TABLE OF CONTENTS - Sex Offender Management Board



Delaware Sex Offender Housing Report

Prepared by the Criminal Justice Council and

the Sex Offender Management Board

Approved July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction/Background

Public Safety Issues and Living Arrangements

Current residency restrictions

Housing policies limitations – federal, state, and local housing authorities

Local Ordinances

Continuum of Housing

Statewide Population Data

Demographic Information

Registered, Homeless and Risk Assessment

Number of offenders by zip code

Projected number of sex offenders to be released from DOC facilities

Average number of arrests – failure to register/re-register

Proximity to Schools

Sex Offender Registration/Community Notification

Tier system description

Current State laws

Treatment Options & Efforts

Treatment in DOC facilities

Treatment in the community

Work completed by SOMB – standards

Grants Funded Programs and Enhancements

Juvenile Implications

Nuances of the juvenile system

Treatment – in and out of state

Transition – home and school

Foster care

National Information

Residency restrictions in other states

Shared Living Arrangement’s in CO

Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction/Background

Delaware established a Sex Offender Management Board pursuant to Senate Bill 90, which was enacted July 2007. This legislation established a Sex Offender Management Board (“SOMB”) to develop and standardize the evaluation, identification, treatment, and continued monitoring of sex offenders at each stage of the criminal justice system in order to reduce recidivism and protect victims and potential victims. As part of its mandate to implement a sex offender management model founded on evidence based practices, the legislation directed the SOMB to “research and analyze the safety issues raised by living arrangements for and the location of sex offenders within the community, including but not limited to shared or structured living arrangements. At a minimum, the SOMB shall consider the issues raised by the location of sex offender residences, especially in proximity to public or private schools and child care facilities, and public notification of the location of sex offender residences.” 11 Del. C. §4120A(d)(6). The SOMB assigned a workgroup to complete the mandate which included representatives from the Department of Correction, Public Defender’s Office, Attorney General’s Office, Delaware State Police, Youth Rehabilitative Services, DELJIS, SAC and Criminal Justice Council.

Policymakers nationwide continue to question the efficacy of residency restrictions in enhancing public safety against sex offenders. The sex offender residency restriction was a well- intended effort to keep the children of our community safe. It has, however, had unintended consequences that may decrease community safety. While limited, research findings indicate residency restrictions have little to no effect on sexual re-offense. Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three ideas, none of which is supported by the evidence. First, restrictions are based on the belief that all sex offenders re-offend, however, research indicates that only 5.3% of sex offenders are rearrested for a new sex crime within three years of release. Second, restrictions are based on the belief that sex offenders are unable to change, however, effective sex offender treatment can reduce recidivism by 40%. Third, restrictions are based on the belief that children need to be protected from predatory sex offending by strangers, however, ninety-three (93%) percent of child sexual-abuse perpetrators are known to their victims. (I)

The unintended consequences of residency restrictions are as follows:

• Homelessness and non-compliance with registration requirements.

• Inaccurate registries provide the public with a false sense of security.

• For many offenders, lifetime residency restriction lasts beyond the requirement that they be listed on the sex offender registry. This makes enforcement nearly impossible.

• Lifetime residency restrictions may have an effect on plea agreements necessary to protect children from the trial process.

• Locating appropriate housing for sex offenders has become increasingly difficult. There are no provisions for those offenders monitored on community supervision to have living arrangements that are most appropriate.

• Efforts to rehabilitate offenders and minimize re-offending are compromised when an offender cannot achieve success with employment, family and community connection, treatment, and a stable residence.

Public Safety Issues and Living Arrangements

What are the public safety issues and living arrangements in Delaware? The next few sections of the report examine the restrictions, housing options and sex offender population data to determine the scope for Delaware.

Delaware Law

The current Delaware statute states:

Title 11 § 1112. Sexual offenders; prohibitions from school zones.

(a) Any person who is a sexual offender and who:

(1) Resides on or within 500 feet of the property of any school shall be guilty of a class

G felony.

(2) Loiters on or within 500 feet of the property of any school shall be guilty of a class F

felony.

(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) "Loiter" means:

a. Standing, sitting idly, whether or not the person is in a vehicle, or remaining in or around school property, while not having reason or relationship involving custody of or responsibility for a pupil or any other specific or legitimate reason for being there; or

b. Standing, sitting idly, whether or not the person is in a vehicle, or remaining in or around school property, for the purpose of engaging or soliciting another person to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual penetration, sexual contact, or sexual harassment, sexual extortion, or indecent exposure.

(2) "Reside" means to dwell permanently or continuously or to occupy a dwelling or home as one's permanent or temporary place of abode.

(3) "School" means any preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school, vocational technical school or any other institution which has as its primary purpose the education or instruction of children under 16 years of age.

(4) "Sexual offender" shall mean any person who:

a. Has been convicted in this State of the commission or attempt to commit any sexual offense upon a child under 16 years of age under § 767, § 768, § 769, § 770, § 771, § 772, § 773, § 776, § 777, § 777A, § 778, § 778A, § 1108, § 1109, § 1111, and/or § 1112A of this title; or

b. Has been discharged or paroled from a penal institution where that person was confined because of the commission or attempt to commit 1 or more of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b)(4)a. of this section; or

c. Has been adjudged guilty but mentally ill under § 401 of this title or not guilty by reason of insanity under § 401 of this title for the commission or attempt to commit 1 or more of the offenses enumerated in paragraph a. of this subsection; or

d. Has been convicted in any other state of any offense which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as 1 or more of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b)(4)a. of this section.

(c) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the person was unaware that the prohibited conduct took place on or within 500 feet of any school property.

