C

a

l

i

f

o

r

n

i

a

High Risk Sex Offender
Task Force

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor

Rudy Bermúdez, Co-chair
Assembly Member

Todd Spitzer, Co-chair
Assembly Member

James Tilton
Secretary (A), California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation

August 15, 2006

California High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

Presented to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Assembly Member Rudy Bermúdez, Co-chair
Assembly Member Todd Spitzer, Co-chair
James Tilton, Secretary (A)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

August 15, 2006

California High Risk Sex
Offender Task Force

Alex Padilla, President
League of California Cities

Assembly Member Rudy Bermúdez (D-Norwalk),
Co-chair

Don Horsley, Sheriff
San Mateo County
California State Association of Counties

Assembly Member Todd Spitzer (R-Orange),
Co-chair
James Tilton, Secretary
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

Members
Jan Scully, District Attorney
Sacramento County
California District Attorneys Association
Ed Bonner, Sheriff
Placer County
California State Sheriffs Association

In addition to the designated members in the
Governor’s EO, the HRSO Task Force received
invaluable input from additional experts on the
subject of sex offenders. Below highlights those
individuals and their current capacity:
Summer Stephan
Deputy District Attorney
Chief, Sex Crimes & Stalking Division
San Diego District Attorney’s Office
Carey Sullivan, Chief
Woodland Police Department

Steve Krull, Chief
Livermore Police Department
California Police Chiefs Association

Guest Participants

Jerry Powers, President
Chief Probation Officers of California

Tom Tobin, Ph.D.
Public Policy Chair
California Coalition on Sexual Offending

David Runnels
Chief Deputy Secretary, Adult Operations
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

Jack Wallace,
Parole Administrator
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

Jeff Fagot, Director (A)
Division of Adult Parole Operations
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
Suzanne Brown-McBride
Executive Director
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Brenda Crowding-Johnson
Parole Agent I
Parole Agents Association of California

ii

Associate Members

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

Task Force Administration
Marvin Speed, Parole Agent III
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
Kathy Prizmich, Parole Service Associate
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

Table of Contents
Mission Statement __________________________________________________________________ iv
Executive Summary __________________________________________________________________v
Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 1
Background _______________________________________________________________________ 2
Recommendation 1 _________________________________________________________________ 7
Recommendation 2 _________________________________________________________________ 9
Recommendation 3 ________________________________________________________________ 11
Recommendation 4 ________________________________________________________________ 12
Recommendation 5 ________________________________________________________________ 15
Recommendation 6 ________________________________________________________________ 19
Recommendation 7 ________________________________________________________________ 20
Recommendation 8 ________________________________________________________________ 21
Recommendation 9 ________________________________________________________________ 22
Recommendation 10 _______________________________________________________________ 23
Appendix _______________________________________________________________________ A–1

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

iii

The mission of the California High Risk
Sex Offender Task Force is to develop
recommendations for a statewide system to
improve departmental policies related to the
placement, supervision and monitoring of
high risk sex offenders in local communities,
thereby enhancing public safety.

iv

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

Executive Summary
Under California law, all adult prison terms with
the exception of death or life without parole,
are followed by a statutorily designated period
of parole. Parole is a transitional legal status or
conditional release from prison where a parolee is
supervised by the Division of Adult Parole Operations (hereinafter DAPO). The parolee is required
to adhere to all general and special conditions of
parole by remaining crime-free to demonstrate
adequate adjustment to parole. The purpose of
parole is to provide a supervised reintegration
of the parolee into society where public safety
is not compromised and where the parolee is
provided with necessary assistance and opportunities to adjust. Currently, the DAPO supervises
approximately 10,000 sex offenders, of which
approximately 3,200 have been designated as
High Risk Sex Offenders (herinafter HRSOs). Community placement, treatment and supervision of
HRSOs are paramount issues, as HRSOs not properly housed, supervised, monitored, and treated
pose a risk to public safety.
Several recently enacted and proposed pieces
of legislation, along with a ballot initiative
(Proposition 83, “Jessica’s Law”) currently under
consideration, point for the need to continue to
be proactive in administering a sex offender management program that complies with applicable
laws, rules and regulations; maximizes public
safety; is responsive to victims’ needs and assists
the parolee in transitioning from a prison environment back into the community.

