The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Policies for 

Reducing Sexual Violence against Women 

Author: Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D., Jill S. Levenson, 

Ph.D., Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Ph.D., 

Debajyoti Sinha, Ph.D., Kevin S. Armstrong 

Document No.: 231989 

Date Received: September 2010 

Award Number: 2006-WG-BX-0002 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence against Women 

 

Final Report for National Institute of Justice 

Grant Award # 2006-WG-BX-0002 

 

Elizabeth J. Letourneau, Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator 

MUSC 

 

Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D. 

Co-investigator 

Lynn University 

 

Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Ph.D. 

Statistician 

 

Debajyoti Sinha, Ph.D. 

Senior Statistician 

 

Kevin S. Armstrong 

Data Manager 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of one state’s sex offender 

registration and notification policy in reducing sexual violence. The problem of sexual violence 

is a national legislative priority as evidenced by numerous sex offender-specific policies enacted 

at the federal level over the past 15 years. Specifics vary among states regarding criminal justice 

responses to sex offending, but all such policies have as their primary goals the prevention of 

sexual violence and the reduction of sexual re-offending. 

 The present study examined the effects of comprehensive registration and community 

notification policies on rates of sexual violence in South Carolina. Specifically, the present study 

proposed to evaluate whether broad sex offender registration and notification policies have 

reduced recidivism or deterred new sexual offenses. Additionally, this study proposed to 

examine whether unintended effects of broad registration and notification policies have occurred. 

Of note, the present study focused almost exclusively on the effects of registration and 

notification as pertains to offenses committed by adults. Given that registration and notification 

policies often target juveniles adjudicated delinquent as minors, the investigative team has been 

involved in separate research pertaining to the effects of these policies as pertains to juveniles 

(see Letourneau & Armstrong, 2008, Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, & Sinha, 2010; 

Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009a; 2009b). 

Specific Aims 

 This study examined whether the introduction of sex offender registration and 

notification laws in South Carolina were associated with reductions in sexual crimes and, if so, 

whether this reduction could be attributed to an actual reduction in sexual violence and/or 

recidivism (i.e., an intended effect) or to changes in criminal judicial processing of individuals 

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

for registry crimes (i.e., an unintended effect). In the context of this project, “sex offender” 

typically refers to anyone with one or more sex crime convictions. Specific sex crime charges are 

listed in Table 1 and include contact and noncontact offenses against children and adults. 

 Specific study aims included: (1) To examine whether South Carolina registration and 

notification policies have the intended effect of preventing first time sexual offending; (2) To 

examine whether South Carolina registration and notification policies have the intended effect of 

reducing sexual recidivism for known sex offenders; and (3) To examine whether South Carolina 

registration and notification policies have the unintended effect of reducing the probability that 

individuals who commit sexual crimes will be prosecuted or convicted for such crimes. In 

addition to these primary aims, we also investigated (4) whether registration violations (e.g., 

failure to register) were associated with sexual or general recidivism. 

The following points highlight the key findings of the study: 

1. A significant deterrent effect was noted after 1995, the year that South Carolina first 

implemented sex offender registration and notification (SORN). An approximately 11% 

reduction in first-time sex crime arrests was found in the post-SORN period (1995-2005) 

relative to the pre-SORN period (1990-1994). 

2. However, there was no significant decline in the six year period after 1999, which was the 

year that South Carolina implemented its online sex offender registry, indicating that online 

notification did not influence general deterrence of adult sex crimes. 

3. Across a mean follow-up of 8.4 years, 490 (8%) of registered sex offenders had new sex 

crime charges and 299 (4%) offenders had new sex crime convictions. Registered sex 

offenders were not less likely to recidivate than non-registered sex offenders. 

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

4. Defendants were more likely to have charges reduced from sex to nonsex crimes over time, 

with a 9% predicted probability of reduced charges from 1990-1994 (pre-SORN), a 15% 

predicted probability of reduced charges from 1995-1999 (corresponding with initial 

implementation of SORN) and a 19% predicted probability after 1999 (corresponding with 

implementation of Internet notification). 

5. Results also indicated that the probability of obtaining a charge reduced from truth-insentencing (TIS) to non-TIS increased over time for sex crime defendants. 

6. The probability of a guilty disposition changed at each year group, with a predicted 

probability of 55% from 1990-1994, increasing to 65% from 1995-1999, and then declining 

to 60% after 1999. This final decline was more pronounced when pleaded cases were 

removed from analyses. 

7. With respect to failure to register (FTR) as a sex offender, no significant differences were 

found between the sexual recidivism rates of registered offenders with FTR charges and 

those without FTR charges (11% vs. 9%, respectively). There was no significant difference 

in the proportion of sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists with registration violations (12% 

and 10%, respectively). Failure to register did not predict sexual recidivism, and survival 

analyses revealed no significant difference in time to recidivism when comparing those who 

failed to register (M = 2.9 years) with compliant registrants (M = 2.8 years). 

Conclusions 

Results from this program of research indicate that SORN, as implemented in South 

Carolina, appears to have a positive impact on general deterrence associated with averting 

approximately three new first-time sex crime cases per month. However, South Carolina’s 

SORN policy has no effect on deterring the risk of sexual recidivism. South Carolina’s SORN 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

policy does exert unintended effects on judicial decision making with respect to adult sex crime 

cases. An increased number of defendants were permitted to plead to nonsex charges following 

the onset of South Carolina’s SORN policy and following its modification to require online 

notification. The net effects of this change could be to reduce community safety by increasing 

the likelihood that defendants guilty of sex crimes pleaded to nonsex crimes or were aquitted 

altogether. Finally, it does not appear that registered sex offenders who failure to register are 

more sexually dangerous than compliant registrants. 

Introduction 

During the past two decades, many laws have been enacted by state and federal 

legislatures in an effort to prevent sexual violence. Among the many legal policies that specific 

target sex offending, the most prominent pertain to sex offender registration and notification 

(SORN; Logan, 2009). Registration is the practice of requiring convicted sex offenders to 

register with law enforcement and periodically update information about their residence, 

employment, and other details. The original aim of registration laws was to provide law 

enforcement with a database of information to help monitor known sex offenders and to aid in 

the investigation of new allegations. Community notification is the practice of releasing some 

registration information to citizens. The intent of public notification is to arm citizens with 

information to protect themselves and their children from sexual predators. It was also 

anticipated that offenders subjected to community scrutiny would be less likely to offend and 

that those who do would be apprehended more quickly due to community reports of suspicious 

activities. All fifty states now operate publicly accessible registry websites that communicate 

information about registered sex offenders to citizens. 

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 The federal government played a leading role in shaping sex offender policy. The Jacob 

Wetterling Act of 1994 mandated that all states develop and maintain sex offender registries. The 

Megan’s Law amendment of 1996 required states to develop strategies for releasing information 

about convicted sex offenders to the public. The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and 

Identification Act of 1996 required the development of a nationwide registry to prevent offenders 

from escaping registration requirements by moving from state to state. The Prosecutorial 

Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 

mandated states to develop publicly accessible Internet sex offender registries. 

 Early versions of the federal laws mentioned above gave states substantial leeway to 

implement registration and notification laws. For instance, states could determine how long to 

require registration and could choose which sex offenders would be subjected to publication 

nofication and specify strategies for such notification. Nearly all states released information 

about repeat offenders and offenders who committed predatory sexual violence against strangers. 

About half the states implemented risk assessment procedures and opted to release information 

only about registered sex offenders deemed to pose a high risk to public safety. Some states, such 

as South Carolina, opted to release information about all registered sex offenders regardless of 

their threat for future offending. 

 In 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title I of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“AWA”; P. L. 109-248), was passed specifically to 

reduce state-to-state variations in registration and notification policies. AWA broadened 

registration and notification requirements, increased the duration of registration and notification, 

and enhanced penalties for failure to register. Furthermore, per AWA, registration and 

notification requirements are to be based solely on conviction offenses and these requirements 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

cannot be amended based on mitigating factors or empirical risk assessment scores. As such, the 

registration and notification requiements of the AWA are quite simlar to those already in place in 

South Carolina.Thus, results from our program of research might serve to forecast result that 

would occur under nationwide implementation of the AWA. 

Background and Significance 

 Recidivistic sex crimes provide genuine grounds for public concern. Most incarcerated 

sex offenders will ultimately return to our communities. Some of these sex offenders will repeat 

their crimes, although the rate of recidivism is lower than generally expected. For example, the 

3-year sexual rearrest rate for a large sample (N > 9,000) of previously incarcerated U.S. sex 

offenders was 5.3% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Recidivism rates vary with followup 

periods, but it has been found that even over periods of up to 20 years, the majority of convicted 

sex offenders are not subsequently rearrested for new sex crimes (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; 

Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Harris & Hanson, 2004). 

 Sexual recidivism rates differ according to the presence of certain risk factors. For 

instance, a more extensive criminal history places a sex offender at increased risk for recidivism, 

as does younger age at risk, a preference for male child victims, and a history of victimizing 

strangers (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Harris & Hanson, 2004; Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & 

Thornton, 2003). Moreover, the vast majority of new sexual crimes are not committed by 

registered sex offenders (RSO) who, by definition, have prior sex offenses, but by first-time sex 

offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Without doubt, some RSO pose a threat to public 

safety, particularly those with a history of offending against nonfamilial male children and those 

with features of psychopathy. But sex offender registration is required for all criminals with a 

felony sex offense conviction regardless of their risk for future recidivism, despite extensive 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

research indicating that the majority will not go on to sexually offend against new victims 

(Levenson & D'Amora, 2007; Zgoba, 2004). 

 More than 600,000 convicted sex offenders are currently required to register in the U.S. 

(National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2008). There is wide agreement on the 

need to improve efforts aimed at the prevention of sexual violence. The most recent National 

Crime Victimization Survey indicated more than 248,000 serious sex crimes occurred in the U.S. 

in 2007 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). The effects of these crimes are profound, increasing 

victims’ risk for a myriad of negative sequela (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1996; Browne & 

Finkelhor, 1986; Chapman, Dube, & Anda, 2007; Finkelhor, 1987; Letourneau, Resnick, 

Kilpatrick, Saunders, & Best, 1996; Masho & Ahmed, 2007; Randolph & Mosack, 2006). 

Furthermore, sexual violence represents a multi-billion dollar national expense (Cohen, 2000; 

Cohen, Miller, & Rossman, 1994; Post, Mezey, Maxwell, & Wibert, 2002). For all these reasons, 

effective primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs must be developed to deter sex 

crimes. Empirical investigation into the efficacy of registration and notification policies in 

achieving its goals is therefore essential. 

SORN Effects on General Deterrence (Primary Prevention) 

 The deterrence of sexual violence has been a public health priority since the mid-1980’s. 

General deterrence is a major aim of the legal threat of punishment and is achieved when the fear 

of consequences increases compliance with laws (Wikström, 2008). Previous research has 

identified general deterrent effects for a variety of criminal behaviors (Nagin, 1998). One study 

on the deterrence of sexual violence supported the hypothesis that risk of sanctions, 

operationalized as arrest or dismissal from college, was a significant deterrent for date rape as 

self-reported by male college students (Bachman, Paternoster & Ward, 1992). 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 When evidence of general deterrence is found, the effect is typically attributed to 

increased perception of the risk of detection and punishment (Lab, 2008; Nagin, 1998). In some 

circumstances, however, fear of potential social consequences can equal or outweigh the fear of 

legal consequences, further increasing the likelihood of deterrence. Wikström (2008) has noted, 

for example, that “being publicly identified as an offender” carries many risks, including loss of 

respect and social standing, and social sanctions such as loss of jobs, spouses, and friends (p. 

351). Ample evidence suggests that being publicly identified as a sex offender results in these 

and other serious social consequences for adult offenders and their families (Levenson & Cotter, 

2005a; 2005b; Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005; 

Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000). Sex offenders surveyed in Florida, 

Indiana, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Kansas and Kentucky report 

remarkably consistent adverse consequences such as difficulty securing and maintaining 

employment, housing disruption, relationship loss, threats and harassment, physical assault, and 

property damage. Psychosocial stressors such as shame, embarrassment, depression, or 

hopelessness are frequently reported by sex offenders as common byproducts of public 

disclosure. A survey of 584 family members of registered sex offenders across the U.S. revealed 

that they are impacted significantly by these laws as well (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). 

Employment problems experienced by the RSO and resulting financial hardships emerged as the 

most pressing issue identified by family members. Family members living with an RSO 

experienced threats and harassment by neighbors, and some children of RSOs suffered 

stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. Thus, to the extent that 

potential offenders are motivated to avoid these social sanctions, registration and public 

notification might be associated with general deterrent effects. Alternatively, the negative impact 

9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

of these laws on offender reintegration might increase recidivism rates of known offenders 

(Meloy, 2005). 

 Several studies have examined the effects of registration and notification on the primary 

prevention (or general deterrence) of adult sexual violence, with mixed results. Vásquez and 

colleagues (2008) conducted separate interrupted time-series analyses to examine patterns of 

rape rates prior to and following enactment of public registration statutes in 10 states. Results 

indicated that one state (California) experienced a significant increase in rape rates following 

implementation of registration, three states experienced significant declines in rape rates 

(Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio), and the remaining six states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, 

Nevada, Oklahoma, & West Virginia) experienced non-significant changes. 

 Another analysis examined the effectiveness of New Jersey’s Megan’s Law (Veysey, 

Zgoba, & Dalessandro, 2009) by tracking sex crime rates over time. While statewide trends 

showed a decline, the authors cautioned that the downward trend began prior to Megan's Law 

implementation. As well, they noted that wide variation in county sex crime rates were noted 

which were not uniformly associated with declining trends, suggesting that the statewide pattern 

might be a spurious effect and an artifact of aggregation (Veysey et al., 2009). Although 

promising, too few studies have been conducted to reach broad conclusions regarding the general 

deterrent effects of SORN on would-be adult offenders. Results across studies vary because of 

differences in state SORN policies, data collection methods, and analytic techniques. 