Housing policies limitations – federal, state, and local housing authorities

Upon release, offenders face resource issues because they require services such as substance abuse treatment; mental and general health services; education; job skills/employment; housing; and community integration. Housing and employment are major hurdles newly released offenders must address. Most offenders are not eligible for Section 8 and public housing, particularly within the first 5 years post conviction. Many offenders have very limited options in non-profit housing programs and statewide loan programs. Housing is difficult, particularly for sex offenders because transitional housing may be located in restricted areas.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) charges Public Housing Authorities with maintaining safe housing communities, but permits considerable discretion in determining admission policies: only individuals who are subject to lifetime registration under a state sex offender registration program and those who have been convicted of the manufacture or production of methamphetamine in federally assisted housing are barred for life.

Local Ordinances

Several towns and municipalities have passed sex offender residency restrictions in addition to the state law. The Town of Bridgeville issued a local ordinance (Chapter 193) prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, or child-care facility. The Town of Milton imposed ordinance (Chapter 174) prohibiting sex offenders from living within 3,000 feet of any school, park, or child-care facility. After a notification period, penalties include fines and civil remedies. The City of Dover amended its ordinance (Chapter 70) to prohibit Tier II and Tier III sex offenders from living or working within 500 feet of a daycare center and from participating in certain events involving children. These additional restrictions make it even more difficult to find sex offender housing and further displaces housing options.

Continuum of Housing

Community programs that provide services to sex offenders are very limited. There are maybe only one or two agencies in each county willing to assist in housing sex offenders. It is also difficult to maintain a list of which providers are willing to provide services to sex offenders since agencies are apprehensive about being publicly listed as such providers.

Housing options vary depending on the individual case. Some offenders may be able to live with family members or friends in a residential home, while others may only utilize motels, shelters, or resort to homelessness. Living in a motel is not a cost effective alternative and often not a stable environment for the offender. Many offenders are not home owners and are unable to live with friends or relatives. There are six major categories of stable housing options that were reviewed for supporting successful reentry: private-market rental housing; public housing; affordable housing (nonprofit or privately owned and managed); halfway houses; supportive housing; and specialized reentry housing. (See chart below). The last three types are very limited and rarely available. When addressing the housing needs of the sex offender population, we must consider the State’s overall availability of affordable housing.

|Private-market rental housing – obtain rental property in private market |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|Most commonly available |Rental property owners have the option to screen and refuse to |

|Public assistance may be used if allowable |rent to individuals with criminal records. |

|May use housing choice voucher (section 8) if allowable |Public assistance may be denied to |

|Greater flexibility in location choice |individuals with criminal records – such as sex offenses |

|Public housing - local housing authority decides priority and eligibility and tenants usually pay 30% of adjusted income towards |

|rent |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|More affordable |Under federal law, public housing authorities or any federally |

|Units may be available designed for people with physical or |assisted housing provider may refuse to house people who have |

|mental disabilities |been convicted of certain offenses – such as sex offenses |

| |Application process is lengthy. |

|Affordable housing (nonprofit or privately owned and managed) - Often coordinated or |

|run by community development corporations or neighborhood-based housing organizations. Generally tenant pays 30 percent of income |

|toward rent. |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|More affordable than private-market rental housing. |Limited availability |

|Depending on source(s) of funding, may not be bound by some of |Long waiting lists |

|the statutory restrictions that govern public housing. |Owners may prohibit individuals with criminal histories |

|May provide support services on site. | |

|Halfway houses - For individuals close to or just after release, usually in a highly supervised environment. Housing may be |

|conditional on compliance with community-based service plans or other conditions. |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|Offers transition between the fully secure, structured, monitored|May be available for limited duration only. |

|environment of incarceration and the community. |Availability is limited, and waiting lists may be long. |

|May enable individuals to work during their residency while |May not be desirable to released individuals because of rigid |

|keeping their expenses low. |structure, including possible limitations on visitation and |

|May have alternative funding streams |freedom to come and go at will. |

| |Does not address post-sentence, post-parole, or longer-term |

| |housing needs. |

|Supportive housing - Generally tenant pays 30 percent of income toward rent. Mission-driven to serve low income or disadvantaged |

|people. Depending on funding source(s), eligibility may be limited to people who were homeless prior to short periods of |

|incarceration and/or to people with disabilities. Often coordinated or run by community development corporations or |

|neighborhood-based housing organizations. |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|Offers on-site services that may include case management, |Under federal law, public housing authorities or any federally |

|assistance with household chores, and mental health and substance|assisted housing provider may refuse people who have been |

|abuse counseling. |convicted of certain offenses – such as sex offenses. |

|May offer permanent housing. |If privately operated, owners may exercise discretion to exclude |

| |people with criminal histories. |

| |Availability and funding may be limited from one jurisdiction to |

| |another. |

|Specialized reentry housing - Some form of criminal justice supervision is typically a prerequisite for living in this type of |

|housing. |

|Benefits |Restrictions |

|Addresses specific housing and service needs of formerly |Difficult to create due to lack of dedicated funding streams and |

|incarcerated people. |because community opposition frequently arises when trying to |

|Nonprofit staff members are trained to interface with criminal |secure a site for housing for individuals with criminal records. |

|justice personnel. |Very limited availability. |

|Offers opportunity for peer-support and mentorship among | |

|releasees. | |

Source: Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide by: Katherine Cortes & Shawn Rogers, Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York, New York, 2010

Shared Living Arrangements (“SLAs”)are commonly defined as multiple sex offenders living together in a house that they either rent or own. This would fall under the “specialized reentry housing” option described above. The residence is the sex offenders’ responsibility, not the treatment provider’s. The residence location and housemates should be approved in advance by the treatment provider and supervising probation officer. The SLA philosophy in many aspects follows the Therapeutic Community treatment modality. Often, group services are located within the home. SLAs may contribute to improving the accountability and social skills of a sex offender as well as enhance treatment. These factors may strengthen probation & paroles capability to monitor the individuals.

