry a registration
requirement. Persons convicted of a sex offense seemed a logical
choice. After all, people who prey on children should have to
register. We ought to know where they are. 

Unfortunately, my colleagues and I never talked to prosecutors,
public defenders and other professionals who knew how the system
works. If we had, we would have found out that most pedophiles
convicted in our criminal justice system are not convicted of
sexual assault. The offense is called "risk of injury to a
minor" in our State. You may have similar terminology in your
States.  

It took 3 years before that offense was added to the list of
those requiring registration. Please keep in mind that
registering pedophiles was always our goal, and they were not
even on the list of those required to register. Here we were
generating all these forms that probably did not relate to the
predators who were the risk to children.

We were also very nervous over the last few years in Connecticut
about enacting legislation that would later be found
unconstitutional. A good example is the civil commitment
statute. I am sure that every State legislature will soon pass
civil commitment statues now that the U.S. Supreme Court has
established the guidelines. Unfortunately, a lot of elected
officials went full steam into sex offender statutes that did
not stand up to appellate review. In so doing, they created a
lot of extra work for police and probation departments that was
ultimately torpedoed because the Supreme Court overturned
certain legislation. That is a problem we do not have any more. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut lawmakers learn from justice agencies
------------------------------------------------------------
This is my plea to all of you here today. As politicians, we are
interested in responding to problems - fear about public safety,
for instance - but we rely upon justice agencies to educate us
about the day-to-day realities of the problems the agencies want
to address. We need your input on problems we can address by
statute or by providing you with the resources you need to make
our legislation work. 

Let me give you an example.  We reached out to our justice
agencies a few years ago to find out what help they needed.
These were some of the responses. 

------------------------------
Juvenile offenders
------------------------------

First, we learned that, in many cases, Connecticut juveniles
getting their first sex-offense arrest at age 13, 14, or 15
often received no punishment until their fourth or fifth arrest.
In Connecticut's justice system, individuals under age 16 are
considered juveniles and not much happens when they get arrested
for crimes. They may be sentenced to some sort of minimal
supervision but not much else. Then the offenders hit age 16 and
commit other sex offenses. They are arrested and prosecuted as
adults, but they can avoid serious punishment by applying for
Youthful-Offender status. 

After still more arrests for sex offenses, they can apply for
Accelerated-Rehabilitation status. Young sex offenders with
multiple convictions took advantage of all these entitlements.
It was not until their fourth or fifth arrest that they actually
got convicted. 

The prosecutors suggested that young sex offenders should not be
allowed to take advantage of Youthful-Offender or
Accelerated-Rehabilitation entitlements because, as we all know,
people do not grow out of this type of conduct. If we target
them right off the bat, we could provide treatment or
incapacitate these types of offenders before they victimize
other people. In the end, they will be registered with all the
restrictions that go along with registration requirements.

As politicians, we would not have thought of that ourselves.
Those suggestions came from juvenile and adult prosecutors who
asked to change the law in a way that helped them considerably.

------------------------------
Terminology
------------------------------

Another example is the actual definition of the term "sex
offender." When we defined that term and included it on the list
of offenses that carried a registration requirement, defense
attorneys responded accordingly. Once they knew the offenses on
the list, they began advising their clients to plead guilty to
crimes that were not on the list. In the most serious cases that
hinged on the testimony of a child-age victim, prosecutors felt
it was safer to allow a plea bargain to a lesser offense and a
guaranteed prison sentence rather than risk the child not
testifying. 

We were asked to remedy that situation by creating a list with
the most frequent sex offenses, but giving justice agencies the
discretion to seek registration and notification requirements
for crimes that were not on the list but that may involve sex
offenses against children, such as kidnapping or reckless
endangerment. We gave the agencies that discretion. If they
determine an individual is a sex offender even though he has not
been convicted of specific crimes on the sex offense list, we
still allow them to require that person to register upon release
from incarceration or supervision. 

------------------------------
Lifetime probation
------------------------------
Another strong suggestion we received was for lifetime probation
for sex offenders. What good is it if someone is in jail for 10
years and then on parole or probation for a couple more years,
after which they walk away without any supervision whatsoever?
We lack the leverage to control them after that. They may have
to register, but where do we get the justification to keep tabs
on them on a daily basis? 

The Connecticut Legislature adopted lifetime probation for sex
offenders, although the prosecutors do not apply it that often.
They were concerned that probation officers already had too many
cases to monitor. The average caseload for probation officers in
Connecticut is more than 200. Therefore, we decided to create a
special unit in the probation and parole office to monitor only
high-risk sex offenders. We established and funded that office
and it will soon be up and running throughout the State. 

We have a very small State with only 6 counties and 3.3 million
people. Two of our counties now have these specialized sex
offender probation and parole units. They have been very
successful and, as I said, the program will soon be implemented
statewide. We want the people monitoring the sex offenders to be
specially trained so they know what to look for. 

In my opinion, the registration and community notification
process is the last resort. The first resort is incapacitation.
Registration and notification are fallbacks. If all else fails
and there is no other option, then by all means, we should know
where these sex offenders live. 

I would rather increase the penalties for predatory-type sex
offenses so we can put people in jail forever. If the offender
is released from jail, then let us make sure he is under tight
supervision. That is why we implemented a minimum 10-year
probation period following any sentence of imprisonment in
Connecticut. If someone goes to jail for 10 years, then he or
she will be on probation for 10 years when incarceration ends. 

------------------------------
Intervention
------------------------------

We gave parole and probation officers special authority to
intervene if they determine that a convicted sex offender is
improperly interacting with children. One convicted offender in
Connecticut was dressing up like Santa Claus. Parole and
probation officers can put someone like that right back in jail.
We developed an expedited process to accomplish that. It makes
sense. People do not grow out of this type of behavior. The
suggestion to implement that program came from our parole and
probation people. We would have never thought of it on our own.

------------------------------
Alford Doctrine
------------------------------

A recent problem becoming more and more common in Connecticut is
that people are pleading guilty to sex offenses under the Alford
Doctrine, -57 [In North Carolina v. Alford 91 Sup. Ct. 160
(1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an individual accused
of a crime may voluntarily and knowingly consent to the
imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or
unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the
crime.] which allows a defendant to plead guilty to a crime
while not admitting that he or she committed it. "I do not admit
that I committed this crime," a sex offender will say. "I agree
to plead guilty because I think you could convict me. I am not
going to admit to the crime at sentencing. I am just going to
take my 10 years." 

The offender is sentenced to prison for 10 years along with a
registration requirement upon release. The offender does not
register and his probation officer tries to put him back in
jail. In court, the offender says, "How can I violate my
probation? I said at sentencing that I did not admit committing
the crime." We asked prosecutors not to allow guilty pleas under
the Alford Doctrine if they are going to seek treatment or
registration as conditions of probation, because it defeats the
whole purpose. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Registration as a 'last resort'
------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I want to address the issue of registration and
notification as last a resort. Three convicted sex offenders in
New Jersey get out of jail at virtually the same time. All three
have served their maximum sentences and there are no probation
requirements or supervision. They have finished their sentences.
They rent an apartment together. A few weeks later, Megan Kanka,
who lived right across the street, is raped and murdered by one
of them. As we all know, this resulted in Megan's Law. 

This type of crime could be prevented in Connecticut because we
require some form of supervision for all sex offenders when they
finish a prison sentence. In the future, persons sentenced under
our new laws will have lengthy supervision. Our argument is that
sex offenders should not be living near potential victims. If
someone finishes a jail sentence, and his probation and parole
supervisors feel he constitutes a risk to a potential victim,
then he should not be allowed to live in proximity to that
potential victim. 

Forget about notifying the neighbors. He should not be living
near the potential victim in the first place. That suggestion
came directly from our parole people. We make it clear in our
statute that parole officials can determine where a sex offender
can and cannot live. 

I read the results of a Massachusetts public opinion poll the
other day that surveyed the public's attitudes about the
criminal justice system. Polltakers asked respondents to rate
the credibility of the different parts of the criminal justice
system: the courts, the police, probation and parole, and
corrections. Which agency do you think received the lowest
rating? Respondents ranked the courts lowest in credibility. The
police received the highest rating. Courts, probation and parole
and corrections were all rated very close to each other but
courts received the lowest rating. 

One problem we all have is that we tend to blame other parts of
the criminal justice system when something goes wrong. The
police blame the courts. The courts blame the prisons. The
prisons blame parole. Everybody blames the politicians, the laws
and the liberals. Politicians blame the media and the courts. It
is a big, vicious circle and a self-defeating process. 

Those of us who care about the integrity of the criminal justice
system have to learn to work together. It has been our
experience in Connecticut when reforming our juvenile justice
system, our sex offender laws or our truth-in-sentencing system
that we learn a lot when we talk to the professionals. After we
talk to the professionals, the laws we pass tend to work. Our
reward is holding a press conference and a ceremony with the
governor signing an effective crime bill. That is how we look
good. We put that in our political mailers and we are done with
it. That is rewarding to me. I am not a unique politician in
that respect. 

When you get back to your States, I advise you to call your
elected officials who are interested in criminal justice and
invite them to where you work. Ask them to come and listen to
your day-to-day frustrations about too much paperwork or lack of
effective resources. I think you will find that politicians love
to come and listen to you because it makes them sound like they
know what they are talking about. You may also find that your
suggestions make it into the final legislative packages. 