Following comprehensive discussion of HRSO
issues, the task force makes the following recommendations:
1. The State of California should have a uniform
definition for an HRSO as follows: An HRSO
is a convicted sex offender who has been
deemed by the CDCR to pose a higher risk to
commit a new sex offense in the community.
A PC 290 parolee will be designated as an
HRSO for purposes of adult parole based on
the score from a validated risk assessment
tool(s), and/or the known criminal history,
and/or other relevant criteria established by
the CDCR.
2. All California adult Penal Code Section 290
(hereinafter PC 290) sex offender registrants
under the jurisdiction of the CDCR, including
those serving revocation time in local facilities, must be assessed to determine whether
based on validated risk assessment tool(s)
and/or known criminal history and/or other
relevant criteria they should be designated
as HRSOs. The assessment shall take place as
soon as practical, but no later than 120 days
prior to release on parole with continued assessments while on parole.
3. All California inmates required to register as
sex offenders who are designated as HRSOs
should be required to receive appropriate
specialized sex offender treatment as
warranted while incarcerated.
4. Notification of Release of HRSOs

In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger has articulated a zero tolerance policy for non-compliance
in mandating effective and efficient management
of parole supervision and community placement
of HRSOs. Accordingly, Executive Order S-08-06,
issued by the Governor on May 15, 2006, created
the High Risk Sex Offender Task Force to provide
the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Governor
and the Legislature with recommendations for
improved departmental policies related to the
placement of HRSOs in local communities, thereby
ensuring public safety is not compromised.

• The Task Force recommends that the CDCR
be required to notify victims 90 days prior
to the anticipated release of an HRSO in
relation to PC 3003(c). Victims should have
a minimum of 21 days to challenge the
HRSO residential placement in accordance
with established CDCR procedures.
• The CDCR should be required to provide
notice of the release and recommended
placement of HRSOs at least 60 days before
release using mail service as required by
law and an additional reliable method

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

v

such as email, fax, or telephone to a list of
designated law enforcement recipients.
• Local law enforcement should be required
to provide timely and sufficient notice to
the receiving communities of the residential
placement of HRSOs.
5. The parole supervision of HRSOs should
follow the “Containment Model,” which
recognizes the risk that sex offenders pose to
the community, and thus provides a focus on
“containing” offenders in a tight supervision
and treatment network with active monitoring
and enforcement of rules. This “Containment
Model” is formed by four components: The
supervision components led by the specialized
parole agent and his team; the treatment
component directed by a qualified therapist
who utilizes an evidence-based approach
in conformity with recognized guidelines
and standards; the polygraph component to
be performed by qualified post-conviction
polygrapher(s); and the victim advocacy
component focused on what is best for the
victim. In addition, all HRSOs should be placed
on GPS monitoring (the Task Force recognized
the value of more intensive supervision and
GPS monitoring for all paroled sex offenders,
but acknowledge that it is beyond the scope
of Executive Order).
6. The CDCR and local law enforcement should
partner to create a viable program for
community education and communication
specific to HRSO issues. The CDCR should
be required to create a viable program for
community education and communication
specific to HRSO issues.

vi

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

7. The Task Force recommends legislative
changes to the Megan’s Law Website to
specifically identify HRSOs that are on parole
and those that are being monitored by GPS.
8. The CDCR should be required to assess
the fiscal and programmatic impact of the
Task Force recommendations within 90
days and work with the Administration and
the Legislature to secure funding and/or
legislative changes in order to implement
recommendations. In the event CDCR cannot
meet the timeframe on any recommendation,
a public letter must be sent to the Governor
explaining the reasons for non-compliance.
9. The CDCR should be required to establish a
permanent Sex Offender Management Board,
which will review practices of CDCR regarding
the stated goals of the California High Risk
Sex Offender Task Force. Stakeholders such
as sheriffs and police chiefs, district attorneys,
county probation chiefs and line parole
officers should have permanent positions on
this Board.
10. The CDCR should be required to continue
working with local law enforcement and
communities to find appropriate and equitable
housing solutions for placement of HRSOs.
The Task Force recommends that a committee
of appropriate stakeholders such as this Task
Force continue to convene to address these
critical issues.
Each recommendation is discussed in detail in the
body of the report. For expediency and efficiency,
approved Task Force recommendations should
be enacted administratively where possible and
legislatively as necessary.

