U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Julie E. Samuels, Acting Director December 2000

Issues and Findings Sex Offender Community Notification: Discussed in this Brief: The effects of Wisconsin’s community Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin notification statute that authorizes officials to alert residents about By Richard G. Zevitz and Mary Ann Farkas the release and reintegration of sex offenders in their communities, as perceived by residents, law In response to widespread public concern law enforcement offices, through tele- enforcement, probation/parole about the release of sex offenders from phone calls to central registry bureaus, by agents, and sex offenders. prison, the Federal Government and all logging onto Web sites, or by requesting Key issues: To prevent sexual vic- 50 States and the District of Columbia CD-ROMs containing relevant informa- timization, States have enacted have passed laws collectively referred to tion. Most notably, California and Florida community notification laws to in- as “community notification statutes” that use this type of notification process to en- form residents when convicted sex offenders are relocated to live in authorize or require communities where able residents to determine if and when their neighborhoods. However, the such offenders will live to be notified of they need to access such information. effects of such laws on community their arrival. The common goal of these A third type of notification statute, used residents, law enforcement re- statutes is to prevent sexual victimization only in Louisiana,2 requires paroled child sources, parole and probation of- by notifying potential victims that a con- molesters to identify themselves as sex ficer resources, and offenders have not been studied. Each of these victed sex offender lives nearby. offenders to residents in the neighbor- groups was surveyed to ascertain hoods where they will live. the effectiveness of notification Although the statutes vary widely in com- laws, identify areas for further plexity and the level of State and local The dilemma associated with community research, and highlight policy bureaucratic involvement, three basic notification is balancing the public’s right development concerns. notification types have emerged.1 Most to know with the need to successfully re- Key findings: Three types of noti- States authorize local and county law en- integrate offenders within the community. fication laws exist: those by which forcement agencies to decide whether to Wisconsin, along with the 49 other State law enforcement agencies alert release information about convicted sex jurisdictions, has tried to give equal residents of sex offenders moving offenders to the public; Wisconsin is one weight to these competing interests into their neighborhoods; those such State. In these States, law enforce- through its sex offender community notifi- by which relevant data are made available to residents who seek it; ment also generally decides the manner cation statute. In doing so, police chiefs and those by which convicted child and extent of notification, as well as the and sheriffs have experimented with vari- molesters are required to identify amount of information to be made public. ous approaches to notifying the commu- themselves as sex offenders. Find- nity, including community meetings, ings in Wisconsin, where the law is Under the second type of notification news releases, and Internet postings. of the first type, included: statute, individual members of the public