I get credit card solicitations like everyone else. These
solicitations have fine print and footnotes, but like everyone
else, the first thing I look at is the interest rate. That is
all we care about. We sometimes do not want to read the fine
print. That is kind of how it is with legislation. We may want
to vote for a piece of legislation like Megan's Law without
taking time to write the fine print that will make the law more
effective for our justice agencies. 

We have the opportunity to write the fine print in many of these
bills, and you will find legislators and their staffs want to
know what justice agencies think. What do you think will work?
By working together, we can create legislation that meets the
broad demands of the public and that also contains the fine
print that will allow justice agencies to use the legislation
effectively. 

------------------------------------------------------------
The big picture of sex offenders and public policy
------------------------------------------------------------

FLORENCE SHAPIRO

Senator 

Texas State Senate

It is a beautiful day here in the State of Washington. In fact,
today's weather reminds me of a similar day in Plano, Texas,
which is a suburb of Dallas. It was Labor Day 1993. Diana and
Dick Estelle were watching their son play in a soccer
tournament. Like many 7-year-olds, their young daughter, Ashley,
quickly became bored, so she asked her parents if she could play
at a playground just a few hundred yards away. Lots of other
children were playing there. The Estelles decided to let her go
to the playground. The decision will haunt them for the rest of
their lives. 

In a single, treacherous, life-torturing moment, Dick felt an
instant rush of horror when he turned his head and saw that
Ashley was gone. It is a horror that startles the strongest
parents from their sleep. In the next several hours, Ashley was
abused and strangled. Her happiness, her innocence and her life
were taken from her. The abduction, rape and murder of
7-year-old Ashley Estelle became my passion for the next 4 years
in the Texas Senate. 

It was the end of my innocence as a lawmaker, and it was my
introduction to the very complex and very difficult world of sex
offenders and criminal justice. As vice chair of the Texas
Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, I quickly learned that
there were many intertwining facets involved in sex offense
issues. I have also come to know that there are a number of
qualified people knowledgeable in a variety of aspects of this
issue in areas such as adjudication, punishment, treatment,
assessment, tracking, registration, public notification and
commitment. 

While still in their infancy stages, each and every one of these
aspects is becoming a well-developed area of expertise across
this country. The amount of information and research continues
to accumulate every day. However, I am not here to talk to you
as an expert in any one of these fields. Any input of mine in
specific fields would be rudimentary to our purposes here. 

Instead, I would like to take a few minutes to share something
that has become very familiar. It is something that changes
continuously, something for which there is no ending or absolute
perfection. It is something so obvious that we often neglect to
view it properly. It is the big picture of sex offenders and
public policy. 

For the next few minutes, I would like to step out of the micro
and discuss the issue of sex offenders and the criminal justice
system from a macro perspective, not only because of its
importance, but also because of the tremendous impact that sex
offender laws have had on our criminal justice systems and on
each of our States in a few short years. My premise is that the
criminal justice system must be transformed or at least modified
to effectively handle the adjudication, the punishment, the
tracking, the monitoring and the treatment of today's sex
offender. 

I will argue that putting the modern sex offender into the
traditional criminal justice system is usually as successful as
keeping a snake in a shoebox. The confines of the apparatus are
simply inadequate to restrain its contents. It is often
difficult to come to any solid conclusions about what course of
action to take. For example, the debate over the origin and the
cause of pedophilia is difficult. Some research indicates it is
a mental deficiency or abnormality. Other research indicates
that sexual deviance is a progression of acts. In some aspects,
this issue is almost as difficult as the age-old abortion debate
over when life begins. 

It is difficult to draw conclusions, but conclusions are
necessary if we are to draft effective legislation. As policy
makers, we rarely have the luxury of having it both ways. This
is especially true when one considers public safety. For
example, am I supposed to believe that deviant sexual behavior
is caused by mental abnormality or illness? If it is, then
punishment by incarceration would provide very little
deterrence. Am I supposed to believe the argument that sex
offenses are a willful progression of acts for which
imprisonment is totally appropriate? 

Although information and knowledge are accumulating, there are
very difficult and different issues for which there is precious
little guidance, but there is one thing we know to be absolutely
true: Sex offenders are a very unique type of criminal. I like
to say they have three very unique characteristics: 

* They are the least likely to be cured; 

* They are the most likely to reoffend; and 

* They prey on the most innocent members of our society. 

------------------------------
Three broad assumptions

------------------------------

I think we need to take a step back so we can see the entire
picture; the forest in addition to the trees. I want to begin
with three broad assumptions. 

The first is that traditional criminal justice systems are ill
equipped to handle sex offenders. The second is that the
public's primal fear of these offenders and their crimes is
unparalleled. It requires our highest sensitivity and utmost
diligence. The third is that effective policy for the States
must include a comprehensive legislative and administrative
approach to sex offenders. 

As you would expect, my community of Plano was completely
shell-shocked following Ashley's abduction. Residents were
saddened, and they were frustrated, not only by Ashley's death,
but also by the manner in which Ashley died. When the history of
Ashley Estelle's murderer became known, the community's
frustration turned into deep-seated anger. 

Michael Blair, Ashley's murderer, was a convicted sex offender
who was previously released from prison after serving only 17
months of a 10-year prison sentence. It turned out this
occurrence is more the rule than the exception. As a State
senator, I began to inquire about the criminal justice system to
find out how such a predator could have been paroled so early to
prey on yet another child, this time Ashley Estelle. I called
for an investigation. When I finally received the report, it was
literally unbelievable. 

The Internal Affairs Division listed 34 specific errors in the
handling of Michael Blair from the time he was arrested, through
his incarceration and on to the time of his parole and release.
Needless to say, we drafted a series of bills, which later
became known as Ashley's Laws, that addressed some of the
problems we uncovered. Suffice to say that, without exception,
the entire criminal justice system had failed my community and
it was destined to repeat its failure. 

I will discuss the Michael Blair case in more detail, not
because of Michael Blair or the State of Texas, but because I
truly believe it illustrates what actually occurs across the
entire country on a daily basis. 

During our investigation into the case, one reporter asked me,
"Senator, don't you think Michael Blair is just a quirk in the
system?" My response was, "No. I think this is the system."

 
------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption one: Justice systems are ill-equipped
------------------------------------------------------------

This leads to my first major point. The traditional criminal
justice system is ill equipped to handle sex offenders. Any
examination of the criminal justice system should include a
definition of its terms. Let me tell you how I define the word
"system." I use it to refer to three separately organized and
autonomous parts: law enforcement, the courts and corrections. 

In Texas, the Blair situation was a textbook case study of how
not to handle sex offenders. Things went wrong almost from the
time of his first arrest. He was arrested for the crime of
burglary of a habitation. The actual intent of his crime was to
snatch a child, not to steal a television set. This information
was lost when Blair plea-bargained to a lesser charge. He was
convicted and sent to prison as a common, everyday burglar. 

He was given early parole due to a Federal court order covering
overcrowding in the Texas prison system. There was no indication
in any of his files that he was a violent person or a predator.
That led to the next problem. 

Even while on parole, his supervisor had no indication of
Michael Blair's motivation. Because he had only been convicted
of burglary, Blair was given low-level priority in his probation
officer's caseload. Because the probation officer had such a
heavy caseload, Blair was free to prey on children in public
parks. That is when he happened upon Ashley. 

The Texas experience is important for two reasons. One, we now
know that the Blair case did not result from bad personnel in
our criminal justice system. It was the result of bad policies.
Two, the Texas experience is not unique. These types of
situations happen nationwide. Criminal justice systems are, dare
I say, bureaucracies. As such, there are inherent barriers that
make it extremely difficult for personnel to carry out their
duties. 

This lack of accountability, which occurs when intersystem
relationships are hampered, results in the subsequent release of
other "Michael Blairs" who are incarcerated in our prison
systems. 

This is the first lesson of the Texas experience. When one
agency's statutory duty to monitor a sex offender has concluded,
it is the moral duty of that agency to adequately pass the baton
to the next agency that is required to monitor the offender.
Clear communication and effective interagency policies are
critical. Oftentimes, the problem is not miscommunication, but
rather a byproduct of the mammoth size of the bureaucratic
entities involved. Even worse are the legislative and
administrative rules and policies that bind the hands of
criminal justice officials and prevent them from doing their
jobs. 

Granted, Texas is a very large State. We have 254 counties and
almost 20 million people. There are 150,000 people incarcerated
in our correctional facilities today. I was shocked to find that
most States, including Texas, required the express consent of
the offender before agencies could share information. It is
inexcusable to me that an offender must give permission before a
probation officer can share vital information with a police
officer. This leads to lesson number two of the Texas
experience. 

Legislatures and justice agencies must remove barriers that
prevent the free flow of information between agencies so
criminal justice professionals are not reluctant to do their
jobs out of fear of liability. Information is critical to our
systems. Secrecy is the sex offender's best friend, so we must
shine a light on everything they do. Here is lesson number three
of the Texas experience. 

Individual agencies are unable to impose systemwide changes,
even when they are aware of specific policy problems. The
legislature working hand-in-hand with justice professionals can
make systemwide changes. This lesson was clearly written as long
ago as 1967, when the President's Commission on Law Enforcement,
commenting on the separate parts of the criminal justice system,
stated, "These parts are by no means independent of each other.
What each one does and how it does it has a direct effect on the
work of the others." 