Introduction
On May 15, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-08-06, directing the
Secretary of the CDCR to convene a High Risk
Sex Offender Task Force. The purpose of the Task
Force is to review current statutory requirements
and departmental policies with regard to HRSOs,
and to provide recommendations for improvement. The Task Force convened meetings on
June 1, 14 and 21; July 14 and 28 and August 10,
2006. The Task Force also convened public sessions on August 7, 8 and 9, 2006 respectively in
Sacramento, Fresno and Santa Ana to allow public
input on the issues presented to the Task Force.
The focus of the Task Force was limited to a very
specific group of sexual offenders comprised of

those under the jurisdiction of the CDCR, both
in custody or on parole, and identified as more
likely to sexually re-offend. The Task Force did
not address the broader category of offenders,
including but not limited to those designated
as Sexually Violent Predators and those not currently under the jurisdiction of the CDCR.1 There
is hope, however, by the Task Force members
that the collaborative efforts outlined in the recommendations become a model for addressing
public safety concerns regarding all sex offenders.
To review the Governor’s Executive Order, please
refer to the Appendix.

There are more than 50,000 individuals required to register as sex offenders in the State of California who are
not under supervision by any state or local jurisdiction. An additional unknown number of sex offenders are
on probation and under supervision by other departments such as the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
DMH has responsibility under the law for the treatment and supervision of sexually violent predators.
1

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

1

Background
On June 1, 2006, the Task Force received background information on the existing DAPO HRSO
program from DAPO staff as a context of current
CDCR operations. The information was presented
to be utilized as a benchmark for areas needing
to be addressed.
The information presented in this Background
section explains the HRSO program as it existed
at the start of the Task Force. It is offered here to
place the Task Force recommendations in perspective with where the program stood as of May
2006.
Implementation of the current DAPO sex offender
program began with the passage of Chapter
142, Statutes of 2000 (AB 1300, Pacheco) and the
enactment of PC 3005. Since that time, the field
of sex offender management has continued to
evolve and the current HRSO program by current
standards is not consistent with nationally recognized best practices for community management
of sex offenders. Sex offender management professionals acknowledge that adult sex offender
supervision/treatment is a very specialized
area that will continue to change as additional
research and findings are completed. It is the
goal of the DAPO to use the best practices available to determine a sex offender’s risk to commit
another sex offense and to maintain a program
that is supportive of victims and ensures public
safety.
In 1990, in an effort to improve the supervision
of sex offenders on parole, an HRSO pilot caseload was established in Sacramento County. The
caseload design was patterned after supervision
efforts in the states of Vermont, Washington and
Arizona. The pilot design involved the use of a
risk assessment form, relapse prevention classes
and recurring law enforcement meetings. The

pilot included a two-parole agent team--male
and female--conducting intensive parole supervision on two reduced 40:1 caseloads.
In 1997, the DAPO created a Sex Offender Task
Force Committee. The committee defined the
term HRSO, established supervision practices and
a training curriculum. With program success and
a growing public call for better supervision of
sex offenders, the pilot was eventually expanded
and by 2001 the DAPO had activated 50 caseloads statewide. In 11 population centers around
the state, the program has been augmented
to include contracted intensive specialized sex
offender treatment servicing approximately 250
of the more than 2,000 HRSOs. HRSOs not receiving intensive specialized treatment are mandated
to attend the Department’s Parole Outpatient
Clinic. Most recently, parole supervision was
enhanced for many HRSO cases through the use
of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology
and the reduction in caseload size to 20:1.
Effective January 1, 2006, as a result of recentlyenacted legislation (Chapter 463, Statutes of 2005
(AB 113, Cohn)), all parolees designated as an
HRSO released on parole with a conviction for any
conviction of PC 288 or 288.5, could not be placed
or reside within one-half mile of any public or
private school, kindergarten and grades 1 to 12
inclusive. 2
The DAPO began assessing impact and preparing for implementation of AB 113 in September
2005. Specific AB 113 policies were put in place
and implemented. DAPO Regional Administrators were tasked with disseminating the policy
and implementation information to field parole
agents. In addition, HRSO parole agents with
ongoing AB 113 responsibilities were provided
timely updates of all implementation issues from

