Title: Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin.
Series: Research in Brief
Author: Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas
Published: National Institute of Justice, December 2000
Subject: Sex offenders; victim notification
18 pages
45,000 bytes
---------------------------
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-
3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).
---------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief
Julie E. Samuels, Acting Director
Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin
By Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas
---------------------------
Issues and Findings
Discussed in this Brief: The effects of Wisconsin's community notification statute
that authorizes officials to alert residents about the release and reintegration of
sex offenders in their communities, as perceived by residents, law enforcement,
probation/parole agents, and sex offenders.
Key issues: To prevent sexual victimization, States have enacted community
notification laws to inform residents when convicted sex offenders are relocated
to live in their neighborhoods. However, the effects of such laws on community
residents, law enforcement resources, parole and probation officer resources,
and offenders have not been studied. Each of these groups was surveyed to
ascertain the effectiveness of notification laws, identify areas for further
research, and highlight policy development concerns.
Key findings: Three types of notification laws exist: those by which law
enforcement agencies alert residents of sex offenders moving into their
neighborhoods; those by which relevant data are made available to residents
who seek it; and those by which convicted child molesters are required to
identify themselves as sex offenders. Findings in Wisconsin, where the law is of
the first type, included:
-- The public needs additional information about the purpose of notification
meetings and the limits of notification laws. Nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of the
residents attending notification meetings expected the gathering to be a
forum for discussing the removal or prevention of the offender from living in the
neighborhood.
-- A nearly equal percentage of notification meeting attendees left the meetings
feeling more concerned about the sex offender as those who felt less concerned
about the offender. The most frequently heard concerns at meetings were the
attendees' fear of being victimized by the offender, the offender's past, and
identifying who placed the offender in a particular neighborhood.
-- Law enforcement agencies experienced few problems carrying out tasks
prescribed by the notification law. The cost of labor resources necessary for
notification, however, was an issue. Many agencies benefited from
cooperatively planning meetings with other agencies (e.g., county law
enforcement and probation and parole agencies).
-- Notification laws increased the workload of probation and parole officers
who monitor sex offenders, especially for high-profile Special Bulletin
Notification (SBN) cases that require more intensive supervision. Agents
averaged at least five SBN cases; the total average sex offender caseload was
25 cases.
-- Housing resources for sex offenders released to notification areas were
scarce, especially in the case of offenders subject to expanded notification.
-- Further research is necessary to ascertain the effects of notification laws on
recidivism. Some offenders said the pressure placed on them by the public and
the media could drive many of them back to prison.
Target audience: Law enforcement, probation and parole officers, and
researchers.
---------------------------
In response to widespread public concern about the release of sex offenders
from prison, the Federal Government and all 50 States and the District of
Columbia have passed laws collectively referred to as "community notification
statutes" that authorize or require communities where such offenders will live to
be notified of their arrival. The common goal of these statutes is to prevent
sexual victimization by notifying potential victims that a convicted sex offender
lives nearby.
Although the statutes vary widely in complexity and the level of State and local
bureaucratic involvement, three basic notification types have emerged.[1] Most
States authorize local and county law enforcement agencies to decide whether
to release information about convicted sex offenders to the public; Wisconsin is
one such State. In these States, law enforcement also generally decides the
manner and extent of notification, as well as the amount of information to be
made public.
Under the second type of notification statute, individual members of the public
may request information about convicted sex offenders living in their
communities from a government-maintained central registry. Private citizens
may access registration information in binders at local law enforcement offices,
through telephone calls to central registry bureaus, by logging onto Web sites,
or by requesting CD-ROMs containing relevant information. Most notably,
California and Florida use this type of notification process to enable residents to
determine if and when they need to access such information. A third type of
notification statute, used only in Louisiana,[2] requires paroled child molesters
to identify themselves as sex offenders to residents in the neighborhoods where
they will live.
The dilemma associated with community notification is balancing the public's
right to know with the need to successfully reintegrate offenders within the
community. Wisconsin, along with the 49 other State jurisdictions, has tried to
give equal weight to these competing interests through its sex offender
community notification statute. In doing so, police chiefs and sheriffs have
experimented with various approaches to notifying the community, including
community meetings, news releases, and Internet postings.
