Item Details

Print View

Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998 [electronic resource]

Richard Zevitz, Mary Ann Farkas
Format
Computer Resource; Online; Dataset
Published
Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2001
Edition
2006-03-30
Series
ICPSR
ICPSR (Series)
Access Restriction
AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
Abstract
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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03015.v1
Contents
  • Community Notification Meeting Data
  • Law Enforcement Agency Data
  • Probation and Parole Agents Data
Description
Mode of access: Intranet.
Notes
Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
Series Statement
ICPSR 3015
ICPSR (Series) 3015
Other Forms
Also available as downloadable files.
Copyright Not EvaluatedCopyright Not Evaluated
Technical Details
  • Staff View

    LEADER 06254cmm a2200469la 4500
    001 ICPSR03015
    003 MiAaI
    006 m f a u
    007 cr mn mmmmuuuu
    008 160211s2001 miu f a eng d
    035
      
      
    a| (MiAaI)ICPSR03015
    040
      
      
    a| MiAaI c| MiAaI
    245
    0
    0
    a| Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Notification on Wisconsin Communities, 1998 h| [electronic resource] c| Richard Zevitz, Mary Ann Farkas
    250
      
      
    a| 2006-03-30
    260
      
      
    a| Ann Arbor, Mich. b| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] c| 2001
    490
      
      
    a| ICPSR v| 3015
    516
      
      
    a| Numeric
    538
      
      
    a| Mode of access: Intranet.
    500
      
      
    a| Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
    536
      
      
    a| United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice c| 98-IJ-CX-0015
    506
      
      
    a| AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
    530
      
      
    a| Also available as downloadable files.
    522
      
      
    a| United States
    522
      
      
    a| Wisconsin
    520
    3
      
    a| 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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03015.v1
    505
      
      
    t| Community Notification Meeting Data
    505
      
      
    t| Law Enforcement Agency Data
    505
      
      
    t| Probation and Parole Agents Data
    567
      
      
    a| Neighborhood residents, police and sheriff agencies, and probation and parole agents plus their supervisors in the state of Wisconsin.
    650
      
    7
    a| communities 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| public interest 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| public opinion 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| sex offender profiles 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| sex offender registration 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| sex offenders 2| icpsr
    653
    0
      
    a| NACJD I. Attitude Surveys
    653
    0
      
    a| ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System
    700
    2
      
    a| Zevitz, Richard u| Marquette University
    700
    2
      
    a| Farkas, Mary Ann u| Marquette University
    710
    2
      
    a| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
    830
      
    0
    a| ICPSR (Series) v| 3015
    856
    4
    0
    u| http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03015.v1
    999
      
      
    w| WEB l| INTERNET m| UVA-LIB t| INTERNET
▾See more
▴See less

Availability

Access Online