● The public needs additional may request information about convicted Until now, research on sex offender com- information about the purpose of sex offenders living in their communities munity notification has been limited in notification meetings and the lim- from a government-maintained central nature. There has been no indepth study its of notification laws. Nearly one- registry. Private citizens may access reg- of a single State’s experience from the fifth (18 percent) of the residents istration information in binders at local vantage point of those most affected by attending notification meetings expected the gathering to be a forum for discussing the removal continued… R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings the notification process. This NIJ-funded to be used, namely to further community …continued research sought to fill that gap by study- protection. However, the decision to notify ing the impact of community notification and involve the public in an informal net- on residents, law enforcement agencies, work of neighborhood surveillance comes or prevention of the offender probation and parole agents, and the sex at the cost of increased community anxi- from living in the neighborhood. offenders themselves. ety, impeded offender reintegration, and ● A nearly equal percentage of drained agency resources. This Research notification meeting attendees The case study reported here focuses on in Brief summarizes the study’s key left the meetings feeling more Wisconsin and includes information from: findings and examines several policy concerned about the sex offender as those who felt less concerned ● Surveys of 704 neighborhood residents implications drawn from observation of about the offender. The most fre- at 22 community notification meetings community notification from the above- quently heard concerns at meet- held throughout the State and direct mentioned perspectives. ings were the attendees’ fear of observations of notification meetings. being victimized by the offender, the offender’s past, and identify- The survey covered these meetings, Survey results of notification ing who placed the offender in which were held in large cities, subur- meetings a particular neighborhood. ban districts, rural townships, and From January 1998 through mid-September small villages. ● Law enforcement agencies ex- 1998, researchers studied 22 community perienced few problems carrying ● A statewide survey of 312 police and notification meetings in 16 locations out tasks prescribed by the notifi- sheriffs’ agencies—which yielded us- throughout Wisconsin, ranging from large cation law. The cost of labor re- able data from 188 of them—combined sources necessary for notification, cities to suburban districts to small vil- however, was an issue. Many with field observations of law enforce- lages; every region of the State was repre- agencies benefited from coopera- ment agencies around the State. The sented. Because the survey targeted those tively planning meetings with survey included all 72 sheriffs’ depart- community members who attended a noti- other agencies (e.g., county law ments in the State and a systematic fication meeting, a convenience sample of enforcement and probation and parole agencies). sample made up of 240 of the police meeting attendees was obtained. Approxi- agencies in the State. mately 800 attendees were handed survey ● Notification laws increased the questionnaires, and 704 attendees com- ● A statewide survey of 128 probation workload of probation and parole pleted and returned these instruments officers who monitor sex offend- and parole agents and supervisors from ers, especially for high-profile units with sex offender caseloads— upon leaving the meetings. Most meetings Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) which yielded a sample of 77—com- were held in the early evening at school cases that require more intensive bined with field observations at the auditoriums, and attendance (not includ- supervision. Agents averaged at unit and regional levels. The survey ing official presenters) ranged from 6 per- least five SBN cases; the total av- sons at one meeting to 108 at another. The erage sex offender caseload was included both sex offender specialists 25 cases. and nonspecialists, or “comprehen- purpose of the study and instructions for sive” personnel, who had a substantial completion of the questionnaire were ex- ● Housing resources for sex of- number of sex offenders in their plained at all meetings where the survey fenders released to notification was distributed. The voluntary nature of areas were scarce, especially in caseloads. the case of offenders subject to participation and the anonymity of ● expanded notification. Face-to-face interviews with 30 con- responses were emphasized. victed sex offenders (from a total ● Further research is necessary to population of 44), residing throughout The survey found that 27 percent (188) of ascertain the effects of notifica- the State, who were the subjects of attendee respondents were alerted to the tion laws on recidivism. Some meeting through the news media (exhibit 1). offenders said the pressure placed community notification and/or news on them by the public and the media exposure. Fifty-nine percent (412) perceived that media could drive many of them the purpose of the meeting was to inform back to prison. Results of the study indicate that, in gen- the community about a specific offender eral, community notification was used the slated for release into the community. Target audience: Law enforce- way legislative policymakers intended it ment, probation and parole Twenty-nine percent (201) believed the officers, and researchers.

2 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f meeting’s purpose was to “soften the The generally favorable reaction to the one in four respondents, made up the reaction to placing a sex offender in informational content of community group with the greatest percentage the community.”3 notification meetings found no parallel of respondents who were “more con- in how meeting respondents felt about cerned than before” about the offenders. There was more consensus among re- sex offenders living nearby. Residents Allowing for overlapping responses, of spondents about the expected outcome who attended a notification meeting those attendees who came expecting to of the notification meetings than about were asked about their level of con- place blame on public officials or to their perceived purpose. In a question cern about the sex offender in question prevent or remove the resident sex of- permitting more than one response, 80 in their community. Following the fender, approximately 67 percent left percent (560) of respondents expected meeting, 38 percent of survey respon- feeling “more concerned than before.” to “acquire as much information as dents were more concerned, the level possible to safeguard against the po- of concern felt by 27 percent was un- Although respondents were generally tential threat posed by the offender.” changed, and 35 percent of respon- satisfied with the amount of informa- Eighteen percent (130) expected to re- dents were less concerned than before. tion presented at the meetings they at- move or prevent the offender from re- tended, ample amounts of information siding in their neighborhood. Only five Whether attendees felt a heightened appeared to have no effect on their percent (38) of respondents expected level of concern following a commu- anxiety levels (exhibit 2). This finding “to place the blame on whoever was nity notification meeting appears to be was especially true with regard to in- responsible for placing the offender in closely related to how realistic their formation about specific sex-offender the neighborhood.” Significantly, the expectations were for the outcome of residents and the limited options foremost expectation—to gather useful the meeting. Those attendees who provided by law to communities. For information—appears to have been came expecting to lay blame on the example, 71 percent of respondents met. Fifty-six percent of attendee re- party or parties who placed the of- judged the amount of information pre- spondents rated information from the fender in their neighborhood or who sented about the community’s lawful meeting as very helpful, and an addi- wanted to remove or prevent the place- options as adequate, but only 35 per- tional 36 percent felt it was moderately ment were frequently disappointed. cent of respondents left the meetings helpful. Only 5 percent found little or Understandably, these individuals, feeling less concerned than before. no value in the meeting they attended. who cumulatively amounted to nearly Thus, meeting attendees appear to have perceived that the law and its agents—police and parole officials— Exhibit 1. How attendees were alerted to the notification meetings provide few, if any, legal alternatives for dealing with sex offenders placed in their communities. In one sense, the Community contacts most significant finding of the notifica- 15% Media 27% tion meetings survey may be the in- verse relationship between the factors that make notification meetings suc- cessful (i.e., providing ample amounts of helpful information) and the high anxiety levels among those in atten- dance. Many attendees emerged from Other such meetings better informed but still 29% feeling anxious and frustrated; how- Local officials 13% ever, such feelings now were focused on the sex offender.