Until now, research on sex offender community notification has been limited in
nature. There has been no indepth study of a single State's experience from the
vantage point of those most affected by the notification process. This
NIJ-funded research sought to fill that gap by studying the impact of community
notification on residents, law enforcement agencies, probation and parole
agents, and the sex offenders themselves.
The case study reported here focuses on Wisconsin and includes information
from:
-- Surveys of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification
meetings held throughout the State and direct observations of notification
meetings. The survey covered these meetings, which were held in large cities,
suburban districts, rural townships, and small villages.
-- A statewide survey of 312 police and sheriffs' agencies--which yielded
usable data from 188 of them--combined with field observations of law
enforcement agencies around the State. The survey included all 72 sheriffs'
departments in the State and a systematic sample made up of 240 of the police
agencies in the State.
-- A statewide survey of 128 probation and parole agents and supervisors from
units with sex offender caseloads--which yielded a sample of 77--combined
with field observations at the unit and regional levels. The survey included both
sex offender specialists and nonspecialists, or "comprehensive" personnel, who
had a substantial number of sex offenders in their caseloads.
-- Face-to-face interviews with 30 convicted sex offenders (from a total
population of 44), residing throughout the State, who were the subjects of
community notification and/or news media exposure.
Results of the study indicate that, in general, community notification was used
the way legislative policymakers intended it to be used, namely to further
community protection. However, the decision to notify and involve the public in
an informal network of neighborhood surveillance comes at the cost of
increased community anxiety, impeded offender reintegration, and drained
agency resources. This Research in Brief summarizes the study's key findings
and examines several policy implications drawn from observation of community
notification from the above-mentioned perspectives.
Survey results of notification meetings
From January 1998 through mid-September 1998, researchers studied 22
community notification meetings in 16 locations throughout Wisconsin, ranging
from large cities to suburban districts to small villages; every region of the State
was represented. Because the survey targeted those community members who
attended a notification meeting, a convenience sample of meeting attendees was
obtained. Approximately 800 attendees were handed survey questionnaires,
and 704 attendees completed and returned these instruments upon leaving the
meetings. Most meetings were held in the early evening at school auditoriums,
and attendance (not including official presenters) ranged from 6 persons at one
meeting to 108 at another. The purpose of the study and instructions for
completion of the questionnaire were explained at all meetings where the survey
was distributed. The voluntary nature of participation and the anonymity of
responses were emphasized.
The survey found that 27 percent (188) of attendee respondents were alerted
to the meeting through the news media (exhibit 1). Fifty-nine percent (412)
perceived that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the community about a
specific offender slated for release into the community. Twenty-nine percent
(201) believed the meeting's purpose was to "soften the reaction to placing a
sex offender in the community."[3]
There was more consensus among respondents about the expected outcome of
the notification meetings than about their perceived purpose. In a question
permitting more than one response, 80 percent (560) of respondents expected
to "acquire as much information as possible to safeguard against the potential
threat posed by the offender." Eighteen percent (130) expected to remove or
prevent the offender from residing in their neighborhood. Only five percent (38)
of respondents expected "to place the blame on whoever was responsible for
placing the offender in the neighborhood." Significantly, the foremost
expectation--to gather useful information--appears to have been met. Fifty-six
percent of attendee respondents rated information from the meeting as very
helpful, and an additional 36 percent felt it was moderately helpful. Only 5
percent found little or no value in the meeting they attended.
The generally favorable reaction to the informational content of community
notification meetings found no parallel in how meeting respondents felt about
sex offenders living nearby. Residents who attended a notification meeting were
asked about their level of concern about the sex offender in question in their
community. Following the meeting, 38 percent of survey respondents were
more concerned, the level of concern felt by 27 percent was unchanged, and
35 percent of respondents were less concerned than before.
Whether attendees felt a heightened level of concern following a community
notification meeting appears to be closely related to how realistic their
expectations were for the outcome of the meeting. Those attendees who came
expecting to lay blame on the party or parties who placed the offender in their
neighborhood or who wanted to remove or prevent the placement were
frequently disappointed. Understandably, these individuals, who cumulatively
amounted to nearly one in four respondents, made up the group with the
greatest percentage of respondents who were "more concerned than before"
about the offenders. Allowing for overlapping responses, of those attendees
who came expecting to place blame on public officials or to prevent or remove
the resident sex offender, approximately 67 percent left feeling "more
concerned than before."