Reforming or reorganizing any part of a justice system or a
procedure affects the other components of the justice system.
Therefore, a study of a justice system must begin by examining
the system as a whole. We must step back and examine the entire
system and root out anything that prevents us from efficiently
carrying out sound public policies. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption two: Sound public policy is critical
------------------------------------------------------------

That leads me to the next question. Why is it so critical that
we have sound public policy in this area? The answer brings me
to the second broad assumption: the public's unparalleled primal
fear of sex offenders and their crimes. It requires our highest
sensitivity and utmost diligence. I do not believe you can
effectively discuss the sex offender issue without also
discussing the public and its safety. This is the primary factor
responsible for much of the legislation that results in public
policy, both good and sometimes bad, regarding sex offenders. 

For legislators, it is the call that must be answered, and
answered swiftly. James Baldwin once said, "If one really wishes
to know how justice is administered in this country, one does
not question the policemen. One does not question the lawyers or
the judges. One goes to the unprotected; those precisely who
need the protection the most, and listen to their testimony."
Ladies and gentlemen, if you hear the testimony of those who
need protection most, it will motivate you.

Nowhere does the duty of our system manifest itself so greatly
as it does here. There is something absolutely terrifying and
threatening to our basic freedom when you talk about a sex
offender whose victims are children. The nature and deviousness
of these offenders and the innocent and vulnerable character of
their victims combine to form a highly toxic and flammable
mixture when it comes to public confidence in the system. The
public does not really care what we do with sex offenders. All
it cares about is that these offenders are kept off our streets.
The fear is understandable. After all, what could be more
devastating and what could be more evil than stealing the
innocence from one more child? 

I mention this area because I think it is very important for all
of us to understand how the public's justifiable fear results in
legislation. It is not the place for legislators to waffle on
public safety matters simply because they are controversial. In
fact, I believe public safety is one of the most important
government functions. If we do not do it well, we might as well
just turn off the lights and go home. 

However, we have a duty to do what is right. We have a duty to
do what is just, and we have a duty to do what is
constitutional. This is sometimes easier said than done,
especially when civil libertarians are saying one thing and
victims' rights groups are saying something else. Each of these
groups has the luxury of ignoring the other. Legislators must
hear both sides and try their best to legislate public policy
with both opinions in mind. 

All legislators must also realize that these issues are ripe for
the emotional fervor that leads to ill-advised and even
unconstitutional public policy. That is why the expertise and
ideas of justice professionals are so essential to this process.
You must become our partners in the public policy arena. You
must know that your participation is vital to us. The heightened
response to sex offenders is too new and your input is too
important to do otherwise. You must be the ones to take your
knowledge and your information to legislators, and help them
forge sound public policy. Make no mistake about it, when
tragedies like Ashley's occur, legislation will be introduced.
The strength and efficiency of that legislation is dependent on
the input received from our nation's justice professionals.
Trust me. We need you. That leads me to the third broad
assumption.

  

Assumption three: A comprehensive approach is most effective

Effective State policy must necessarily result in a
comprehensive legislative and administrative approach to sex
offenders. I have become convinced that meaningful reform in the
area of sex offenders must contain three elements. Number one,
it must be constitutional. Number two, it must be comprehensive.
Number three, it must be done from a foundation of expertise,
not simply from a knee-jerk reaction. 

I am a conservative senator. I often agree with President
Woodrow Wilson, who said, "The responsibility of government is
to render justice, not pity." Let me briefly outline what we did
in Texas through Ashley's Laws. 

------------------------------
Ashley's Laws
------------------------------

Immediately after Ashley's abduction, it became clear that
something needed to be done legislatively to bring Texas into
the 20th century in relation to sex offenders. We went to work.
With a watchful eye on the problems other States were having in
this area, I created a task force of experts from throughout my
county who could help draft legislation. 

We had people from every possible area. We had prosecutors and
law enforcement. We had the American Civil Liberties Union. We
had parole and probation officers, treatment providers and
victims' advocates. Fortunately, the Texas Legislature was not
scheduled to convene for another 18 months. It became obvious
during the course of our discussions that a complete overhaul of
our sex offender program was necessary. A change in one or two
areas did not remedy other down-the-line problems we never
anticipated. 

When it finished, the task force had drafted 66 separate pieces
of legislation. I had to tell the task force members how
difficult it was to get even one piece of legislation passed.
The list was then pared down to 13 pieces of recommended
legislation. I would like to break those down for you very
briefly into four specific areas: changes in punishment
standards; changes in community supervision and parole policies;
changes in interagency procedures; and the creation of community
safeguards. 

 
------------------------------
Punishment standards
------------------------------

In the area of punishment, we passed a two-strike habitual sex
offender statute that requires an offender to receive an
automatic 35-year sentence without the possibility of parole for
a second felony sex offense against a child. Rape is also
included in the statute. After the offender serves his 35-year
sentence, the parole board must receive a favorable psychiatric
report and 12 of 18 parole board members must vote in the
offender's favor before parole is granted. 

We prohibit offenders from receiving repeated community
supervision sentences. They are allowed to be on probation only
once. If avoiding prison is their main objective and probation
is their punishment of choice, we give them only one chance. 

------------------------------
Community supervision
------------------------------

We made several changes in the area of community supervision,
probation or parole. We created "child safety zones" around
areas where children typically gather. Offenders are prohibited
from being in these areas. This measure also prohibits sex
offenders from participating in any activity or profession
involving children, such as coaching, working at a daycare
center or serving as a church counselor. 

The law now requires longer periods of community supervision for
offenders. The minimum period is 5 years, and an offender must
serve at least two-thirds of it before it can be terminated. 

We also notify the victim if the victim's assailant is released
into the community on probation, or what we call "deferred
adjudication." Before the judge can grant deferred adjudication
or probation, the judge must find in open court that the
offender's release is in the victim's best interest, not in the
criminal's best interest. We also require that an offender must
be enrolled and attending treatment as a condition of release. 

------------------------------
 Interagency procedures
------------------------------

In terms of the changes we implemented in interagency
procedures, we were only limited by our imagination. We removed
barriers so volunteer centers can access quality information
when providing background checks for nonprofit organizations.
Pedophiles are often found in nonprofit organizations.
Background checks are essential for those individuals. 

We require continuing legal education for lawyers and judges.
This is a new field, and they should understand its unique
characteristics. We provide liability immunity when agencies
share information with each other or with treatment providers.
We overhauled the registration system database by requiring that
the offender no longer register himself. The releasing entity,
the court and the correction facility must fill out a
registration form for the offender and forward it to the
Department of Public Safety, where the database is housed. A
copy of the registration form must then be sent to the police
chief or the sheriff in the community where the offender intends
to reside. 

This must all be done before the offender is released. Upon
release, the offender must personally appear at the local law
enforcement agency within 7 days. We also require the offender
to notify local law enforcement if he intends to move at least 7
days prior to the move. He must also notify law enforcement of
the location of his new residence. 

Local law enforcement may verify registration as often as it
deems appropriate, and certain offenders may be required to
verify their addresses every 90 days. We require sexually
violent predators to register for life. Because a complete and
comprehensive database is our main goal, we made registration
retroactive. 

We began requiring sex offenders to register in September 1991.
In the last legislative session, we established registration
requirements retroactively back to 1970. If you are still in the
Texas criminal justice system - and that means paroled, probated
or incarcerated - you must be a registered sex offender in our
registered sex offender database. Under our new law, failure to
register or to keep registration information current is a
fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 2 years in jail.
Registry information is public information accessible to any
person upon written request.

 
------------------------------
Community safeguards
------------------------------

We had our hardest fight in the area of community safeguards.
Our public notification system was the most significant and
controversial measure. With a watchful eye on the rest of the
country, we tried to avoid the problems other States experienced
in this sensitive area. 

We tried to benefit from what the courts told other States. The
courts seemed to indicate that a notification statute must
carefully balance the State's interest, which is the public's
right to know, against the offender's 14th Amendment liberty
interests. Under Ashley's Laws, we publish information about a
sex offender in the newspaper if the victim was age 17 or
younger. We do not publish information if the offender is a
juvenile. If incest is the crime committed, we do not publish a
notice, regardless of the victim's age. 

Once a citizen sees a published notice about a sex offender, he
or she is free to contact local law enforcement for additional
information. It is very important to remember there is a
specific reason for notification. It is not to foster a
vigilante atmosphere. It is to warn parents that they should be
aware of someone who lives nearby. Remind the public of this.
Providing the offender's exact street address may not be
necessary, in my opinion. Listing the street where he lives is
often good enough, and it is certainly more likely to survive a
court challenge.

 
------------------------------
Victims' access
------------------------------

The last community safeguard I want to discuss is the necessary
function of giving victims direct access to the system. The laws
must respect the victim's position and role in this area. Notify
the victim and the victim's family of the assailant's release.
Allow victims to appear at parole hearings if they choose to. Do
not tolerate an offender's attempts to contact his victim. 

This is a battle of rights. Whose rights are more important in
this situation? You must tip the scales in favor of victims and
law-abiding citizens. You must remove the sex offender's best
friend - his secrecy. Your laws must say loud and clear that
children are important to us. If you chose to harm one, we now
have special laws to punish you and to keep track of you. These
are the highlights of Ashley's Laws. I am sure we will make many
more changes in the never-ending process to improve public
policy for our State. 