The Homeless Planning Council in Delaware is a great source of information on housing within the State. The website is . Delaware is home to programs that augment the generic housing chart listed above, including emergency shelter programs, transitional housing programs, and permanent housing programs. Lengths of stay for the programs are typically 30-60 days for emergency shelters; up to 2 years for transitional housing; and there is no length of stay requirement for permanent supportive housing.

Statewide Population Data

Demographic Information

The state currently has 4,648 registered sex offenders.

• 731 are Tier III;

• 2,496 are Tier II;

• 1,083 are Tier I;

• 338 have not been assessed;

• 3,227 are listed on the public website;

• 106 are homeless.

At any point in time there are approximately one thousand sex offenders in Level IV and V institutions and approximately 950 sex offenders on community supervision. During calendar year 2011, Superior Court sentenced 161 new sex offenders. The Delaware sex offender population continues to grow and must be consistently managed, particularly through a reentry process.

Delaware Probation and Parole has specialized units in each county to monitor sex offenders. Thirty officers and three supervisors manage approximately 950 offenders. Officers have smaller caseloads and advanced training due to the complexities of managing this population. Probation officers monitor compliance with court orders, sex offender laws, and sex offense specific evaluation/treatment. Officers complete on-going risk assessment and increased contact with offenders. Sex offender specific conditions are used in addition to standard probation conditions. These conditions restrict access to potential victims, computers, and pornography. Currently Probation and Parole is supervising 32 homeless sex offenders.

The profile of sex offenders (918) supervised by probation and parole in 2011 was:

• 98% male

• 81% over the age of 25

• 45% black, 52% white

• 61% high school education or higher

• 46% employed including part-time

• 12% retired or receiving social security disability

• 81% child victims

• 57% actively participating in sex offender treatment and an additional 31% are

participating in mental health, substance abuse, or domestic violence treatment.

• 1% committed new sex offenses

Probation officers and treatment providers complete risk assessment on those sex offenders supervised by community corrections. The prevailing risk assessment tool is the Static-99R.

Of those sex offenders assessed (857) for risk of sexual re-offense

• 29% scored low risk. Recidivism is predicted at 11% ten years out

• 43% scored medium-low risk. Recidivism is predicted at 14% ten years out

• 22% scored medium-high risk. Recidivism is predicted at 38% ten years out

• 6% scored high risk. Recidivism is predicted at 45% ten years out

Of the Tier III sex offenders (188) supervised with GPS:

• 48 cases scored low risk for sexual re-offense

• 75 cases scored medium low risk

• 37 cases scored medium-high risk

• 27 cases scored high risk

• 1 case child pornography only

In 2011, 896 sex offenders had a total of 1174 victims.

• 86% female (1014)

• 26% under the age of 10 (309)

• 31% range in age from 11-14 (368)

• 23% range in age from 15-17 (269)

• 19% 18 and over (228)

On 4/14/12 Deljis provided a report identifying 106 current homeless sex offenders.  Thirty-two (32) of those offenders were active on probation at the time of the report.  Thirty-six (36) offenders were active on probation sometime between 1/11/12-4/14/12 but currently closed. Of the 36 cases, 11 closures identified significant violation behavior related to homelessness.  

The Delaware statistical analysis center completed an adult sex offender recidivism study in 2007 (Huenke et al 2007, p.13). The sample consisted of 385 individuals who had a Delaware Superior Court disposition in the calendar year 2004 where there was at least one sex offense charge in the case. The dispositions ranged from charges of misdemeanor Indecent Exposure to felony Rape in the first degree. The study determined there was a 55% chance of recidivism for all crime and 3% were re-arrested for a sex offense. The 385 offenders had a total of 5,665 Delaware Arrest events in their history. Of the 2004 sex offenders, 92.2 percent had one or more prior arrest events preceding this sex offense arrest. Almost half (47.8 percent) of the sample had 10 or less arrest events, while the remaining offenders (52.2 percent) had more than 10 arrest events.

The same recidivism study also revealed the following:

• 77% of the victims were under the age of 18

• 24% received a prison term greater than one year

• 20 % received a jail term of less than one year

• 55% were sentenced to Level IV work release or probation

• 49 % of sexual penetration cases were sentenced to prison

• 13% of sexual contact cases were sentenced to prison for those sex offenders residing in the community for at least two years;

• 61 % rearrested two or more times

• 31% rearrested for a new felony

• 3 % rearrested for a new sex crime

• 86 % have been re-arrested

(Delaware Sex Offenders - Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, Statistical Analysis Center, January 2008)

Number of offenders by zip code

|Registered Sex Offender Residing in Delaware |

|Zip Code |Tier 1 |Tier 2 |Tier 3 |Non Tiered |Public Web |All Registered |Homeless |