Fliers 16%

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

sheriffs (57 percent) served counties Exhibit 2. How attendees rated the amount of information provided, by level of concern with 39,000 or more inhabitants.

250 Each agency in the sample was mailed a standardized questionnaire with 228 220 items designed to assess its attitudes 200 toward the new law and its various 185 provisions. The survey was also in- 150 tended to identify the policies and practices agencies used when imple- menting the law’s requirements. 100 Several open-ended questions were included to explore specific problem

Number of respondents 50 areas or difficulties the agencies expe- rienced in carrying out the notification 40 15 5 responsibilities. Nonparticipant obser- 0 More concerned Neutral Less concerned vation at two regional law enforcement Level of concern training meetings on the law increased the validity of the survey by highlight- Rated inadequate Rated adequate ing the relevant issues and concerns regarding community notification.

Implications of the notification released from prisons and jails. Other Policy and practice. For the most meetings survey educational brochures can provide use- part, law enforcement agencies in the ful information about how the public survey were prepared for the advent of Survey results indicate a need to edu- can guard against sexual victimization. sex offender community notification. cate the public about the realities of If the public better understands the The Wisconsin Department of Correc- what community notification laws can protective measures used by local tions (DOC), in conjunction with the and cannot be expected to accomplish. authorities and the necessary public Wisconsin Chiefs of Police and the The public has the right to be ade- precautions, their anxiety and feelings Badger State Sheriffs Associations, quately informed of the risks posed of helplessness may be lessened. developed “Sex Offender Registration by sex offenders but also must under- and Community Notification: The stand that the notification law does not Law enforcement survey Guidelines for Wisconsin Law En- offer recourse for residents who seek forcement,” which recommends a local results to remove a sex offender from their or regional team approach to notifying neighborhood. Instead, law enforce- A sample of 312 local and county law the public about sex offenders. This ment warns residents of the penalties enforcement agencies was selected to approach involves collaboration among for misusing notification information to receive a law enforcement-related sur- law enforcement, corrections, and inflict violence on sex offenders. Un- vey; 188 completed and returned the other agencies to review, plan, and less this message is clearly conveyed, questionnaires for a response rate of make decisions in carrying out the community notification meetings risk 60 percent. The responding agencies notification process. becoming staging grounds for further consisted of 142 police departments punishment or harassment of offend- (59 percent of the police sample) and Survey data indicated that 86 percent ers. For example, resource materials 46 sheriffs’ departments (64 percent of of responding law enforcement agen- that explain the notification law’s sheriffs).4 Of the responding agencies, cies were familiar with the Wisconsin function and practical limits may be 34 percent served populations of less guidelines; 66 percent reported that used to spell out the responsibilities than 10,000, and only 2 percent served their written policies and procedures of law enforcement and corrections to populations of more than 150,000. reflected these guidelines. Seventy- both the public and sex offenders More than half of the responding three percent of agencies used inter-