I came into this issue as a novice. I have learned a lot in the
last 4 years. There is so much to learn. We can learn from each
other and from every justice professional who deals with this
issue. Hopefully, if States work together, we will not have to
keep reinventing the wheel. 

I encourage each expert in this critical field to help States
craft model comprehensive statutes. I think one of the most
important functions of these conferences is to come to
conclusions, as difficult as they may be, and to help put some
sound and tested ideas into action. Someone once said, "An ounce
of action is worth a ton of theory." 

------------------------------
The future
------------------------------

What does the future hold for States in the area of sex
offenders and public policy? I think there are three emerging
areas on the horizon. I would like to briefly mention them. 

The first is technology. Technological advances will continue to
unfold. States will be more progressive in using existing
technology, telecommunications and global satellite positioning
to alleviate ever-increasing sex offender supervision caseloads.
Technology will also benefit treatment through plethysmographs,
-58 [An instrument that measures variations in the size of an
organ or body part on the basis of the amount of blood passing
through or present in the part.] polygraphs or DNA testing. 

Second, I believe you will see a plethora of civil commitment
statutes across the country in light of the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on the civil commitment statutes.

The third area is juvenile sex offenders. I am extremely
concerned about them. I believe we can make our smartest
investment in reducing certain sex offenses if we focus
attention on this area. While the literature is becoming
substantial in this field, very few States have truly focused on
juvenile sex offenders. 

As someone at a Washington, D.C. conference said last fall,
"It's true that not all juvenile sex offenders will become adult
sex offenders, but many, many adult sex offenders began as
juveniles." If we are fortunate enough to assess and identify a
juvenile sex offender at an early age, we could do so much to
prevent him from a life of offending, and we could spare
thousands of needless victims.

In closing, I want to reiterate three points I discussed: 

1. We need to overhaul our entire criminal justice system to
better control sex offenders; 

2. We must never forget we are doing this to protect the public;
and 

3. We must remember that any changes made to the system must be
comprehensive, sweeping and constitutional. 

The States cannot wait. As each of you leaves this conference, I
hope you do not forget the big picture when you return to your
specific fields of expertise. 

Nothing stays in my mind more vividly and helps me to move
forward on this issue than a plaque that sits in front of
Mitchell Elementary School in Plano. The plaque reads, "In
loving memory of Ashley Nicole Estelle. Dedicated to all
children and their right to play in safety." 

------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Washington study of the efficacy 
of notification laws
------------------------------------------------------------

ROXANNE LIEB

Director

Washington State Institute of Public Policy

I tend to have schizophrenic feelings when I participate in
events like this. I am horrified by many of the stories we hear
about terrible crimes. Simultaneously, I feel a sense of energy
and commitment when I see all the important progress that has
been made regarding policies for sex offenses. I began to
confront these issues in the 1970s, when I started volunteering
on a rape crisis line. If someone told me back then that, by
1997, a talented group of professionals from all over the
country would be assembled to discuss improvements in sex
offender registration and notification programs, I am not sure I
would have believed it. I feel quite privileged to be in your
midst. 

The research conducted by the Washington State Institute of
Public Policy on registration and community notification
statutes depends entirely on the people we contact from the
States, who respond to our surveys. We are very appreciative of
these contributions. We are about to release an updated version
of our "Megan's Law" survey with information on 46 States. -59
[The Study is available from the Washington State Institute of
Public Policy, Seminar 3162, Mail Stop: TA-00, The Evergreen
State College, Olympia, WA 98505. The study can also be accessed
at www.wa.gov/wsipp.]

We are also conducting a public opinion survey you might find
interesting. We are placing random telephone calls to adults in
the State of Washington asking questions about their experiences
with notification and soliciting their opinions about it. The
results of that survey will be available soon. -60 [Ibid.]

I have been asked to discuss the research that the Institute has
conducted on community notification issues. I was asked to cover
this topic because our research is the only notification
research currently available. I would encourage other
organizations to conduct similar research. 

I receive telephone calls all the time from reporters who ask,
"Is community notification a good law? Is it effective? Is it
working?" 

They want short answers, of course, and I keep annoying them
because these questions cannot be answered with simple
responses. In fact, some reporters start asking questions about
registration and it turns out they really want to know about
notification. "Do you want to know about registration or
notification?" I ask them. "You bureaucrats are all alike," one
responded. "You always try to complicate things." There are
significant differences between registration and notification,
of course, and there are also keen differences in their intended
effects. 

Our research covers the first 3 years of notification in our
State. The most ideal research on the effects of notification or
any other new social policy would include a comparison group.
Drug companies use comparison groups when testing new
medications - one group gets the test medicine and the other
takes a placebo. If you have enough people in your sample, you
iron out the differences that might occur by chance. It is
difficult to use that process when determining the effects of a
new law. We had to search for an adequate comparison group; in
this case, a similar group of sex offenders who were released
without notification. 

------------------------------
Study results
------------------------------

Our study covered approximately 125 offenders identified by law
enforcement as posing high risk to the public. These were not
what you might call "average sex offenders." They had extensive
offending histories, and included several juveniles with
histories of serious offenses. 

The study compared recidivism rates of offenders who were
released with and without notification. Let me stop here and ask
you: What result would demonstrate the effectiveness of the law? 

At first blush, most people say that learning that the
notification group committed fewer sex offenses than the
comparison group shows that the law was working. Some people,
however, believe that a finding of a low recidivism rate proves
that the police picked the wrong subjects for notification
because they did not reoffend. 

When we compared the study group to the comparison group, we
found that they committed about the same number of new sex
offenses. The only difference was the timing of rearrest. The
community notification group was rearrested about twice as
quickly as the comparison group. The average time in the
community before rearrest was about 2 to 2-1/2 years for the
notification group. It was closer to 5 years for the comparison
group. Some people interpret the study results to reveal that
the law failed because there was not much difference in the rate
of new sex offenses. In my opinion, the fact that offenders were
rearrested twice as quickly indicates that the law does have an
effect. In ways we do not yet fully understand, the law is
producing a different response from the offender, law
enforcement and or the community, either in combination or alone.

The question that needs to be addressed in a study like this is
subtler than, "How do recidivism rates for sex offenses
compare?" We found that, in addition to looking at recidivism
for sex offenses, it was just as important to look at recidivism
for other offenses. We have consistently learned in our research
on sex offenders that many of their new crimes are not sex
offenses. In most instances, we care so much about sex crimes
and focus only on sexual recidivism that we forget about the
nonsexual crimes these offenders commit. 

------------------------------
Next stage of research
------------------------------

The next stage of research should focus on the circumstances
surrounding rearrest. 

How many cases involved a tip from a community member that led
law enforcement to the offender? In how many instances did
rearrest occur because law enforcement was paying attention to
the behaviors of identified offenders or using notification as a
tool for investigation? 

The next phase should also focus on the nature of offending and
the crimes committed. We tend to think about sex offenses as a
huge category. There are a variety of sex offenses, and there is
variety in terms of the seriousness of conduct. When we examined
our two study groups, we found that people who were in the
notification group may have been arrested for slightly less
serious conduct, if one assumes the label of the crime reflects
the actual behavior. The number of individuals on this question
was so small that conclusions are not possible. 

Ideally, the next research projects will also examine the
circumstances surrounding rearrest, and the nature of the
behavior. 

I do not believe that Washington's experience and research on
community notification are necessarily relevant for other
States. Registration and notification systems are different all
over the country and so is the way people respond to them. A
notification law in one community is very different from a
notification law in another community. 

Thinking ahead, we must also be aware that reactions to the law
and its effectiveness may vary over time. People react
differently when they hear about their 20th offender than they
do when hear about their first. An ongoing evolution occurs in a
community's understanding of how to respond to this information.
An evolution will also occur with regard to the reaction by sex
offenders to the law, including both those identified as high
risk and those who are not so identified. Thus, one should not,
in any way, consider this particular study as anything other
than a beginning point in terms of our understanding how
notification laws work and the impact they have on the sex
offender population. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Community notification and verification 
practices in three States
------------------------------------------------------------

SCOTT A. COOPER

Staff Attorney

National Criminal Justice Association

The National Criminal Justice Association recently submitted a
draft report to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.
Department of Justice. -61 [National Criminal Justice
Association, Sex Offender Community Notification  (Washington,
D.C.: NCJA, November 1997).] The report describes how sex
offender registration and notification laws work in four States:
Alaska, Louisiana, New Jersey and Washington. These four States
were chosen for the report because of the diversity of their
notification laws. 

I will discuss the Alaska, Louisiana and New Jersey laws to
illustrate some of the issues that face law- and policymakers as
they draft sex offender registration and notification laws. The
laws in these three States are not intended to be models of
perfect notification laws, and I certainly do not suggest that
these laws are necessarily in compliance with the Wetterling
Act.-62 [The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, 42 U.S.C.  14071.]
However, I want to share what these States are doing so you can
get a feel for the diversity of approaches they have taken. My
discussion focuses primarily on notification laws, but I may
touch on registration issues as well.

The Alaska law provides for passive notification; citizens must
seek out registry information. Louisiana provides for active
notification; sex offenders must notify the communities in which
they live. New Jersey also provides for active notification; its
statute establishes stringent notification procedures that local
jurisdictions are required to follow. Washington allows
significant discretion to local jurisdictions when implementing
their notification programs.  

