National Conference on Sex Offender Registries.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics



National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

April 1998, NCJ-168965

Papers presented by

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

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

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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





Contents

Foreword, v

Introduction, vii

                      Keynote address     
Patty Wetterling      The Jacob Wetterling story, 3

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

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

Lisa Gursky Sorkin     The trilogy of Federal statutes, 16

Donna Feinberg         Justice Department guideline changes 
                       and clarifications, 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Contributors' biographies, 109          
                       Appendix, 117          

Foreword

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director




Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Jacob Wetterling story


PATTY WETTERLING

Children's Rights Advocate

The Jacob Wetterling Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning more from national data collection programs


DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

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

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

NIBRS - The next generation of crime information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Panel introduction

MARLENE BECKMAN

Special Counsel, Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LISA GURSKY SORKIN

Chief of Staff, Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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








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




Donna FEINBERG

Attorney, Office of General Counsel

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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








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


JAMES C. SWAIN

Director, State and Local Assistance Division

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Feinb