4 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f agency notification teams in their period. In general, the findings re- on observations made at the meetings decisions regarding sex offenders vealed that notification meetings were under study, attendee questions and (exhibit 3), and 90 percent said structured around informational pre- concerns and the presenters’ responses corrections officials participated on sentations on specific topics. At the can be crucial to meeting outcomes. these teams. meetings, all law enforcement agen- Unfortunately, the guidelines offer no cies reported providing information on assistance on how to conduct commu- As further evidence of their role in this the law as it related to sex offenders. nity notification meetings, and none of process, the guidelines recommend— More than half (55 percent) of re- the respondents had developed written in the absence of statutory directives sponding agencies reported that public policies on this subject. and when a case warrants notification education about typical sex offender consideration—that the teams use a behavior and target-hardening precau- Reported problems and difficul- three-tier notification system based on tions were also discussed. According ties. Most law enforcement agencies risk assessment. Level 1 cases limit to 92 percent of respondents with identified few, if any, problem areas in notification to law enforcement agen- meeting experience, correctional rep- carrying out the requirements of the cies in a specific area. Level 2 uses resentatives were copresenters at their notification law. The one exception targeted notification to schools, community notification meetings. appears to be labor expenditures, daycare providers, and so forth, and which more than two-thirds of law en- Level 3 entails expanded notification Ninety-two percent of responding forcement respondents identified as a through community meetings, news agencies with meeting experience reason for concern. Many respondents media releases, and so forth. This identified the three most frequently considered the work required by com- three-level format for sex offender voiced public concerns as fear of being munity notification to be an unfunded notification was employed by 82 per- victimized by the sex offender in ques- mandate by the State. Fifty-eight per- cent of the Wisconsin law enforcement tion, the offender’s criminal past and cent of agencies said the law increased agencies in the sample. current conviction, and pinpointing re- their workload, and more than one- sponsibility for monitoring the offender fourth complained the law created a Fourteen percent of responding agen- in the community. Eighty-three per- strain on departmental resources. cies said they issued at least one Level cent of those agencies reported attend- Roughly one-third of respondents 3 notification in the 1-year period after ees’ concern with finding out why a indicated their agency encountered the notification law took effect. Of sex offender was placed in their neigh- additional problems, such as media these, 54 percent of agencies held at borhood. How those common concerns sensationalism (16 percent) and overre- least one Level 3-type community were dealt with at community notifica- action by the public (16 percent). Only notification meeting during this tion meetings varied by agency. Based 6 percent of agency respondents re- ported incidents of harassment toward Exhibit 3. Law enforcement use of interagency notification team approach sex offenders since the law took effect. Most of these incidents were deemed minor, involving insults and verbal taunts. Only one overt act of vigilan- tism was reported and that involved Agencies using damage to an offender’s vehicle. Of the notification agencies reporting harassment of a sex teams Agencies offender, 67 percent were uncertain 73% not using whether the harassment resulted from notification the community being notified or teams 27% whether another factor was involved. Responding agencies that generally believed the additional work created by the new law to be balanced by its

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

benefits. Most responding agencies ● Provide Federal or State funds backup agents, also were surveyed. identified specific benefits from the for the training and overtime Nonspecialist or comprehensive agents law’s registration provisions, such as in- expenses necessary for law en- with substantial numbers of sex of- creased information sharing. However, forcement personnel to main- fenders in their caseloads were also agencies were less convinced of the tain the case information on included in the survey. Of the 128 beneficial impact of community notifi- sex offenders and handle regis- individuals who received survey in- cation. Allowing for more than one re- tration and notification duties. struments, 77 provided data for the sponse, 49 percent of agencies thought Funding that allows law enforce- study. These respondents’ service notification facilitated the flow of in- ment to take advantage of new tech- locations were representative of the formation on sex offenders in a way nologies to assist with these tasks overall population distribution within that assisted with future investigations, should also be provided. the State, with 53 percent of the agents 48 percent felt it enhanced surveil- working in predominantly urban areas lance of sex offenders through commu- Probation/parole survey and 30 percent assigned to rural areas nity information sharing, and only 41 results (exhibit 4). percent believed it improved manage- This survey targeted direct supervision ment and containment of sex offender Field units represented in the survey staff as well as second-line supervision behavior through greater visibility. differed widely in the number of sex staff who regularly handle, or are offenders under supervision. Eleven trained to handle, sex offenders on respondents from urban field units Implications of the law probation or parole. These State em- monitored 200 or more sex offender enforcement survey ployees work in eight regions within probationers and 60 or more sex of- These findings point to recommenda- the State. Many are designated Sex fender parolees in their units. In con- tions for local and county law enforce- Offender–Intensive Supervision Pro- trast, 20 respondents from rural or ment agencies to consider: gram (SO–ISP) agents and SO–ISP suburban field units monitored 40 or backup agents. Their unit supervisors, fewer sex offender probationers and ● Encourage the use of local or a handful of whom filled in as SO–ISP 11 or fewer sex offender parolees in regional interagency teams to plan and manage the notifica- tion of communities about sex Exhibit 4. Number of SO–ISP agents by type of community offenders. This information shar- 100 ing and problem-solving approach 7% 8% will assist agencies in carrying out

their statutory responsibilities. 80 The practice has worked well and 39% 43% should continue. 60 ● Develop written policies and 67% 13% training protocols for conduct- 92% ing community notification 40 meetings. Local policy should address matters such as announcing 8% 50% 48% meetings, distributing pertinent 20

information about specific sex of- Percentage of responding agents by population density of service area 25% fenders (including their release lo- cations), answering questions, and 0 dealing with negative or potentially None 1–3 4–8 9 or more Number of SO–ISP agents* hostile reactions to a specific offender’s release. Rural (30%) Suburban (17%)Urban (53%)