------------------------------
Alaska's law
------------------------------

Alaska's registration and notification statute became effective
in 1994. -63 [ALASKA STAT.  18.65.087(a) (Michie 1996).] The
offender must register in person at a State trooper post or at
the municipal police department in his area of residence. The
registration form is submitted to the Alaska Department of
Public Safety (DPS), which maintains the central sex offender
registry. 

Notification is passive. The public must request sex offender
information in writing on a standardized form provided by the
Alaska State Trooper Permits and Licensing Unit for a $10
nonrefundable fee. 

Sex offender information requests may be made about a particular
registrant or about all registrants in a particular
municipality, village, ZIP code or street. The Alaska statute
protects the victim's identity from disclosure unless the
information is contained in court documents or other documents
available to the public. The offender may submit a written
response to the DPS to correct or modify information in the
central registry or to add an explanatory note. If a request to
change, correct, modify or add information is denied, the
offender may appeal the denial to the DPS commissioner. If that
appeal is denied, the offender may appeal the commissioner's
decision to the court.

Offenders may not challenge the scope of notification, because
notification is passive and interested citizens must seek out
registry information. It is not disseminated to the public. 

The law also requires the DPS commissioner to notify a victim if
his or her assailant escapes from custody, if he is furloughed
into the community on an early release program, or if he leaves
custody for any other reason. The commissioner must notify the
victim of an offender's status change only if the victim
requests such notice. As part of this notice, the commissioner
must send the victim a photograph of the offender taken within 3
weeks of the offender's release if the victim specifically
requests the photograph in writing. 

------------------------------
Louisiana's law
------------------------------

Louisiana's notification statute was enacted in 1992, and
revised in 1995. -64 [LA. REV. STAT. ANN.  15:540 through
15:549 (West Supp. 1997).] The State Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Information maintains a central registry of
sex offender information. Louisiana's notification law is unique
because it requires offenders to conduct community notification
themselves. In rural areas, an offender must reveal his
residence location to at least one person in every residence or
business within a one-mile radius of his residence. In urban or
suburban areas, the offender must meet the same notification
requirements within a three-block area. The offender must also
notify the superintendent of the school district where he will
reside. The superintendent notifies the principal of every
school that he or she thinks should be notified of the
offender's name, address and crime of conviction. 

A minimum of 10 days before the offender's release from custody,
the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections must
send a written notice of release to the police chief of the
municipality where the offender will reside and to the sheriff
in the parish where the offender will reside, if practicable.
Upon written request, a notice of the offender's release must be
sent to the victim of the offender's conviction crime, to
witnesses who testified against the offender, and to any person
the prosecuting district attorney might specify in writing. 

A registrant must also notify via mail all people living in the
designated area of his presence. The designated area is a 1 mile
radius in rural areas and three square blocks from the address
where the offender will reside in urban and suburban areas.
Within 30 days of establishing residency, he must also publish -
at his own expense - a notice in an official journal informing
the community of his presence. This notice must be published on
two separate days. Meanwhile, Louisiana passed a law in June
1997 that expanded the scope of the publication requirement to
go beyond the particular parish where the registrant resides.
-65 [1997 LA. SESS. LAW SERV. Act 134 (H.B. 174)(West).]

Louisiana courts may order any other form of notice they deem
appropriate, including, but not limited to, signs, handbills,
bumper stickers and clothing labeled to identify the registrant
as a sex offender. As far as I know, no judge has ordered any of
these, but the law does allow judges to take these steps.  

An offender may petition the court for relief from the duty to
register and notify. The court must consider the nature of the
sex offense and the registrant's criminal and noncriminal
behavior before and after his conviction. The court may also
consider other factors. The registrant must prove by clear and
convincing evidence that notification will not serve the law's
purpose to protect the community. 

------------------------------
New Jersey's law
------------------------------

The New Jersey notification statute was enacted in 1994. -66
[N.J. REV. STAT.  2C7-1 through 2C7-11 (West 1995 & Supp.
1996).] The chief law enforcement officer in the municipality
where the registrant resides must notify the community within 45
days after receiving notice that an offender will be released
from jail or prison. The county prosecutor determines who is
subject to what kind of notification, and what tier of
notification is to be imposed upon the offender. 

The New Jersey attorney general promulgated guidelines and
procedures in 1996 to notify the community and also created the
Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS) to help determine the
risk of reoffense. -67 [Guidelines for Law Enforcement for
Notification to Local Officials and/or the Community of the
Entry of a Sex Offender into the Community (June 1, 1996, on
file with author).] Based upon certain criteria, the RRAS
determines an offender's score, which indicates the likelihood
that he will commit another sex offense. The criteria include
the following:

* Conditions of release or post-release supervision; 

* Physical conditions that minimize the risk of reoffense, such
as age or physical incapacitation; 

* Criminal history factors; 

* Psychological or psychiatric profiles; 

* Response to treatment; and 

* Recent behavior. 

In New Jersey, each criterion is assigned a score from 0 to 3.
Zero indicates a low risk of reoffense. One indicates a moderate
risk of reoffense. The number 2 is not assigned. Three indicates
a high risk of reoffense. 

Some criteria are given more weight than others. Individual
criterion scores are added to achieve a total score.  An
offender receiving a total weighted RRAS score between 0 and 36
is classified as Tier I. An offender receiving an RRAS score
between 37 and 73 is classified as Tier II. An offender
receiving a total RRAS score between 74 and 111 is classified as
Tier III. 

Every offender is categorized as at least a Tier I offender. For
notification purposes, local law enforcement agencies that are
likely to encounter a Tier I offender are notified of his
presence in the community. If an offender is categorized as Tier
II, he would receive the same notification as Tier I local law
enforcement agencies likely to encounter the offender would be
notified of his presence - and certain community organizations
would also be notified. Those organizations must register with
the State in order to receive notification. Tier III offenders
have the same notification requirements as Tier II, and the
public is notified through means designed to reach each person
who is likely to encounter the offender. 

The New Jersey guidelines require prosecutors to train, educate
and notify community organizations. A State prosecutor meets
with an organization the first time the organization receives
notification that a sex offender is in the community. The
prosecutor brings copies of flyers listing information about the
offender. The prosecutor also explains the law, stresses the
importance of confidentiality and warns of the consequences of
vigilantism. After the initial meeting and notification, the
prosecutor simply notifies the organization of subsequently
released offenders by mail or telephone.

------------------------------
Legal challenges in New Jersey
------------------------------

I want to address some of the New Jersey case law which focuses
on the implementation of the notification laws. Several New
Jersey court decisions have clarified the scope of community
notification and the safeguards that accompany notification. The
most important New Jersey case is Doe v. Poritz.-68 [Doe V.
Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995). On July 25, 1995, the New Jersey
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the registration
and notification laws known as Megan's Law. The court's ruling
set certain due process requirements that would need to be met
to implement the law's community notification provisions.
Implementation has taken a three-pronged approach: a trial-level
hearing to consider offender challenges to notification
requirements; expedited appellate review; and the formation of a
committee to examine consistency in the treatment of offenders
(Source: The Judiciary Letter, An Information Sheet on New
Jersey Judiciary Programs produced by the Administrative Office
of the Courts, October 1996.)] In Doe, a convicted sex offender
whose identity was not released challenged the notification law
on several grounds: 

* He claimed notification constituted double jeopardy, or
multiple punishments for the same offense. 

* He claimed that subjection to notification requirements
constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that it invaded his
privacy. 

* He demanded equal protection under the law, claiming that the
New Jersey notification law treated persons who were similarly
situated differently. 

* He argued for procedural due process, claiming that the law
failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and notice of such
hearing. This is one area that the New Jersey case law and
subsequent guidelines addressed with procedural due process
issues and hearings.  

The New Jersey Supreme Court, the State's highest court, upheld
the notification laws, but it interpreted the statutes and
revised the attorney general's guidelines. For Tier II and Tier
III notifications, it ruled that there would have to be the
likelihood of an encounter to justify notice to organizations
that requested notification. Notification determinations had to
be made on a case-by-case basis with organizations that
registered for notification with the State. 

The same standard was applied to Tier III community
notification. Individual determinations were required to decide
whether organizations that requested notification would receive
that notification. To qualify for notification, these
organizations would have to be in charge of the care or
supervision of women and children. That distinction was not made
before the Doe ruling. 

In addition, pursuant to the guidelines revised in June 1996,
-69 [See Footnote 67.] all public and private educational
institutions, including licensed daycare centers and summer
camps, were automatically added to the notification list without
having to register. The guidelines also defined "likely to
encounter" to mean close geographic proximity to a location the
offender visits or can be presumed to visit. It does not
necessarily mean his residence. Before notification, the
prosecutor's office or local law enforcement was required to
visit the offender's listed address to verify that the offender
lived there. 

The Doe ruling also addressed the offender's behavior in the
community. It mandated that the offender's behavior in the
community following incarceration be considered in all tier
considerations, and that psychological or psychiatric profiles
had to be made available, not only to increase an offender's
risk assessment but also to decrease tier classification. 