 Furthermore, when evidence of deterrent effects is found, additonal research is needed to 

determine how that effect was achieved. Deterrence is achieved when potential offenders are 

aware of the legal (or social) consequences associated with criminal behaviors. Although state 

and now federal SORN policies often target a wide array of sex crimes, from voyeurism to rape, 

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

high-profile media coverage of sex crimes typically focus on adult offenders who committed 

exceptionally violent predatory sex crimes (Meloy, 2005). Given intense media focus on these 

types of offenses, some adults might be less aware that sex offender registration and notification 

procedures apply to less serious offenses as well. Deterrence also is achieved when sanctions are 

related to behaviors generally accepted as reprehensible or immoral (Wikström, 2008). In cases 

publicized in the media, the sexual behaviors are easily identifiable as reprehensible, as is true 

for most sex crimes committed by adults against child victims. Judgments about the morality or 

reprehensibility of young adults who have sex with willing, albeit teenage partners are more 

difficult to make. Developmental stages are clearly distinct for adult perpetrators and child 

victims, but developmental stages often overlap between older teenage offenders and their 

younger teenage victims. So-called “Romeo” clauses in some state SORN laws exempt such 

cases but these are absent from the AWA when the defendant is prosecuted as an adult. 

SORN Effects on Specific Deterrence (Recidivism Risk) 

Registration and notification policies were predicated, in part, on the belief that sexual 

offenders are at exceptionally high risk of sexual recidivism and require substantial surveillance 

to reduce that risk. Thus, SORN policies aim to reduce recidivism both by deterring new 

recidivism events and by reducing the time needed to detect ongoing recidivism. However, adult 

sex offenders who recidivate are in the minority (see e.g., Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & 

Morton-Bourgon, 2004) and those who commit overtly sadistic acts or predatory offenses are in 

the extreme minority (e.g., fewer than 1% of murder cases involve rape or a sexual offense; 

LaFond, 2005). It is the case that nearly all new sex offender policies, and certainly those 

enacted at the federal level, apply to a wide cross-section of offenders, the majority of whom are 

unlikely to be characterized by high levels of psychopathy and/or deviant sexual arousal (Sample 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

& Bray, 2003). Nevertheless, it has been hypothesized that the increased surveillance afforded by 

registration and notification is necessary to deter sexual offenders from committing new sexual 

offenses and to increase the likelihood of quickly capturing offenders who will reoffend 

(LaFond, 2005; Terry & Furlong, 2004). Alternatively, some have argued that public registration 

might increase recidivism rates (though not necessarily sexual recidivism) by creating barriers to 

successful societal reintegration. With few exceptions, most studies have failed to find any 

association between SORN and increased or decreased recidivism. 

 Numerous studies have examined the effects of SORN on sex offense recidivism. There 

are numerous challenges to synthesizing the findings of these studies, given their substantial 

methodological variation, particularly with respect to subject selection and analytic procedures. 

Furthermore, each state’s sex crime laws and SORN policies are idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, 

some patterns appear to be emerging. For example, four of the five group comparison studies 

failed to find support for an effect of SORN on sex offender recidivism. 

 Schram and Milloy (1995) compared the sexual recidivism rate of adult male sex 

offenders subjected to Washington State’s most comprehensive public notification strategies (n 

= 90) with the recidivism rate of offenders released to the community prior to the 

implementation of these laws (n = 90). Pairs of offenders were matched on number of sex crime 

convictions and age of victim. Results indicated no significant differences in the rates of 

recidivism for the notification and non-notification groups (e.g., 19% vs. 22% sexual recidivism 

respectively). 

 Adkins and colleagues (2000) compared the sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates of 233 

registered sex offenders placed on probation or parole during the first year following enactment 

of Iowa’s public registry with the recidivism rates of 201 offenders placed on probation or parole 

12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

the previous year. Across an average 4.3 year follow-up period, registered and non-registered 

groups had similar sex crime recidivism rates (3.0% vs. 3.5%, respectively). 

Zevitz (2006) compared the recidivism rates of offenders subjected to Wisconsin’s 

highest level of notification (n = 47) with those of offenders subjected to limited notification (n = 

166) across a 4.5-year follow-up period. At the end of their prison sentences, all 213 offenders 

were deemed “high-risk” by corrections review committees and thus eligible for high level 

notification, but at the discretion of local authorities just 47 offenders were subjected to 

extensive notification procedures. Groups were not matched, but differed significantly on just 2 

of 20 baseline variables. Across the follow-up period 19% of extensive notification offenders and 

12% of limited notification offenders were arrested for new sex offenses (no statistical test was 

presented). A regression analysis was conducted and indicated that time to re-imprisonment did 

not vary as a function of notification level. The author concluded that extensive notification 

procedures failed to deter sex offender recidivism. 

 In a study of New Jersey’s notification law, sex crime recidivism rates were compared for 

sex offenders released from prison prior to and post-policy enactment. No significant betweengroups differences were found (10% and 7.6% for pre and post-policy groups, respectfully) 

(Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, & Veysey, 2009). The authors also noted no significant decrease in 

the number of sex crime victims, and no significant effect on survival in the community. In 

summary, the authors questioned whether the costs of SORN were justified given the negligible 

impact on public safety. 

In contrast to the results of the four studies reviewed above, Duwe and Donnay (2008) 

reported a significant effect for Minnesota’s notification policy on sex crime recidivism. High 

risk offenders subjected to broad community notification (n = 155; “broad notification”) were 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

compared with high risk offenders who likely would have been subjected to broad notification 

but were released prior to policy enactment (n = 125; “prenotification”) and offenders released 

after policy enactment who were rated as lower risk and subjected to limited notification 

procedures (n = 155; “limited notification”). Offenders subjected to broad notification had lower 

sexual recidivism rates than the other two groups. For example, sexual reconviction rates were 

2.3%, 9.6%, and 32.8% for the broad notification, limited notification, and prenotification 

groups, respectively. The authors concluded that Minnesota’s tiered notification riskmanagement system significantly reduced sexual recidivism rates. They speculated that effects 

were due to making it more difficult for high risk offenders to develop social relationships that 

could facilitate future offending and to the intensive supervision received by high risk offenders. 

Trend analysis studies have resulted in more disparate findings. In the earliest study 

(Washington State Institute of Public Policy, 2005) data from Washington State were used to 

examine recidivism trends for convicted sex offenders across three time periods: 1986-1989 (preregistration); 1990-1996 (following enactment of a registration statute) and 1997-1999 

(following significant revision of that statute). After controlling for differences in offender 

characteristics (i.e., offenders in later years had higher felony risk scores), results indicated that 

sex offenders’ general recidivism rates remained statistically unchanged over time, while their 

sex and violent crime recidivism rates declined significantly over time. These results suggested 

that Washington State’s original and revised registration policies might have influenced sexual 

recidivism rates. However, Washington’s violent crime rates declined substantially across the 

same time frame for all offenders and not just sex offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008); 

thus, nonspecific factors influencing violent offending in general might have accounted for sex 

crime findings. 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 Sandler and colleagues ( 2008) examined monthly sex crime arrest counts for previously 

convicted sex offenders over 21 years using autoregressive integrated moving average analyses. 

There were no significant differences in sex crime recidivism patterns before and after SORN. 

The authors concluded that results failed to support a specific recidivism deterrent effect. They 

further noted that more than 95% of all sex offenses identified across the 21-year study period 

were committed by first-time offenders who would not have been subjected to registration 

requirements. 

 Prescott and Rockoff (2008, cited with permission) used National Incidence Based 

Reporting System (NIBRS) data from 15 states to test mathematical models designed to indicate 

the influence of SORN policies on primary prevention of sex crimes and sex crime recidivism. 

They concluded that results supported a primary prevention effect. Specifically, the introduction 

of broad notification policies was associated with a 12% reduction in the frequency of serious 

first-time sex crimes. However, it also appeared that broad notification was associated with 

increased sex crime recidivism by registered offenders. In particular, as the number of sex 

offenders subjected to broad notification increased in a given state, sex crime recidivism events 

also increased in that state. Eventually, recidivism outpaced primary prevention for a net increase 

in sex crimes. Confidence in the interpretations of these results is limited by the fact that NIBRS 

data do not include sufficient detail to permit distinguishing between first-time versus recidivist 

events for a given individual. 

 In summary, with just one exception, the results from group comparison studies failed to 

support the effectiveness of registration and notification policies in reducing sex crime 

recidivism rates. Results across trend analyses varied. What accounts for the differences in 

outcomes? First, very different analytic techniques were utilized across these studies. As noted 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

by Sandler and colleagues, some studies have based results on autocorrelated data, which can 

increase the risk of false-positive results. Second, selection criteria might have influenced 

outcomes. For example, Duwe and Donnay reported a 3-year sex crime recidivism rate of nearly 

33% for their prenotification group. This short-term recidivism rate is substantially higher than 

typically reported (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) and suggests the possibility of a selection 

effect. Additionally, state SORN policies vary and it might be the case that specific 

characteristics of some state policies limit effectiveness whereas specific characteristics of other 

state policies enhance effectiveness. Clearly, additional research is needed to help determine 

whether and under what conditions public registration might be effective. 

 It also is important to note that nearly all of the available literature has examined the 

effects of SORN policies in states that differentiate notification requirements based on putative 

risk factors. The present study adds to the literature base by examining data from South Carolina, 

whose SORN policy does not include formal risk assessments and does not categorize offenders 

by tier level. Nor is there local discretion with respect to the public release of information. 

Rather, all registrants are subjected to the same notification requirements which, since 1999, 

have included online notification. As such, South Carolina’s policy is more similar to the Adam 

Walsh Act than are state policies examined in previous research. Results from the present study 

could therefore help forecast the likely effects of the Adam Walsh Act on sex crime recidivism. 

 SORN Effects on Judicial Decision Making 

 The majority of research on the effects of registration policies has focused primarily on 

adult offender recidivism rates, general deterrence, collateral consequences of policies to 

offenders and their families, and perceptions of specific groups (e.g., citizens, police officers) 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

regarding aspects of public registration policies. To our knowledge, only one study prior to the 

current project has examiend the influence of registration policies on judicial decision making 

 Using time series analyses to examine 21 years of arrest and conviction data from New 

York, Freeman, Sandler and Socia (2009) found no evidence that policy enactment influenced 

the rate of plea bargains for adult defendants initially charged with sex crimes. This stands in 

contrast with our findings (described in greater detail subsequently in this report) in which plea 

bargain rates increased dramatically following both initial enactment of South Carolina’s SORN 

policy and following its modification to require online notification. We speculate that the 

differences are due to policy characteristics of the New York vs. South Carolina SORN policies. 

Specifically, New York’s policy bases registation and notification requirements on risk 

assessment outcomes, thereby subjecting only higher risk offenders to notifcation and longer 

duration of registration. In contrast, South Carolina’s policy is offense-based, and permits no 

judicial discsretion. It might be that, when judicial discretion is limited or removed, judicial 

actors find other means of reinstating that discretion, resulting in changing charging decision 

patterns or dispositional outcomes. 

 In summary, registration and notification policies were originally developed to address 

the recidivism risks posed by violent adult repeat sexual offenders. These policies have been 

extended to lower risk offenders, often with little or no consideration of individual recidivism 

risk or other mitigating circumstances. Perhaps as a consequence, evidence is emerging that, in 

some circumstances, these policies exert unintended effects on judicial decision making. 

Registration Violations as an Indictor of Sexual Recidivism Risk 

 The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2008) estimated that 

nationally, 16% of registered sex offenders cannot be located. Researchers (Tewksbury, 2002), 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

investigative journalists (Mullvihill, Wisniewski, Meyers, & Wells, 2003; Payne, 2005), and sex 

offenders (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a) have all reported registry inaccuracies. Though the 

specific reasons are not always known, the accuracy of sex offender registries can be 

compromised by data entry errors, time lags in processing or posting updated information, or by 

offenders offering erroneous information or failing to register altogether. Substantial resources 

are allocated for the enforcement of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) policies, 

and strict penalties exist for those who fail to comply (U.S. Marshals Service, 2007). 

 The emphasis placed on registration compliance implies that sex offenders who fail to 

register pose an increased threat to public safety. However, this hypothesis rarely has been tested 

despite the attention paid to sex offender registrants and the fear stimulated by their presence in 

the community. Apart from this project, only one known study has specifically investigated 

whether failure to register is associated with a higher likelihood of sexual recidivism. 

Researchers at the Washington State Institute of Public Policy examined data from more than 

12,000 sex offenders who were required to register between 1990 and 1999 (Washington State 

Institute for Public Policy, 2006). The number of registrants convicted for failing to comply 

increased each year from 5% in 1990 to 18% in 1999. The study did not determine whether this 

trend was attributable to increased noncompliance, improved enforcement, or other potential 

causes (e.g., changes to registration requirements that might have resulted in confusion for 

registrants). Sex offenders who were convicted of failing to register had a sexual recidivism rate 

of 4.3% compared with 2.8% for those who remained compliant with registration (significance 

levels were not reported). The majority of new convictions were for non-sexual felonies. 

Noteworthy is that as the number of FTR convictions increased, the likelihood of sexual 

recidivism declined, but the likelihood of general felony recidivism increased (Washington State 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Institute for Public Policy, 2006). This pattern of results suggests that failure to register might be 

associated with general criminality and defiance of rules rather than than with sexually deviant 

intentions. 

Methodology of the Current Project 

 The present program of research sought to extend research on the effects of registration 

and notification to an offense-based SORN policy enacted by South Carolina. South Carolina 

was selected to model the effects of registration and notification on sex crime deterrence, sexual 

recidivism risk, and to examine unintended effects on judicial decision making for several 

reasons. First, South Carolina was one of the first states to respond to federal registration 

requirements, enacting an original registration policy in 1995 and expanding notification to 

require online notification in 1999. Thus, longer follow-up is achievable using South Carolina 

criminal justice databases than in states with more recent policies. Second, South Carolina’s 

registration policies (S.C. Code of Laws §§ 23-3-400 et seq.) are of interest because they exceed, 

in nearly every respect, the original federal registration and community notification requirements 

established by the Jacob Wetterling, Megan Kanka, and Pam Lychner Acts in the 1990’s (e.g., 

Federal 42 U.S.C.A. § 14071, 14072; Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 Stat. 1345) and continue to 

exceed many of the expanded requirements more recently established by the Adam Walsh Act. 