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

6 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f their units. Because SO–ISP agent Exhibit 5. Average number of sex offender cases per probation/parole caseloads are capped at 25 and due to respondent budgetary constraints, field units typi- cally called on non-SO–ISP specialists to supervise varying numbers of sex More than offenders, particularly in service areas 21–30 offenders 30 offenders outside Milwaukee and Madison. 37% 29%

Agents and supervisors at several probation/parole meetings helped re- searchers identify relevant issues and concerns. Their comments and sugges- tions were then incorporated into the 10 or fewer questionnaire. Survey items consisted 11–20 offenders offenders of questions about the management 12% 22% and supervision of sex offenders and the agents’ specific notification re- only 1 of 19 field units in the study did sion required in many sex offender sponsibilities and tasks. Several open- not have at least one agent trained in cases, particularly those designated ended questions were included to the provisions of the notification law. as SBN cases,5 has placed an added allow exploration of the problems and Fifty-five percent of respondents said workload burden on probation/parole difficulties in implementing their law- their field units had from one to five units whose resources are already related responsibilities. agents so trained, and 29 percent re- stretched thin. To maximize surveil- ported nine or more. However, a larger lance resources, many of these units Policy and training. The advent of majority of respondents, 84 percent, work closely with law enforcement sex offender community notification in indicated that persons from their field officers to supervise moderate- to June 1997 has directly or indirectly unit had attended preparation sessions high-risk sex offenders in the commu- affected all agents who supervise sex with other agency representatives nity. Because law enforcement shares offenders in Wisconsin. Eighty-nine (law enforcement, victim and witness information and coordinates the moni- percent of the responding agents and coordinators, and so forth) on how the toring of sex offenders under intensive supervisors said they had working new law worked. These sessions were supervision, offenders are considered knowledge of recent written policies, frequently conducted by DOC notifica- less likely to engage in unlawful directives, and operational procedures tion experts and ultimately served behavior. covering the law’s changes. Specifi- much the same purpose as the inservice cally, these changes include the training. In short, these findings show Some of the heavier caseloads con- establishment of a Special Bulletin that agents and supervisors respon- tained low-risk sex offender cases Notification (SBN) process, which sible for implementing the law are fa- (nonviolent offense, no prior felony, enables local and county law enforce- miliar with and trained in DOC policy. and so forth) that did not require the ment agencies to receive detailed intensive supervision demanded of information from DOC on specific sex Workload. The average sex offender high-risk sex offenders. Nevertheless, offenders to be released to their re- caseload for agents in the survey was the community notification statute spective areas. The law also allows 25 active cases, but 9 agents had 40 or has added considerably to probation/ the periodic polygraph testing of sex more sex offenders to supervise, and parole units’ workloads throughout offenders as a condition of probation, 6 of the 9 (mostly urban agents) had the State. When SBNs are received parole, or conditional supervision. 50 or more. Twenty-nine percent of by local and county law enforcement Seventy-one percent of all respondents probation/parole respondents had officials informing them of releases to conducted special management train- more than 30 sex offenders to oversee their jurisdictions, the decisionmaking ing for unit supervisors, and 93 per- (exhibit 5). Thirty-seven percent had process for determining the level, cent conducted special training about an average of 21 to 30 offenders on scope, and method of community noti- the law for agents. In actual numbers, their caseloads. The intensive supervi- fication usually begins.6 Probation/

