Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998

In response to widespread public concern about convicted
 sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state laws have
 been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of local
 communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma
 associated with community notification is balancing the public's
 right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate
 offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state
 jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification
 statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience
 from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community
 notification process. This data collection contains three surveys that
 were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a
 survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification
 meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312
 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of
 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with
 sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Variables in Part 1 include how
 respondents found out about the date and place of the community
 notification meeting, respondents' opinions of the purpose of the
 meeting, how clearly the purpose of meeting was stated, how the
 meeting went, outcomes, rating of information presented, if materials
 were handed out, if the materials were helpful, and respondents' level
 of concern after the meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include
 variables such as type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population
 size, if the agency designated a special staff member to coordinate
 the sex offender registration and notification functions, if the
 agency had policies regarding registration of sex offenders and
 community notification about sex offenders, if the agency attended
 statewide training, who participated in the Core Notification Team,
 what kind of information was used to determine a sex offender's risk
 to the community, which agencies registered to receive notice, and if
 the agency planned to update or expand their notification list.
 Additional variables cover the number of requests for information from
 Neighborhood Watch Programs, what identifying information about the
 offender the agency released, types of communication the agency
 received from the public after a notification had been issued, topics
 discussed in the public communication to the agency, benefits of the
 community notification law, difficulties in carrying out the
 requirements of the law, and methods developed to handle the
 problems. Probation and parole survey (Part 3) variables focused on
 characteristics of the respondent's supervising area, the number of
 agents assigned to the respondents' unit, the number of agents
 designated as Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP)
 agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the number of child or adult sex
 offenders under probation or parole, if the respondent participated in
 any meetings regarding the provisions of the notification law and its
 implementation, if the supervisor received specialized training, and
 areas covered in the training. Other variables include whether the
 notification level was decided by the Core Notification Team,
 difficulties the respondent had with Special Bulletin Notification
 (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her caseload, if the respondent's
 field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high risk" agent teams to manage sex
 offenders, which individuals worked with the respondent's team, the
 type of caseload the respondent supervised, the number of sex
 offenders on the respondent's caseload, if the respondent used a
 special risk assessment or classification instrument for sex
 offenders, other information used to determine the supervision level
 for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were managed differently
 than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph was used on sex
 offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the treatment
 provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk, SBN, or
 medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and procedures
 used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and prerevocation
sanctions used.