Although putatively harsh, South Carolina’s laws are not unique. Identifying whether putatively 

harsh and broadly applied policies exert intended or unintended consequences could help 

establish the outer limits for future policies. 

 In South Carolina there are 25 registry-eligible sex crimes (see Table 1). Conviction of 

one or more registry-eligible sex crimes triggers SORN requirements. Although registration and 

notification policies were developed out of concern primarily for children, the registry-eligible 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

offenses include offenses against minors and adults. SORN requirements are based solely on 

conviction offense with no judicial discretion or consideration of mitigating or exacerbating 

factors or empirically established recidivism risk levels. Without exception, registration and 

notification requirements are life-long. Information on registered offenders is made public 

through direct notification of offenders’ victims, schools and other nearby child-oriented 

organizations (e.g., daycares) deemed to have a special interest in remaining apprised of 

offenders’ registration status. As of 1999, information on all adult registrants has been included 

on South Carolina’s online registry. 

General Information on Data Sources and Preparation 

 Data for this project were extracted from South Carolina sex offender registry records 

(e.g., to determine which sex crime resulted in registration), adult criminal history records (e.g., 

to identify prior, index, and recidivism events), and juvenile justice records (i.e., to identify prior 

sex offenses committed as a juvenile). Prior to use by researchers, offenders’ personal identifiers 

were removed (e.g., names, social security numbers) and unique identifiers were assigned to 

ensure that individuals could be tracked across data bases and across time without the 

investigators determining any individual’s identity. Because de-identification procedures were 

used with secondary (archival) data, the authors’ institutional review board designated this study 

as exempt from consent requirements. 

Sex Offender Registry Records 

South Carolina sex offender registry data were obtained from the South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Division (SLED) in collaboration with the South Carolina Office of Justice 

Programs Statistical Analysis Center. The SLED data files included all offenders registered from 

the date of initial registration policy implementation (January 1, 1995) through December 31, 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

2005. Available variables included offenders’ unique identifiers, literal description of sex 

offense(s) requiring registration, initial date of registration, and registration violations. These 

records were used to identify whether and when an offender had to register within the follow-up 

period. 

Adult Criminal History Records 

Computerized criminal history records were obtained from SLED, in collaboration with 

ORS. These records included information on all charges (e.g., literal description of charge 

offense, date of charge) and final disposition outcomes (e.g., literal description of disposition 

offense, date of disposition, and literal description of final disposition decision) for all charges 

occurring from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 2005. These records were used to identify 

sex offense charges and convictions, nonsex violent offense charges and convictions, and 

nonviolent offense charges and convictions. Records also indicated start and end dates of 

incarceration periods. These records also were used to create relevant covariates for specific 

analyses, such as age covariates (e.g., offender age at charge, age at release from of 

incarceration), offender race, and prior convictions relative to index offenses (e.g., number of 

prior convictions relative to the offender’s first sex crime conviction). For some analyses, we 

distinguished between literal descriptions of sex offenses that indicated a minor victim (e.g., 

Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Lewd Act with a Minor) versus literal descriptions of 

sex offenses that did not specifically indicate a minor victim (e.g., Criminal Sexual Conduct, 

Rape). Specific incident characteristics such as victim age at offense, victim relationship to 

offender, and victim gender were not available. 

Juvenile Justice Records 

21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Juvenile justice data were obtained from the South Carolina Department of Juvenile 

Justice in collaboration with ORS. The juvenile data files included information on all cases 

whose charges were forwarded to prosecutors (e.g., literal description of charge, charge date, 

solicitor decision) and final disposition outcomes from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 

2004. These data were used primarily to provide information about prior arrest histories. As with 

case information in the adult criminal history database, files were assigned unique identifiers for 

the purposes of this study and were then de-identified. 

Data Preparation Steps 

Data for this study were extracted from three statewide South Carolina databases after 

study procedures were approved by the authors’ institutional review board. Adult criminal 

history records and juvenile justice information originated from individual precincts in which 

initial charges were filed and from individual courts in which criminal case decisions were made. 

For defendants in general sessions (or adult court), precincts and courts electronically forward 

charge and defendant information to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) 

where they are added to the CCHR data base. SLED then provides the CCHR data base to the 

South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics for analysis 

(ORS; Charles Bradberry, personal communication, July 26, 2006). The ORS extracted and 

made available data for the present study at the request of the investigators. Charge data included 

a unique identifier code for each offense event to distinguish between multiple offenses for 

which the same individual might have been charged or convicted., date of the charge, date of the 

offense, a literal description of the initial charge (e.g., “Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor”), 

and a numeric code corresponding to the charge. Case dispositional data included similar 

information plus a literal description of the charge and of the disposition outcome. Initial and 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

disposition charges were linked via the identifier code for the case and via subject identifiers. 

Although numeric crime codes were available in the initial charge and disposition data files, 

these variables often were missing or incorrect when compared to the literal descriptions of the 

events and classified offenses into overly broad categories. A program was created to identify 

distinct sex and assault offenses based on the literal offense descriptions. This process resulted in 

identifying the sex and assault offenses listed in Table 1. 

Data preparation steps included classifying sex and nonsexual assault offenses based on 

the literal descriptions of those offenses. For some analyses robbery offenses were examined 

separately from assault offenses. The numeric crime codes associated with these literals were 

unreliable and too broad. For example the offense code for Criminal Sexual Conduct with a 

Minor was entered variously as 1199, 385, or 3,699 among other values. The offense code for 

Criminal Sexual Conduct also was entered as 1199, making it impossible to distinguish between 

these two offenses based on numeric codes alone. Thus, a program was created to search the 

arrest and disposition offense literals for user specified terms. Literals were parsed into distinct 

words/terms and a list of logical terms was developed to identify literals associated with each 

offense/disposition type (i.e. sex/assault, guilty/not guilty). 

For example, the terms/words “CRIM”, “SEX”, “CON”, “MIN”, and “CSC” would 

detect literals associated with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor. The high frequency of 

misspellings and abbreviations was taken into consideration when building the list of search 

terms/words. For example, entering the term “MIN” would identify all terms that contain those 

three characters (e.g., “Minor”, “Miner”, and “Criminal”). That initial list was then further 

reduced to those terms that pertained to a literal for a sexual offense (with similar procedures for 

identifying other offense types). All literals containing the selected terms were then reviewed 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

manually and coded accordingly (e.g., “Criminal Domestic Violence” would not be coded as a 

sexual charge, whereas “Sesual [sic] Conduct with a Minor” would). Literals indicating charges 

associated with prior offenses (e.g., “Failure to Appear, Criminal Sexual Conduct”) were not 

counted as offenses. Nearly 2,000 unique literals were identified as sexual and coded as one of 

the 24 specific sex offenses present in the data and nearly 4,500 unique literals were coded as 

one of the 10 specific assault offenses. Ten specific assault offenses and six robbery offenses 

were coded (see Table 1). 

Procedures and Findings Specific to Each Aim 

Aim 1: Prevention (General Deterrence) of Sexual Violence 

In this section, we describe analyses and results from our examination of whether South 

Carolina’s SORN policy was associated with a general deterrent effect for adults. Specifically, 

this study addressed the question of whether registration and notification deterred first-time sex 

crimes. This study has been accepted for publication (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, 

Armstrong, & Sinha, 2010). 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Participants 

 Analyses focused on first arrests for sex crimes, nonsex violent (assault) crimes, and 

robbery crimes committed by adult male offenders. Cases included all arrests of male offenders 

18 years of age or older that occurred between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2005. Only the 

initial arrest for each type of offense was retained. The initial arrest for up to three arrest types 

(sex, assault, robbery) was retained. There were 194,575 unique arrestees who had a combined 

total of 205,197 arrests. On average, arrestees were 33.0 years of age (SD = 11.1), and 49% were 

White and 51% were Minority (nearly all of whom were African American). Of all arrestees, 

19,060 had been arrested for a sex crime, 173,117 had been arrested for an assault crime, and 

13,038 had been arrested for a robbery crime. 

Materials and Procedures 

 All crime data were extracted from South Carolina’s CCHR database. Arrests indicated 

initial charges whether or not these resulted in prosecution. Forty-five percent of arrests were 

associated with subsequent convictions. Population estimates were obtained from South Carolina 

Community Assessment Network (SCAN) Population Data tables that are available at South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s website 

(http://scangis.dhec.sc.gov/scan/index.aspx). 

Data Analytic Strategy 

 A complete description of the data analytic strategy and procedures is included in a 

Statistical Appendix to this report. Briefly, the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average 

(ARIMA) technique was used to test whether the introduction of South Carolina’s registration 

(enacted in 1995) or the introduction of Internet-based notification (enacted in 1999) influenced 

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

first-time rates of sex crime charges. Comparison analyses were conducted with assault and 

robbery charges. 

Results 

ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Sex Crime Charges 

 Intervention results sex crimes 1995. For the sex crime arrest series with the 1995 

intervention, the coefficient was negative and statistically significant (see sex crime charges 

section of Table 2). Specifically, results indicated an approximately 11% decrease in the rate of 

sex offense charges per 10,000 population during the post-1995 intervention period compared to 

the pre-1995 intervention period. The average monthly rate of sex crime arrests (per 10,000) in 

the period between January 1990 and December 1994 was 0.81 compared to an average monthly 

rate of 0.69 in the period between January 1995 and December 2005, a difference of 3 sexual 

arrests per month. 

 Intervention results for sex crimes 1999. The sex crime arrest series with the 1999 

intervention showed a negligible decrease in the rate of sex crime arrests post-1999 relative to 

pre-1999 (see sex crime charges section of Table 2). The average monthly rate of sex crime 

arrests (per 10,000) in the period between January 1990 and December 1998 was 0.77, compared 

to an average monthly rate of 0.68 in the period between January 1999 and December 2005.          

ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Assault Crime Charges 

Intervention results for non-sex assault crimes 1995. For the assault crime arrest series 

with the 1995 intervention, the coefficient was negative and statistically nonsignificant, implying 

a negligible decline in the rate of assault crime arrests over time but no significant changes prevs. post-intervention (see assault crime charges section of Table 2). The average monthly rate of 

assault crime arrests (per 10,000) in the period between January 1990 and December 1994 was 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

7.73, compared with an average monthly rate of 6.21 in the period between January 1995 and 

December 2005. 

Intervention results for non-sex assault crimes 1999. For the assault crime arrest series 

with the 1999 intervention, the coefficient was negative and statistically nonsignificant, implying 

a negligible decline in the rate of assault crime arrests but no significant changes pre- vs. postintervention (see assault crime arrests section of Table 2). The average monthly rate of assault 

arrests (per 10,000) in the period between January 1990 and December 1998 was 7.52 compared 

with an average monthly rate of 5.62 in the period between January 1999 and December 2005. 

ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Robbery Crime Charges 

Intervention results for robbery crime arrests 1995. For the 1995 intervention, the 

coefficient was positive but statistically nonsignificant (see robbery crime charges section of 

Table 2). The average monthly rate of robbery offense charges (per 10,000) in the period 

between January 1990 and December 1994 was 0.57 compared with an average monthly rate of 

0.47 in the period between January 1995 and December 2005. 

Intervention results for robbery crime arrests 1999. For the 1999 intervention the 

effect was negative and significant (see robbery crime charges section of Table 2). This result 

suggests an approximately 6% decrease in the rate of robbery crime arrests per 10,000 during the 

post-1999 intervention period relative to pre-1999 intervention. The average monthly rate of 

robbery arrests (per 10,000) in the period between January 1990 and December 1998 was 0.56 

compared with an average monthly rate of 0.43 in the period between January 1999 and 

December 2005, a difference of approximately 7 index robbery arrests per month. 

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Follow-up Analyses 

The pattern of results suggests that the 1995 SORN policy was associated with a general 

deterrent effect on the commission of first-time sex crimes. That is, rates of sex crime arrests, but 

not rates of arrests for other crime types declined significantly after the initial implementation of 

South Carolina’s SORN policy. However, the start of this decline might have predated 1995, in 

which case factors other than SORN could account for the reduction in first-time sex crime 

charges. Results of follow-up analyses indicated that earlier declines did not account for the 

effects identified in 1995. These findings further support an interpretation that the reduction in 

first-time sex crimes was due to events that had their effect on or after 1995.

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Aim 2: Specific Deterrence of Sexual Recidivism 

 In this section, we describe analyses and results from our examination of whether South 

Carolina’s SORN policy was associated with specific deterrent effect on sexual and nonsexual 

violent recidivism rates for adults. Specifically, this study addressed the question of whether 

registration and notification reduced sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates. This study has been 

accepted for publication (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, in press). 

Participants 

 All male offenders 16 years of age or older and convicted of one or more sex crimes 

between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2004 (N = 6,837 offenders) formed the basis of this 

study. Of these offenders, 773 were incarcerated for the entire follow-up, resulting in a final 

sample of 6,064 offenders. An offender’s first or only sex crime conviction was considered his 

“index” offense. Registration violations were not counted as index sex offenses. More than half 

(55%) of offenses involved minor victims based on the literal description of the offense (e.g., 

Lewd Act with a Minor). Of the remaining index offenses, 18% involved contact sex offenses 

against victims of unspecified age (e.g., “Criminal Sexual Conduct”), 22% involved noncontact 

offenses (most often Indecent Exposure), and 5% involved other low frequency offenses (e.g., 

Voyeurism and Pornography violations). The follow-up period was defined as the time between 

date of disposition for the index sex crime or date of release from prison if incarcerated for the 

index offense, through December 31, 2005. The mean follow-up duration was 8.4 years (SD = 

3.9, range 1 to 16 years). Approximately half of the offenders (n = 3,231, 53%) were registered 

at some point during follow-up. 