|19701 |20 |23 |6 |5 |29 |54 |1 |

|19702 |50 |65 |9 |2 |74 |126 |3 |

|19703 |16 |18 |6 |2 |24 |42 |3 |

|19706 |6 |6 |0 |1 |6 |13 |0 |

|19707 |4 |3 |1 |0 |4 |8 |0 |

|19709 |16 |31 |2 |2 |33 |51 |3 |

|19710 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |

|19711 |24 |20 |5 |0 |25 |49 |4 |

|19713 |31 |31 |2 |3 |33 |67 |0 |

|19720 |62 |130 |32 |8 |162 |232 |9 |

|19733 |0 |0 |2 |0 |2 |2 |0 |

|19734 |10 |19 |5 |1 |24 |35 |0 |

|19801 |51 |131 |31 |15 |162 |228 |25 |

|19802 |41 |86 |32 |6 |118 |165 |4 |

|19803 |5 |7 |1 |0 |8 |13 |0 |

|19804 |23 |35 |2 |1 |37 |61 |0 |

|19805 |67 |118 |21 |9 |139 |215 |5 |

|19806 |3 |14 |0 |0 |14 |17 |0 |

|19807 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |1 |0 |

|19808 |24 |33 |3 |5 |36 |65 |0 |

|19809 |17 |25 |7 |0 |32 |49 |0 |

|19810 |8 |13 |0 |1 |13 |22 |1 |

|19899 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |

|19901 |34 |110 |34 |6 |144 |184 |9 |

|19904 |24 |87 |34 |3 |121 |148 |12 |

|19905 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |

|19930 |1 |1 |0 |0 |1 |2 |0 |

|19933 |15 |35 |16 |5 |51 |71 |1 |

|19934 |7 |40 |7 |1 |47 |55 |0 |

|19936 |2 |1 |1 |2 |2 |6 |0 |

|19938 |8 |18 |4 |0 |22 |30 |0 |

|19939 |14 |7 |6 |1 |13 |28 |0 |

|19940 |3 |20 |6 |0 |26 |29 |0 |

|19941 |5 |11 |10 |1 |21 |27 |0 |

|19943 |21 |58 |8 |2 |66 |89 |1 |

|19945 |9 |9 |3 |0 |12 |21 |0 |

|19946 |4 |12 |0 |0 |12 |16 |0 |

|19947 |35 |136 |62 |3 |198 |236 |5 |

|19950 |7 |25 |5 |0 |30 |37 |0 |

|19951 |2 |2 |0 |1 |2 |5 |0 |

|19952 |10 |35 |11 |1 |46 |57 |0 |

|19953 |5 |17 |9 |0 |26 |31 |0 |

|19954 |3 |6 |2 |0 |8 |11 |0 |

|19955 |1 |2 |0 |0 |2 |3 |0 |

|19956 |20 |53 |15 |6 |68 |94 |1 |

|19958 |11 |27 |9 |1 |36 |48 |0 |

|19960 |12 |29 |10 |0 |39 |51 |2 |

|19961 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |1 |0 |

|19962 |10 |50 |8 |0 |58 |68 |0 |

|19963 |18 |37 |9 |3 |46 |67 |0 |

|19964 |0 |4 |0 |0 |4 |4 |0 |

|19966 |23 |58 |16 |3 |74 |100 |1 |

|19968 |3 |19 |2 |2 |21 |26 |1 |

|19970 |4 |2 |2 |0 |4 |8 |0 |

|19971 |4 |12 |4 |4 |16 |24 |0 |

|19973 |37 |58 |15 |3 |73 |113 |0 |

|19975 |6 |6 |1 |0 |7 |13 |0 |

|19977 |35 |115 |93 |6 |208 |249 |3 |

|19979 |0 |2 |1 |0 |3 |3 |0 |

|19980 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |

|Totals |875 |1913 |570 |116 |2483 |3474 |94 |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Note anytime there is a prison in the zip code area the numbers will be much higher example |

| 19977 has James T. Vaughn, etc. | | | | |

Projected number of sex offenders to be released from DOC facilities

2/12/12 DELJIS COGNOS report anticipated release date. Some offenders may be released to a Level IV facility.

|Month | |Number of Releases |

|12-Feb | |34 | |

|12-Mar | |28 | |

| 12-Apr | |28 | |

|12-May | |24 | |

| 12-Jun | |28 | |

|12-Jul | |20 | |

|12-Aug | |16 | |

|12-Sep | |15 | |

|12-Oct | |10 | |

|12-Nov | |9 | |

|12-Dec | |18 | |

| | |230 | |

Average number of arrests – failure to register/re-register

Below are arrest counts for the past 5 years for failure to register/re-register – this list also includes outstanding Rule 9 warrants, if there are any. Delaware State Police indicates a 95% compliance rate with the sex offender registry. Efforts may be made to educate offenders on how to maintain compliance with registry requirements prior to being arrested for such matters.

Year       FTR arrests

2011       332

2010       275

2009       310

2008       319

2007       333

Proximity to Schools

Since 11 Del. C. § 1112 has been in place, few arrests are generated as a result. From 2002 to 2011, only 50 arrests have been made for school zone law violations. Of these 50 arrests, 42 were nolle prosequi, 6 were found guilty, 1 not guilty and 1 dismissed case. Reasons behind the small number of arrests vary.

Sex Offender Registration/Community Notification

Delaware Judicial Information System (“DELJIS”) maintains the Sex Offender Registry.  The Delaware State Police Sex Offender Apprehension and Registration Unit (“SOR”) in collaboration with local law enforcement agencies are responsible for the registration and verification of sex offenders as well as the notification of communities where sex offenders reside throughout the state.  SOR is in the State Bureau of Identification (“SBI”) branch of the State Police. SOR is responsible for updating offender information on the Delaware public sex offender registry, located on line at . Any sex offender convicted of a crime included in 11 Del.C. §4121(a)(4) is required to register and be placed on a Sex Offender Registry. Approximately 200 new offenders are placed on the sex offender registry each year.

All persons convicted of a criteria sexual offense or the attempt to commit a criteria sexual offense are required to register all current addresses, places of study, and/or employment within three business days to the Delaware State Police. Sex offenders will be registered by the appropriate agency prior to their release from a Level IV or V facility, the Delaware Psychiatric Center, or any like institution, or in the case of direct probation by the Court. If a sex offender changes his/her address, place of employment, or place of study they are required to re-register within three business days.

Community Notification means notice which is provided by any method devised specifically to notify members of the public who are likely to encounter a sex offender in public. Methods of notification may include door to door appearances, mail/electronic mail, telephone, news media, or any combination thereof, as well as inclusion within searchable records available to the public (e.g. on-line sex offender registry).

