U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Julie E. Samuels, Acting Director

continued...

Sex Offender Community Notification:

Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin

By Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas

December 2000

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

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

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 onefifth (18 percent) of the residents

attending notification meetings

expected the gathering to be a

forum for discussing the removal
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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 abovementioned 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

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

Issues and Findings ...continued

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.
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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.

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.

Exhibit 1. How attendees were alerted to the notification meetings

Community contacts

15% Media

27%

Local officials

13%

Fliers

16%

Other

29%

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
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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. Seventythree percent of agencies used interExhibit 2. How attendees rated the amount of information provided,

by level of concern Number of respondents

Rated adequate Rated inadequate

0

50

100

150

200

250

More concerned Neutral Less concerned

Level of concern

15

220 228

5

185

40
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

agency 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 onefourth 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

Exhibit 3. Law enforcement use of interagency notification team approach

Agencies

not using

notification

teams

27%

Agencies using

notification

teams

73%
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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

*Four respondents answered “other” or did not answer.

Exhibit 4. Number of SO–ISP agents by type of community Percentage of responding agents by population density of service area

0

20

40

60

80

100

None 1–3 4–8 9 or more

Number of SO–ISP agents*

Rural (30%) Suburban (17%) (53%) Urban

25%

8%

67%

48%

13%

39%

50%

43%

7%

92%

8%
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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 openended questions were included to

allow exploration of the problems and

difficulties in implementing their lawrelated 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/

Exhibit 5. Average number of sex offender cases per probation/parole

respondent

21–30 offenders

37%

More than

30 offenders

29%

10 or fewer

offenders

22%

11–20 offenders

12%
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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 nonSBN sex offenders to devote time to the

victims of their assigned sex offenders.

A higher percentage of SBN sex offender cases (33 percent) than nonSBN 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 commu-
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

nity 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

Exhibit 6. Descriptive statistics of the sample

Sample

Descriptor N = 30

Gender

Male 30 (100.0)

Female 0 (0.0)

Race/ethnicity

European American 21 (70.0)

African-American 5 (16.7)

Hispanic 3 (10.0)

Native American 1 (3.3)

Mean age 40 years

Note: Findings are represented as frequencies, percentages, and means. Percentages may not total

100 due to rounding.
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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 timeconsuming 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

Exhibit 7. Consequences of notification, as reported by offenders

Problem Percentage Reporting

Exclusion of residence 83%

Threats/harassment 77

Emotional harm to family members 67

Ostracized by neighbors/acquaintances 67

Loss of employment 57

Added pressure from probation/parole agent 50

Vigilante attack 3
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

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.

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.

NCJ 179992

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).

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: DecisionMaking 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.