Last of three parts.

The image of a state employee dropping off a mentally ill sexual predator to fend for himself on the streets of Jacksonville would seem laughable — if it weren’t true.

But that’s precisely what happened to 53-year-old Carl Saucer, a convicted sexual predator who had served his time.

In February he ended up sleeping on a discarded quilt in the woods and begging for food because there was no place in the city where he could live.

The frightening thing is that this wasn’t an uncommon occurrence.

Dozens of sexual offenders and predators are wandering the city’s streets or camped out because housing is so difficult to locate.

WELL-INTENDED LAW CREATED THIS

It’s not the fault of the probation officers who are faced with the unenviable order to find where to place ex-felons who have committed sexual offenses.

It’s not the fault of the ex-felons, who are often penniless upon their release and have no funds to pay for the pitifully short supply of housing available to them.

It is the fault of state and county regulations that so limit where these people can live that it endangers the very community the regulations are trying to protect.

It’s time to overhaul that system.

What should happen when felons who have served their sentences are released from prison to return to their cities and towns?

Common sense should tell us a society must do everything possible to ensure they’re reintegrated into the community, providing them the stability needed to remain crime-free.

But one of the most crucial factors in determining whether an ex-felon is likely to re-offend — stable housing — can be extremely difficult to find when the person possesses a record that includes a sex crime.

Part of the blame for a lack of housing can be placed on the residency restrictions states like Florida have enacted to dictate where sex offenders can live. The difficulty is compounded when counties or individual communities impose even stronger restrictions.

And while the public sentiment behind these restrictions is well-intended, according to Kurt Bumby of the Center for Sex Offender Management, the usefulness of such limitations is not supported by the data.

“It seems intuitively to make sense. The question is, ‘Is it actually effective?’” Bumby says, then answers his own question. Indeed, research shows no link between residency restrictions and reduced risk or recidivism, he concludes.

So what should we do to improve the way we deal with sex offenders emerging from prison to ensure public safety and reduce recidivism?

BEST PRACTICES EXIST

Perhaps we should look elsewhere for things that are working.

For example, we may need to look no further than Palm Beach County.

In 2006, at the height of a push for communities to enact stricter residency requirements for sexual offenders and predators, Palm Beach County enacted harsh restrictions tougher than state standards.

Two years ago, after a lawsuit was filed against the county for its tough restrictions, it did away with those requirements, reverting instead to the state restrictions on residency. Since that time, there has been no change in the rates of re-offending for sexual offenders or predators in Palm Beach County, underscoring research findings that also show residency restrictions do not affect recidivism.

Gail Colletta, who is with the Florida Action Committee and was one of the advocates working to strike down the Palm Beach restrictions, says her group’s “long-range goal is to do away with all residency restrictions because they don’t work.”

The housing problems could also be alleviated if more care is taken to assess the actual risk of whether a sexual offender or predator would re-offend. Currently, that’s not done, so those at low risk of committing another sexual offense must abide by the same residency restrictions as those of high risk of recommitting.

A year ago, California stopped requiring all sex offenders meet residency restrictions, instead enforcing these laws only against high-risk offenders. Available housing for low-risk offenders increased dramatically, and the number of homeless offenders decreased.

Counties here, such as Duval and Nassau, should immediately create working groups to look at the effectiveness of strict county residency restrictions en route to making changes.

We should also look at novel ways to create more housing for released sexual felons.

Communities in Florida have begun to experiment.

Several hotels that meet residency restrictions have been transformed into facilities to house sex offenders. In other places in the state, mobile home parks have been converted to complexes that serve those coming out of prison.

One of the more comprehensive programs, however, has been launched by a nonprofit in Eugene, Ore. An organization, Sponsors, provides both short-term and long-term housing for sexual offenders and predators upon their release.

In addition, the organization is currently building an entire complex of apartments that will offer permanent housing for ex-felons, including those convicted of sexual offenses.

Other states such as Washington and Vermont have similarly enacted more humane and effective measures for housing sex offenders and predators that pair governmental agencies with nonprofits to locate housing.

It’s time we look at the possibility of creating such programs here.

Homelessness is not the answer.

SOURCE