All persons convicted of a criteria sexual offense or the attempt to commit a criteria sexual offense are assigned a Risk Assessment Tier by the sentencing authority to determine the level of community notification. Risk assessment tiers are assigned based on the crime of conviction unless otherwise requested by the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General may only request a higher tier level, not a lower tier.

Risk Assessment Tier III allows for the highest level of community notification, including neighbors, local schools, and childcare facilities, as well as inclusion within searchable records available to the public. Tier III offenders must register for life, must verify in person to the Delaware State Police every 90 days, and if the offender is designated as homeless , he or she must verify in person to the Delaware State Police every week. Crimes requiring Tier III designation are generally first and second degree sexual offenses or those involving a child under the age of 13 years.

Risk Assessment Tier II allows for a moderate level of community notification, including neighbors, local schools and childcare facilities, as well as inclusions within searchable records available to the public. Tier II offenders must register for 25 years, must verify in person every 6 months, and if the offender is designated as homeless, he or she must verify in person to the Delaware State Police every 30 days. Crimes requiring Tier II designation are generally third and fourth degree sexual offenses or those involving a child under the age of 12 or force or the threat of force.

Risk Assessment Tier I allows for community notification on a case by case basis and requires registration. It should be noted that Tier I offenders are not included within the public on-line sex offender registry. Tier I offenders must register for 15 years, must verify in person to the Delaware State Police every 12 months, and if the offender is designated as homeless, he or she must verify in person to the Delaware State Police every 90 days. Crimes requiring Tier I designation include all those offenses not otherwise included in a Tier II or III designation.

Current State laws

Delaware established a Sex Offender Management Board pursuant to Senate Bill 90, which was enacted July 2007. This legislation established a Sex Offender Management Board to develop and standardize the evaluation, identification, treatment, and continued monitoring of sex offenders at each stage of the criminal justice system so that such offenders will curtail recidivistic behavior and the protection of victims and potential victims. In implementing a sex offender management model founded on evidence based practices, the Board developed guidelines and standards for a system of programs for the treatment of sex offenders under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or Board of Parole; is researching and analyzing the effectiveness of the monitoring and tracking of sex offenders; developed criteria to measure a sex offender’s progress in treatment to determine whether the sex offender would pose an undue public safety threat to the community; is researching and analyzing the safety issues raised by living arrangements for and the location of sex offenders within the community, including shared or structured living arrangements. The Board is implementing guidelines and standards developed pursuant to Section 4120A for each agency affected to utilize in their management of sex offenders.

On May 23, 2007, Senate Bill 60 was signed into Delaware Law. The bill amends the existing Megan’s Laws in order to conform to recent federal legislative changes required under the “Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act.” High-risk offenders must appear in person every 90 days, moderate risk offenders every 6 months, and low risk offenders annually for verification. The verification information includes Social Security numbers, name changes, vehicle description and registration, additional residences, additional workplaces, and additional places of study. Sex offenders are photographed every time they register, re-register, and appear to verify information. Offenders have 3 business days to report any changes of information to DSP. The amended legislation clarifies that failure to verify information on the date in which the verification is required constitutes a criminal offense, specifically a class G felony. Community Notification procedures exempt the release of certain information and shall include a warning that civil or criminal liability may attach if information is used for an unlawful purpose. The time span an offender is required to register changed to 25 years for moderate risk offenders and 15 years for low risk offenders.

On July 7, 2009 the Governor signed further legislation related to the registration and community notification of sex offenders. The most recent amendments were specifically drafted to ensure that Delaware law meets or exceeds the requirements of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). SORNA is part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act and provides a set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. In DE Title 11 § 4120 outlines registration requirements for sex offenders, including the enhanced requirements of the public registry, electronically digitizing documentation and the collection of DNA samples. While SORNA has no proactive requirement to recapture past offenders, the Department of Justice, together with SOAR, SBI, DELJIS, and the U.S. Marshall’s Office have began targeting, locating and bringing into compliance 900 individuals who must register under the retroactive parameters of the law.

Changes enacted in accordance with the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act require convicted sex offenders to verify their address with the Delaware State Police in person rather than allowing a response by mail. Tier III offenders will be required to register quarterly; Tier II offenders semi-annually and Tier I and untiered offenders annually. Additionally, Tier III “homeless” sex offenders are required to verify his or her address every week. DSP is responsible for the Sex Offender Registry and all verifications and investigations within the state. This is based upon the fact that all of the sex offenders are required to verify their address in person with DSP. A failure to verify the address falls under the State Police’s jurisdiction.

Treatment Options & Efforts

Sex offender treatment is the single most effective tool to reduce recidivism. Research indicates that participation in an effective treatment program can reduce recidivism by 40%. The preferred method of treatment is typically long-term, comprehensive and offense specific. Cognitive-behavioral treatment with relapse prevention or self regulation is the most widely accepted model. Effective treatment must address four domains: sexual interest, distorted attitudes, socio-affective functioning, and self-management.

Treatment in DOC facilities

The DOC offers sex offender treatment in all major Level IV and V facilities. Family Problems is a long-term two year program offered at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. Treatment Services are conducted in a minimum/medium 200 bed secured housing unit. Family Problems Treatment Community provides an average of eight groups, conducted weekly. There are two counselors assigned to the housing unit along with a number of correctional officers. The counselors have specialized training and experience dealing with this population. Offenders are either classified or court ordered to Family Problems. Other sex offense specific treatment groups are facilitated by contractual vendors and include those offenders scheduled for release between six months and two years.

Treatment in the community

Community Corrections has 345 sex offenders in treatment with a contractual vendor and another 64 sex offenders in treatment with a grant funded vendor. The DOC also has a grant funded contract for 354 sex offense specific evaluations. The DOC is working on a continuum of treatment and effective re-entry.