PC 288 is the section of the California penal code that makes lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the
age of 14 years a felony. PC 288.5 applies to any person who either resides in the same home with a minor
child or has recurring access to the child under the age of 14 and engages in three or more acts of substantial
sexual conduct over a period of time.
2

2

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

weekly meetings that occurred from the DAPO
headquarters with Regional Administrators. the
DAPO instituted on-going and multiple in-field
reviews of AB 113 compliance; developed specific parole agent positions to act as sex offender
housing coordinators; maintained weekly AB 113
compliance reports; assembled a sex offender
strategic planning work group and designated
an HRSO program manager working out of DAPO
headquarters.
The CDCR expanded on this law by adopting
policy to apply this housing restriction to include
HRSOs who had prior convictions of PC 288 or
288.5 (AB 113 did not apply to felons with prior
convictions). In addition, under the CDCR policy,
once a parolee is designated as an HRSO, the
mileage restrictions remain in effect by policy,
even if the parolee was subsequently reclassified
to a different supervisory level (e.g. High
Control).3
It is important to note that not all PC 288/288.5
parolees were designated HRSOs, and accordingly, AB 113 law did not apply in every case.
In addition, there are parolees designated as
HRSOs that do not have PC 288/288.5 conviction
histories where AB 113 also does not apply (for
example, an HRSO who was convicted of forcible
rape (PC 261)). The following information provides CDCR sex offender statistics (figures current
as of May 10, 2006 unless otherwise indicated):
Total number of active adult parolees designated
as HRSOs = 2,0504
Total number of active adult parolees designated
HRSO with PC 288/288.5 convictions = 1,111
(Based on current convictions of PC 288/288.5)

Total number of active adult HRSO parolees that
are non-PC 288/288.5 convictions = 939
(e.g., a parolee convicted of rape (PC 261))
Total number of adult HRSO parolees on GPS (as
of May 4, 2006) = 403
Total number of adult HRSO parolees that fall
under the one-half mile housing restriction =
1,253 (Based on current and past convictions of
PC 288/288.5)
In terms of monitoring parolee movement, PC
3004 and PC 3010 authorize the use of electronic
monitoring or supervising devices as a condition of parole. As authorized by these statutes,
the DAPO is implementing 500 Global Positioning System (GPS) units to monitor and track the
movement of HRSO parolees. The number of
units will expand to 2,500 within the next two
years.
Specialized GPS caseloads provide parole agents
with the surveillance technology and time
required to monitor and investigate each HRSO
parolee’s compliance with his or her conditions
of parole, as well as increase victim and community protection through the establishment of
inclusionary and exclusionary zones. In addition,
GPS monitoring can assist in the administrative
and judicial evidentiary process in the event of
parole violations. These parolees are supervised
by HRSO parole agents on a reduced caseload
of 20 to 1 based on the increased level of work
associated with the technical aspects of the
equipment, monitoring, reporting and follow-up.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-07, 12.7 parole agent
positions have been budgeted to allow for the
reduced GPS caseloads.

In May 2006, the DAPO implemented use of GPS handheld devices to obtain accurate point to point measurement of distances from parolee residences to restricted areas.
3

Following the DAPO implementation of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-09-06, the number
of adult parolees designated as HRSO has increased to over 3,000. Because the designation of HRSO is being
done prior to release, a significant number of these HRSOs are currently still incarcerated.
4

