Valor Village

Valor Village provides a wonderful service:

Valor Village Foundation, Inc. is a non profit organization that has been established to provide a network of safe, comfortable homes (Staytions) where families of incarcerated military veterans can stay free of charge. There is nothing more important than consistent support during confinement. Valor Village ensures that you can be there for visits, court proceedings, and legal meetings without the crippling housing costs. 

If you know families with a family member who is an incarcerated veteran, pass this information along to them.

Updated November 3:
As Two States East said, this is a growing program. I contacted Valor Village myself and Angela Johnson, executive director said,

...we provide advocacy information and support to family members, regardless of their location. Our Support Service number is (202) 476-9058.  

Support is critical to empowering family members to effectively care for themselves throughout the crisis of their loved one's incarceration, so that they can learn about and leverage all available resources, veterans benefits, and legal options pertaining to justice-involved veterans. 

We will be updating the website soon, but do not want to discourage any family member from calling before we do so.  

Please do include the phone number. Isolation impedes action. We are available 24-7 to take calls. [My emphasis.]

This is a powerful service for families of incarcerated veterans. Many thanks to Valor Village for seeing a need and stepping up to do something about it.

what happens when a state loses track of registrants?

Missouri has lost track of 1,259 people listed on its sex offender registry. Poor Missouri. 

Nicole Galloway, state Auditor discovered the problem. 

Galloway said the findings are “disturbing and alarming.” 

Well, I'd say so! Think of all the additional sex crimes that must be happening in Missouri.

“As it stands the sex offender registry really provides a false sense of security,” Galloway said at a news conference in St. Louis. 

Definitely a false sense of security. Who can depend on a list that isn't even accurate?

Galloway said the audit did not compare compliance rates in Missouri with other states, nor did it examine if non-compliant sex offenders committed additional crimes. [My emphasis.]

Hold on, here. They didn't check to see if the missing registrants were committing crimes? If they are worried about public safety, that would have been the first question to answer.

It is almost as if the purpose of the registry has nothing to do with keeping people safe from sex crimes.

Galloway said almost 800 of the missing people are registered under Tier III, the most dangerous category.

Tiers are determined by the crime for which someone was convicted, an automatic "you committed this crime so you belong on this tier." Individual risk assessments are not part of the process at all.

Over time, there is no way for a registrant to show that they pose less risk now that they are employed or now that they have completed therapy or now that they are older or now that they have been law-abiding citizens for decades--none of the factors that can help determine risk are considered. Not when someone is initially placed on the registry and not years later.

Missouri is not the only state losing track of registrants. Wisconsin lost 2,735; Massachusetts lost about 1800.

South Dakota has a list that is almost completely accurate because they lost only 45. You might expect happy news articles about sex offenses being a thing of the past in South Dakota because they know where 98.8 of their registrants are but no, sex offenses still happen there.

Sex offenses still happen, no matter if the people on the registry are compliant or not--and 95% of them are committed by someone not on the registry.

...Galloway said law enforcement officials often cite a lack of resources. She acknowledged that understaffed police agencies face an uphill battle in maintaining the registry.

Taxpayers ought to consider if it is worth throwing more money at sex offender registries that have no effect on the incidence of  sex offenses. Surely there are better ways to spend tax dollars.

“But this is critically important,” [Galloway] said.

Is it, Ms. Galloway? Show me.