Covariates 

Factors known or suspected of influencing sex crime and/or general recidivism were 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

included as covariates in models in this study. These included offender age at follow-up (Hanson 

& Bussiere, 1998); offender race (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996); and number of prior 

convictions (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). A proxy measure for 

whether sex crimes involved minor victims (Hanson & Bussière, 1998) was created based on the 

index offense title. For example, offenders whose index conviction title indicated a minor victim 

(e.g., Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor) were coded as having had a minor victim whereas 

offenders whose index conviction title did not specifically indicate a minor victim (e.g., Criminal 

Sexual Conduct) were coded as not having had a minor victim. 

 We used two strategies for assigning registration status to subjects. In the initial analysis, 

registration status was treated as a dichotomous and “static” variable that indicated an offender’s 

registration status at time of recidivism (registered or not). In subsequent survival analyses, 

registration status was treated as a “dynamic” or time-varying variable. South Carolina’s SORN 

policy was initially implemented in January 1995, is retroactive (and therefore can apply to 

earlier convictions) and endures for life. These characteristics result in three possible registration 

status trajectories across follow-up. First, an offender could enter the follow-up period as 

nonregistered and remain nonregistered throughout. Second, an offender could enter the followup period as nonregistered and then be required to register at some point during follow-up, either 

due to a new conviction for a registry-eligible sex crime or due to retroactive application of 

registration requirements (typically following a new encounter with law enforcement). Third, an 

offender could enter the follow-up period as registered for his index offense and remain 

registered throughout. Because registration duration is for life, offenders could not revert from 

registered to nonregistered during follow-up. As noted previously, half of offenders were 

required to register during follow-up. Of registered offenders, just 199 (6%) were registered at 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

the start of follow-up (i.e., immediately post-conviction or post-incarceration) whereas most 

(3,032 or 94%) were required to register at some point during follow-up. The average length of 

time between start of follow-up and initial registration date was 2 years (SD = 3 years, range = 0 

to 15 years). 

Of the 2,833 offenders who were not required to register during follow-up more than half 

(59%) were convicted in 1995 or more recently (i.e., post-SORN). Interestingly, while the most 

frequent conviction offense for this group was Indecent Exposure (48%) for which judicial 

discretion is permitted, many of these offenders had index convictions for sex crimes that compel 

registration, (e.g., Lewd Act with a Minor accounted for 12% of the offenses for this group). 

Thus, it appears that judges exerted discretion on registration requirements for offenders 

convicted of Indecent Exposure convictions but also waived registration obligations for other sex 

crime convictions despite the legal discretion to do so. 

Outcome Variables 

 Outcome recidivism variables included new charges for sex crimes, violent, and 

nonviolent offenses. We also examined new convictions for these same crime types. Results 

were similar across charge and conviction outcome models and discussion is therefore limited 

primarily to the charge outcome results. In all cases, recidivism was coded only for charges that 

occurred after the disposition date of the index offense and while the offender was at risk in the 

community (i.e., incarceration periods were excluded). 

Data Analytic Strategy 

A complete description of the data analytic strategy is presented in the Statistical 

Appendix at the end of this report. Briefly, both univariate analyses and Cox’s relative risks 

(survival) models were used to investigate whether registration status influenced recidivism. 

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Results 

For the entire sample, there was an 8% rate of new sex crime charges and a 5% rate of 

new sex crime convictions across follow-up. These low sex crime recidivism rates are consistent 

with independent reports generated from South Carolina data (McManus, 2007) and with 

national data on the recidivism rates of adult sex offenders released from prison (Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2003). For example, in South Carolina, 4% of sex offenders released from 

prison were re-arrested for a new sex crime and 2% were re-convicted for a new sex crime across 

a 3-year follow-up period (McManus, 2007). 

Univariate Analyses Results 

Separate chi-square analyses provide an initial examination of the potential relationships 

between covariates and the outcome of new sex crime charges. Results are presented in Table 3. 

All covariates were statistically significantly associated with recidivism or, in the case of prior 

convictions, nearly so (p = .052). Thus, as age at risk increased, risk of recidivism significantly 

decreased. White offenders were significantly less likely than Minority offenders to be charged 

with a new sex offense at follow-up. Prior convictions were associated with increased risk of 

recidivism while presence of a minor victim was associated with decreased risk of recidivism. 

Being registered also was associated with decreased risk of recidivism. However, in these 

univariate analyses, registration status was confounded with time at risk. That is, registered 

offenders had shorter follow-up periods than nonregistered offenders because registration was 

enacted partway through the entire study time period. As seen next, the relationship between 

registration status and recidivism risk was not significant when length of follow-up was 

accounted for. Similar analyses were conducted using new sex crime convictions (vs. charges) as 

the outcome. Results (not presented) were similar to those from the sex crime charge analyses. 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Survival Analyses Results 

A Cox’s relative risks model was conducted to assess whether registration status 

significantly influenced the risk of new sex crime charges while also considering the influence of 

covariates. Results are presented in Table 4. Two covariates, prior convictions and the minor 

victim indicator predicted new sex crime charges. Specifically, offenders with prior convictions 

were more likely to recidivate than offenders with no (or fewer) prior convictions. Offenders 

with offenses against minors were less likely to recidivate than were offenders whose offense 

labels did not indicate that victims were minors. Of note, registration status did not influence 

recidivism. A similar analysis was conducting using convictions (vs. charges) as the outcome 

and only the “minor victim” indicator was significant, with offenders against minors less likely 

to recidivate than other offenders. 

Competing Risk Analyses 

A final set of analyses was conducted to simultaneously examine the effects of 

registration on the risk of three types of recidivism events: sex, violent and nonviolent. As with 

the standard survival analyses, separate models examined charge and conviction outcomes, with 

detailed information provided only for the charge outcome models. 

Of 2,861 (47.2%) offenders with any new charges, 270 (9.4%) charges were for sex 

crimes, 555 (19.4%) were for person offenses, and 2,036 (71.2%) were for nonperson offenses. 

Results indicated that prior convictions and the minor victim indicator were significantly 

associated with sexual recidivism. All covariates except registration status influenced violent and 

nonviolent recidivism. These results were largely replicated with the model that used new 

convictions (vs. charges) as the outcome (see Table 5). Figure 1 depicts the risk of new sex crime 

charges, new violent offense charges, and new nonviolent offense charges over time. 

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 

Aim 3: Unintended Effects on Judicial Decision Making for Sex Crime Cases 

 In this section, we describe analyses and results from our examination of whether South 

Carolina’s SORN policy was associated with unintended effects on judicial decision making 

specific to adult sex crime cases. Specifically, this study addressed the question of whether 

registration and notification influenced the likelihood that a sex crime charge would result in a 

formal judicial processing (versus being dismissed) and whether a sex crime charge would result 

in a guilty finding (vs. acquittal). This study has been accepted for publication (Letourneau, 

Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong, & Sinha, in press). 

Participants 

The entire population of male defendants charged as adults with one or more sex crimes 

between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2004 was accessed for the present analyses (N = 

18,680 defendants with a total of 20,598 sex offense charges). Cases with missing demographic 

information or missing charge descriptions were removed, resulting in a final sample of 15,953 

sex offenders with a total of 17,467 sex offense charges. For comparison, a random sample of 

assault defendants (N = 21,070 with a total of 33,798 assault offense charges) was drawn from 

the entire population of 175,857 assault defendants. A final sample of 16,143 assault offenders 

with a total of 23,680 assault charges was retained after removing offenders with missing 

demographic information or charge descriptions. 

 Most sex crime defendants (92%) had only one sex offense charge (M = 1.1, SD = .4 sex 

offense charges per defendant) and most assault crime defendants (73%) also had only one 

assault offense charge (M = 1.5, SD = 1 assault offense charges per defendant). A small number 

of defendants (n = 541 or 1.7% of the full study sample) had charges for both sex and assault 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

offenses. The full study sample (N = 31,555) was 52% White and 48% Minority (nearly all 

Minority defendants indicated African American race), had a mean age of 32 years (SD = 12; 

range of 14 to 95 years) at first sex or assault offense, and averaged less than one prior offense 

conviction (M = .82, SD = 1.77). All analytic models included defendant race, age, and number 

of prior convictions as covariates. 

Covariates 

 Year Groups. For the present study we were interested in examining whether patterns of 

charging decisions and dispositions changed over time, corresponding with pre-SORN 

enactment, implementation of the original SORN policy and implementation of online 

notification. Thus, three “Year Group” variables were created. Specifically, pre-SORN (“Year 

Group 1”) were those cases with initial charge dates from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 

1994. Post-implementation (“Year Group 2”) cases were those with initial charge dates from 

January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1998. Post-online notification (“Year Group 3”) cases were 

those with initial charge dates from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2004. These three Year 

Group variables were the variables of main interest for this study. 

Also of interest was whether a defendant was charged with a registry-eligible offense, 

with an offense that involved a minor victim, or with an offense that triggered “Truth in 

Sentencing” (TIS) enhancements (e.g., longer mininum incarceration periods). Defendant race, 

age at offense, and number of prior convictions (counting just one per date) also were included 

as covariates in the statistical models.. 

Outcomes 

The primary outcomes of interest in the following analyses included whether the initial 

charge was reduced. Two outcome variables pertaining to charging decisions were coded from 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

the data. First, cases in which the initial charge indicated a sex crime (e.g., Criminal Sexual 

Conduct) but the dispositional charge indicated a nonsex crime (e.g., Aggravated Assault and 

Battery) were coded as having been reduced to a nonsex offense. Cases in which both the initial 

charge and dispositional charge indicated sex crimes were coded as not having been reduced, 

even if the specific sex charge changed (e.g., from CSC to Lewd Act). A parallel outcome 

variable was coded for assault cases. Specifically, cases in which the initial charge was for an 

assault crime (e.g., Aggravated Assault and Battery) but the dispositional charge indicated a 

nonassault crime (e.g., Public Disorderly Conduct) were coded as having been reduced to a 

nonassault offense. Cass in which both the initial charge and dispositional charge indicated 

assault crimes were coded as not having been reduced, even if the specific assault charge 

changed (e.g., from Aggravated Assault and Battery to Simple Assault). 

 In a separate series of analyses, a different variable was created to indicate reduced 

charges. Specifically, cases in which the initial charge indicated a TIS-eligible offense but the 

dispositional charge indicated a non-TIS offense were coded as having been reduced to a nonTIS offense. Cases in which both the initial charge and dispositional charges indicated TISeligible offenses were coded as not having been reduced, even if the specific charge changed.

The other outcome variable of interest was final case disposition. Final dispositions were 

coded to distinguish “guilty” (including disposition literals indicating guilty, convicted, or a 

sentence of incarceration and/or fines) from “other” (including disposition literals indicating not 

guilty, dismissed, nolle prosequi, or dropped charge) disposition outcomes. 

Data Analyses 

 A full description of the data analytic methods is provided in the Statistical Appendix 

attached to this report (see section labeled Aim 3). Briefly, a two-step data analytic process was 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

utilized. First, univariate analyses were conducted with results presented for the main covariates 

of interest (i.e., year group differences, registry-eligibility indicator, minor victim indicator, and 

TIS-eligibility indicator). Second, generalized estimating equations (GEE) methods were used to 

model outcomes. Analyses examined (a) the probability of initial sex offense charges being 

reduced to nonsex offenses at disposition; (b) the probability of initial TIS-eligible offense 

charges being reduced to non-TIS offenses at disposition, and (c) the probability of guilty 

disposition. 

Results 

Analytic results are presented for each of the three outcomes, first for the sex offense 

cases and then for the assault offense cases. Discussion focuses on the covariates of interest, 

including the year group variables, the registry-eligible and minor victim indicators (for the sex 

offense cases) and the TIS-eligibility indicator (for the sex and assault offense cases). Results 

pertaining to the remaining covariates (i.e., defendant age, race, and number of priors) are 

presented in the relevant tables and only briefly mentioned in the text. 

Charging Decisions: Reduced to Other Offense Type Results 

 This first set of analyses examined the likelihood that charges would be reduced from one 

type of offense at initial charge (e.g., sex) to another type of offense at disposition (e.g., assault).

 Sex offense cases. There were 17,467 sex offense charge cases, of which 2,608 (15%) 

were reduced to nonsex offenses at disposition. The most frequent charges to which sex crimes 

were reduced included Aggravated Assault and Battery (66%), other assault offenses (e.g., 

Simple Assault, Criminal Domestic Violence; 9%) and Contributing to the Delinquency of a 

Minor (14%). Remaining dispositional charges (e.g., Burglary, Simple Possession) each 

accounted for less than 1% of reduced charges. 

37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 The percentage of cases with reduced charges doubled over time, from 10% for Year 

Group 1 to 20% for Year Group 3 (see Table 6, first panel under Sex Offense Cases heading). 

Results from both the chi-square analyses and GEE analyses indicated that this reduction was 

statistically significant,as were each of the three follow-up pair-wise differences (see Table 7 

referring to panels under Pleaded to Nonsex Offense heading). Thus, the percent of cases with 

reduced charges was significantly higher at Year Group 2 relative to Year Group 1, and at Year 

Group 3 relative to Year Groups 1 and 2. 

 Regarding the other covariates of interest, cases in which the initial charge was for a 

registry-eligible offense were more likely to be reduced (17%) than cases in which the initial 

charge was for a nonregistry offense (6%) and this difference was statistically significant. Cases 

in which the initial charge indicated a minor victim was involved were less likely to result in 

reduced charges (15%) than cases in which the initial charge did not indicate a minor victim 

(16%) and this difference, though small, was statistically significant. Results indicated that 

White defendants were less likely than Minority defendants to obtain reduced charges and older 

defendants were less likely than younger defendants to obtain reduced charges. Prior offenses 

and the TIS-eligible offense indicator were not associated with probability of reduced charges. 