Finally, Tiers II and III offenders were granted access to
judicial review of their tier classification. They were given
notice of this right to review before the notification actually
took place. If an offender was classified as Tier II or Tier
III, the new guidelines required that the offender be supplied
with a form before community notification took place. The
offender indicated the basis for his disagreement with or
objection to his tier classification on the form. He also
indicated his need for assigned counsel or he was required to
provide the name of counsel that had already been obtained. 

The offender had the right to have an attorney present at his
hearing. The offender also received a copy of his completed RRAS
along with a copy of the RRAS manual that explained how the
score was determined. Before the actual hearing, a prehearing
conference was held with a judge to discuss any pertinent issues
that needed attention before the hearing. The judge was
authorized to conduct the hearing immediately after the
prenotification hearing. 

Another New Jersey Supreme Court case also addressed
notification decisions.-70 [In re Registrant C.A., 679 A.2d 1153
(N.J. 1996). Prior to his release from jail, C.A., a convicted
sex offender subject to New Jersey's registration and
notification laws, was notified that, pursuant to his RRAS
score, he would be classified as a Tier III offender. He
contended that his RRAS score was incorrect because he never
used a weapon, he was acquainted with all of his victims, and he
had only had two victims rather than three because the charge by
the third victim was dismissed. The trial court affirmed the
Tier III classification. The Supreme Court granted C.A.'s
petition for certification to the appellate division.] The court
ruled that risk assessment was a useful tool to determine an
offender's tier classification, but that it should not be solely
relied upon. Risk assessment was found not to be a scientific
device. It was to be used to guide and assess an offender's risk
of reoffense. The court also concluded that nonconviction
evidence and reliable hearsay evidence may also be considered in
determining an offender's tier classification. General rules of
evidence would not apply at a tier classification hearing as
they would in a regular trial. 

The State Supreme Court also held that a convicted sex offender
should be permitted to obtain an expert and to present expert
testimony at a tier designation hearing. -71 [In re Registrant
G.B., 685 A.2d 1252 (N.J. 1996). G.B. pleaded guilty to one
court of second-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 5
years at an adult treatment center. Upon release and pursuant to
the RRAS, he was classified as a Tier II offender. He sought
judicial review of the classification and at an in camera
judicial hearing, he sought to challenge the predictive value of
the RRAS as applied to his circumstances. To support his claims,
he sought to introduce evidence from three experts. The trial
court ruled that expert testimony was unwarranted. G.B. appealed
the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that
G.B. should be permitted to present expert testimony to show
that the variable factors in the scale calculations as they
related to him should result in a lesser tier classification.]
In this case, the court did not reclassify the offender, but
just remanded the case to the lower court for a determination
consistent with its decision. In another ruling, the court
addressed the psychological and psychiatric factors that must be
considered by the court. -72 [In re Registrant E.I., No
A-3767-96T1, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 218 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. May 7, 1997). The state commenced proceedings to register
E.I., a 21-year-old who pleaded guilty to endangering the
welfare of a child, as a Tier II sexual offender under New
Jersey's registration and notification law. The appellate
division held that E.I.'s classification arising from his
consensual sexual relations with a 15-year-old victim, involving
no force, did not come within the "heartland" of cases which
required notification.] In that case, the court actually reduced
an offender's tier classification from Tier II to Tier I. It
held that the defendant's tier classification would have to be
reduced because psychological and psychiatric factors were not
taken into account during his risk assessment, rendering his
RRAS score unreliable. 

Finally, in still another court decision - this one in appellate
court - the court ruled that, to facilitate judicial view of the
geographic scope of the community notification, the prosecutor
must prepare a large-scale map of the county with a color-coded
grid to identify low- to high-population density areas. -73 [In
re Registrant E.A., 667 A.2d 1077 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1995). E.A. was an adult convicted of sex offenses against 12-,
13- and 14-year-old boys. His criminal conduct subjected him to
New Jersey's registration and notification laws. He challenged
the geographic scope of notification on grounds that it was
arbitrarily conceived, void of expert input, and therefore
contrary to the attorney general's guidelines. The court
remanded the case to allow the prosecutor to present to the
trial court proper proof consonant with its opinion.] The map
had to be based upon census data, county planning board data, or
information provided by local planning boards and law
enforcement officials. 

Prosecutors were required to locate a registrant's residence or
workplace on the map and to apply whatever approved distance
criteria was determined. Prosecutors were also required to
provide the registrant with a list of registered community
organizations that were notified of his presence and the basis
for that notification, whether it was because the organizations
cared for women and children or because they were within
geographic proximity of the offender. 

------------------------------
Contributors' biographies
------------------------------

Marlene Beckman

Marlene Beckman serves as Special Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ).  Prior to joining OJP, Ms. Beckman
spent 3 years as a DOJ trial attorney in the Criminal Division's
Fraud Section.

Ms. Beckman is a 1985 graduate of Georgetown University Law
Center.  Before and during law school, Ms. Beckman worked in
corrections and in the Civil Rights Division for the DOJ's Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration.  Ms. Beckman has also
performed white-collar criminal defense work for two Washington,
D.C., law firms.

Robert R. Belair

SEARCH General Counsel Robert R. Belair is a partner with the
Washington, D.C., law firm of Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair.  Mr.
Belair is also CEO of Privacy and Legislative Associates, a
legal and policy consulting firm. Privacy and information law
involving administrative, legislative and litigation activity
are the principal emphases of Mr. Belair's practice.  He
provides counseling in all aspects of privacy and information
law, including educational, criminal, juvenile, medical,
employment, credit and financial records; telecommunications;
defamation; criminal justice administration; constitutional law;
and intellectual property, including software copyrights.

As SEARCH General Counsel, Mr. Belair contributes to SEARCH's
privacy and security programs. He authored many studies in
criminal justice information law and policy.  Mr. Belair was
actively involved in revising SEARCH's standards for criminal
history record information, Technical Report No. 13:  Standards
for the Security and Privacy of Criminal History Record
Information (Third Edition).

Mr. Belair serves as consultant to numerous Federal agencies and
commissions on information policy and law.  He is former Deputy
General Counsel and Acting Counsel for the Domestic Council
Committee on the Right of Privacy, Office of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of Kalamazoo College (Michigan) and
Columbia University School of Law.

Kathy J. Canestrini

Kathy J. Canestrini is a Board Examiner for the New York State
Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders.  She previously served as a
research specialist for the New York State Department of
Correctional Services, where she conducted extensive research on
sex offender profiles and recidivism patterns. 

 She also served as a research assistant at the Hindelang
Criminal Justice Center in Albany, New York, and as a juvenile
probation officer in Texas.

Ms. Canestrini holds a B.A. from East Texas State University and
a Master's degree in Criminal Justice from the State University
of New York at Albany.

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken has directed the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS), U.S. Department of Justice, since September 1994. 

Dr. Chaiken was a senior mathematician at the Rand Corporation
in Santa Monica, California, from 1972 to 1984. He served as a
principal scientist in law and justice and directed the Federal
Justice Statistics Program at Abt Associates, Inc. in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, from 1984 until nominated for his present post by
President Clinton in 1994.  He was selected as an Abt Fellow. 

Dr. Chaiken's research focuses on developing and applying
methods to improve criminal justice operations.  He co-authored
the FBI "blueprint" for a new incident-based crime reporting
system. He also designed a microcomputer software package used
in police patrol cars in the United States and abroad.  His most
noteworthy accomplishments were carried out jointly with his
wife, Dr. Marcia Chaiken, Director of Research at LINC in
Alexandria, Virginia. The Chaikens together authored numerous
book chapters, reports and articles on crime and criminals.

Dr. Chaiken provided recommendations to LINC for improving the
sample of the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use
Forecasting (DUF) program and for expanding uses of DUF
statistics to develop State and local policy.  He worked
directly with such agencies as the California Department of
Corrections, the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney's
Office, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department, and the Massachusetts Committee on
Criminal Justice.  Dr. Chaiken taught mathematics and public
policy analysis at Cornell, at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and at the University of California at Los Angeles.
He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.

Scott A. Cooper

Scott A. Cooper is a Staff Attorney with the National Criminal
Justice Association, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit
association that represents State and local governments on crime
control and public safety issues.  Mr. Cooper previously
maintained a solo practice specializing in family and criminal
law.  He served as law clerk for the District of Columbia Public
Defender Service; for the Honorable Stephen W. Herrick; for the
Albany County (New York) Police Court; for the Prisoners Legal
Services of New York; and for the Albany County (New York)
Public Defender's Office.

Mr. Cooper holds a J.D. from Albany Law School and a B.S. from
the State University of New York at Albany.

Floyd Epps

Floyd Epps is a Board Examiner for the New York State Board of
Examiners of Sex Offenders.  He previously served as a New York
State parole officer from 1986 to 1996, specializing in sex
offender supervision.  He also served as a New York City
probation officer, as a caseworker for the New York City
Department of Special Services for Children, and as a New York
elementary school teacher.

Mr. Epps holds a B.A. and a Master's degree in Sociology from
Herbert H. Lehman College (New York).

Donna Feinberg

Donna Feinberg is an Attorney in the Office of General Counsel,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 
She previously worked as a legislative assistant for a member of
Congress; as a law clerk for a U.S. Claims Court (now Court of
Federal Claims) judge; and as an attorney for the American
Nurses' Association, for the Legal Services Corporation, and for
the DOJ.

Ms. Feinberg is a University of Texas graduate.  She holds a
J.D. from the University of Missouri and a Master of Laws degree
from Georgetown University Law Center.