7 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f parole agents assigned these SBN involved victim contact. Ongoing com- into about 40 hours of agent time per cases, together with their unit supervi- munication concerning the status of meeting. sors, are integral parts of that process the sex offender, including advising and the followup it requires. the victim, the victim’s family, or vic- The large investment of time and en- tim service providers of significant ergy on SBN cases often meant agents Based on survey responses, 64 percent changes in the offender’s status paid less attention to other cases, ac- of sex offender agents reported having was most typical of contact during cording to both agent and unit super- at least five SBN cases in their caseload. postrelease supervision. Given the visor respondents. As one respondent In general, SBN cases are perceived by considerable importance that agents explained, “[t]he rest of your caseload agents as requiring more supervision attach to this and other victim-related has to be put on hold … because your contacts than non-SBN sex offender tasks, such as enforcing no-contact or time is totally consumed with the cases of comparable risk that preceded restitution conditions of probation/ release of the SBN sex offender.” the notification law (the law was not parole, compassionate victim relations retroactive in making all high-risk sex tended to consume much of the agents’ Implications of the probation/ offender cases SBN cases; therefore, time and emotional energy. parole survey most respondents reported a mixed caseload). According to 74 percent of Another workload consideration was These findings suggest three issues respondents, even before an SBN of- the time, paperwork, and agents’ and for consideration by State and local fender is released from confinement, unit supervisors’ efforts expended on policymakers, as well as by probation the assigned agents are at work with prerevocation sanctions. Sanctions are and parole administrators, supervisors, law enforcement and others on various commonly used to manage the behav- and agents: aspects of the case. ior of sex offenders suspected of non- ● Foster close working relation- compliance with the conditions of ships between probation/parole The handling of SBN cases not only probation or parole. For example, agents assigned to supervise sex required more work than pre-June 1997 electronic monitoring is a sanction. offenders and law enforcement sex-offender cases but presented a mul- Survey respondents reported a higher line officers. The fact that most titude of problems for agents and unit percentage of electronic monitoring as field units teamed with law enforce- supervisors as well. In response to a a prerevocation sanction in SBN cases ment in planning and organizing question that allowed for multiple re- (58 percent) versus non-SBN cases community notification meetings sponses, the difficulties agents reported (44 percent) involving sex offenders. was positive, but this collaboration included locating housing for offenders needs to carry over to the demand- (66 percent), dealing with the media The final workload consideration bear- ing task of monitoring and restrict- (40 percent), getting timely offender ing on SBN cases pertained to agent ing the behavior of sex offenders in information (31 percent), and feeling and unit supervisor involvement in the community. Working as a team, pressure from superiors because of community notification meetings. correctional and law enforcement the high-profile nature of SBN cases Forty-six percent of survey respon- professionals can best respond to (13 percent). In their open-ended com- dents reported that, as part of their and resolve existing and potential ments, many respondents voiced frus- job, they attended at least one and, in problems. tration with trying to find residential some cases, more than six such meet- placements for publicized sex offenders. ings. Sixty-nine percent of agents and ● Provide additional funding to unit supervisors who worked these hire and train sufficient num- Based on survey responses, probation/ meetings also said they served as one bers of probation/parole agents parole agents with SBN cases were of several presenters, a task that usu- needed for the intensive super- more likely than agents assigned non- ally required several days of prepara- vision of sex offenders. Inten- SBN sex offenders to devote time to the tion. In addition, 83 percent of these sive, proactive supervision of sex victims of their assigned sex offenders. respondents reported they or others offenders whose risk has been care- A higher percentage of SBN sex of- in their unit helped local and county fully assessed has proved to be an fender cases (33 percent) than non- law enforcement plan and organize a effective and less costly alternative SBN sex offender cases (20 percent) notification meeting. This translated to incarceration. Although commu-