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

3

DAPO HRSO Program Components
as of May 2006

In reviewing the information provided below,
please note that there were inconsistencies in
the implementation of this program in terms of
scope, content and actual practice variations from
Region to Region and field office to field office.
• Containment Model - DAPO used a limited
version of the containment model where
the HRSO parolee is placed inside a triangle
comprised of the HRSO parole agent, a
treatment provider and law enforcement. The
collaboration between the parole agent, law
enforcement and therapist is used to attempt
to contain the level of risk to the public.
• Screening and Placement - Prior to Executive
Order S-09-06, all PC 290 registrant inmates
paroling to a district with an HRSO program
were referred for HRSO evaluation. The
HRSO parole agent used a standard risk
assessment tool in conjunction with screening
the inmate’s criminal history to determine
whether to designate the inmate at risk levels
of low, moderate, or high (this system has
subsequently been revised as will be explained
in the body of the recommendations).
• Prescriptive Parole Planning - Pre-parole
planning begins prior to an inmate’s release
from prison and involves parole staff reviewing
the offender’s criminal history. Identification
of risk factors associated with the commitment
offense and/or prior sex crimes, and
evaluation of the proposed residence are also
reviewed. The staff evaluate the stability and
suitability of the offender’s support systems
in the community and recommends special
conditions of parole to prevent high-risk
behavior factors.
• Reduced Caseload and Team Supervision A reduced caseload of 40 HRSOs per parole
agent and a team supervision strategy are used
to increase the ability to monitor behavior,
detect violations, and intervene in the sexual
abuse cycle of offenders. The team approach
enables parole agents to conduct effective

4

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

search, surveillance, and monitoring strategies
on a regular basis beyond what is normally
possible in a regular parole caseload.
• Relapse Prevention Education - An education
class facilitated by the parole agent team is
conducted for most HRSO caseloads on a
weekly basis. Classes are intended to help
offenders identify their sexually abusive
behaviors and assist them to develop internal
coping responses and viable support systems
to prevent relapse.
• Intensive Specialized Sex Offender Treatment
- Contract providers conduct psychological
evaluations and assessments and provide
individual and group intensive specialized
sex offender treatment to a limited number of
sex offenders assigned to an HRSO caseload.
Therapists work in conjunction with parole field
staff to ensure a systematic approach to the
rehabilitation of the offender. Current funding
supports treatment for an ongoing caseload of
approximately 250 parolees distributed over
eleven locations around the state, meeting only
a fraction of the need.
• Law Enforcement Offender Meetings (LEOM)
- HRSO parole agents may coordinate and
facilitate monthly meetings with local
law enforcement and other agencies. The
purpose of the LEOM is to develop a close
working network of representatives from law
enforcement and child protective service
agencies who have concerns related to sex
offenders and who are willing to work with
the parole agents to enhance the agents’
supervision efforts. Meetings provide for an
exchange of information about the offender
and enable local law enforcement to know the
parolee, his or her offending history, the parole
agent and the special conditions that have
been imposed.
At the time of the initial HRSO program development, the polygraph examination was left
out of the program as a result of Administration
concerns about cost and the potential legal
liability related to the use of a polygraph. Since

the program’s inception, the courts have held
that a polygraph examination for the purposes of
monitoring parole/probation conditions is not a
violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Due to staffing issues, several HRSO caseloads
are without the partner caseload making relapse
prevention unavailable. Additionally, the current
program design limits the ability of the parole
agent to perform surveillance, provide victim
services, locate absconders and participate as a
member of law enforcement task forces.
The present contracted treatment programs
have a limited number of treatment providers
as it is not adequately funded to serve all HRSO
parolees. As a result, the vast majority of HRSO
parolees either do not receive comprehensive sex
offender treatment and risk assessment or spend
an unacceptable amount of time on a waiting list
to receive the treatment.
As of May 2006, PC 290 registrant inmates
paroling to a complex that had a funded HRSO
program were referred to an HRSO parole agent
for evaluation and risk assessment. The risk
assessment tool utilized as of May 2006, although
developed by parole agent subject matter
experts, was not a scientifically validated risk
assessment tool.
There are no statutory provisions requiring the
State to locate, re-locate, provide, or pay for temporary or permanent housing of parolees. In
general, under PC 3000(a)(1), “It is in the interest of public safety for the state to provide for
the supervision of and surveillance of parolees,
including the judicious use of revocation actions,
and to provide educational, vocational, family and
personal counseling as necessary to assist parolees in the transition between imprisonment and
discharge.” However, to enhance public safety,
DAPO has historically assisted parolees with temporary residential placements on the basis that
such placements assist with the supervision of
the parolee (i.e., DAPO knows where the parolee
should be) and provide a more stable platform for
parole adjustment to begin.