Although respondents were generally satisfied with the amount of information
presented at the meetings they attended, ample amounts of information
appeared to have no effect on their anxiety levels (exhibit 2). This finding was
especially true with regard to information about specific sex-offender residents
and the limited options provided by law to communities. For example, 71
percent of respondents judged the amount of information presented about the
community's lawful options as adequate, but only 35 percent of respondents left
the meetings feeling less concerned than before. Thus, meeting attendees
appear to have perceived that the law and its agents--police and parole
officials--provide few, if any, legal alternatives for dealing with sex offenders
placed in their communities. In one sense, the most significant finding of the
notification meetings survey may be the inverse relationship between the factors
that make notification meetings successful (i.e., providing ample amounts of
helpful information) and the high anxiety levels among those in attendance.
Many attendees emerged from such meetings better informed but still feeling
anxious and frustrated; however, such feelings now were focused on the sex
offender.
Implications of the notification meetings survey
Survey results indicate a need to educate the public about the realities of what
community notification laws can and cannot be expected to accomplish. The
public has the right to be adequately informed of the risks posed by sex
offenders but also must understand that the notification law does not offer
recourse for residents who seek to remove a sex offender from their
neighborhood. Instead, law enforcement warns residents of the penalties for
misusing notification information to inflict violence on sex offenders. Unless this
message is clearly conveyed, community notification meetings risk becoming
staging grounds for further punishment or harassment of offenders. For
example, resource materials that explain the notification law's function and
practical limits may be used to spell out the responsibilities of law enforcement
and corrections to both the public and sex offenders released from prisons and
jails. Other educational brochures can provide useful information about how the
public can guard against sexual victimization. If the public better understands the
protective measures used by local authorities and the necessary public
precautions, their anxiety and feelings of helplessness may be lessened.
Law enforcement survey results
A sample of 312 local and county law enforcement agencies was selected to
receive a law enforcement-related survey; 188 completed and returned the
questionnaires for a response rate of 60 percent. The responding agencies
consisted of 142 police departments (59 percent of the police sample) and 46
sheriffs' departments (64 percent of sheriffs).[4] Of the responding agencies, 34
percent served populations of less than 10,000, and only 2 percent served
populations of more than 150,000. More than half of the responding sheriffs
(57 percent) served counties with 39,000 or more inhabitants.
Each agency in the sample was mailed a standardized questionnaire with items
designed to assess its attitudes toward the new law and its various provisions.
The survey was also intended to identify the policies and practices agencies
used when implementing the law's requirements. Several open-ended questions
were included to explore specific problem areas or difficulties the agencies
experienced in carrying out the notification responsibilities. Nonparticipant
observation at two regional law enforcement training meetings on the law
increased the validity of the survey by highlighting the relevant issues and
concerns regarding community notification.
Policy and practice. For the most part, law enforcement agencies in the survey
were prepared for the advent of sex offender community notification. The
Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), in conjunction with the
Wisconsin Chiefs of Police and the Badger State Sheriffs Associations,
developed "Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: The
Guidelines for Wisconsin Law Enforcement," which recommends a local or
regional team approach to notifying the public about sex offenders. This
approach involves collaboration among law enforcement, corrections, and other
agencies to review, plan, and make decisions in carrying out the notification
process.
Survey data indicated that 86 percent of responding law enforcement agencies
were familiar with the Wisconsin guidelines; 66 percent reported that their
written policies and procedures reflected these guidelines. Seventy-three
percent of agencies used interagency notification teams in their decisions
regarding sex offenders (exhibit 3), and 90 percent said corrections officials
participated on these teams.
As further evidence of their role in this process, the guidelines recommend--in
the absence of statutory directives and when a case warrants notification
consideration--that the teams use a three-tier notification system based on risk
assessment. Level 1 cases limit notification to law enforcement agencies in a
specific area. Level 2 uses targeted notification to schools, daycare providers,
and so forth, and Level 3 entails expanded notification through community
meetings, news media releases, and so forth. This three-level format for sex
offender notification was employed by 82 percent of the Wisconsin law
enforcement agencies in the sample.