Work completed by SOMB – standards

Delaware’s Sex Offender Management Board meets monthly and has adopted by-laws. The Board is mandated by legislation to develop and standardize the evaluation, identification, treatment, and continued monitoring of sex offenders at each stage of the criminal justice system so that such offenders will curtail recidivistic behavior and the protection of victims and potential victims. The Board is housed under the Department of Safety and Homeland Security and comprised of members from other state agencies as well as mental health and victims’ rights professionals who have experience or expertise in the area of sex offenders.

The Board:

• has developed guidelines and standards for a system of programs for the treatment of sex offenders under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or Board of Parole

• has approved a risk assessment screening instrument to assist any sentencing authority in determining the likelihood that an offender would commit one or more sex offenses

• is researching and analyzing the effectiveness of the monitoring and tracking of sex offenders; developed criteria to measure a sex offender’s progress in treatment to determine whether the sex offender would pose an undue public safety threat to the community and,

• is researching and analyzing the safety issues raised by living arrangements for and the location of sex offenders within the community, including shared or structured living arrangements.

The SOMB has eight Subcommittees: 1. Data Collection; 2. Public Awareness/ Education; 3. Legislative; 4. Investigation/Prosecution/Defense/Disposition; 5. Adult Assessment/ Treatment/Reentry/Supervision; 6. Juvenile Assessment/ Treatment /Reentry /Supervision; 7. Registration/Community Notification; 8. Funding/Resources and Implementation & Development planning.

To date the SOMB and subcommittees have completed the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) – Comprehensive Assessment Protocol (CAP) report, identified gaps in services, and an action plan for system wide change. The SOMB adopted adult and juvenile guiding principles and the following standards and guidelines: institutional treatment of adult sex offenders, standards of practice for adult and juvenile sex offender evaluation, treatment, and polygraph testing, management of sex offenders on both adult and juvenile probation/parole, qualifications for adult and juvenile sex offender evaluators, treatment providers, and polygraph examiners, and guidelines for completing adult sex offender specific pre-sentence reports. Documents and additional information on the SOMB can be found at .

Having a victim-centered approach and victim advocacy is vital for successful sex offender management. Victim advocates provide the necessary function of reminding individuals that work with sex offenders to be aware of the victim needs and interests. Public safety is the ultimate goal of effective sex offender management. Victim advocacy centers serve as a liaison to victims and help educate all parties. They are involved with the investigation and prosecution of offenses and effect policies throughout the state system.

Grant Funded Programs & Enhancements

The Delaware Criminal Justice Council (“CJC”) was awarded federal funding of $150,000 under the 2010 Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management (“CASOM”) grant. The United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Sex Offender, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (“SMART”) Office is charged with administering this Program in conjunction with State agencies like the CJC. The Program is designed to provide funding to a non-profit organization for direct services in the management of sex offenders returning to the community. Goals of the project are: 1) Improve public safety by reducing recidivism and decreasing revictimization in our communities through effective management of sex offenders; 2) Equip individuals released from custody with tools needed to succeed in the community, specifically increasing housing opportunities for the population; and 3) Build a continuum of custody, care, and control for offenders.

The selected recipient of these funds will work in conjunction with the established Cabinet Council on reentry and the reentry strategy: Individual Assessment, Discharge and Planning Team (“I-ADAPT”). Members consist of representatives from DOC, DOL, DHSS, DOE, DSHA, FBCO (“faith based/community organizations”), and an ex-offender. The Team provides individualized transitional planning responsive to specific needs of offenders. Referrals will be obtained from the local I-ADAPT team members in conjunction with DOC. The DOC will have responsibility for identifying potential offenders for the project and screening and assessing participants using an established dynamic risk and needs assessment tool. The target population for this program will be a minimum of 30 moderate risk adult male sex offenders.

The revised solicitation is for potential applicants to hire a specialized sex offender reentry case manager to ensure transitional plan compliance and obtain available resources/services for reentry. Funds will also provide additional housing options utilizing a scattered site method. The selected agency will be responsible for managing the specialized sex offender reentry case manager staff hired and the housing assistance payments.

The initial focus of the CASOM grant was to fund a shared living arrangement (SLA) for sex offenders. The original solicitation was released in the fall of 2011. No applicants applied for the grant. The eligible applicants were to demonstrate a history and expertise in serving the sex offender population. Feedback received from several local non-profit agencies indicated apprehension with implementing the first SLA and concern that the funding amount was insufficient for that size of a project. Determined to maintain the focus of the grant dollars since the need in the community remains high, the CJC requested a federal grant adjustment to modify the scope of the project to the scattered site housing option, and the request was approved.

CJC also received a FY2010 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry State Demonstration grant in the amount of $500,000 federal funds. Grant funds are used to provide a contractual staff person to assist the I-ADAPT process in case planning and increase pre & post release sex offender treatment options. Some of the benchmarks for the project are: 1) Hire an I-ADAPT assistant within two month of award who will coordinate monthly meetings and maintain transition plans/progress records for 300 individuals; 2) conduct eighteen (18) additional sex offender treatment groups; 3) provide 285 sex offense specific assessments; and 4) provide 500 offenders with reentry discharge packets.

Juvenile Implications

Dr. David Burton (Smith College) found that “many of the Delaware sex offender youth are quite mild compared to those in other states he has evaluated. About thirty percent of the Delaware juvenile sex offenders reported no childhood family adversities, about forty percent of the sex offender group indicated only one or two victims, about fifty-five percent indicated no deviant arousal, and several did not commit nonsexual crimes and several had no indication of severe personality issues on the MACI. This makes up a group of forty-five percent of the youth who would be classified correctly as low-to-moderate risk because they would probably not reoffend and would be better served in the community rather than residential placement” (Leon and colleagues, 2011).