Proposed Ballot Initiatives/Legislation

The Task Force has not taken a position on the
following initiatives and legislation. They are
presented for informational purposes as being relevant to the management of sex offenders.
Proposition 83 (known as “Jessica’s Law”), which
will be on the November 2006 ballot, would provide the following:
• Broadens the definition of certain sex offenses,
increases penalties for certain sex offenses,
prohibits probation for specified sex offenses
involving minors, and extends the parole period
for specified sex offenders.
• Eliminate all sentence reduction credits for sex
offenders.
• Require GPS devices for all registered sex
offenders for the remainder of their life.
• Limit where registered sex offenders may live
by barring any person required to register as a
sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any
school or park.
• Make more sex offenders eligible for a
commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator
by reducing from two to one the number of
prior victims of sexually violent offenses that
qualify an offender for commitment, and by
making certain prior offenses eligible for SVP
commitment.
• Provides that Sexually Violent Predators may be
committed to the DMH for a indeterminate term,
rather than the current two-year term, and tolls
their parole period to commence after they are
released from custody.
Senate Bill 1128 (Alquist) as amended June 22,
2006 would:
• Increase penalties for certain sex offense crimes
against children, create new crimes pertaining
to sex offenses against children, increase parole
periods for persons convicted of specified sex
offenses against children, and increase the
statute of limitations for specified sex offenses.
• Expand the list of crimes requiring sex offender
registration.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

5

• Require state and local agencies to use risk
assessment tools to categorize sex offenders as
low, moderate, or high risk.
• Require the CDCR to develop a statewide,
comprehensive training program designed to
insure proper assessment of sex offenders.
• Require the CDCR to establish a pilot program
for sex offender treatment.
• Appropriates $6 million in grants to be
provided to county sexual assault felony
enforcement teams.
• Provides that Sexually Violent Predators may
be committed to the DMH for a indeterminate
term, rather than the current two-year term,
and tolls their parole period to commence after
they are released from custody.
SB 1178 (Speier), as amended on August 7, 2006,
would require adult male registered sex offenders
to be assessed for risk of re-offense using a speci-

6

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

fied assessment methodology. All those who are
assessed as posing a moderate-high or high risk
of re-offense would be required to be electronically monitored while on probation or parole,
except as specified. SB 1178 requires the CDCR by
January 1, 2008, to develop a training program for
probation and parole officers as well as any others permitted by law to conduct sex offender risk
assessments. The bill also requires HRSOs who are
released from prison on parole or probation to be
fitted with a GPS device.
AB 1015 (Chu and Spitzer), as amended August
7,2006, would create the 17-member Sex
Offender Management Board within State Government. The Board would consist of members
appointed by the Governor and the Legislature to
be housed within the CDCR. The purpose of the
Board would be to address issues, concerns, and
problems related to the community management
of the State’s sex offenders, with a goal of safer
communities and reduced victimization.

Recommendation 1
The State of California should have a uniform
definition for an HRSO as follows: An HRSO is a
convicted sex offender who has been deemed by
the CDCR to pose a higher risk to commit a new sex
offense in the community. A PC 290 parolee will be
designated as an HRSO for purposes of adult parole
based on the score from a validated risk assessment
tool(s), and/or the known criminal history, and/or
other relevant criteria established by the CDCR.

The need to uniformly define an HRSO for purposes of adult parole is in order to allocate and
focus the supervision resources of CDCR on the
parolees that pose the higher risk to re-offend
while in the community, thereby maximizing
community safety. The designation of HRSO
means that the sex offender will be supervised
and monitored at a specialized and intensive level
by DAPO and local law enforcement. In addition,
a sex offender not designated as HRSO should
be supervised at a higher level as compared to a
parolee that is not convicted of a sex crime, or of a
serious or violent felony.
More specifically, in designating a PC 290 parolee
as HRSO, the following factors either alone or in
combination should result in an HRSO designation, unless there is a verifiable and justifiable
reason that would not support such a designation:
1.

A STATIC-99 score of 4 or above which is
an initial indicator of Moderate-High to High
risk of sexual re-offense. (The STATIC-99 is a
validated actuarial instrument that uses 10
factors in assigning a numerical score to assess
the risk of sexual re-offense for a convicted
sex offender. The Task Force recommends the
score of 4 and above, as sound policy supports
applying more intensive and specialized
supervision to those who statistically pose the
risk of sexual re-offense in any range of the
“High”, whether it be “Moderate-High” or “High”,
with the goal being to maximize public safety by
reducing those risks of sexual re-offense through
the specialized and intensive parole supervision
applied to those parolees.).