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

nity notification for sex offenders cerated sex offender interviewees were lante action, all expressed various de- bolsters the monitoring capabilities in revocation status due to technical grees of concern for their own safety. of intensive supervision programs, parole violations. The others were un- it does so at a cost of increased der community supervision. They were Two-thirds of the interviewed sex of- workload. all males (exhibit 6). fenders also spoke of how community notification unfavorably affected the ● Ensure adequate community Interviewees were informed of the lives of family members, including support—particularly in the study’s purpose, its confidential na- parents, siblings, and offspring. areas of housing, employment, ture, and the voluntary nature of their Several cited emotionally painful ex- and treatment—to effectively participation. Written consent was ob- amples. One interviewee talked of his move sex offenders from pris- tained from each interviewee. The in- mother’s anguish and depression fol- ons and jails to society. With terview subjects were asked a series of lowing newspaper accounts stemming limited placement opportunities questions about their experiences with from notification. Another spoke of his for sex offenders, even the most community notification and the impact son’s decision to quit his high school resourceful probation/parole agents it had on their lives. football team because of ridicule from find it difficult to perform this teammates, and a third related how his highly demanding aspect of the job. All but one interviewee stated that the sister was shunned by former friends. community notification process ad- Five interviewees who lived in the Findings from sex offender versely affected their transition from same communities as their victims ex- interviews prison to the outside world. Loss of pressed concern for how expanded no- employment, exclusion from resi- Another aspect of this study was the tification and renewed public attention dence, and the breakup of personal 7 insight provided by the subjects of might affect their victims. relationships were frequently cited community notification meetings and consequences of expanded notification The opinions of sex offenders as to other expanded notification actions. actions and ensuing detrimental pub- what effect community notification Face-to-face interviews were con- licity (exhibit 7). Seventy-seven per- had on how they were supervised were ducted with 30 sex offenders in com- cent told of being humiliated in their mixed. Nineteen interviewees (63 per- munities throughout Wisconsin. daily lives, ostracized by neighbors cent) characterized their relationship Interview subjects were selected based and lifetime acquaintances, and ha- with their probation/parole agent as on their status as Level 3 SBN sex of- rassed or threatened by nearby resi- supportive, but the other 11 (37 per- fenders, their notification exposure in dents or strangers. Although only one cent) described dealings with their the community, and their willingness interviewee was on the receiving end agents in less favorable terms. Many to participate in the study. Two incar- of what might be described as a vigi- interviewees deeply resented certain conditions of supervision, and some Exhibit 6. Descriptive statistics of the sample felt that their agents responded in a punitive way to pressure created by the Sample high-profile nature of their cases. Descriptor N = 30 Gender Several sex offenders complained of Male 30 (100.0) being arbitrarily singled out from Female 0 (0.0) among hundreds of sex offenders in Race/ethnicity the State for community notification. European American 21 (70.0) They traced their difficulty in finding African-American 5 (16.7) a place to live and in keeping a job to Hispanic 3 (10.0) community notification and media Native American 1 (3.3) sensationalism. Some of the inter- Mean age 40 years viewees were angered that they had to Note: Findings are represented as frequencies, percentages, and means. Percentages may not total accept residence in minimum-security 100 due to rounding. prisons or correctional centers because

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

enforcement, probation/parole agen- Exhibit 7. Consequences of notification, as reported by offenders cies, communities, and sex offenders. Problem Percentage Reporting Findings indicated that although the Exclusion of residence 83% law’s primary goal of community pro- Threats/harassment 77 tection is being served, law enforce- ment and corrections agencies bear a Emotional harm to family members 67 high cost in terms of personnel, time, Ostracized by neighbors/acquaintances 67 and budgetary resources. Community Loss of employment 57 notification also carries a personal cost Added pressure from probation/parole agent 50 for the sex offenders so identified. Vigilante attack 3 For law enforcement, the manpower needed to gather information and hold of the lack of alternative housing in Implications of sex offender meetings to determine the appropriate the community. Expanded notification interviews level of notification is considerable. has created enormous obstacles in lo- Periodic patrols in the neighborhood of ● Develop housing, employment, cating housing resources for returning the sex offender’s residence and occa- and treatment resources for sex offenders. sional calls for service to the residence sex offenders to enable them are additional agency burdens. Even Those undergoing treatment for devi- to successfully return to the targeted notification to agencies, ant sexual behavior indicated that, for community. Stable residence, pro- organizations, and groups is a growing the most part, community notification ductive work activity, and effective responsibility for law enforcement did not interfere with this therapy. The treatment are prerequisites for man- agencies. In addition, law enforcement public reaction to their release in the aging the behavior of this group of often plays a pivotal role in organizing community, aside from drawing initial offenders in society. and convening community meetings to comments from others in their treat- ● Foster cooperation between the notify residents about sex offenders. ment group, was discounted as a nega- news media and those agencies Probation/parole field units bear the tive influence on their self-esteem and charged with protecting the onus of locating housing in the com- their ability to “open up” in treatment. public from sex offenders re- munity for sex offenders, a time- One interviewee, however, said com- leased from prisons and jails. consuming and frequently frustrating munity notification actually furthered The media need to be correctly task. Supervision; home visits; collat- his progress in treatment by helping informed about the policies, proce- eral contacts with landlords, employ- him to fully understand and take re- dures, and actions of law enforce- ers, and so forth; and escorting sex sponsibility for his crime. ment and corrections agencies offenders also consume a large portion regarding sex offenders. Law en- Only a few of the interviewed sex of- of agents’ workweeks. Finally, agents forcement and corrections agencies fenders thought the community notifi- are now directly involved in commu- working with the media might avert cation law would prevent reoffending nity meetings for SBN sex offenders. future misunderstandings and prob- by making their actions more visible In short, probation/parole caseloads lems, such as sensationalizing or to the public. Most believed the law are already large, and sex offender misclassifying a sex offender, which would have the opposite effect. Many supervision demands an inordinate result in public overreaction. drew from their own embittered expe- amount of time. rience with community notification to suggest that the tremendous pressure Conclusions For the general public, community no- placed on sex offenders by the public This exploratory study of the impact of tification offers an opportunity not only and the media would drive many of sex offender community notification in to acquire information about identified them back to prison. Wisconsin has provided a rich source sex offenders residing in their neigh- of empirical data on the perceptions of borhoods but also to choose whether and reactions to the process among law to become part of the supervision