In January of 2011, Sean Keblen, supervisor of Delaware’s Inappropriate Sexual Behavior (ISB) unit completed the unit’s first 18 month recidivism study. The study showed “that youth who have been adjudicated delinquent of a sexual offense recidivate at a higher criminal rate than sexual rate (Keblen 2011).” The study of Delaware ISB clients found that sexual recidivism rate with a victim was 3.3%; national average is between 7-11 %. Other notable outcomes were an 11.9% recidivism rate for the criminal offenses and 8.1% for victimless sex offense (such as Failure to Register). This suggests that “the Youth in this study had more issues with compliance and conduct type of behaviors (Keblen 2011).” National average for criminal re-offense is between 11-15% - low compared to juvenile delinquents adjudicated on non sexual offenses (Caldwell 2009). Overall, this study’s findings, like Burton’s in the previous paragraph, suggest that most of Delaware’s juvenile sex offender population can be served in the community.

Juvenile sex offenders face the same penalties as adult offenders in Delaware when it comes to registration and housing restrictions. The Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services (YRS) supervises approximately 110 adjudicated sex offenders on any given day. Unfortunately, the Department of Children, Youth and their Families (DSCYF), who are often responsible in identifying community placements and housing for youth who have sexually offended, have a difficult time due to the housing restrictions that are a consequence of being on the public registry.

Families of juvenile sex offenders that live in public housing often are subject to the housing restrictions if the juvenile sex offender is to live in the home with the family. Families either must relocate or the offender must move. Often, families of juvenile sex offenders are supportive of the offender’s supervision and treatment and ultimately are the best housing option for the offender. Unfortunately, if the option is that juvenile sex offender must move and barring no other relative who is willing to take the offender, then the Division of Family Services (DFS) is contacted. The offender is often found dependent and placed in foster care. Some families with the financial resources to relocate often move to states where housing restrictions are not obstacles due to juveniles not placed on other states public registries.

Treatment in and out of state

DSCYF is responsible for the supervision and treatment of juvenile sex offenders. In Delaware, community resources are not plentiful. Options include outpatient treatment with contracted providers/therapists and day treatment via mental health residential treatment centers.

If a juvenile sex offender is in need of residential treatment, the offender will be referred to a facility out of state via court order. Delaware has no instate residential sex offender treatment programs. The residential programs that Delaware contracts with are as follow:

Level 4 facilities

• Stetson School – Barre, MA

• Diversified Treatment Alternatives (DTA) - Lewisburg, PA

• University Behavioral Center (UBC) – Orlando, FL

• Hennepin County Home School – Minnetonka, MN

Level 5

• Cove Prep - Torrance, PA

 Transition – home and school

The juvenile sex offenders that are placed in out of state residential treatment often return to Delaware after successful completion with limited housing options. If family is not an option and an alternative location is located, the offender often has little transition from the residential facility to their new home. If the offender adjusts well to the new home, school is often an obstacle as each district has their own policies and procedures surrounding allowing sex offenders to be educated in a normal school environment. These policies often lead juvenile sex offenders to social isolation, which has the potential to increase risk for re-offense rather than decrease it.

Foster care

Housing restrictions have placed a burden on Delaware’s foster care system. Due to the housing restrictions for juvenile sex offenders, many offenders become dependent as defined in 10 Del Code § 901. There is not an abundance of foster care resources in Delaware- individual homes or group care - able to manage this population thus many juvenile sex offenders are placed in DFS foster care contracts out of the State of Delaware.

YRS has found that in many cases where juvenile sex offenders are placed in foster care due to housing restrictions, either in state or out of state, the offenders find a way to return to relatives after age 18.

National Information

Residency restrictions in other states

Residency restriction laws began being passed more than ten years ago and more than half of the States in the country have implemented them, along with thousands of local communities. (See chart below) Restrictions are typically designated as either “child safety zones” or “distance marker” laws. Child safety zones are less common and focus on sex offenders loitering near places children congregate such as schools, daycares, parks, playgrounds, etc. Distance marker laws are more common and designate parameters where sex offenders reside in proximity to schools. The distances required by law range from 500 to 3,000 feet. Other states such as Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, California and Arkansas have completed some form of residency restriction report. Each report comes to the same basic conclusion the residency restrictions may lead to unintended consequences and limit opportunities for reentry. The National Institute of Justice published “Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: How Mapping Can Inform Policy” which can be found at ics/corrections/community/sex-offenders/residency-mapping.htm. The report focused on mapping and residency restrictions specifically in three states. Another valuable resource for national information is the SMART office website at ojp.smart/index.htm. There have also been numerous constitutional challenges across the nation for many years.

|State |Distance/Location |Citation |Year Enacted |

|1 Alabama |2,000 ft/school, child care facility |Ala. Code § 15-20-26 |2005 |

|2 Arizona |1,000 ft/school, childcare facility for |A.R.S. Title 13, Chapter 37 13-3726 |2007 |

| |level 3 offenders/dangerous crimes against | | |

| |children | | |

|3 Arkansas |2,000 ft/school, day care center |Ark. Code Ann § 5-14-128 |2003 |

|4 California |2,000 ft/school, park, where children |Cal. Penal Code § 3003.5 |2006 |

| |gather | | |

|5 Florida |1,000 ft/where children gather |Fla. Stat. ch. 948.30 |2003 |

|6 Georgia |1,000 ft/where children gather |Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-15 |2006 |

|7 Idaho |500 ft/ school with children under 18 |Idaho Code § 18-8329 |2006 |

|8 Illinois |500 ft/school |720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11 -9.4 |2006 |

|9 Indiana |1,000 ft/school, park, youth program center|Ind. Code § 35-42-4-11 |2006 |