 Assault offense cases. There were 23,680 assault charge cases, of which only 678 (3%) 

were associated solely with charges for nonassault offenses at disposition. The most frequent 

crime to which these assault cases were changed (reduced) involved drug and alcohol crimes 

(12%) and related offenses, including Resisting Arrest (12%), traffic violations (11%), and 

Public Disorderly Conduct (8%). The percentage of cases with reduced charges was 

approximately 3% for each three Year Groups and these differences were not statistically 

significant (see Table 6, first panel under Assault Offense Cases heading). Table 8 (see first two 

38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

panels under Pleaded to Nonassault Offense heading) presents the point estimates and the 95% 

confidence intervals for the odds ratios produced by the GEE analysis for this outcome. 

Charging Decisions: Reduced to Non-TIS Offense Results 

 This second set of analyses examined the outcome of charges being reduced from TISeligible offenses at initial charge to non-TIS offenses at disposition.

 Sex offense cases. There were 6,328 TIS-eligible sex offense charge cases (36% of all sex 

offense cases), of which 2,158 (12% of all sex offense cases and 34% of all TIS-eligible cases) 

were reduced to non-TIS charges at disposition. The percent of TIS-eligible cases reduced to 

non-TIS charges declined from 41% in Year Group 1 to 32% in both Year Groups 2 and 3 (see 

Table 6, middle panel under Sex Offense Cases heading). There were significant differences 

between Year Goup 1 vs. Year Groups 2 and 3. Results also indicated that cases in which the 

initial charge indicated a minor victim were more likely to result in a non-TIS charge (36%) than 

cases in which the initial charge did not indicate a minor victim (32%) and this difference was 

statistically significant. Older defendants where less likely than younger defendants to obtain 

non-TIS charges. The variables for registry-eligible offense, defendant race, and prior offenses 

were not associated with charges being reduced to non-TIS charges. 

 Assault offense cases. There were 2,190 TIS-eligible assault charge cases (9% of all 

assault offense charge cases) of which 722 (3% of all assault charge cases and 33% of TISeligible cases) were reduced to non-TIS charges at disposition. The percent of TIS-eligible cases 

that obtained non-TIS charges at disposition increased from 31% in Year Group 1 to 38% in 

Year Group 2 and then declined to 36% in Year Group 3 (see Table 6, middle panel under 

Assault Offense Cases heading). These differences were not significant. None of the other 

39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

covariates were significant predictors of assault charges being reduced from TIS to non-TIS 

charges (see Table 8, middle panels under Pleaded to Non-TIS Offense heading). 

Final Case Disposition 

This set of analyses examined the probability of guilty dispositions. Cases were 

categorized as sex or assault cases based on initial charge. 

 Sex offense cases. There were 16,617 cases with initial sex offense charges and known 

disposition outcomes (95% of all sex offense charge cases). The percentage of cases associated 

with guilty dispositions increased from 54% in Year Group 1 to 65% in Year Group 2 and then 

declined to 61% in Year Group 3 (see Table 6, final panel under Sex Offense Cases heading). 

These differences were statistically significant. Thus, relative to Year Group 1, the percentage of 

guilty dispositions was significantly greater at Year Groups 2 and 3. Relative to Year Group 2, 

the percentage of guilty dispositions was significantly smaller at Year Group 3. 

 Cases in which the initial charge was for a registry-eligible offense were less likely to 

result in guilty dispositions (57%) than cases in which the initial charge was for a nonregistry 

offense (73%) while cases in which the initial charge indicated a minor victim were more likely 

to be associated with a guilty disposition (62%) than cases in which the initial charge did not 

indicate a minor victim (57%). Results also indicated that White defendants were more likely 

than Minority defendants to receive a guilty disposition. Defendant age and number of priors 

were not associated with probability of guilty dispositions. 

 Assault offense cases. There were 22,664 cases with assault offense charges and known 

disposition outcomes (96% of all assault offense cases). The percentage of cases associated with 

guilty dispositions increased from 58% in Year Group 1 to 63% in Year Groups 2 and 3 (see 

Table 6, final panel under Assault Offense Cases heading). Relative to Year Group 1 the 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

percentage of guilty dispositions was significantly greater at Year Groups 2 and 3.(see Table 8, 

two panels under Final Guilty Disposition heading). Results indicated that White defendants 

were significantly less likely to receive a guilty disposition than Minority defendants and 

defendants with more prior offenses were more likely to receive a guilty disposition than 

defendants with fewer prior offenses. The TIS-indicator and defendant age were nonsignificant 

predictors of guilty dispositions. 

Final Case Disposition: Follow-up Analyses 

 Recall that 15% of initial sex offense cases had charges reduced to nonsex charges at 

disposition and the probability of reduced charges increased over time. Nearly all such cases had 

guilty dispositions, reflecting that these were formal plea bargains. Follow-up analyses examined 

the influence of Year Group on final case disposition after removing pleaded cases, 

Analyses included cases that remained sex crime charges at disposition and for which 

final dispositions were known (n = 13,968, or 84% of all sex offense cases with known 

dispositions). The percent of these cases with guilty dispositions increased from 48% in Year 

Group 1 to 54% in Year Group 2 and then declined to 45% in Year Group 3. These differences 

were statistically significant (see Table 9, first panel and Table 10, panels under Sex Charge 

Cases). Thus, what changed relative to the full-sample analysis reported earlier was that relative 

to both Year Groups 1 and 2, a significantly lower percentage of cases was associated with guilty 

dispositions in Year Group 3. 

To summarize, results from the full sex offense sample indicated that odds of guilty 

dispositions peaked in Year Group 2 and started declining in Year Group 3 but remained 

significantly higher than the odds of guilty dispositions in Year Group 1. When pleaded cases 

were excluded from the analyses the decline in odds of guilty dispositions in Year Group 3 was 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

more dramatic, falling to significantly below the odds of guilty dispositions in Year Group 1. 

These results are depicted in Figure 2 and suggest that the inclusion of pleaded cases in the full 

sample model masked the degree of decline in guilty dispositions for the final year group. 

Aim 4: Association Between Registration Violations and Sexual Recidivism 

 In this section, we describe analyses and results from our examination of whether failure 

to register is associated with increased risk for sexual recidivism (Levenson, Letourneau, 

Armstrong, & Zgoba, 2010).

Participants 

 Criminal history data from a sample of 2,970 registered adult sex offenders in South 

Carolina provided the basis for this study. Most registrants (98%) were male and 60% were 

white, with 39.7% black and 0.3% indicating another race. The mean age at arrest for the index 

(registry-eligible) sexual offense was 33.5 years of age (SD = 12.2 years; range of 18 to 84 

years). Most registrants had been convicted of contact sex offenses against minors (65.5%), the 

most common of which were Lewd Act on a Child Under 16 and Criminal Sexual Conduct with 

a Minor. Most of the remaining registrants had contact sex offenses against victims of 

unspecified ages (22.5%), the most common of which was Criminal Sexual Conduct. Noncontact 

offenses such as Peeping and Indecent Exposure (8%), pornography offenses (1%), or nonsex 

offenses (2.9%) were also included. Offenders in the latter category were included because either 

their index arrest or conviction offense was a sexual offense. 

Operational Definitions 

Operational definitions are provided for several key terms used in the remainder of this paper. 

 Registry offense. The initial (or index) sexual offense for which an individual was 

convicted and subsequently required to register is called the registry offense. 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

 General recidivism. Any nonsexual offense for which an arrest or charge occurred after 

the date of initial registration. General recidivism events could include nonsexual offenses, 

misdemeanors or felonies. General recidivism did not include sexual or registry violation 

offenses. 

 Sexual recidivism. Any sexual offense for which an arrest or charge occurred after the 

date of initial registration. Sexual recidivism events could include misdemeanors or felonies. 

Sexual recidivism did not include registry violations. 

 Failure to Register (FTR) violations. FTR violations were included only if the defendant 

was convicted of the offense. Arrests and charges that resulted in dismissal or not guilty 

determinations were excluded because it was believed that many of these were resolved upon 

preliminary investigation (e.g., if an offender was a few days late registering due to illness or 

other extenuating circumstance). 

Data analysis 

 Descriptive statistics were utilized to depict the characteristics of the sample. Chi-square 

and t-tests were conducted to evaluate differences between groups on variables of interest. 

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors predictive of FTR. Cox 

regression and survival analysis examined the influence of potential predictors on FTR (while 

accounting for time at risk) and evaluated the role of registration noncompliance in contributing 

to recidivism over time. 

Results 

 On average, offenders began registering at age 37 or about 2 years after conviction for the 

registry-eligible offense. The mean number of prior general offenses was 2.5 (SD = 3.6), 

although nearly 36% of the sample had no prior record for any non-sexual offense. The mean 

43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

number of prior sexual offenses was 0.27 (SD = 0.58), and 79% of the sample had no prior 

sexual offenses. 

 The average follow-up period (i.e., time since initial registration through December 31, 

2005) was 6.2 years (SD = 3.0 years). At follow-up, the general recidivism rate was 42% with a 

conviction rate of 30%. The sexual recidivism rate was 8.9%, with a conviction rate of 6%. The 

registration violation rate was 9.9% (as noted previously, FTR was counted only if resulting in 

conviction). 

Group Comparisons 

 There were some statistically significant differences between the registrants with FTR 

convictions and the registrants who had no FTR convictions. FTR offenders were significantly 

more likely to be of a minority race and to be younger than offenders without FTR. Additionally, 

FTR offenders had a significantly higher mean number of prior general arrests than offenders 

without FTR and were significantly more likely to have a general recidivism event (75% vs. 

39%, respectively). Compared to non-FTR offenders, FTR offenders had significantly fewer

index convictions for offenses against minors and significantly more index convictions for 

offenses against victims of unspecified ages. There was no significant difference between FTR 

and non-FTR groups in the proportion who had sexual priors (18% and 22%, respectively) or in 

the proportion who sexually recidivated (11% vs. 9%, respectively). 

 We also conducted group comparisons between recidivists and non-recidivists. There was 

no significant difference in the proportion of sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists with FTR 

offenses (12% and 10%, respectively). 

44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Logistic Regression 

 Predictors of FTR were explored using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Failure 

to register was the dichotomous dependent variable. Predictors included year of initial 

registration requirement (to partly control for length of follow-up), age at initial registration, race 

(White or Minority), number of prior general convictions (continuous) and prior sexual 

convictions (dichotomized to reflect none or any). As shown in Table 11, this model was 

statistically significant, indicating that this set of predictors was associated with FTR. 

 Not surprisingly, year of registration was inversely correlated with FTR, indicating that a 

shorter follow-up period was associated with reduced risk of FTR. Younger offenders were more 

likely to be convicted of FTR, with each year of increasing age associated with a 2% decline in 

the likelihood of FTR. White offenders were 35% less likely than Minority offenders to have an 

FTR conviction. Prior general offenses were correlated with FTR; each prior offense increased 

the likelihood of FTR by 9%. Prior sexual offenses did not significantly predict FTR. 

Survival Analyses 

 To more fully account for the influence of follow-up time (or “time at risk”) on the FTR 

outcome, a Cox regression analysis was conducted with the same set of predictors as above. As 

presented in Table 12, results indicated that year of initial registration was positively associated 

with FTR, with the likelihood of an FTR conviction increasing by 6% each year (from 1995 to 

2005). At first glance, this finding appears to contradict the results of the logistic regression, in 

which year of initial registration was negatively associated with FTR. To clarify, the logistic 

regression estimated the overall probability of FTR while the Cox regression computes the 

relative likelihood of FTR over time. In other words, though the cumulative probability of FTR 

increases with time at risk (i.e., an earlier registration year resulted in a longer follow-up period 

45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

and more opportunities for an FTR conviction), more recent registrants were proportionately 

more likely to fail to register. The remaining results parallel those of the logistic regression. 

Specifically, older offenders and White offenders were less likely to be convicted for FTR than 

younger or Minority offenders, and prior general offenses increased the likelihood of FTR. The 

indicator for prior sexual offenses was not predictive of FTR. 

 Two additional Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which 

FTR contributed to the prediction of general and sexual recidivism rates over time. In the first 

model (see Table 13), four variables predicted non-sexual recidivism, including offender age, 

race, prior general offenses, and presence of an FTR conviction. Of greatest interest, the presence 

of a FTR conviction increased the likelihood of a general recidivism offense by 65%. Neither 

year of initial registration, nor the indicator for prior sexual offenses, was predictive of general 

recidivism. Figure 3 illustrates survival curves for general recidivists. After approximately 10 

years in the community, the estimated general recidivism risk was 80% for sex offenders with 

FTR as compared with 34% for compliant registrants. However, there was no significant 

difference in the mean time to the first general recidivism event for FTR or non-FTR offenders 

which was about 2 years for both groups. 

 Table 14 depicts the factors predicting sex offense recidivism. In this model, three 

variables were significantly associated with sexual recidivism, including offender race, prior 

sexual offenses, and prior general offensees. Of most interest, failure to register was not

predictive of sexual recidivism. Figure 4 displays survival curves for sexual recidivists. As can 

be seen, both the FTR and non-FTR groups had about a 13% estimated risk of sexual recidivism 

after approximately 10 years. Nor was there a significant difference in time to the sexual 

recidivism event when comparing FTR and non-FTR offenders, which was about 3 years for 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

both groups. These results suggest that registration violations are associated with general 

criminality rather than with sexually deviant intent. 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Project Summary 

 South Carolina’s response to the initial federal Acts governing registration and 

notification was to develop a policy with a wide net: most sex crimes were designated register 

offenses, registration duration was set to life, and all registrants were subjected to community 

notification without regard for individual risk. The initial policy, which did not include online 

notification, was associated with reductions in first-time offending, suggesting that the policy 

caused would-be offenders to reevaluate the benefits-to-risks associated with sexual offending. 

This positive finding is dampened by subsequent findings that South Carolina’s policy exerts no 

detectible effect on recidivism rates, and is associated with serious effects on judicial decision 

making resulting in fewer defendants prosecuted for or found guilty of sex crimes, particularly 

following online notification procedures. Finally, failure to register as a sex offender does not 

appear to increase the likelihood of sexual recidivism. 