10 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f network. Notification can be used to 2. Ibid. occurred, has been subjected to inadvertent identification through community notification. incite the public concerning sex offend- 3. The survey instrument used for notification The Guidelines underscore the grave desire that ers, or it can be used to educate the meetings was an 18-item questionnaire calling this situation be avoided: “It is important to public about preventive measures. The for multiple-choice as well as open-ended consider if the victim(s) of the individual were importance of community resources in answers. It was previously tested with a group within the household or a family member.” of residents to assure clarity and relevance and Ibid., 17. assisting sex offender reintegration and to avoid negative connotations or value-laden preventing recidivism must be part of terms in its construction. Additional references this educational process. 4. The respondent sample included 116 agen- cies that had 1–25 sworn officers, 59 agencies Finn, Peter, Sex Offender Community Notifica- For the sex offender, housing and that had 26–100 sworn officers, 4 agencies that tion. Research in Action. Washington, DC: U.S. employment are the most immediate had 101–150 sworn officers, 8 agencies that Department of Justice, National Institute of had 151–500 sworn officers, and 1 agency Justice, 1997, NCJ 162364. needs. Offenders worry about harass- with more than 501 sworn officers. Sworn offic- ment, having to continually move, and ers assigned to detention or jail duty were not National Criminal Justice Association, Sex Of- counted because they had only limited involve- fender Community Notification: Policy Report the possibility of placement in a correc- Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice tional facility in lieu of a residence in ment with sex offender community notification, even though many of these officers performed Association, 1997. the community. They also worry about sex offender registration tasks. Sample respon- Poole, Carol, and Roxanne Lieb, Community dents overrepresent larger police departments the stress on their families resulting Notification in Washington State: Decision- but are a mirror representation of sheriffs’ from community notification. The pres- Making and Costs, Olympia, WA: Washington departments in Wisconsin. sure placed on many of these individu- State Institute for Public Policy, 1995. 5. Sixty-four percent of sex offender agents in als by community notification needs to Pullen, Suzanne, and Kim English, “Law En- the survey reported having at least five SBN be further examined as a factor in their forcement Registration and Community Notifi- cases in their caseloads. success or failure under community cation,” in Managing Sex Offenders in the Community, ed. K. English, S. Pullen, and L. supervision. 6. Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Bad- ger State Sheriffs Association, and Wisconsin Jones, Lexington, KY: American Probation and Department of Corrections, “Sex Offender Parole Association, 1995. Registration and Community Notification: Notes Schram, Donna, and Cheryl Milloy, Community Guidelines for Wisconsin Law Enforcement,” Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics 1. Bedarf, A.R. “Examining Sex Offender Com- Madison: Wisconsin Department of Correc- and Recidivism, Seattle: Urban Policy Re- munity Notification Laws,” California Law Re- tions, 1997: 9. view 83 (3) (1995): 885–939; Matson, Scott, and search, 1995. Roxanne Lieb, Sex Offender Community Notifi- 7. As of December 1999, it appears that no cation: A Review of Laws in 45 States, Olympia, crime victim who is a family or stepfamily WA: Washington State Institution for Public member of a sex offender, or who lived in the Policy, 1997. household of a sex offender when the crime

Findings and conclusions of the research Dr. Richard G. Zevitz is an associate This research was supported by grant reported here are those of the authors and do professor of Criminology and Law number 98–IJ–CX–0015 from the not necessarily reflect the official position or Studies at Marquette University in National Institute of Justice through policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and former Marquette University in Milwaukee, chairman of the California State Wisconsin. The National Institute of Justice is a Advisory Committee on Child Abuse. component of the Office of Justice The authors are indebted to James Programs, which also includes the Bureau Dr. Mary Ann Farkas is an assistant Frinzi for his invaluable contribution of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice professor of Criminology and Law as senior research assistant on this Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Studies and director of Graduate project. Anthony Streveler, assistant Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Studies in Administration of Justice administrator with the Wisconsin Victims of Crime. at Marquette University in Milwau- Department of Corrections, is also This and other NIJ publications can be kee, Wisconsin. acknowledged for his generous found at and downloaded from the NIJ assistance. Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 179992

11