Ronald P. Hawley

Mr. Ronald P. Hawley has served as Assistant Director of the
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation's Division of
Criminal Information since 1993.  Mr. Hawley began his career
with the Bureau in 1973. His early assignments included service
as a Special Agent, as an Assistant District Supervisor and as a
District Supervisor. Mr. Hawley also served a tour of duty with
the Governor's Security.

Mr. Hawley is involved with several committees and working
groups related to criminal justice information technology.  He
sits as Co-chair of the Criminal Justice Information Network
(CJIN) Study Committee, and is a member of the Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS) Southern Regional Working Group and
the CJIS Ad Hoc Task Force on Security, Privacy and Policy
Matters.  Mr. Hawley serves as the governor-appointed member of
SEARCH representing North Carolina. He sits on the SEARCH Board
of Directors and serves as Chair of the SEARCH Law and Policy
Program Advisory Committee.  Mr. Hawley currently chairs the
SEARCH/Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Working Group on
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Mr. Hawley graduated from Campbell College (North Carolina). He
also holds a Master's degree in Education from the University of
Maine. 

Honorable Mike Lawlor

Rep. Mike Lawlor is a six-term member of the Connecticut House
of Representatives serving the 99th District, which comprises
East Haven and the Short Beach area of Branford. Rep. Lawlor has
been recognized in the Legislature for his work to reform
Connecticut's criminal justice system, including alternative
forms of punishment, drug policy, juvenile justice reform,
victims' rights and sexual offender registration.  He also
pushed for the reform of economic development and job training
programs to promote high-wage jobs.  In 1993 and 1994, Rep.
Lawlor led the fight for gun control in Connecticut.

Rep. Lawlor attended the University of Connecticut, where he was
President of the Young Democrats.  He graduated in 1979 with
honors in Slavic and Eastern European Studies.  He received a
Master's Degree in Soviet-area studies from the University of
London in 1981. He graduated in 1983 from the National Law
Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Following graduation from law school, Rep. Lawlor was appointed
a prosecutor with the State's Attorney's Office in New Haven. 
He resigned in 1986 to run for the Legislature.  He continues to
practice law and is now the General Counsel for Giordano
Associates, a consumer advocate public adjustment firm.  He
teaches criminal law at the University of New Haven as a
Practitioner in Residence.

Rep. Lawlor chairs the Eastern Regional Conference Criminal
Justice Board of Directors and also the Corrections Task Force
for the Council of State Governments.  In the Legislature, Rep.
Lawlor chairs the Judiciary Committee and sits on the
Appropriations Committee.  He served as the Chairman of the
Labor and Public Employees Committee from 1993 to 1994. 

Roxanne Lieb

Roxanne Lieb directs the Washington State Institute of Public
Policy, a nonpartisan think tank funded by the Washington State
Legislature.  The Institute provides policymakers with
information on issues of long-term significance to the State. 
It has conducted research since 1990 on State programs and
policies regarding sex offenders and victims.  Ms. Lieb's
organization also summarized the Nation's laws regarding sex
offender registration and community notification.  

Ms. Lieb's prior experience includes service as Director of the
State of Washington's Sentencing Guidelines Commission, where
she helped set sentencing policy for adult felons.

She holds a Master's degree in Public Policy from the University
of Washington. Ms. Lieb attended the Program for Senior
Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University's
John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Kirk Lonbom

Kirk Lonbom has more than 17 years experience in municipal- and
State-level law enforcement. Mr. Lonbom's service includes
patrol and investigative assignments, including 3 years in an
undercover capacity.

He joined the Illinois State Police in 1990 and was assigned to
a field intelligence unit. In 1993, Mr. Lonbom was promoted to
Section Chief in the Intelligence Bureau, where he was
responsible for various intelligence programs.

He was promoted to his current position as Assistant Bureau
Chief of the Intelligence Bureau in 1995. He is responsible for
the operations of the Strategic Intelligence Group, which
includes the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Program, the
Violent Crimes Section and the Organized Crime and Narcotics
Intelligence Section.

Honorable Norm Maleng

The Honorable Norm Maleng has served as King County (Washington)
Prosecuting Attorney since 1979.  Mr. Maleng initiated many
criminal justice system reforms at the local, State and national
levels and he established a number of innovative programs within
the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. They include a nationally
recognized sexual assault prosecution unit; a victim assistance
unit; Kids' Court (which helps child sex abuse victims
understand the courtroom); and Drug Court, which offers
first-time offenders the opportunity to attend a strict drug
treatment program.

Mr. Maleng has been a Washington State leader in the reform of
the State's criminal justice system. His innovations include
crime victim compensation; the Sentencing Reform Act; the
Community Protection Act (which includes the first sexually
violent predator law in the Nation); the "Becca Bill," designed
to help parents reach out to their runaway children; and, most
recently, juvenile justice reform.

The King County Prosecutor's Office is one of the Nation's
largest, with a staff of 465 employees, including more than 215
deputy prosecutors.

Mr. Maleng graduated from the University of Washington in 1960
with an Economics degree. He obtained a degree from the
University of Washington School of Law, where he served as
editor in chief of the law review.  After graduation in 1966, he
was selected to serve as staff attorney for the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce.  Mr. Maleng also served as a Lieutenant
in the U.S. Army.

Mr. Maleng worked in private practice in Seattle for 3 years
before being appointed Chief Deputy of the Civil Division. 

Elizabeth A. Pearson

Elizabeth A. Pearson is a Staff Associate at the National
Criminal Justice Association (NCJA), where she tracks
congressional legislation that impacts States' criminal justice
policies and appropriations.  She also conducts research for
NCJA grant projects.

Ms. Pearson was the primary researcher for projects sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention and by the Office for Victims of Crime. 
She previously worked in the criminal justice program at the
National Conference of State Legislatures in Colorado and for
the Wisconsin State Senate.

Ms. Pearson holds a B.A. in Political Science from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. She also holds a Masters of
Public Administration from the University of Colorado.

Emmet A. Rathbun

Emmet  A. Rathbun began his FBI service in 1978 performing
various supervisory duties for the Bureau's National Crime
Information Center. Mr. Rathbun was assigned to the Criminal
Justice Information Services Division (formerly Identification
Division) in 1989. He currently serves as Unit Chief.

Mr. Rathbun began his law enforcement career in 1964 as a police
officer.  He became a special agent for the Iowa Bureau of
Criminal Investigation in 1965. Mr. Rathbun rose to become that
organization's Assistant Director before accepting a position
with the FBI.  He is a graduate of Upper Iowa University.

Dena T. Sacco

Dena T. Sacco is Counsel in the Office of Policy Development,
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  Ms. Sacco is responsible for
a variety of criminal justice policy matters, including
implementation of sex offender registration and notification
laws.

She was an employment law associate at the firm of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP prior to joining the DOJ. Ms.
Sacco received a J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1993
and a B.A. cum laude from Yale University in 1990.  She also
received an LL.M in European Community Law from the College of
Europe in 1994. 

Honorable Florence Shapiro

Sen. Florence Shapiro is serving her third term in the Texas
State Senate representing the State's 8th Senatorial District.
She was elected Chair of the Senate Republican Caucus shortly
after beginning her most recent term, becoming the first woman
to hold the position and the first Republican to preside over
the majority party caucus since Reconstruction.  She also serves
as Vice Chair of the Senate Criminal Justice and Nominations
Committees, and as a member of the Intergovernmental Relations,
Economic Development, State Affairs and the Select Tax Reform
and Public School Finance committees.

Sen. Shapiro has earned numerous honors during her Senate
tenure, including the 1993 Distinguished Legislative Service
Award from the Texas Municipal League and the Legislator of the
Year Award from the National Republican Legislators Association.
 She was chosen by the Council of State Governments as a 1993
Toll Fellow, an award given to only 35 officials nationwide for
their insight, innovation and commitment to State government.

Sen. Shapiro is recognized for her work in tort reform, economic
development and criminal justice.  Her most notable achievement
was a series of bills know as Ashley's Laws, which changed the
methods Texas utilized to punish sex offenders. Sen. Shapiro
received the 1995 Child Advocate Award from the Dallas
Children's Advocacy Center in recognition of her legislative
efforts.  She also received the 1995 Legislator of the Year
Award from the Texas Municipal League and the Outstanding
Legislator of the Year Award from the Texas Police Chiefs
Association.

Sen. Shapiro is the former Mayor of Plano, Texas.  She also
served six terms on the Plano City Council. Sen. Shapiro has
held numerous local, State and national leadership positions,
including President of the Texas Municipal League, President of
the Plano Economic Development Board and Vice Chair of the
National League of Cities' Advisory Board.

She is a former English and speech teacher.  She holds a
Bachelor's degree in Secondary Education from the University of
Texas at Austin.

Doug Smith

Doug Smith is Chief of the California Department of Justice's
(DOJ) Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis.  Mr. Smith is
responsible for the development, operation and maintenance of
statewide criminal justice information system databases in such
diverse areas as wanted persons, stolen vehicles and property,
restraining orders, and subjects on supervised release status.  

In addition, all California firearm sales are cleared through
the Bureau, which also handles gun dealer licensing and the
issuance of special dangerous weapons licenses.  The Bureau's
criminal justice statistics center gathers and publishes
statewide data. The Bureau's command center provides expedited
information and serves as the California DOJ's emergency
operations center.

