DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03015.v1
title: Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998
title: Version 1

description: In response to widespread public concern about convicted
 sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state laws have
 been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of local
 communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma
 associated with community notification is balancing the public's
 right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate
 offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state
 jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification
 statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience
 from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community
 notification process. This data collection contains three surveys that
 were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a
 survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification
 meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312
 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of
 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with
 sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Variables in Part 1 include how
 respondents found out about the date and place of the community
 notification meeting, respondents' opinions of the purpose of the
 meeting, how clearly the purpose of meeting was stated, how the
 meeting went, outcomes, rating of information presented, if materials
 were handed out, if the materials were helpful, and respondents' level
 of concern after the meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include
 variables such as type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population
 size, if the agency designated a special staff member to coordinate
 the sex offender registration and notification functions, if the
 agency had policies regarding registration of sex offenders and
 community notification about sex offenders, if the agency attended
 statewide training, who participated in the Core Notification Team,
 what kind of information was used to determine a sex offender's risk
 to the community, which agencies registered to receive notice, and if
 the agency planned to update or expand their notification list.
 Additional variables cover the number of requests for information from
 Neighborhood Watch Programs, what identifying information about the
 offender the agency released, types of communication the agency
 received from the public after a notification had been issued, topics
 discussed in the public communication to the agency, benefits of the
 community notification law, difficulties in carrying out the
 requirements of the law, and methods developed to handle the
 problems. Probation and parole survey (Part 3) variables focused on
 characteristics of the respondent's supervising area, the number of
 agents assigned to the respondents' unit, the number of agents
 designated as Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP)
 agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the number of child or adult sex
 offenders under probation or parole, if the respondent participated in
 any meetings regarding the provisions of the notification law and its
 implementation, if the supervisor received specialized training, and
 areas covered in the training. Other variables include whether the
 notification level was decided by the Core Notification Team,
 difficulties the respondent had with Special Bulletin Notification
 (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her caseload, if the respondent's
 field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high risk" agent teams to manage sex
 offenders, which individuals worked with the respondent's team, the
 type of caseload the respondent supervised, the number of sex
 offenders on the respondent's caseload, if the respondent used a
 special risk assessment or classification instrument for sex
 offenders, other information used to determine the supervision level
 for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were managed differently
 than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph was used on sex
 offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the treatment
 provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk, SBN, or
 medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and procedures
 used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and prerevocation
sanctions used.
description: In response to widespread public concern about
 convicted sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state
 laws have been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of
 local communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma
 associated with community notification is balancing the public's
 right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate
 offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state
 jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification
 statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience
 from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community
notification process.
description: This data collection contains three surveys that
 were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a
 survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification
 meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312
 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of
 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with
 sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Most of the community notification
 meetings for Part 1 data were held in the early evening in school
 auditoriums, and attendance (not including official presenters) ranged
 from a half-dozen persons at one meeting to over a hundred at
 another. Attendees were handed questionnaires, which they completed
 and returned upon leaving the meetings. For Part 2, information was
 collected from local and county law enforcement agencies on their
 notification responsibilities. Each agency in the sample was mailed a
 questionnaire accompanied by a cover letter and a printed prepaid
 return envelope. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study
 and provided instructions for filling out the questionnaire. If
 necessary, a reminder letter was sent out, followed by a second survey
 mailing. After these contacts were made, the nonrespondents were
 telephoned twice, if necessary, to request that they complete and
 return the survey. The probation and parole data (Part 3) were
 collected at a statewide probation and parole officer conference on
 sex offender supervision and management. Sex Offender Intensive
 Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents, SO-ISP backup agents, their unit
 supervisors, and nonspecialist or "comprehensive" agents with
 substantial numbers of sex offenders on their caseloads were
 targeted. A short presentation on the purpose of the study was
 provided, followed by instructions for completing and returning the
 survey. The survey was then distributed to each agent in attendance at
 the conference. Because some agents in the departments did not attend
 the conference, each probation/parole field office was mailed
 additional surveys and directions to distribute them only to those
agents.
description: Variables in Part 1 include how respondents found
 out about the date and place of the community notification meeting,
 respondents' opinions of the purpose of the meeting, how clearly the
 purpose of meeting was stated, how the meeting went, outcomes, rating
 of information presented, if materials were handed out, if the
 materials were helpful, and respondents' level of concern after the
 meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include variables such as
 type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population size, if the agency
 designated a special staff member to coordinate the sex offender
 registration and notification functions, if the agency had policies
 regarding registration of sex offenders and community notification
 about sex offenders, if the agency attended statewide training, who
 participated in the Core Notification Team, what kind of information
 was used to determine a sex offender's risk to the community, which
 agencies registered to receive notice, and if the agency planned to
 update or expand their notification list. Additional variables cover
 the number of requests for information from Neighborhood Watch
 Programs, what identifying information about the offender the agency
 released, types of communication the agency received from the public
 after a notification had been issued, topics discussed in the public
 communication to the agency, benefits of the community notification
 law, difficulties in carrying out the requirements of the law, and
 methods developed to handle the problems. Probation and parole survey
 (Part 3) variables focused on characteristics of the respondent's
 supervising area, the number of agents assigned to the respondents'
 unit, the number of agents designated as Sex Offender Intensive
 Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the
 number of child or adult sex offenders under probation or parole, if
 the respondent participated in any meetings regarding the provisions
 of the notification Law and its implementation, if the supervisor
 received specialized training, and areas covered in the training.
 Other variables include whether the notification level was decided by
 the Core Notification Team, difficulties the respondent had with
 Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her
 caseload, if the respondent's field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high
 risk" agent teams to manage sex offenders, which individuals worked
 with the respondent's team, the type of caseload the respondent
 supervised, the number of sex offenders on the respondent's caseload,
 if the respondent used a special risk assessment or classification
 instrument for sex offenders, other information used to determine the
 supervision level for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were
 managed differently than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph
 was used on sex offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the
 treatment provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk,
 SBN, or medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and
 procedures used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and
prerevocation sanctions used.
description: Response Rates: Part 1: Nearly 800 attendees of the community
 notification were handed questionnaires, and 704 completed and
 returned these instruments. Part 2: A total of 142 police departments
 (59 percent) and 46 sheriff departments (64 percent) returned the
 questionnaires, for a total response rate of 60 percent. Of the
 responding agencies, 34 percent served populations under 10,000, and
 only 2 percent served populations over 150,000. Over half (57 percent)
 of the responding sheriffs served counties of 39,000 or more. Part 3:
 Of the 128 probation/ parole agents and supervisors who received
survey instruments, 77 (60 percent) returned them.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Parts 1 and 3: None. Part 2: Stratified sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Community Notification Meeting Data
DS2: Law Enforcement Agency Data
DS3: Probation and Parole Agents Data
description: Neighborhood residents, police and sheriff agencies, and
 probation and parole agents plus their supervisors in the state of
Wisconsin.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.