Fourteen percent of responding agencies said they issued at least one Level 3
notification in the 1-year period after the notification law took effect. Of these,
54 percent of agencies held at least one Level 3-type community notification
meeting during this period. In general, the findings revealed that notification
meetings were structured around informational presentations on specific topics.
At the meetings, all law enforcement agencies reported providing information on
the law as it related to sex offenders. More than half (55 percent) of responding
agencies reported that public education about typical sex offender behavior and
target-hardening precautions were also discussed. According to 92 percent of
respondents with meeting experience, correctional representatives were
copresenters at their community notification meetings.
Ninety-two percent of responding agencies with meeting experience identified
the three most frequently voiced public concerns as fear of being victimized by
the sex offender in question, the offender's criminal past and current conviction,
and pinpointing responsibility for monitoring the offender in the community.
Eighty-three percent of those agencies reported attendees' concern with finding
out why a sex offender was placed in their neighborhood. How those common
concerns were dealt with at community notification meetings varied by agency.
Based on observations made at the meetings under study, attendee questions
and concerns and the presenters' responses can be crucial to meeting
outcomes. Unfortunately, the guidelines offer no assistance on how to conduct
community notification meetings, and none of the respondents had developed
written policies on this subject.
Reported problems and difficulties. Most law enforcement agencies identified
few, if any, problem areas in carrying out the requirements of the notification
law. The one exception appears to be labor expenditures, which more than
two-thirds of law enforcement respondents identified as a reason for concern.
Many respondents considered the work required by community notification to
be an unfunded mandate by the State. Fifty-eight percent of agencies said the
law increased their workload, and more than one-fourth complained the law
created a strain on departmental resources. Roughly one-third of respondents
indicated their agency encountered additional problems, such as media
sensationalism (16 percent) and overreaction by the public (16 percent). Only 6
percent of agency respondents reported incidents of harassment toward sex
offenders since the law took effect. Most of these incidents were deemed
minor, involving insults and verbal taunts. Only one overt act of vigilantism was
reported and that involved damage to an offender's vehicle. Of the agencies
reporting harassment of a sex offender, 67 percent were uncertain whether the
harassment resulted from the community being notified or whether another
factor was involved.
Responding agencies that generally believed the additional work created by the
new law to be balanced by its benefits. Most responding agencies identified
specific benefits from the law's registration provisions, such as increased
information sharing. However, agencies were less convinced of the beneficial
impact of community notification. Allowing for more than one response, 49
percent of agencies thought notification facilitated the flow of information on sex
offenders in a way that assisted with future investigations, 48 percent felt it
enhanced surveillance of sex offenders through community information sharing,
and only 41 percent believed it improved management and containment of sex
offender behavior through greater visibility.
Implications of the law enforcement survey
These findings point to recommendations for local and county law enforcement
agencies to consider:
-- Encourage the use of local or regional interagency teams to plan and manage
the notification of communities about sex offenders. This information sharing
and problem-solving approach will assist agencies in carrying out their statutory
responsibilities. The practice has worked well and should continue.
-- Develop written policies and training protocols for conducting community
notification meetings. Local policy should address matters such as announcing
meetings, distributing pertinent information about specific sex offenders
(including their release locations), answering questions, and dealing with
negative or potentially hostile reactions to a specific offender's release.
-- Provide Federal or State funds for the training and overtime expenses
necessary for law enforcement personnel to maintain the case information on
sex offenders and handle registration and notification duties. Funding that allows
law enforcement to take advantage of new technologies to assist with these
tasks should also be provided.
Probation/parole survey results
This survey targeted direct supervision staff as well as second-line supervision
staff who regularly handle, or are trained to handle, sex offenders on probation
or parole. These State employees work in eight regions within the State. Many
are designated Sex Offender-Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents
and SO-ISP backup agents. Their unit supervisors, a handful of whom filled in
as SO-ISP backup agents, also were surveyed. Nonspecialist or
comprehensive agents with substantial numbers of sex offenders in their
caseloads were also included in the survey. Of the 128 individuals who
received survey instruments, 77 provided data for the study. These
respondents' service locations were representative of the overall population
distribution within the State, with 53 percent of the agents working in
predominantly urban areas and 30 percent assigned to rural areas (exhibit 4).