As the agency responsible for sex offender registration and for
maintaining the Violent Crime Information Network, the Bureau of
Criminal Information and Analysis will direct the implementation
of  Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act and the Pam Lychner
Act.

Prior to his current assignment, Mr. Smith managed day-to-day
operations of the statewide crime laboratory system, which
delivered forensic services throughout the State.  He also
managed the California Records and Identification Bureau. Mr.
Smith has been extensively involved in the transformation of
Bureau operations from a manual, paper-dependent system to the
increasing use of electronic transport, processing and storage
of data.

Lisa Gursky Sorkin

Lisa Gursky Sorkin is Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Policy Development, which is responsible for
defining and implementing a broad range of policy initiatives
regarding crime, welfare reform and access to justice.  Ms.
Sorkin's responsibilities include a variety of criminal justice
policy matters, including implementation of the Violence Against
Women Act; sex offender registration and notification laws; and
victims' rights.

Ms. Sorkin served from 1989 to 1992 as a telecommunications
policy analyst for the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Finance of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on
Energy and Commerce.  From 1987 to 1989, she was a research
analyst at Strategic Planning Associates, a Washington,
D.C.-based management consultant firm.

Ms. Sorkin holds a B.A. with highest distinction from the
University of Michigan and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

James C. Swain

James C. Swain directs the State and Local Assistance Division,
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ).  Mr. Swain formerly served as Director of the BJA's
Discretionary Grant Division and of the Policy Development and
Management Division.  Prior to his BJA service, he served on a
task force that wrote draft legislation and program structure
that lead to the agency's creation in 1984.

Mr. Swain served as Director of the Courts Division in the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration and as a Center Chief at
the National Institute of Justice, DOJ.

Mr. Swain is a graduate of the University of Illinois Law School.

Ralph C. Thomas

Ralph C. Thomas entered the FBI as a Special Agent in 1986.  Mr.
Thomas has served at the Bureau's Washington, D.C., headquarters
since April 1996.   He is currently assigned to the Policy,
Planning and Analysis Unit (PPAU), Criminal Investigative
Division, as a Supervisory Special Agent.  PPAU is responsible
for a wide variety of administrative and policy issues that
directly impact FBI criminal investigations. Co-chairing the
Bureau's Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Task Force is one of Mr.
Thomas' supervisory responsibilities.

Mr. Thomas previously served in the FBI's San Antonio Division,
where he investigated a wide range of criminal violations.  He
also served in the Los Angeles Division, where he was assigned
to the Los Angeles Joint Drug Intelligence Group, a multi-agency
drug intelligence task force.  As the squad's principal relief
supervisor, Mr. Thomas assisted the supervisor in managing the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)-funded task force.

Mr. Thomas holds a B.A. in Political Science/Public
Administration from Miami University (Ohio). He received his
J.D. from the Ohio Northern University College of Law in 1985.

Donna M. Uzzell

Donna M. Uzzell was appointed Director of the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement's (FDLE) Criminal Justice Information
Services in November 1996 after serving as Special Agent in
Charge of the Department's Investigative Support Bureau. 

Information Services provides: 

* Instant telecommunications for law enforcement throughout
Florida; 

* Information storage and retrieval in Florida and over the
entire Nation; 

* Criminal identification services; 

* The ability to document and analyze criminal activity for the
entire State; 

* Statistical and crime-trend analysis; 

* Criminal record inquiries for government, private and public
requests; 

* Improved system integrity through biennial terminal audits; and

* A statewide law enforcement training program.  

Prior to her FDLE appointment, Ms. Uzzell spent 13 years with
the Tallahassee Police Department, rising to the rank of
sergeant. 

She was elected to the Leon County (Florida) School Board in
1988. She served on the Board for 8 years, including two as
Board chair, and focused on safe-school policies and procedures.
She conducted crisis intervention, interagency collaboration and
Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP)
training and safe-school planning throughout the State.  She
currently teaches at Florida State University as an adjunct
professor in the School of Criminology. She also serves as a
consultant for Fox Valley Technical College in Wisconsin.

Ms. Uzzell is a certified crime prevention practitioner and
former D.A.R.E. officer.  Her contributions to child safety were
recognized with a Law Enforcement Officer of the Year award and
other honors.  Ms. Uzzell served on several statewide task
forces that considered school, child safety and juvenile justice
issues.  In 1993, she completed a 4-month special assignment
with the Commissioner of Education to explore collaborative
relationships between law enforcement and education.  That same
year, she spent 5 months on special assignment to the Florida
Attorney General's Office to develop and implement the Florida
Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program. 

Ms. Uzzell currently serves as her State's representative to the
SEARCH Membership Group.

Mike Welter

Mike Welter has served the Illinois State Police for 13 years,
the last 3 as Chief of its Violent Crimes Section. The section
oversees sex offender registration and community notification in
Illinois. He served on two statewide task forces that studied
domestic violence and sexually motivated crimes. Mr. Welter
assisted in federally sponsored training focusing on child abuse
investigations and he published numerous articles on related
topics. 

He retired from the U.S. Army as a Lieutenant Colonel following
a distinguished career that included combat tours in Vietnam and
Iran. Mr. Welter holds three Masters' degrees with major fields
of study in law, business administration and military science.

Patty Wetterling

Patty Wetterling is the mother of Jacob Wetterling, who was
abducted October 22, 1989, near his home in St. Joseph,
Minnesota.  The former teacher - now a self-described
"stay-at-home-mom" with four children - has become a respected
national spokesperson on child safety issues.

Following the abduction of Jacob, Ms. Wetterling and her
husband, Jerry, co-founded a not-for-profit foundation to
educate parents and children to prevent the abduction,
molestation and exploitation of children and to continue
searching for Jacob and the thousands of other children reported
missing each year.

As a Jacob Wetterling Foundation volunteer, Ms. Wetterling has
appeared before hundreds of groups throughout the United States.
 She shares information about child molesters and their victims
and offers specific safety information to children and parents.
While she continues to speak frequently, she trains other
volunteers to spread the Foundation's message.

In addition to working as a full-time volunteer for the Jacob
Wetterling Foundation, Ms. Wetterling trains law enforcement on
behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  She serves on the
Wetterling Foundation's Board of Directors and also on the
Boards of Directors of the National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children (NCMEC); the Association of Missing and
Exploited Children's Organizations (AMECO); and the Tri-County
Crimestoppers Inc. Ms. Wetterling also serves as co-chair of the
Millstream Arts Festival.

Ms. Wetterling has received numerous awards for her leadership
in child advocacy.  Her legislative accomplishments include the
Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act on the
State level. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was enacted on the
Federal level as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime Bill. 
Ms. Wetterling's message of Jacob's hope has resounded
nationwide as a call to action and hope for missing children
everywhere. 

Appendix 1

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of the Director

Washington, D.C.  20531

June 18, 1997

Dear

In follow up to my January 31, 1997, letter providing
information regarding the compliance review process for State
submissions of their sex offender registration and notification
programs under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act ("the Wetterling
Act"), 42 U.S.C. Section 14071, this letter provides
instructions for States that intend to submit requests for an
extension of the September 13, 1997, compliance deadline, i.e.,
States that are not now able to submit to us a sex offender
registration and notification program in complete compliance
with the Wetterling Act and Megan's Law.

You will recall that under the Wetterling Act, as amended by
Megan's Law, States must adopt sex offender registration and
notification systems meeting specified minimum standards. This
may be accomplished by legislation, regulation, or
administrative policy. States which fail to implement a
registration and notification program consistent with the
Wetterling Act by the September 13, 1997, deadline -- three
years from the September 13, 1994, enactment date -- will not
receive 10 percent of their Byrne formula grant funds that would
otherwise be allocated to the State under section 506 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
Section 3765). However, as you know, the Wetterling Act contains
a provision allowing States that show "good faith efforts" to
comply with the Wetterling Act by the statutory deadline to be
granted a two-year extension of time to continue their efforts
to establish a compliant program.

In order to ensure that any State requesting an extension
receives its full Byrne funding allocation, it should submit to
BJA for review (1) its most recent proposed or enacted
registration and notification program, and (2) a letter
requesting that the State be granted a two-year extension of the
statutory deadline, explaining its "good faith efforts" -- both
past steps taken and future plans -- to implement the Wetterling
Act and Megan's Law. The letter should describe the specific
"good faith efforts" the State has made to come into compliance,
including an explanation of the concrete steps taken and the
progress made, since the passage of the Wetterling Act in
September 1994, toward the goal of establishing a registration
and notification program in complete compliance with the
Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. The State should also explain
the reasons why it has not been able to establish a compliant
program by the statutory deadline. In addition, the State should
describe in detail its plan to establish a compliant program
prior to or by the end of the extension period and submit a
timetable, specifying the anticipated time frame within which
each step of its overall plan will be taken.

We request that States make their submissions to BJA by July 13,
1997. State requests for an extension of time based on their
"good faith efforts" will be reviewed and granted on a
case-by-case basis.

Finally, if you have any questions regarding the processing of
your State's submission of its registration and notification
program for compliance review under the Wetterling Act and
Megan's Law, or if you would like other assistance, please
contact Jim Swain, Director, State and Local Assistance
Division, or Omar Mohammed at (202) 514-6638.

Sincerely,

Nancy E. Gist

Director