Limited housing availability for sex offenders is not a problem unique to Werner or to Wisconsin. Across the United States, residence restrictions and other ordinances have made it exceedingly difficult, and in some cases impossible, for sex offenders to find housing. Research confirms that there are few housing options available for sex offenders subject to residence restrictions. In addition, research shows that sex offender residence restrictions do little, if anything, to prevent sex offender recidivism (Socia, 20122). Indeed, by increasing housing instability and homelessness, such restrictions may inadvertently increase risk of recidivism. Stable housing is a precondition for successful community reintegration, but many laws have made stable housing next to impossible to secure.
In Denver, Valencia estimated that 50 to 55 of the sex offenders he tracked actually were homeless. Yet the reported numbers of homeless sex offenders in the city have nearly doubled in two years, from about 85 to 162.
Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness
Jail cameras will be able to keep track of sex offenders who choose to make sheriff grounds their temporary home. When a registered sex offender is homeless, that person is required to check in personally with law enforcement weekly. Deputies also do random checks to make sure sex offenders are living where they say they are.
In addition, the state attorney general says the law includes no criminal penalties for offenders who live near schools and parks once they are off parole. So for now, most are not being tracked at all.
Among ex-offenders, those with mental illness have higher than average rates of homelessness and housing insecurity (Aidala et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2013; Council of State Governments, 2006; Fries et al., 2014; , Herbert et al., 2015; Mac- Donald et al., 2015). Homelessness is not just a public safety issue but also a public health issue. New Jersey has successfully reduced its state prison population by nearly 37% since 1999, in large part by creating alternatives to incarceration and providing community-based reentry and treatment services (Sentencing Project, 2015). Despite having this infrastructure in place, the needs of homeless ex-offenders can confound both housing and reentry experts.
The purpose of this article is to examine the barriers homeless ex-offenders face in accessing emergency and permanent housing and what strategies can be employed to combat ex-offender homelessness and housing instability. The article considers how the rationing of social services to ex-offenders has had a negative effect on successful prisoner reentry and how these ineffective policies fail to promote public safety. Collateral sanctions such as ineligibility for social entitlements or community notification, compounded by the increased trend of ex-offenders leaving prison without supervision, increase housing instability.
Discharge planning, an expansion of transition services, and the provision of targeted housing for ex-offenders can play a critical role in improving housing stability, especially for those ex-offenders who have a mental health diagnosis or a history of addiction, or who have been convicted of a sexual offense. As an experienced provider of services to both ex-offenders and the homeless, I see how the lack of affordable housing leaves ex-offenders competing for the same limited resources with others who have no criminal history. Creative housing alternatives do exist for homeless ex-offenders and they have significant implications for public safety and public health. To reduce homelessness for ex-offenders, a broad stakeholder group must consider the implications of collateral sanctions, the trend toward maxing out of state prison sentences, the unique risk factors of homeless ex-offenders, and models that have been successfully implemented to improve housing stability.
There is even more inconsistency in estimating the prevalence of homelessness among people leaving prisons and jails, with significant disparities in the estimates of prisoner and parolee homelessness (Petersilia, 2003). The Council of State Governments (2006) reports that more than 10% of those coming in and out of prisons and jails are reported to have been homeless in the months before their incarceration, and for those with mental illness, the rates are about 20%. These statistics are in concert with my own experiences as a practitioner providing reentry services for more than 20 years. Even when clients have a place to which to return, remaining stably housed is challenging, especially for those with special needs. In my experience, housing is one of the most difficult needs to be met for returning ex-offenders upon release.
It isnecessary to examine the experiences of homeless ex-offenders, the barriersthey face, and the results of effective models of intervention when consideringalternatives that promote successful prisoner reentry. The reevaluation ofcollateral sanctions and restrictive policies that result in homelessness forex-offenders is a fundamental component of improving opportunities to endex-offender homelessness. Creative collaborations among stakeholders canpromote positive outcomes that result in cost savings across multiple systems.More than a decade ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ, 2004) issued aGuide for Developing Housing for Ex-Offenders , in which the DOJ recommended theinvolvement of a broad stakeholder group. The Guide recommended accessingCommunity Development Block Grants, HUD Section 8 vouchers, emergency sheltergrants programs, and federal tax credit projects or alternative funding topromote the creation of reentry housing. These recommendations are no lessimportant today. It is incumbent on all professionals working in prisonerreentry to advocate for system change and inclusion for ex-offenders insuccessful housing strategies. Collectively, we can make significant progresson reducing homelessness and promoting public safety.
DOC officials have acknowledged that highly restrictive municipal residency ordinances in more than 150 Wisconsin communities such as Green Bay and until recently, Milwaukee, are contributing to the problem, according to emails obtained by the Center under the public records la . These local laws prevent sex offenders from residing too closely to places including parks, schools and day-care centers, leaving virtually nowhere for them to live.
In Florida, where prohibitive residency restrictions have led to homelessness among sex offenders, some seek refuge in an isolated community in South Florida called Miracle Village, which is home to more than 100 people, most of them sex offenders.
A sex offender registry is a system in various countries designed to allow government authorities to keep track of the activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences. Sex offender registration is usually accompanied by residential address notification requirements. In many jurisdictions, registered sex offenders are subject to additional restrictions, including on housing. Those on parole or probation may be subject to restrictions that do not apply to other parolees or probationers. These may include (or have been proposed to include) restrictions on being in the presence of underage persons (those below the age of majority), living in proximity to a school or day care center, owning toys or items targeted towards children, or using the Internet. Sex offender registries exist in many English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. The United States is the only country that allows public access to the sex offender registry; all other countries in the English-speaking world have sex offender registries only accessible by law enforcement.
A majority of states apply systems based on conviction offenses only, where sex offender registration is mandatory if person pleads or is found guilty of violating any of the listed offenses. Under these systems, the sentencing judge does not sentence the convict into sex offender registry and cannot usually use judicial discretion to forgo registration requirement, even if s/he thinks the registration would be unreasonable, taking into account mitigating factors pertaining to individual cases. Instead, registration is a mandatory collateral consequence of criminal conviction.[44] Due to this feature, laws target a wide range of behaviors and tend to treat all offenders the same. Civil right groups,[6][7] law reform activists,[13][45][46] academics,[47][48] some child safety advocates,[14][15][16][17][18][49] politicians[50] and law enforcement officials[51] think that current laws often target the wrong people, swaying attention away from high-risk sex offenders, while severely impacting lives of all registrants,[52][53][54][55] and their families,[56][57] attempting to re-integrate to society.
Some U.S. states have Civic Confinement laws, which allow very-high-risk sex offenders to be placed in secure facilities, "in many ways like prisons", where they are supposed to be offered treatment and regularly reevaluated for possible release. In practice, most states with Civil Commitment centers rarely release anyone. Texas has not released anyone in the 15 years since the program was started.[65] In 2015, in response to a class action lawsuit, a Federal judge ruled Minnesota's Civil Commitment program to be unconstitutional, both for not providing effective treatment and for not fully releasing anyone since the program was started in 1994.[66]
The state of Washington is among those that have special provisions in their registration code covering homeless offenders, but not all states have such provisions. A November 2006 Maryland Court of Appeals ruling exempts homeless persons from that state's registration requirements, which has prompted a drive to compose new laws covering this contingency. 2ff7e9595c
Comments