Field units represented in the survey differed widely in the number of sex
offenders under supervision. Eleven respondents from urban field units
monitored 200 or more sex offender probationers and 60 or more sex offender
parolees in their units. In contrast, 20 respondents from rural or suburban field
units monitored 40 or fewer sex offender probationers and 11 or fewer sex
offender parolees in their units. Because SO-ISP agent caseloads are capped
at 25 and due to budgetary constraints, field units typically called on
non-SO-ISP specialists to supervise varying numbers of sex offenders,
particularly in service areas outside Milwaukee and Madison.
Agents and supervisors at several probation/parole meetings helped researchers
identify relevant issues and concerns. Their comments and suggestions were
then incorporated into the questionnaire. Survey items consisted of questions
about the management and supervision of sex offenders and the agents' specific
notification responsibilities and tasks. Several open-ended questions were
included to allow exploration of the problems and difficulties in implementing
their law-related responsibilities.
Policy and training. The advent of sex offender community notification in June
1997 has directly or indirectly affected all agents who supervise sex offenders in
Wisconsin. Eighty-nine percent of the responding agents and supervisors said
they had working knowledge of recent written policies, directives, and
operational procedures covering the law's changes. Specifically, these changes
include the establishment of a Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) process,
which enables local and county law enforcement agencies to receive detailed
information from DOC on specific sex offenders to be released to their
respective areas. The law also allows the periodic polygraph testing of sex
offenders as a condition of probation, parole, or conditional supervision.
Seventy-one percent of all respondents conducted special management training
for unit supervisors, and 93 percent conducted special training about the law for
agents. In actual numbers, only 1 of 19 field units in the study did not have at
least one agent trained in the provisions of the notification law. Fifty-five percent
of respondents said their field units had from one to five agents so trained, and
29 percent reported nine or more. However, a larger majority of respondents,
84 percent, indicated that persons from their field unit had attended preparation
sessions with other agency representatives (law enforcement, victim and witness
coordinators, and so forth) on how the new law worked. These sessions were
frequently conducted by DOC notification experts and ultimately served much
the same purpose as the inservice training. In short, these findings show that
agents and supervisors responsible for implementing the law are familiar with
and trained in DOC policy.
Workload. The average sex offender caseload for agents in the survey was 25
active cases, but 9 agents had 40 or more sex offenders to supervise, and 6 of
the 9 (mostly urban agents) had 50 or more. Twenty-nine percent of
probation/parole respondents had more than 30 sex offenders to oversee
(exhibit 5). Thirty-seven percent had an average of 21 to 30 offenders on their
caseloads. The intensive supervision required in many sex offender cases,
particularly those designated as SBN cases,[5] has placed an added workload
burden on probation/parole units whose resources are already stretched thin.
To maximize surveillance resources, many of these units work closely with law
enforcement officers to supervise moderate- to high-risk sex offenders in the
community. Because law enforcement shares information and coordinates the
monitoring of sex offenders under intensive supervision, offenders are
considered less likely to engage in unlawful behavior.
Some of the heavier caseloads contained low-risk sex offender cases
(nonviolent offense, no prior felony, and so forth) that did not require the
intensive supervision demanded of high-risk sex offenders. Nevertheless, the
community notification statute has added considerably to probation/parole units'
workloads throughout the State. When SBNs are received by local and county
law enforcement officials informing them of releases to their jurisdictions, the
decisionmaking process for determining the level, scope, and method of
community notification usually begins.[6] Probation/parole agents assigned
these SBN cases, together with their unit supervisors, are integral parts of that
process and the followup it requires.
Based on survey responses, 64 percent of sex offender agents reported having
at least five SBN cases in their caseload. In general, SBN cases are perceived
by agents as requiring more supervision contacts than non-SBN sex offender
cases of comparable risk that preceded the notification law (the law was not
retroactive in making all high-risk sex offender cases SBN cases; therefore,
most respondents reported a mixed caseload). According to 74 percent of
respondents, even before an SBN offender is released from confinement, the
assigned agents are at work with law enforcement and others on various
aspects of the case.
