The Impact of Sex-Offender Community Notification on Probation/Parole in Wisconsin

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X00441002
• Published date: 01 February 2000
• Date: 01 February 2000
• Author: Richard G. Zevitz,Mary Ann Farkas
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
Sex-Offender Community Notification
The Impact of Sex-Offender
Community Notification on
Probation/Parole in Wisconsin
Richard G. Zevitz
Mary Ann Farkas
Abstract: Sex-offender community notification legislation has had far-reaching conse-
quences for those who must work within its mandates of community protection and safety.
Increased responsibilities and greater expectations placed on probation and parole agents
with sex-offender caseloads are among such consequences, This study examines the impact of
Wisconsin’s notification law on these agents and their adaptation to the changes in the way sex
offenders are managed in the community. Results of the study indicate that although commu-
nity notification may achieve important objectives in the realm of public awareness and com-
munity protection, these gains come at a high cost for corrections in terms of personnel, time,
and budgetary resources. Several issues are considered for state and local policy makers, as
well as for probation/parole administrators, supervisors, and agents.
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 will be living.
These laws (known as Megan’s laws) were driven by the 1994 rape and murder of
a 7-year-old New Jersey girl by a violent repeat sex offender living anonymously
across the street. Although it has broad support among the general public, such
legislation brings with it a predicament. The basic dilemma associated with com-
munity notification is balancing the public’s right to be informed with the need to
successfully reintegrate offenders into the community. Wisconsin has tried to
strike a balance between these competing interests through enactment of its sex-
offender community notification statute.
In 1998, more than 5,000 sex offenders were under community supervision in
Wisconsin alone. About 45 to 60 convicted sex offenders are released from Wis-
consin prisons each month. How sex offenders are supervised and managed in
community settings is a matter of critical importance, not only to criminal justice
policy makers and practitioners but also to the general public. Pursuant to Wiscon-
sin Statute 301.46, the Department of Corrections (DOC) is authorized to inform
NOTE: This research was supported by grant number 98-IJ-CX-0015 from the National Institute of
Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 2000
8-21
 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
8

---

Sex-Offender Community Notification
9
law enforcement agencies through a Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) of the
release of a convicted sex offender, when the release of information will enhance
public safety and protection. Like many other states, Wisconsin has vested in local
law enforcement the discretion to expand on or reduce the amount of case infor-
mation it deems necessary to share with the community it serves. In carrying out
this responsibility, Wisconsin police chiefs and sheriffs have experimented with
various approaches to community notification. News media releases, Internet
postings, and targeted notification to various agencies and organizations are some
of the methods being used. Perhaps the most time-consuming way is to organize
and convene a community meeting to notify residents about sex offenders. Sev-
eral dozen of these notification meetings have been held throughout the state since
Wisconsin’s version of Megan’s law took effect on June 1, 1997. These meetings,
and community notification in general, have added in no small measure to the
workload of probation/parole administrators, supervisors, and agents who are
involved with the management and community supervision of sex offenders.
Sex-offender community notification has most dramatically affected the work
of agents who supervise sex offenders in Wisconsin. Protecting the community
from sex offenders on probation or parole, including providing for the safety and
security of their past victims, has assumed an even greater role for probation and
parole offices as a consequence of sex-offender community notification. A
number of job-related activities have evolved from or have been altered by this
process. Agents of the Division of Community Corrections have long carried out
the task of verifying release plan information for offenders being returned to the
community from institutional confinement. But now, because of the nature and
circumstances of the cases being targeted for community notification (SBN
cases), they devote much more of their work time and energy to finding housing
for sex offenders. Agents must also arrange transportation for these same sex
offenders, work out their electronic monitoring, ensure that they comply with
statutory and DOC requirements for registration, and make use of lie detector
examination for those determined to pose the greatest risk of reoffending.
Furthermore, intensive supervision has become even more exhaustive, with
rising expectations that agents will exert ever greater control over the behavior of
those sex offenders designated as SBN cases. In many respects, the role of the
agent who supervises sex offenders targeted for community notification has been
significantly altered. Community protection and victim safety have taken on even
greater importance than treatment and rehabilitation issues. Agents now follow a
containment approach to managing sex offenders in the community. This
approach keeps a tighter rein on the sex offender through the combined use of both
internal (sex offender–specific treatment) and external control measures (official
supervision and monitoring) (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1997). Supervision net-
works are formed through professional collaboration with law enforcement,
social workers, and correctional staff and through periodic communication with
neighbors, employers, landlords, and associates of the offenders.

---

10
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
THE PRESENT STUDY
Until now, research on sex-offender community notification has been limited
in nature. Despite the extensive attention and public support that notification laws
have generated, empirical research on their impact has been nearly nonexistent.
Little is known about how correctional agencies that must implement such notifi-
cations have adapted to this change in the way sex offenders are managed in the
community. Even less is known about the effects notification has had on their
workload and responsibilities. The few studies that appear in the literature con-
sist of reviews of state and federal notification laws or surveys of policy makers/
practitioners and their supervision strategies for sex offenders in a limited number
of states (see Finn, 1997; Matson & Lieb, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; National Criminal
Justice Association, 1997; Poole & Lieb, 1995). Notably lacking in the research
literature has been an in-depth study of a single state’s experience with the law
from the vantage point of probation and parole officers affected by the community
notification process. This research has sought to fill that gap.
The case study reported here focuses on Wisconsin and includes information
from statewide surveys of 128 probation/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. Results of the study indicate that
community notification, when used selectively and administered properly,
served important correctional objectives, not the least of which is community
protection. However, the decision to involve an informed public in a collateral
network of...