2. An inmate who qualified to be evaluated by
Department of Mental Health experts as a
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), who did not
meet the Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC)
requirements for civil commitment to a state
hospital pursuant to W&IC 6600, et. seq. (As the
SVP law currently stands, an inmate is evaluated
for commitment as an SVP if the inmate has
two qualifying felony sex offenses involving two
separate victims.)
3. An inmate with convictions related to two
separate victims with at least one of the two
victims being a victim of a sex crime. The
second can be a victim of a serious (PC 1192.7)
or violent felony (PC 667.5) such as a victim of
robbery or residential burglary.
4. An inmate who has one felony conviction of
a child molestation of a victim under 14 years
old, (PC 288, 288.5, and other related sections),
that is predatory in nature. (“Predatory” means
an act that is directed toward a stranger, a
person of casual acquaintance with whom no
substantial relationship exists, or an individual
with whom a relationship has been established
or promoted for the primary purpose of
victimization. This definition is found in W&IC
6600(e).)
5. An inmate who has one felony conviction of
a forcible sex offense of a victim 14 years of
age or older, (such as PC 261(a)(2), 288a(c)(2),
and other related sections), that is predatory in
nature.
6. An inmate who has a criminal history that did
not result in convictions for the previously
outlined sex offenses, but clearly indicates that
a plea was lesser to dangerous and serious
sex crimes. (Example: the inmate is convicted
of simple kidnap, and the criminal record shows
that it was a lesser plea to kidnap with intent to
molest/rape a child or woman.)
7. Relevant criteria established by CDCR that
supports HRSO designation, even if it does
not meet the six criteria outlined above. (It is
important to allow CDCR to establish relevant
criteria developed through the experience

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

7

and training of specialized parole agents and
supervisors that allows the HRSO designation
for those who do not fall strictly within the
six categories outlined above, but should be
designated and supervised as an HRSO for the
protection of the community.)
A designation of a parolee as HRSO is made and
the information is provided to allow Californians
to be empowered by the information to better
protect themselves and their families recognizing
that “knowledge is power”. This does not mean
that a sex offender who is not designated as high
risk will not re-offend, nor does it mean that the
sex offender designated as high risk will necessarily re-offend. The distinction rests on the need
to assess and designate those at a high risk of reoffense in order to provide the level of intensive
parole supervision needed.

8

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

The DAPO recently implemented the use of a
validated sex offender risk assessment tool as
recommended by this Task Force to assist in the
identification of inmates that should be considered for designation as HRSOs. The STATIC-99
was selected based on expert testimony received
by the Task Force and based on court decisions
upholding testimony in court regarding the use
of STATIC-99. It should be noted that prior to the
implementation of this system, parole agents
relied on an un-validated tool that carried a 50%
error rate. Preliminary analysis shows that the use
of STATIC-99 could increase the number of parolees designated as HRSO from approximately 2,000
to more than 3,000. As a result, in addition to the
benefit of getting a more accurate and reliable risk
assessment, a higher number of sex offenders will
receive more intensive and specialized supervision, thus further maximizing public safety.

Recommendation 2
All California adult PC 290 sex offender registrants
under the jurisdiction of the CDCR must be assessed
to determine whether based on validated risk
assessment tool(s) and/or known criminal history,
and/or other relevant criteria, they should be
designated as HRSOs. The assessment shall take place
as soon as practical, but no later than 120 days prior
to release on parole with continued assessments
while on parole.

