In some jurisdictions, statutes provide for general community notification when a person who was convicted of certain enumerated offenses (those involving sex crimes or arson, for instance) is slated to reside in that community following his release. Corrections staff or other criminal justice officers charged with such notification should seek to understand any privacy rights that the individual may retain and to preserve them, and to make information available to the public in an appropriate and careful way, providing context about criminal justice practices and realities when necessary. If an individual about to be released has expressed any specific threat toward any individual in the community, the criminal justice system has a duty to warn that individual. The person who has been threatened should be advised of the threat, as well as of specific provisions that are being made to ensure his or her safety. In most cases, however, the question of whether anyone should be notified of the individual's release (and if so, whom), is more complicated.

Decisions about the expansiveness of community notification in cases where there is neither a statutory nor a particularized threat imperative should be made by the transition team, working in conjunction with local law enforcement.

Example: Dangerously Mentally Ill Offender Program, Washington Department of Corrections

If eligible individuals decide to participate in the voluntary Dangerously Mentally Ill Offender Program (DMIO) program, they join a transition planning team that includes representatives from mental health and substance-abuse services, community corrections, the participant's family, risk management specialists, and developmental disability services (when appropriate). Among other issues, the planning team considers whether to notify the community about the participant's release.

As a general matter, those who decide the level and extent of community notification should act based on a clearly established set of criteria. The risk assessment conducted during the release decision process, as well as a review of the individual's criminal history, should allow corrections staff to determine who may be at risk following the individual's release. (See Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, for more on risk assessments prior to making the release decision.) In determining a set of criteria for deciding who is to be informed of a pending release and how much specific information they should receive, corrections officials may want to seek input from the community members about their interests. Community meetings held to discuss such criteria would also provide an opportunity for corrections administrators to educate the public about how certain forms of notification can impede successful re-entry and, therefore, place the public at greater risk through recidivism. (See Policy Statement 7, Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, for more on the impact of sharing information with the community to promote successful re-entry outcomes.)