What the Research Shows About Registries
A Series on Examining Youth on Registries
Post 5 of 6 - Reading time: 7 to 10 minutes
In our last post, we explored how youth registration requirements can create long-term collateral consequences for adolescents and their families, often undermining healthy development, treatment engagement, and future opportunities. We also discussed how adolescent behavior differs significantly from adult offending and why evidence-based responses are essential when addressing youth with problematic sexual behavior.
In this fifth installment of our series, we continue our conversation with Dr. Janet Rosenzweig to examine what the research actually shows about youth sex offender registries. Drawing from multi-state policy analysis, juvenile court data, and decades of existing research, Dr. Rosenzweig discusses whether registries reduce offending, what unintended consequences emerge for youth and communities, and what policymakers should understand when evaluating registry laws through an evidence-based lens.
Your research has examined how registry policies affect youth across multiple states. Can you describe the scope of that research and what questions you were trying to answer?
The CMPRC has been concerned about the issue of youth on sex offender registries since we began operating in 2017. By that time, many studies had already been published showing the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries as a prevention strategy, as well as the disproportionately harmful effects registration has on youth. We began our work with a thorough review of the literature.
An early and influential study by Sandler et al. (2008) used New York State criminal history files for every individual arrested for a registerable sexual offense between 1986 and 2006. Registration and community notification requirements began midway through that period, in 1996. The researchers created multiple statistical models and used a variety of analytical techniques. Their extensive analyses led to the conclusion that “the 1996 enactment of SORNA had no significant impact on rates of total sexual offending, rape, or child molestation,” whether viewed overall or in terms of offenses committed by first-time or repeat offenders. Similar conclusions have since been reached by other researchers, but this study has particular significance to me because it demonstrates that evidence questioning the effectiveness of registries already existed while policymakers were considering adding youth to registration requirements. SORNA later required certain youth to be added by 2009.
At the same time, findings were emerging in the professional literature documenting the harms registration causes young people, including serious social and mental health consequences, financial strain on families, and even increased vulnerability to exploitation by adults who identified youth through public registries.
Given the growing body of social and behavioral science research showing both the lack of effectiveness of registries for youth and the harms they cause, the CMPRC began considering what type of additional “hard” evidence we could contribute to the field. We determined that examining what happened in states that eliminated or reduced youth registration requirements would be an important contribution.
To that end, we interviewed professionals working on these issues in multiple states and identified several states that had either eliminated or reduced youth registration requirements. Our pro bono legal partner, Linklaters, provided in-depth legal analyses of each state’s statutory and policy changes. We then examined whether those states submitted data to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive at the National Center for Juvenile Justice, which operates in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
We ultimately identified five states that met all of these criteria and began analyzing trends in juvenile court sex-related charges before, during, and after changes to registration requirements were implemented.
What did you find when you compared states that changed registry policies with those that did not?
We examined trends over time in states that had reduced or eliminated the use of registries for juveniles. Across all the states we studied, the number of sex-related charges was strongly correlated with overall juvenile court offense trends, and changes in registry policy appeared to have no impact on those patterns.
Pennsylvania was especially interesting because, in 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled juvenile registration unconstitutional. That created something relatively rare in public policy research: a clearly defined pre- and post-policy period. We found no change in the rates of sex-related charges in juvenile court after the registration requirement was lifted.
Did the research show any measurable reduction in youth sexual offending as a result of registry laws?
The simple answer here is NO, confirming what has been known for almost twenty years, when the initial research on the effectiveness of sex offender registries was published showing no impact.
Were there unintended consequences or policy impacts that surprised you during the research process?
We’ve already discussed some of the mental health and social challenges that youth on registries face, but one consequence I had not fully considered before this research was the broader economic impact on communities, including decreased property values in neighborhoods where registered sex offenders live.
I was also surprised to learn about the challenges youth face when trying to attend college out of state. In many cases, they must research that state’s registration laws and determine what is required to remain in compliance, creating an additional barrier to education and independence.
Another issue that surprises many people is that in many states, youth and their families are responsible for the costs associated with registration itself. Jurisdictions may charge fees for initial registration, annual renewals, quarterly updates, or changes in address or other information. These fees are often intended to cover administrative expenses such as personnel, equipment, and maintenance of the registry system. Some states also require payment for DNA collection or specialized identification cards.
Failure to pay these fees can compound the burden on already struggling families. In some jurisdictions, nonpayment can even result in additional legal penalties, including reincarceration or financial liens.
If policymakers were to look closely at the data, what would be the most important takeaways regarding registries and youth behavior?
Our data show that the number of sex-related charges filed in juvenile court tends to rise and fall in parallel with overall juvenile offense trends, regardless of whether a sex -offender registration requirement is in place. Simply stated, our findings suggest that registry requirements do not function as a deterrent for youth with problematic sexual behavior.
When these findings are considered alongside the broader body of research, the implications become even clearer. Research has documented the significant harm registration can cause for these and their families, while also demonstrating the
effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches. Other studies suggest that many adolescents naturally desist from these behaviors as they mature and develop.
At the same time, there are broader unintended costs to communities, including decreased property values and reduced tax revenue in neighborhoods where registered offenders live.
Our most important message to policymakers is this: invest in prevention and treatment resources in your communities, and support leaders who have the courage to pursue evidence-based reform.
In our final post of the series, we will shift from research findings to the future of policy and systems reform. Dr. Rosenzweig will discuss how laws and practices can better align with adolescent development science, the growing role of professional education and advocacy, and the collaboration between the CMPRC and the American Bar Association to expand evidence-based training for legal professionals and policymakers. We’ll also explore practical steps practitioners can take to support meaningful policy change and what continues to provide hope for more effective, prevention-focused responses for youth with problematic sexual behavior.