The handling of SBN cases not only required more work than pre-June 1997
sex-offender cases but presented a multitude of problems for agents and unit
supervisors as well. In response to a question that allowed for multiple
responses, the difficulties agents reported included locating housing for
offenders (66 percent), dealing with the media (40 percent), getting timely
offender information (31 percent), and feeling pressure from superiors because
of the high-profile nature of SBN cases (13 percent). In their open-ended
comments, many respondents voiced frustration with trying to find residential
placements for publicized sex offenders.
Based on survey responses, probation/parole agents with SBN cases were
more likely than agents assigned non-SBN sex offenders to devote time to the
victims of their assigned sex offenders. A higher percentage of SBN sex
offender cases (33 percent) than non-SBN sex offender cases (20 percent)
involved victim contact. Ongoing communication concerning the status of the
sex offender, including advising the victim, the victim's family, or victim service
providers of significant changes in the offender's status was most typical of
contact during postrelease supervision. Given the considerable importance that
agents attach to this and other victim-related tasks, such as enforcing
no-contact or restitution conditions of probation/parole, compassionate victim
relations tended to consume much of the agents' time and emotional energy.
Another workload consideration was the time, paperwork, and agents' and unit
supervisors' efforts expended on prerevocation sanctions. Sanctions are
commonly used to manage the behavior of sex offenders suspected of
noncompliance with the conditions of probation or parole. For example,
electronic monitoring is a sanction. Survey respondents reported a higher
percentage of electronic monitoring as a prerevocation sanction in SBN cases
(58 percent) versus non-SBN cases (44 percent) involving sex offenders.
The final workload consideration bearing on SBN cases pertained to agent and
unit supervisor involvement in community notification meetings. Forty-six
percent of survey respondents reported that, as part of their job, they attended
at least one and, in some cases, more than six such meetings. Sixty-nine percent
of agents and unit supervisors who worked these meetings also said they served
as one of several presenters, a task that usually required several days of
preparation. In addition, 83 percent of these respondents reported they or
others in their unit helped local and county law enforcement plan and organize a
notification meeting. This translated into about 40 hours of agent time per
meeting.
The large investment of time and energy on SBN cases often meant agents paid
less attention to other cases, according to both agent and unit supervisor
respondents. As one respondent explained, "[t]he rest of your caseload has to
be put on hold ... because your time is totally consumed with the release of the
SBN sex offender."
Implications of the probation/parole survey
These findings suggest three issues for consideration by State and local
policymakers, as well as by probation and parole administrators, supervisors,
and agents:
-- Foster close working relationships between probation/parole agents assigned
to supervise sex offenders and law enforcement line officers. The fact that most
field units teamed with law enforcement in planning and organizing community
notification meetings was positive, but this collaboration needs to carry over to
the demanding task of monitoring and restricting the behavior of sex offenders
in the community. Working as a team, correctional and law enforcement
professionals can best respond to and resolve existing and potential problems.
-- Provide additional funding to hire and train sufficient numbers of
probation/parole agents needed for the intensive supervision of sex offenders.
Intensive, proactive supervision of sex offenders whose risk has been carefully
assessed has proved to be an effective and less costly alternative to
incarceration. Although community notification for sex offenders bolsters the
monitoring capabilities of intensive supervision programs, it does so at a cost of
increased workload.
-- Ensure adequate community support-particularly in the areas of housing,
employment, and treatment-to effectively move sex offenders from prisons and
jails to society. With limited placement opportunities for sex offenders, even the
most resourceful probation/parole agents find it difficult to perform this highly
demanding aspect of the job.
Findings from sex offender interviews
Another aspect of this study was the insight provided by the subjects of
community notification meetings and other expanded notification actions.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 30 sex offenders in communities
throughout Wisconsin. Interview subjects were selected based on their status as
Level 3 SBN sex offenders, their notification exposure in the community, and
their willingness to participate in the study. Two incarcerated sex offender
interviewees were in revocation status due to technical parole violations. The
others were under community supervision. They were all males (exhibit 6).
Interviewees were informed of the study's purpose, its confidential nature, and
the voluntary nature of their participation. Written consent was obtained from
each interviewee. The interview subjects were asked a series of questions
about their experiences with community notification and the impact it had on
their lives.