 Deterrence requires that potential offenders complete a rather complex mental checklist 

in which they (a) identify that a behavior they are considering is a sex crime, (b) believe that they 

are likely to get caught and convicted of the crime, (c) understand that, following conviction, 

they would be subjected to sex offender registration procedures and (d) view the procedures as 

highly noxious. We were surprised that results support a deterrent effect based on this complex 

set of requirements. However, perhaps federal and state SORN policies and media coverage of 

these policies educated potential offenders as to what acts are considered sex crimes, increased 

their fears of apprehension and conviction, and increased their concerns of possible postincarceration sanctions. 

 The present study found no evidence that South Carolina’s SORN policy effectively 

reduced sex crime recidivism and it seems unlikely that other broadly inclusive notification 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

policies such as the Adam Walsh Act will demonstrate better effectiveness. Classification 

systems based solely on conviction offense and requiring public notification for all registered 

offenders will almost certainly be less accurate in predicting dangerousness than will systems 

relying on empirically derived risk assessment schemes (Freeman & Sandler, 2010). 

Additionally, broad notification might dilute the public's ability to determine who truly presents 

the greatest threat to a community, because all offenders listed on the registry appear to be 

equally dangerous. Furthermore, such systems require substantial resources for rigorous 

monitoring of all sex offenders rather than targeted and intensive supervision of those most likely 

to reoffend, suggesting that cost effectiveness might be as elusive as outcome effectiveness for 

SORN policies. Some sex offenders will repeat their crimes, of course, and public safety can be 

enhanced when resources are more efficiently distributed for intervention with high risk 

individuals. 

 We have proposed that judicial decision makers were influenced by SORN and especially 

by the online notification requirement of South Carolina’s modified SORN policy. However, the 

absence of a methodologically rigorous randomized experimental design limits arguments of 

causality and there are alternative explanations for the reduced charges and final case disposition 

outcomes. Perhaps the most obvious alternative explanation is that defendants charged with sex 

crimes were motivated to avoid sex crime convictions by more than the desire to avoid SORN 

requirements. Sex crime policy changes have occurred against a backdrop of greatly increased 

media scrutiny and public vilification of sex offenders (Proctor, Badzinski, & Johnson, 2002; 

Sample & Kadleck, 2008). Thus, even in the absence of SORN defendants might still have 

mobilized efforts to avoid being labeled as “sex offenders,” either by pleading to nonsex crimes 

or by deploying more resources against guilty dispositions. Furthermore, if SORN does account 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

for some of the variance identified in the present results, it might be through the influence of this 

policy solely on defendants and their attorneys and not on other judicial decision makers. 

 Results from this study do not support the hypothesis that sexual offenders who fail to 

register are more sexually dangerous than those who comply with registration requirements. 

Specifically, results indicated that approximately 10% of sex offenders had registry violation 

convictions across an average follow-up period of about 6 years. Of those who failed to register, 

11% also had a sexual recidivism charge, compared with 9% of compliant registrants. Prior 

sexual offenses did not predict FTR, and FTR did not predict sexual recidivism. We speculate 

that registration noncompliance is more a reflection of general criminality, defiance, 

carelessness, or apathy than of sexually devious intentions. Indeed, our findings are consistent 

with other research results suggesting that general criminal history and younger age (of adult 

offenders) are predictive of both general recidivism and violations of probation (Andrews & 

Bonta, 2007; Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001; Zgoba & Levenson, 2008). As well, the findings 

are consistent with the literature on absconding which indicates that sex offenders are unlikely to 

abscond and that a history of prior criminal and rule breaking behavior predicts absconding 

(Gray et al., 2001; Mayzer, Gray, & Maxwell, 2004; Williams, McShane, & Dolny, 2000). 

Strengths and Limitations. The present study has several strengths and limitations. Its 

strengths include the ability to model time series data for several different crime types across a 

lengthy period encompassing two SORN policy initiatives. The most significant limitation is that 

causal explanations for the findings are speculative and cannot confirm the utility of SORN 

policies. In particular, other prevention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing sexual 

violence might have been enacted in similar time periods as those examined in this study and 

their effects (if any) cannot be partialed from those of the SORN policy. Additional limitations 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

include the fact that the outcome (i.e., sex offense charges) likely underestimates the true 

incidence of sex crimes and that crime data are imperfectly and incompletely recorded in 

databases. Further, a of time series analyses is that a demonstrable change in patterns is not 

always easily attributable to any particular event and causation can be elusive (Cook & 

Campbell, 1979). 

51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Policy Recommendations 

 Laws targeting sex offenders cycle in and out of popularity and typically are crafted 

without serious consideration of theory or evidence (Logan, 2009). Rather, these laws represent 

lawmakers’ responses to citizens’ understandable demands that they “do something!” to address 

the sexual victimization. When initially crafted, there was no research on the effects of 

registration and notification policies. That is no longer the case. Although more research is 

needed, we believe that sufficient evidence now exists-- from this program of research and other 

published empirical studies--to support several SORN policy recommendations. These 

recommendations pertain to (1) the basis of SORN requirements in general, (2) the basis of 

online notification requirements in particular, (3) the duration of SORN requirements, and (4) the 

redistribution of resources conserved by putting recommendations 1-3 into place. 

 

Recommendation 1: Base SORN Requirements on Empirically Validated 

Actuarial Risk Assessment 

 Community protection policies are likely to be most effective when used in a 

discriminating and targeted manner rather than when broadly and equally applied to all sex 

offenders. Offense-based policies such as South Carolina’s target nearly all sex criminals with 

the same intervention, implying that all sex offenders pose a severe and equal threat to 

communities. A recent study concluded that the AWA offense-based tiers did a poor job of 

predicting recidivism and had less predictive accuracy than empirically derived risk factors 

(Sandler & Freeman, 2009). Offense-based SORN policies are not associated with a reduction in 

recidivism and are associated with changes in charging and dispositional outcomes. Offense52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

based registration and notification schemes are likely to inflate risk in many cases, but 

simultaneously underestimate the risk of offenders who succeeded in pleading guilty to nonsexual offenses. The vast resources needed to track sex offenders may limit funding available for 

victim services. Furthermore, although sex offenders elicit little sympathy, overly inclusive 

registries present barriers to successful reintegration of lower risk offenders who are unlikely to 

recidivate but who nevertheless face the same stigma and collateral consequences of registration 

as high risk offenders. With these facts in mind, registration and notification requirements should 

be based on empirically validated actuarial risk assessment. 

 

Recommendation 2: Limit Online Notifcation to High Risk Offenders 

 There is strong citizen support for public notification policies (Levenson, Brannon, 

Fortney & Baker, 2007). However, online notification is now associated with significant 

negative effects. First, Prescott and Rockoff (2008) determined that as the extent of offenders 

subjected to online notification increased, so does sex offender recidivism. Second, our research 

has indicated that online notification was associated with even increased likelihood of plea 

bargains (relative to original registration and notification practices) and was uniquely associated 

with reduced likelihood of final guilty determinations for defendants charged with sex crimes. 

Moreover, online notification was associated neither with general deterrence of sex crimes nor 

with reduced sexual recidivism rates. Registered sex offenders face reintegration obstacles 

associated with a higher likelihood of recidivism (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a; Levenson et al., 

2007). Moreover, the rapidly growing number of registered sex offenders listed on online 

websites may dilute the public’s ability to identify truly dangerous individuals. With these facts 

in mind, we recommend that online notification practices be limited to only those registered sex 

53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

offenders who have been identified as high risk for recidivism based on actuarial recidivism risk 

assessment. Aligning online notification requirements with individual recidivism risk level might 

reduce the effects of SORN on charging and dispositional decisions by restoring some discretion 

to decision makers and by increasing the likelihood judicial decision makers will view these 

penalties as proportionate to the conviction offense. Limiting broad notification to the highest 

risk offenders will remove barriers to community reintegration for lower risk offenders without 

reducing community safety and narrow the focus of community attention to those offenders who 

pose the greatest threat of recidivism. 

 

Recommendation 3: Limit the Duration of SORN Requirements 

 South Carolina requires life-long registration for all registrants. At minimum, the AWA 

requires states to assign durations of 15 years (Tier 1) , 25 years (Tier 2), or life (Tier 3) 

depending upon the specific conviction offense. Tier 1 offenders can have SORN requirements 

commuted after 10 years of offense-free behavior and Tier 3 offenders can have SORN 

requirements commuted after 25 years of offense-free behavior. There is no provision to alter 

SORN requirements for Tier 2 offenders. In recognition of the fact that few low risk offenders 

will sexually reoffend and that even high risk offenders are less likely to recidivate as they age 

and as they accumulate time in the community offense-free, registered sex offenders should be 

provided an opportunity to be released from the requirements after a reasonable period of lawabiding behavior in the community. While individuals will have good-faith differences of 

opinion as to what defines a “reasonable period” of time, periods that extend across decades are 

excessive for most registrants. We have found that each offense-free year spent in the 

community predicts future offense-free years and most sex crime recidivism events occur within 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

five years of community release. Based on this information a “reasonable period” might suggest 

commuting registration and notification requirements after a period of 5 to 10 years of offensefree behavior in the community. 

Recommendation 4: Redistribute Resources to Collaborative and EvidenceBased Risk Management and Treatment 

 If policies can be revised to focus resources on high risk offenders, one side effect will be 

the availability of resources previously devoted to maintaining and monitoring the registration 

and notification requirements of low risk offenders. These resources should be devoted to 

collaborative risk management approaches that evaluate offender risks and needs, reinforce 

offender strengths, and facilitate support systems (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996, 1998; Ward & 

Brown, 2004). By working together, clinicians, parole officers, and child protection workers can 

apply restrictions, safety plans, and interventions relevant to a particular offender’s patterns and 

risk factors. Evidence-based interventions that are associated with reduced sexual recidivism (see 

Hanson et al., 2002) should be made available to sex offenders. Additionally, public education 

and awareness campaigns should highlight the likelihood that sexual offense victims are much 

more likely to be abused by someone they know and trust than by a stranger lurking in the dark. 

Parents should be made aware of the signs and symptoms of child sexual abuse, and the common 

types of grooming patterns used by adult perpetrators who gain access to victims via their 

positions of trust or authority. Funding for these activities might be freed up by making 

reasonable reductions to the duration and number of offenders subjected to registration and 

notification requirements. 

55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

References 

 Adkins, G., Huff, D., & Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. 

Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights. 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, 

OH: Anderson Publishing. 

Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a 

deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law & Society Review, 26, 343-

372. 

Boney-McCoy, S., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Is youth victimization related to trauma symptoms 

and depression after controlling for prior symptoms and family relationships? A 

longitudinal, prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 

1406-1416. 

Box, G.E.P. and Jenkins, G.M. (1976). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Oakland, 

CA: Holden Day. 

Box, G.E.P., Jenkins, G.M., & Reinsel, G.C. (1994). Time series analysis: Forecasting and 

control (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. 

Psychological Bulletin, 99, 555-584. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994

(No. NCJ 198281). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008, December). Bulletin: National Crime Victims Survey. NCJ 

224390. Accessed on December 19, 2008 at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv07.pdf

Chapman, D. P., Dube, S. R., & Anda, R. F. (2007). Adverse childhood events as risk factors for 

negative mental health outcomes. Psychiatric Annals, 37, 359-364.

Cohen, M. A. (2000). Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice. Criminal Justice 

2000 (vol. 4), 263-315. Accessed at 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf 

Cohen, M. A., Miller, T. R., & Rossman, S. B. (1994). The costs and consequences of violent 

behavior in the United States. In A. J. Russ & J. A. Roth (Eds.) Understanding and 

preventing violence (vol 4): Consequences and control (pp. 67-166). Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field 

Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois. 

Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 

34, 187-220. 

Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: The 

Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46, 411-446. 

English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment 

approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. 

English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy 

for community management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 

4(1 / 2), 218-235. 

Finkelhor, D. (1987). The trauma of child sexual abuse: Two models. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 2, 348-366. 

56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2010). The Adam Walsh Act. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 

21, 31-49. 

Freeman, N. J., Sandler, J. C. & Socia, K. M. (2009). A time-series analysis on the impact of sex 

offender registration and community notification laws on plea bargaining rates. Criminal 

Justice Studies, 22, 153-165. 

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender 

recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607. 

Gray, M. K., Fields, M., & Maxwell, S. R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, 

and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 537-557. 

Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender 

recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362. 

Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, 

M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness 

of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 14, 169-194. 

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated 

meta-analysis. Ottawa, CA: Public Works and Government Services. 

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: 

A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

73(6), 1154-1163. 

Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (No. 2004-

03). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 

Harris, A. J. R., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 Coding Rules. 

Retrieved 10/15/08, from http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/Static-99-

coding-Rules_e.pdf 

Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (2003). Survival analysis: techniques for censored and 

truncated data. New York, NY: Springer. 

Lab, S. P. (2008). Crime prevention. In S. G. Shoham, O. Beck, & M. Kett (Eds.), International 

handbook of penology and criminal justice (pp. 231-293). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

LaFond, J. Q. (2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Letourneau, E. J. & Armstrong, K. S. (2008). Recidivism rates for registered and nonregistered 

juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 393-

408. doi: 10.1177/1079063208324661 

Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (2010). Do sex offender 

registration and notification requirements deter juvenile sex crimes? Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 37, 553-569. 

Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2009a). The effects of sex 

offender registration policies on juvenile justice decision making. Sexual Abuse: A 

Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 149-165. doi: 10.1177/1079063208328678 

Letourneau, E. J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (2009b). The influence of 

sex offender registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 

20, 136-153. doi: 10.1177/0887403408327917 

Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (2010). 

Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on deterrence 

of adult sex crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 537-552.

57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K., S., & Sinha, D. (in press). 

The effects of sex offender registration and notification on judicial decisions. Criminal 

Justice Review. 

Letourneau, E. J., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B. E., & et al. (1996). Comorbidity 

of sexual problems and posttraumatic stress disorder in female crime victims. Behavior 

Therapy, 27, 321-336. 

Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex 

offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public 

Policy, 7, 1-25. 

Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan's Law on sex offender 

reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66. 

Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 

feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 168-178. 

Levenson, J. S., & D'Amora, D. A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: 

The Emperor's New Clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168-199. 

Levenson, J. S., D'Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan's Law and its Impact on Community 

Re-entry for Sex Offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602. 

Levenson, J. S., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended 

consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59-73. 

Levenson, J. S., Letourneau, E. J., Armstrong, K. S., & Zgoba, K. M. (in press). Failure to 

register as a sex offender: Is it associated with recidivism? Justice Quarterly.

Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex 

offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 (1-2), 54-68. 

Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized liner models. 

Biometrika, 73, 13-22. 

Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community notification 

laws in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Press. 

Masho, S. W., & Ahmed, G. (2007). Age at sexual assault and posttraumatic stress disorder 

among women: Prevalence, correlates, and implications for prevention. Journal of 

Women's Health, 16, 262-271. 

Mayzer, R., Gray, M. K., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). Probation absconders: A unique risk group? 

Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 137-150. 

McDowall, D., McCleary, R., Meidinger, E. E., & Hay, R. A. (1980). Interrupted Time Series 

Analysis: Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

McManus, R. (2007). South Carolina criminal and juvenile justice trends: 2007. Blythewood, 

SC: South Carolina Department of Public Safety. 

Meloy, M. L. (2005). The sex offender next door: An analysis of recidivism, risk factors, and 

deterrence of sex offenders on probation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(2), 211-

236. 

Mullvihill, M., Wisniewski, K., Meyers, J., & Wells, J. (2003, November 5). Monster next door: 

State losing track of sex offenders. Boston Herald. 

Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime 

and Justice, An Annual Review of the Research, 23. 

58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2008). Accessed at 

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf

Payne, M. (2005, December 18). Sex offender site criticized. Southwest Florida News-Press. 

Post, L. A., Mezey, N. J., Maxwell, C., & Wibert, W. N. (2002). The rape tax: Tangible and 

intangible costs of sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 773-782. 

Prentice, R. L., & Breslow, N. E. (1978). Retrospective studies and failure time models. 

Biometrika 65, 153-158. 

Prescott, J. J. & Rockoff, J. E. (2008). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect 

criminal behavior? Unpublished manuscript. Electronic copy available at 

http://ssrn.com/abstract =1100663 (cited with author permission). 

Proctor, J. L., Badzinski, D. M., & Johnson, M. (2002). The impact of media on knowledge and 

perceptions of Megan’s Law. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 356-379. 

Randolph, M. E. & Mosack, K. E. (2006). Factors mediating the effects of childhood sexual 

abuse on risky sexual behavior among college women. Journal of Psychology & Human 

Sexuality, 18, 23-41. 

Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology and Public 

Policy, 3(1), 59-82. 

Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for 

policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62. 

Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical 

analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 455-473. 

Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series 

analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, 

Public Policy, and Law, 14, 284-302. 

Satagopan, J. J., Ben-Porat, L., Berwick, M., Robson, M., Kutler, D., & Auerbach, A. D. (2004). 

A note on competing risks in survival data analyses. British Journal of Cancer, 91, 1229-

1235. 

Schram, D., & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics 

and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington Institute for Public Policy. 

Scrucca, L., Santucci, A., & Aversa, F. (2007). Competing risk analysis using R: an easy guide 

for clinicians Bone Marrow Transplantation, 40, 381-387. 

Stokes, M.E., Davis, C.S. & Koch, G.G. (2000). Categorical Data Analysis Using The SAS 

System. Wiley. 

Terry, K. J., & Furlong, J. S. (2004). Sex offender registration and community notification: A 

"Megan's Law" sourcebook. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky sex offender registry. Federal 

Probation, 66(1), 21-26. 

Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of 

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-82. 

U.S. Department of Justice (2008, June). The national guidelines for sex offender registration 

and notification: Final guidelines, June 2008. Accessed at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/final_sornaguidelines.pdf

U.S. Marshals Service. (2007). Facts and figures Retrieved 1/21/08, from 

http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/facts.pdf 

59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Vásquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration 

and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Crime and 

Delinquency, 54, 179-192. 

Veysey, B., Zgoba, K., & Dalessandro, M. (2009). A Preliminary Step towards Evaluating the 

Impact of Megan’s Law: A Trend Analysis of Sexual Offenses in New Jersey from 1985 

to 2005. Justice Research and Policy, 10(2), 1-18. 

Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender 

rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 243-257. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington 

State: Did community notification influence recidivism? Olympia: Author. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2006). Sex offender sentencing in Washington 

State: Failure to register as a sex offender - revised. Olympia, WA: author. 

Wikström, P. H. (2008). Deterrence and deterrence experiences: Preventing crime through the 

threat of punishment. In S. G. Shoham, O. Beck, & M. Kett (Eds.), International 

handbook of penology and criminal justice (pp. 345-378). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Williams, Frank, Marilyn D. McShane, and H. Michael Dolny. (2000). Predicting parole 

absconders. Prison Journal 80, 24–38. 

Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender 

reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193-208. 

Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000, December). Sex offender community notification: 

Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief. 

Accessed at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/179992.pdf 

Zgoba, K. (2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child safety 

legislation. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(4), 385-404. 

Zgoba, K., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). Variations in the Recidivism of Treated and Non-Treated 

Sexual Offenders in New Jersey: An Examination of Three Time Frames. Victims and 

Offenders, 3(1), 10-30. 

Zgoba, K., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M., & Veysey, B. (2009). Megan’s Law: Assessing the 

Practical and Monetary Efficacy [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2/8/09 from 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf. 

60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Table 1. 

Crime Type/Offense Type RegistryEligible TISEligible1

Sex 

Assault with Criminal Sexual Intent (First and Second Degree) x x 

Assault with Criminal Sexual Intent (Third Degree) x 

Buggery x 

Child Pornography 

Criminal Sexual Conduct (First and Second Degree)a x x 

Criminal Sexual Conduct (Third Degree) x 

Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor (First and Second Degree)bx x 

Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Third Degree) 

Disseminate/Distribute/Produce Obscene Material 

Disseminate/Distribute/Produce Obscene Material to a Minor 

Engage a Child for Sexual Performance x x 

Incest x 

Indecent Exposure 

Intercourse with a Patient x 

Lewd Act 

Lewd Act upon a Minor (Under Sixteen) x 

Peeping x 

Producing, Directing, or Promoting Sexual Performance by a Child x 

Assault 

Assault and Battery 

Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature 

Assault and Battery with a Vehicle 

Assault and Battery with a Weapon 

Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill x 

Criminal Domestic Violence 

Criminal Domestic Violence of a High and Aggravated Nature x 

Great Bodily Harm/Injury to a Child x 

Lynching 

Simple Assault 

Robbery 

Armed Robbery x 

Armed Robbery with a Deadly Weapon x 

Bank Robbery x 

Common Law Robbery 

Purse Snatching 

Strong Arm Robbery x 

61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Table 2. 

Parameter Estimate Standard 

Error 

t-Value Pr > |t| 

Sex Crime Charges 

1995 θ1 0.8286 0.1903 4.35 <.0001 

Θ1 0.9518 0.1616 5.89 <.0001 

φ1 0.8925 0.1635 5.46 <.0001 

ω0 -0.1078 0.0226 -4.75 <.0001 

1999 θ1 0.8792 0.0458 19.18 <.0001 

Θ1 0.9415 0.1392 6.76 <.0001 

φ1 0.9869 0.0259 37.97 <.0001 

ω0 -0.0026 0.0469 -0.06 0.9553 

Assault Crime Charges 

1995 θ1 0.5271 0.0626 8.42 <.0001 

θ 2 0.1308 0.0657 1.99 0.0466 

Θ1 0.8771 0.0923 9.50 <.0001 

Φ1 -0.1991 0.0858 -2.32 0.0204 

ω0 -0.0114 0.0485 -0.24 0.8137 

1999 θ1 0.5267 0.0623 8.45 <.0001 

θ 2 0.1375 0.0663 2.07 0.0382 

Θ1 0.8731 0.0913 9.56 <.0001 

Φ1 -0.2055 0.0863 -2.38 0.0173 

ω0 -0.0307 0.0930 -0.33 0.7409 

Robbery Crime Charges 

1995 μ -0.0145 0.0025 -5.72 <.0001 

θ1 -0.2750 0.0689 -3.99 <.0001 

Φ1 0.9173 0.1038 8.83 <.0001 

ω0 0.0167 0.0247 0.67 0.5003 

1999 μ -0.0078 0.0028 -2.80 0.0051 

θ1 -0.2629 0.0691 -3.8 0.0001 

Φ1 0.9232 0.1095 8.43 <.0001 

ω0

62 

-0.0575 0.0257 -2.23 0.0255 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

63 

2010 

Table 3. Relationships of each covariate with sex crime recidivism. 

New Sex Crime 

Charge 

No New Sex Crime 

Charge 

Test 

Age at risk 

(mean, SD) 

32.7 years (11.0) 34.5 years (12.4) t(6062) = 3.10**

Race 

 White 

 Minority 

260 (7.3%) 

320 (9.1%) 

3280 (92.7%) 

2294 (90.0%) 

χ2 (1) = 6.20*

Priors (mean, 

SD) 

1.05 (1.94) 0.87 (1.99) t(6062) = 1.94 

Registration 

 No 

 Yes

269 (9.2%) 

221 (7.1%) 

2670 (90.8%) 

 269 (92.9%) 

χ

2

 (1) = 8.83**

Minor victim 

 No 

 Yes

312 (10.2%)

178 (5.9%) 

2736 (89.8%) 

2838 (94.1%) 

χ

2

 (1) = 38.34***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. p < .001 ***

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Table 4. Cox’s relative risks models for sexual recidivism events.

Covariate βj SE βj χ2 Hazard 

Ratio 

95% CI βj SE βj χ2 

Sex Crime Chargea Sex Crime Conv

Agec -0.01 .00 3.20 0.99 0.99, 1.00 -0.00 .00 0.39 Raced -0.13 .09 2.06 0.86 0.73, 1.05 -0.08 .12 0.40 Priorse 0.05 .01 12.77*** 1.05 1.02, 1.08 0.03 .02 1.59 Registrationf 0.11 .22 0.27 1.12 0.73, 1.73 0.14 .29 0.23 Minor g -0.46 .10 23.57*** 0.63 0.52, 0.76 -0.79 .13 37.79*** 

aAIC without covariates = 8155.6, AIC with covariates = 8120.1, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 46.85, p<.0001. bA

covariates = 5003.9, AIC with covariates = 4966.7, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 43.68, p<.001. cAge in years at 

dWhite = 1, Minority = 0. eSum of conviction dates prior to index adult sexual conviction. fPost-registration recid

registration recidivism = 0, Not registered = 0. gOffense literal indicates index crime against a minor = 1, otherwi

*

p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Table 5. Cox’s relative risks models for competing risk of new sexual, person, and nonperson charges and convic

Covariate βj SE βj χ2 Hazard 

Ratio 

95% CI βj SE βj χ2 

Sex Crime Chargea Sex Crime Conv

Agec 0.00 .00 0.00 1.00 0.99, 1.01 -0.01 .01 1.62 Raced 0.08 .13 0.36 1.08 0.84, 1.40 -0.02 .14 0.03 Priorse 0.06 .03 5.47* 1.07 1.01, 1.13 0.03 .03 0.74 Registrationf 0.25 .30 0.70 1.28 0.72, 2.30 0.10 .36 0.08 Minorg -0.48 .13 14.48*** 0.62 0.48, 0.79 -0.79 .15 28.01*** 

Person Offense Chargeh Person Offense Co

Age -0.04 .00 81.71*** 0.96 0.95, 0.97 -0.05 .01 83.90*** Race -0.59 .09 44.43*** 0.55 0.46, 0.66 -0.66 .11 38.04*** Priors 0.14 .01 90.08*** 1.15 1.12, 1.18 0.11 .02 27.39*** Registration 0.20 .21 0.92 1.23 0.81, 1.87 0.35 .24 2.11 Minor -0.21 .09 5.74* 0.81 0.69, 0.96 -0.32 .11 9.09** 

Nonperson Offense Chargej Nonperson Offense C

Age -0.04 .00 236.61*** 0.97 0.96, 0.97 -0.04 .00 179.17*** Race -0.39 .05 69.07*** 0.68 0.62, 0.74 -0.44 .05 68.08*** Priors 0.15 .01 193.10*** 1.17 1.14, 1.19 0.11 .02 35.74*** Registration 0.11 .12 0.74 1.11 0.87, 1.41 0.05 .14 0.61 Minor -0.31 .05 46.08*** 0.73 0.67, 0.80 -0.38 .05 54.52*** 

aAIC without covariates = 4409.2, AIC with covariates = 4399.8, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 19.9, p = .001. bA

= 3468.7, AIC with covariates = 3444.0, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 32.43, p< .0001. cAge in years at start of fo

Minority = 0. eSum of conviction dates prior to index adult sexual conviction. fPost-registration recidivism = 1, Precidivism = 0, Not registered = 0. gOffense literal indicates index crime against a minor = 1, otherwise = 0. hAIC 9060.8, AIC with covariates = 8828.3, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 239.7, p<.0001. iAIC without covariates = 6covariates = 6082.3, Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 228.7, p<.0001. jAIC without covariates = 33493.0, AIC with 

Wald (Model-based) χ 2(5) = 889.3, p<.0001. kAIC without covariates = 25831.0, AIC with covariates = 25238.5

χ 2(5) = 670.37, p<.0001. 

*

p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sex Offender Registration and Notification 2010 

Table 6. Chi-square analyses for sex and assault case year group outcomes. 