|10 Iowa |2,000 ft/school, child care facility |Iowa Code § 692A.2A |2002 |

|11 Kentucky |1,000 ft/school, child care facility, |Ky. Rev. Stat. § 17.545 |2006 |

| |playground, ball field | | |

|12 Louisiana |1,000 ft/school, related activities, school|La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:91.1 |2006 |

| |buses | | |

|13 Maryland |Parole Commission restricts where feasible |Md. Code Ann., Crim. Procedure § 11 -724 |2006 |

|14 Michigan |1,000 ft/school (student safety zone) |Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.733-735 |2006 |

|15 Minnesota |End-of-Confinement Review Committee decides|Minn. Stat. Ann. § 244.052 |1996 |

|16 Mississippi |1,500 ft/school, child care facility |Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-25 |2006 |

|17 Missouri |1,000 ft/school, child care facility |Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.147 |2006 |

|18 Montana |Judge decides |Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-255 |2001 |

|19 Nebraska |500 ft/school, child care facility |Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4017 |2006 |

|20 New Mexico |School/day care center in 1 mile radius |N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-11 A-5.1 |2000 |

| |contacted | | |

|21 Ohio |1,000 ft/school, child care facility, where|Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2950.031 |2003 |

| |children gather | | |

|22 Oklahoma |2,000 ft/school, day care center, park |Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 590 |2006 |

|23 Oregon |Department of Corrections decides |Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 144.642, 144.644 |2001 |

|24 South Dakota |500 ft/community safety zones |S.D. Codified Laws §§ 22-24B-22,23,24 |2006 |

|25 Tennessee |1,000 ft/school, child care facility, |Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-211 |2004 |

| |victim | | |

|26 Texas |Distance specified by Parole Board |Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 508.187 |1997 |

|27 Virginia |100 ft/school, child care center |Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370.2 |2000 |

|28 Washington |880 ft/school, day care center |Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.94A.030, 9.94A.712 |2006 |

|29 West Virginia |1,000 ft/school, child care facility |W. Va. Code § 62-12-26 |2006 |

Shared Living Arrangements in Colorado

According to a Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community as prepared for the Colorado State Judiciary Committees, Senate and House of Representatives March 2004, – “High-risk sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements had significantly fewer violations than those living in other living arrangements. In addition, the average overall number of violations was low in Shared Living Arrangements, which is surprising, given that this was the only residence type that had significantly more high-risk sex offenders. Shared Living Arrangements also had one of the shortest amounts of time between when a sex offender committed a violation and when the probation officer or treatment provider found out about the violation. In addition, the roommates of sex offenders living in Shared Living Arrangements called in violations of probation and treatment requirements to the sex offender’s treatment provider and probation officer more times than roommates in any other living arrangement.” This leads back to the conclusion that a positive support system, which 100% of the Shared Living Arrangements in the study provided, is an important component of being successful in treatment.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Sex offender housing continues to be an expanding and complicated dilemma nationwide. The reality is that sex offenders will return to the community and it is in the best interest for public safety that they are appropriately monitored and housed. Unintended consequences of sex offender residency restrictions and registry requirements may inadvertently increase risk. A homeless offender is more difficult to monitor; and therefore is more dangerous than one in a stable living environment. Increased housing options for offenders would be a great benefit, particularly in light of the current state of the economy. Resources are currently scarce. Arrests have been extremely low for school zone laws for years.

Based on information outlined in this report, the Sex Offender Management Board proposes:

Recommendation: Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk sex offenders living in the community. DE will continue to explore this innovative strategy and closely monitor the progress with the ultimate goal of ensuring community safety.

Recommendation: Increase training and awareness on sex offender population. SOMB will continue to foster a relationship with the Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness (DICH) and seek additional training opportunities locally and nationally. SOMB will continue to work with victim service agencies and advocates to increase prevention and education surrounding sexual assault.

Recommendation: Enhance mapping and data tracking of sex offenders and sex crimes statewide to further determine effectiveness. SOMB will continue to work with DELJIS, SAC and other agencies to improve sex offender data collection.

Recommendation: Increase housing accessibility by working with the Delaware State Housing Authority, local housing authorities and local non profit and private housing providers to revise policies and procedures.

Recommendation: Revisit current school zone statute by allowing judicial discretion to impose the 500ft residency restriction based on SOMB approved risk assessment on a case by case basis. State law will preside over any additional local housing restrictions for consistency purposes.

References

1) Levenson et al. “Public perceptions about Sex Offenders and Community Protection Polices,” The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 7. No. 1 (2007), pp. 1-25.

2) Council of State Governments, Public Safety Brief, 2010 Sex Offender Management Policies in the States, Strengthening Policy and Practice.

3) Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide by: Katherine Cortes & Shawn Rogers, Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York, New York, 2010

4) “Sex-offender residency laws get second look,” 25 February 2007, USA Today,

5) Kansas Department of Corrections, “Sex Offender Housing Restrictions, Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies,” 2011,

6) Iowa County Attorneys Association, 12/11/2006, “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,”

7) Sexual Offender Residence Restrictions, Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers, “Sex Offender Residence Restrictions,” 4 May 2010,

8) Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, SOMB, “Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for the Location of Sex Offenders in the Community,” 15 March 2004,

9) Minnesota Department of Correction, “Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota,” April 2007,

10) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Map of Registered Sex Offenders,

11) Durose, Langan, and Schmitt, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison 1994,” 16 November 2003. content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

12) Leon, C., Burton, D.L., & Alvere, D. (2011) Net-widening in Delaware: The overuse of registration and residential treatment for youth who commit sex offenses. Widener Law Review, 17, 127-158.

13) Keblen, S. (2011) DE 18 month Recidivism Study, State of Delaware Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services, 9.

14) Caldwell, M. (2009) Study Characteristics and Recidivism Base Rates in Juvenile Sex Offender Recidivism. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download