All but one interviewee stated that the community notification process adversely
affected their transition from prison to the outside world. Loss of employment,
exclusion from residence, and the breakup of personal relationships were
frequently cited consequences of expanded notification actions and ensuing
detrimental publicity (exhibit 7). Seventy-seven percent told of being humiliated
in their daily lives, ostracized by neighbors and lifetime acquaintances, and
harassed or threatened by nearby residents or strangers. Although only one
interviewee was on the receiving end of what might be described as a vigilante
action, all expressed various degrees of concern for their own safety.
Two-thirds of the interviewed sex offenders also spoke of how community
notification unfavorably affected the lives of family members, including parents,
siblings, and offspring. Several cited emotionally painful examples. One
interviewee talked of his mother's anguish and depression following newspaper
accounts stemming from notification. Another spoke of his son's decision to quit
his high school football team because of ridicule from teammates, and a third
related how his sister was shunned by former friends. Five interviewees who
lived in the same communities as their victims expressed concern for how
expanded notification and renewed public attention might affect their victims.[7]
The opinions of sex offenders as to what effect community notification
had on how they were supervised were mixed. Nineteen interviewees (63
percent) characterized their relationship with their probation/parole agent as
supportive, but the other 11 (37 percent) described dealings with their agents in
less favorable terms. Many interviewees deeply resented certain conditions of
supervision, and some felt that their agents responded in a punitive way to
pressure created by the high-profile nature of their cases.
Several sex offenders complained of being arbitrarily singled out from among
hundreds of sex offenders in the State for community notification. They traced
their difficulty in finding a place to live and in keeping a job to community
notification and media sensationalism. Some of the interviewees were angered
that they had to accept residence in minimum-security prisons or correctional
centers because of the lack of alternative housing in the community. Expanded
notification has created enormous obstacles in locating housing resources for
returning sex offenders.
Those undergoing treatment for deviant sexual behavior indicated that, for the
most part, community notification did not interfere with this therapy. The public
reaction to their release in the community, aside from drawing initial comments
from others in their treatment group, was discounted as a negative influence on
their self-esteem and their ability to "open up" in treatment. One interviewee,
however, said community notification actually furthered his progress in
treatment by helping him to fully understand and take responsibility for his
crime.
Only a few of the interviewed sex offenders thought the community notification
law would prevent reoffending by making their actions more visible to the
public. Most believed the law would have the opposite effect. Many drew from
their own embittered experience with community notification to suggest that the
tremendous pressure placed on sex offenders by the public and the media
would drive many of them back to prison.
Implications of sex offender interviews
-- Develop housing, employment, and treatment resources for sex offenders to
enable them to successfully return to the community. Stable residence,
productive work activity, and effective treatment are prerequisites for managing
the behavior of this group of offenders in society.
-- Foster cooperation between the news media and those agencies charged
with protecting the public from sex offenders released from prisons and jails.
The media need to be correctly informed about the policies, procedures, and
actions of law enforcement and corrections agencies regarding sex offenders.
Law enforcement and corrections agencies working with the media might avert
future misunderstandings and problems, such as sensationalizing or
misclassifying a sex offender, which result in public overreaction.
Conclusions
This exploratory study of the impact of sex offender community notification in
Wisconsin has provided a rich source of empirical data on the perceptions of
and reactions to the process among law enforcement, probation/parole
agencies, communities, and sex offenders. Findings indicated that although the
law's primary goal of community protection is being served, law enforcement
and corrections agencies bear a high cost in terms of personnel, time, and
budgetary resources. Community notification also carries a personal cost for the
sex offenders so identified.
For law enforcement, the manpower needed to gather information and hold
meetings to determine the appropriate level of notification is considerable.
Periodic patrols in the neighborhood of the sex offender's residence and
occasional calls for service to the residence are additional agency burdens.
Even targeted notification to agencies, organizations, and groups is a growing
responsibility for law enforcement agencies. In addition, law enforcement often
plays a pivotal role in organizing and convening community meetings to notify
residents about sex offenders.