Sex Offense Cases Assault Offense C

Pleaded to Nonsex Offense (%) 

Pleaded to Non-TIS Offense (%) 

Final Guilty Disposition (%) 

Pleaded to Nonassault Offense (%) 

Pleaded to Non-TIS Offense (%) 

Year Group 1 9.5 40.5 53.8 2.6 31.4 Year Group 2 16 31.5 64.8 2.8 37.8 Year Group 3 20 31.5 60.7 3.2 36.2 Overall analysis Χ2(2) = 273** Χ2(2) = 46** Χ2(2) = 130** Χ2(2) = 6 ns Χ2(2) = 6 ns Pair-wise comparisons  Year Group 1 to 2 Χ2(1) = 100** Χ2(1) = 26** Χ2(1) = 123** NA NA  Year Group 1 to 3 Χ2(1) = 274** Χ2(1) = 40** Χ2(1) = 60** NA NA  Year Group 2 to 3 Χ2(1) = 29** Χ2(1) = 0 ns Χ2(1) = 19** NA NA *p-value < 0.01, ** p-value < 0.001 Note: Year Group 1 = 1990 to 1994; Year Group 2 = 1995 to 1998; Year Group 3 = 1999 to 2004.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Table 7. Point (95% interval) estimates of odds ratios for GEE models analyzing sex offense 

cases. 

Pleaded to Nonsex 

Offense 

Pleaded to Non-TIS 

Offense 

Final Guilty 

Disposition 

Odds ratio Confidence 

interval 

Odds 

ratio 

Confidence 

interval 

Odds 

ratio 

Confidence 

interval 

Defendant age 0.98** 0.97, 0.98 0.99** 0.98, 0.99 1.00 0.99, 1.00 

Race (White = 1) 0.87* 0.79, 0.94 1.00 0.90, 1.12 1.16** 1.09, 1.24 

Prior Convictions 0.01 0.99, 1.03 0.99 0.96, 1.01 1.00 0.98, 1.01 

Registry-eligible 

offense (Yes = 1) 

3.12** 2.61, 3.74 0.70 0.31, 1.60 0.41** 0.36, 0.45 

TIS-eligible 

offense (Yes = 1) 

1.05 0.96, 1.15 NA NA 0.96 0.90, 1.03 

Crime against 

minor (Yes = 1) 

0.84* 0.77, 0.92 1.31** 1.17, 1.47 1.50** 1.40, 1.61 

Year Group 2 to 1 1.86** 1.64, 2.09 0.65** 0.56, 0.76 1.54** 1.41, 1.67 

Year Group 3 to 1 2.45** 2.19, 2.74 0.62** 0.55, 0.71 1.27** 1.17, 1.37 

Year Group 3 to 2 1.32** 1.19, 1.46 0.96 0.83, 1.10 0.83** 0.76, 0.90 

*

p-value < 0.01, ** p-value < 0.001 

TIS refers to Truth in Sentencing. 

Note: Year Group 1 = 1990 to 1994; Year Group 2 = 1995 to 1998; Year Group 3 = 1999 to 

2004.

67 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

STATISTICAL APPENDIX 

AIM 1 

Prevention (General Deterrence) of Sexual Violence 

 The aim of this study was to examine whether registration and notification influenced 

first-time sex crime charges—that is, analyses aimed to address the question “did this policy 

deter sexual violence?” 

Full Reference: 

Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Sinha, D. (in press). 

Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on deterrence of 

adult sex crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Study-Specific Data Analytic Strategy 

 The univariate Box-Jenkins interrupted Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average 

(ARIMA) technique (Box & Jenkins, 1976; Box, Jenkins, & Reinsel, 1994) was used to test the 

intervention effect of South Carolina’s registration (enacted in 1995) and its Internet-based 

notification (enacted in 1999) policies on rates of initial charges for the three types of offenses. 

ARIMA was chosen to model the inherent autocorrelation frequently observed in time series 

data, which violates the basic assumption of independence of observations required by other 

analytic techniques (e.g., ordinary least squares regression) (McDowall, McCleary, Meidinger & 

Hay, 1980; Brocklebank & Dickey, 2003). 

 Residual autocorrelation is identified and removed and then the binary intervention 

variables (1995 and 1999) were added into separate time-series ARIMA models. This resulted in 

six analyses: three assessing the effect of the 1995 intervention on sex, assault, and robbery 

charges, and three assessing the effect of the 1999 intervention on these offense types. The 

0 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

intervention term tests for a significant change in slope between the time-series data sorted 

before and after the period of intervention. The 1995 intervention dummy variable was coded 0 

for all months from January 1990 to December 1994, and coded 1 for all months from January 

1995 to December 2005. Similarly the 1999 intervention variable was coded 0 for all months 

from January 1990 to December 1998 and 1 for all months from January 1999 to December 

2005. 

ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Sex Crime Charges 

 The time-series for the rate of sex crime charges did not require additional data 

transformations. A seasonal (D = 1) differencing of 12 months yielded the series to be mean 

stationary. Following identification of appropriate autoregressive (AR) and moving average 

(MA) components, the binary intervention component was modeled separately for 1995 and 

1999. The final model was given by: 

t I

 )1)(1(

)1)(1(

12

1

12

1 1

0 BB

aBB

IZ t

t t −−

Θ−−

+=

φ

θ

ω (1) 

where Zt is the original series, 1( ) indicates 1 12 − B st-order seasonal differencing,φ1 is the AR 

component of order 1, θ1 is the MA component of order 1, Θ1 is the seasonal MA component of 

order 12, ω0 is the intervention coefficient and is the (zero mean) error sequence or the 

white-noise with variance . 

at

2 σ

 ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Assault Crime Charges 

 The time-series for rate of assault crime arrests demonstrated non-stationarity in both 

mean and variance. Hence, the Box-Cox square root transformation given by )1(*2 ~

t ZZ t −=

was used to render the series stable in variance, where Zt

~ and are respectively the Zt

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

Zt transformed and original series. T transformed series ~ was used for subsequent analyses. 

Using the augmented DF tests, both simple (d = 1) and seasonal (D = 1) differencing (of order 

12) yielded the series Zt

~ to be mean-stationary. After identification of regular and seasonal AR 

and MA components, the binary intervention component was added independently for each of 

the two intervention years. The final model was given as: 

t I

1)( )

1B

−

Θ

1)(1(

1( )1)(

12 12

1

4 12

21

0 BBB

BB a

I t

t t −Φ−

−−− +=

θθ

ω ~

Z (2) 

where Zt

~ is the transformed series, − B)1( denotes 1st-order simple differencing, 

) denotes 1 12 1( − B st-order seasonal differencing, Φ1 is the seasonal AR component of order 12, 

θ1 and θ 2 are the MA components of respective orders 1 and 4, Θ1 is the seasonal MA 

component of order 12, ω0 is the intervention coefficient and is the (zero mean) error 

sequence or the white-noise with variance . 

at

2 σ

ARIMA Analyses for Rates of Robbery Crime Charges 

 The time-series for the rate of robbery offense arrests appeared stable in variance and did 

not require additional data transformation. The augmented DF tests indicated that a seasonal (D 

= 1) differencing (of 12 months) resulted in a mean-stationary series. After identification of 

regular and seasonal AR and MA components the binary intervention components were added 

for each of the two intervention years. The final model is given as: 

t I

) 12 B

)1(

1)(1(

12

1

3

1

0 B

B a

I t

t t −

Θ−−

++=

θ Z ωμ (3) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

where is the original series, denotes 1 Zt 1( ) 12 − B st-order seasonal differencing, θ1 is the MA 

components of order 3, is the seasonal MA component of order 12, Θ1 ω0 is the intervention 

coefficient and is the (zero mean) error sequence or the white-noise with variance . at

2 σ

Follow-up Analyses 

 The pattern of results suggests that the 1995 SORN policy was associated with a 

general deterrent effect on the commission of first-time sex crimes. That is, rates of sex crime 

arrests, but not rates of arrests for other crime types declined significantly after the initial 

implementation of South Carolina’s SORN policy. However, the start of this decline might have 

predated 1995, in which case factors other than SORN could account for the reduction in firsttime sex crime charges. Two separate models were fitted to the time series data to estimate the 

effects of 1993 and 1994. The estimate of ω0 for the 1993 intervention model was -0.034 and not 

significant (p = 0.36) whereas the estimate of ω0 for the 1994 intervention model was -0.097 and 

significant (p < 0.001). Practically, this latter finding indicates an approximately 9% decrease in 

the rate of sex offenses per 10,000 population post-1994 as compared to pre-1994. However, this 

latter result could be influenced by the strong negative effect of the 1995 intervention identified 

previously. Thus, a final follow-up analysis involved fitting a model in which the year 1994 was 

included as a seasonal ramp component with a model coefficient ω0 and the year 1995 was 

included as a true intervention with a step function and model coefficient ω1 . 

Results of this final model indicated ω0 = -0.003, a nonsignificant finding, and ω1 = -

0.09, a significant finding (p < .01). That is, the effect of the 1994 intervention lost significance 

when included in the model with the 1995 intervention, which retained significance. This finding 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

further supports an interpretation that the primary time of the reduction in first-time sex crimes 

occurred on or after 1995 and not previously.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

AIM 2 

Specific Deterrence of Sexual Recidivism 

 This study addressed the question of whether registration and notification reduced sexual 

and nonsexual recidivism rates. 

Full Reference: 

Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D., & Armstrong, K. S. (in press). 

Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. 

Criminal Justice Policy Review. 

Study-Specific Data Analytic Strategy 

 Both univariate analyses and Cox’s relative risks (survival) models were used to 

investigate whether registration status influenced recidivism. In the case of univariate models, 

time at risk was not controlled. Thus, offenders with earlier conviction dates or dates of release 

were followed for a longer period of time and, as a result, were at longer risk for recidivism. This 

limitation is most relevant for the “registration” covariate, in that registered offenders tended to 

have more recent conviction dates and thus registration status and time at risk were confounded 

in the univariate analysis. Despite this limitation we include the univariate analyses to provide 

readers with some context against which to evaluate the Cox relative risks models. 

 Cox relative risks models were used to estimate the hazard of reoffending at any time 

since the time of the index sex crime (or incarceration release date) while controlling for time at 

risk. To examine the effect of registration on recidivism (the primary covariate of interest), new 

sex crime charge events that occurred after initial registration dates were coded as “1,” and 

events that occurred prior to or in the absence of registration were coded as “0.” 

For purposes of the analytic model that examined sexual recidivism, the censoring 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

mechanism was assumed to be non-informative. Thus, an offender removed from risk of sexual 

recidivism (e.g., unable to reoffend sexually due to being incarcerated for a nonsex crime) was 

considered comparable to another offender still at risk of sex crime recidivism at that time (Klein 

& Moeschberger, 2003). However, censoring could be informative, in part because risk factors 

for nonsexual recidivism overlap with risk factors for sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 

1998). To address “informative” censoring, three types of recidivism events (sexual, violent, and 

nonviolent offense charges) were modeled as competing types of recidivism events, with the 

estimated survival for each type of recidivism event (Satagopan et al., 2004; Scrucca, Santucci, 

& Aversa, 2007). For these “competing risks” analyses, the endpoints (or causes) included 

censoring (i.e., no new offense, coded as 0), new sex crime charge (coded as 1), new person 

offense charge (coded as 2), or new nonperson charge (coded as 3). The cause-specific hazard 

(CSH) model then provides the instantaneous risk of failure from cause j at time t , given the 

person is at risk of recidivism due to all types of competing events at time t. Relative risks model 

(Cox, 1972) was used to determine the effects of covariates on each of the three cause-specific 

hazard/risk functions at time t (Prentice & Breslow, 1978). 

To address problems associated with incarceration periods (during which time offenders 

were not at risk of committing community-based offenses), the “counting process” approach 

(Klein & Moeschberger, 2003) was used to remove periods of incarceration from the risk set of 

that time point (Scrucca et al., 2007). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2010 

AIM 3 

Unintended Effects on Judicial Decision Making for Sex Crime Cases 

 This study addressed the question of whether registration and notification influenced the 

likelihood that a sex crime charge would be reduced (from a sex crime to a nonsex crime) at 

disposition. This study also examined final dispositions for sex crime charges. 

Full Reference: 

Letourneau, E. J., Levenson, J. S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K., S., & Sinha, D., (in 

press). The effects of sex offender registration and notification on judicial decisions. Criminal 

Justice Review.

Study-Specific Data Analytic Strategy 

 A two-step data analytic process was utilized. First, univariate analyses were conducted 

with results presented for the main covariates of interest (i.e., year group differences, registryeligibility indicator, minor victim indicator, and TIS-eligibility indicator). Second, generalized 

estimating equations (GEE) methods were used to model outcomes. 

 Analyses examined (a) the probability of initial sex offense charges being reduced to 

nonsex offenses at disposition; (b) the probability of initial TIS-eligible offense charges being 

reduced to non-TIS offenses at disposition, and (c) the probability of guilty disposition. For each 

crime type (sex and assault), initial GEE models compared the effects of Year Groups 2 and 3 

with respect to Year Group 1. Follow-up GEE models compared the effect of Year Group 3 with 

respect to Year Group 2. GEE methods account for association among repeated offenses 

committed by the same defendant (Liang & Zeger, 1986). Specifically, in the GEE analysis, 

initial parameter estimates (used as starting values) are obtained under a generalized linear model 

framework. The clustering information (i.e., repeated offenses committed by the same defendant) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Effects of Sex Offender Registration and Notification

8

2010 

is usually incorporated in the model assuming a working correlation matrix. Then through a 

series of iterative procedures, the parameter estimates as well as the correlation matrix are 

updated at each step until the algorithm converges to yield the final estimates. The final 

parameter estimates are robust to misspecification of the working correlation matrix which 

makes this an attractive strategy for modeling non-normal clustered (correlated) data. The GEE 

procedure in SAS provides several options pertaining to the structure of the working correlation 

matrix (e.g., autoregressive(1), exchangeable, independent, m-dependent, unstructured). In this 

study we assumed that the correlation matrix for a repeated defendant was exchangeable, 

meaning there is a fixed correlation among any two units in the same cluster. Importantly, GEE 

methods provide robust and consistent estimates of the marginal/population averaged regression 

coefficients (effects of covariates on the response) and their corresponding standard errors which 

are valid under weak assumptions about the true association structure among the repeated 

observations within the same defendant (Stokes, Davis & Koch, 2000). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.