Probation/parole field units bear the onus of locating housing in the community
for sex offenders, a time-consuming and frequently frustrating task. Supervision;
home visits; collateral contacts with landlords, employers, and so forth; and
escorting sex offenders also consume a large portion of agents' workweeks.
Finally, agents are now directly involved in community meetings for SBN sex
offenders. In short, probation/parole caseloads are already large, and sex
offender supervision demands an inordinate amount of time.
For the general public, community notification offers an opportunity not only to
acquire information about identified sex offenders residing in their
neighborhoods but also to choose whether to become part of the supervision
network. Notification can be used to incite the public concerning sex offenders,
or it can be used to educate the public about preventive measures. The
importance of community resources in assisting sex offender reintegration and
preventing recidivism must be part of this educational process.
For the sex offender, housing and employment are the most immediate needs.
Offenders worry about harassment, having to continually move, and the
possibility of placement in a correctional facility in lieu of a residence in the
community. They also worry about the stress on their families resulting from
community notification. The pressure placed on many of these individuals by
community notification needs to be further examined as a factor in their success
or failure under community supervision.
Notes
1. Bedarf, A.R. "Examining Sex Offender Community Notification Laws,"
California Law Review 83 (3) (1995): 885-939; Matson, Scott, and Roxanne
Lieb, Sex Offender Community Notification: A Review of Laws in 45 States,
Olympia, WA: Washington State Institution for Public Policy, 1997.
2. Ibid.
3. The survey instrument used for notification meetings was an 18-item
questionnaire calling for multiple-choice as well as open-ended answers. It was
previously tested with a group of residents to assure clarity and relevance and
to avoid negative connotations or value-laden terms in its construction.
4. The respondent sample included 116 agencies that had 1-25 sworn officers,
59 agencies that had 26-100 sworn officers, 4 agencies that had 101-150
sworn officers, 8 agencies that had 151-500 sworn officers, and 1 agency
with more than 501 sworn officers. Sworn officers assigned to detention or jail
duty were not counted because they had only limited involvement with sex
offender community notification, even though many of these officers performed
sex offender registration tasks. Sample respondents overrepresent larger police
departments but are a mirror representation of sheriffs' departments in
Wisconsin.
5. Sixty-four percent of sex offender agents in the survey reported having at
least five SBN cases in their caseloads.
6. Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Badger State Sheriffs Association,
and Wisconsin Department of Corrections, "Sex Offender Registration and
Community Notification: Guidelines for Wisconsin Law Enforcement,"
Madison: Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 1997: 9.
7. As of December 1999, it appears that no crime victim who is a family or
stepfamily member of a sex offender, or who lived in the household of a sex
offender when the crime occurred, has been subjected to inadvertent
identification through community notification. The Guidelines underscore the
grave desire that this situation be avoided: "It is important to consider if the
victim(s) of the individual were within the household or a family member." Ibid.,
17.
Additional references
Finn, Peter, Sex Offender Community Notification. Research in Action.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1997, NCJ 162364.
National Criminal Justice Association, Sex Offender Community Notification:
Policy Report. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Association, 1997.
Poole, Carol, and Roxanne Lieb, Community Notification in Washington State:
Decision-Making and Costs, Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy, 1995.
Pullen, Suzanne, and Kim English, "Law Enforcement Registration and
Community Notification," in Managing Sex Offenders in the Community, ed. K.
English, S. Pullen, and L. Jones, Lexington, KY: American Probation and
Parole Association, 1995.
Schram, Donna, and Cheryl Milloy, Community Notification: A Study of
Offender Characteristics and Recidivism, Seattle: Urban Policy Research,
1995.
---------------------------
Dr. Richard G. Zevitz is an associate professor of Criminology and Law
Studies at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and former chairman
of the California State Advisory Committee on Child Abuse.
Dr. Mary Ann Farkas is an assistant professor of Criminology and Law Studies
and director of Graduate Studies in Administration of Justice at Marquette
University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
This research was supported by grant number 98-IJ-CX-0015 from the
National Institute of Justice through Marquette University in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
The authors are indebted to James Frinzi for his invaluable contribution as
senior research assistant on this project. Anthony Streveler, assistant
administrator with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, is also
acknowledged for his generous assistance.
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.
This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the NIJ
Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).
NCJ 179992