The Task Force spent considerable time discussing
issues involving the need for sufficient notification
to local law enforcement regarding the placement
of HRSOs. Upon the initiation of the Task Force,
advance notice of community placement of HRSOs
was not occurring because offenders were not
being designated as HRSOs prior to their release
on parole. In addition, the DAPO only designated
HRSOs in field office locations where HRSO caseloads existed. Therefore, parolees destined for
locations in the state that did not have HRSO caseloads were not screened for the designation even
after paroling to the community.
The CDCR had begun preliminary work to address
some of these issues prior to the Executive Order
that formed the Task Force. As the Task Force
discussion unfolded, Jim Tilton, Acting CDCR
Secretary, decided that some of the issues being
discussed were too important for public safety to
wait for final Task Force recommendations. The
Governor concurred and signed Executive Order
S-09-06 (see Appendix) on June 16, 2006. The
DAPO now has procedures in place to identify
HRSOs using a validated assessment tool prior to
release on parole.5
The process to designate an inmate/parolee as an
HRSO begins with the assessment of the inmate/
parolee utilizing the STATIC-99, which is a relatively

short actuarial instrument designed to estimate
the probability of sexual and violent recidivism
among adult males who have already been convicted of at least one sexual offense against a
child or non-consenting adult.
The STATIC-99 reviews static or known factors
relating to the prisoner/parolee, including but
not limited to age, relationship history, prior sex
offenses, prior non-sexual violence, victim profiles and prior sentencing dates. The assessment
instrument provides an initial indicator that the
individual has a probability of re-offending based
on a review of the static factors.
The STATIC-99 was designed for use by criminal
justice professionals, including probation officers, parole officers, police officers, institutional
classification officers, forensic social workers,
psychologists and psychiatrists who conduct risk
assessments on sexual offenders. It is the most
validated and rigorously used sex offender assessment tool in the world, and its implementation by
the DAPO will result in a validated method of case
classification.
The STATIC-99 is validated for adult males only
and should not be used for females or juvenile
assessments. Female sex offenders have 0 to 3%
re-offense rates and can be identified as HRSOs by
prior criminal history. An initial assessment instrument used to assist in designating HRSOs prior
to release relies on static or unchanging factors.
For example, factors such as prior sexual offenses,
prior sentencing dates and nature of victimization
will not change. Dynamic factors, such as marital
status, deviant sexual preferences and sobriety, to
name few, can and do change after a sex offender
paroles.
Additional steps in designating an HRSO include
a review of relevant factors including a process

Effective in June 2006, the CDCR and the DMH staff commenced pre-release assessments on all adult PC
290 sex offenders who were scheduled to be released within 90 days of the date of the Executive Order. This
interim procedure applied to pre-release cases at institutions. The Department timely completed these
assessments and continued to assess inmates up to a year out of anticipated release.
5

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

9

that considers aggravating and mitigating factors,
such as health status, time free in the community, completed sex offender treatment, sexual
offenses as a juvenile, past violations while under
supervised release and failure to complete sex
offender treatment.
A final factor involved in the designation process
is input based on the knowledge and skill of an
experienced HRSO parole agent. Based on a totality of the circumstances presented in the above
indicated steps, an HRSO designation is placed
on an inmate/parolee that poses a substantial
likelihood of re-offending sexually while in the
community and all facets of intensive supervision
of this specialized caseload will then apply.
As there are multiple factors involved in predicting relapse by sexual offenders (e.g.,
demographic, criminal history, sexual deviancy,
clinical presentation, and treatment), public
safety requires that sex offenders routinely be
screened on dynamic factors to ensure all HRSOs
are properly designated. Accordingly, adult sex
offenders on parole should have dynamic factors
reviewed periodically to determine whether their
status should be upgraded with respect to HRSO
designation. This process has been identified and
supported by research in conjunction with statistics on re-offending.
Regularly scheduled reviews of PC 290 registrants
on adult parole should occur every six months
to a year or when deemed necessary by the case
carrying parole agent in order to assess dynamic

10

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

(non-static) factors. When parolees are in the
community and making good faith attempts to
adjust, several stressors and dynamic changes
may impact their likelihood of remaining in full
compliance of their parole conditions. By using
a separate validated assessment tool that will
take into account these changing conditions,
parole agents will know whether to recommend
that a parolee, who may not initially have been
designated as an HRSO, should subsequently be
placed in that category. While all adult parole
sex offenders will receive the appropriate level of
supervision, the sex offenders that pose the most
significant risk to the public will be the parolees
that receive the most intensive ongoing supervision and treatment.
As with the initial static assessment process, there
are various dynamic assessment tools available
for use. Examples would include the Sex Offender
Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR), which has
been revised and designated at the STABLE 2000;
the Structured Risk Assessment (SRA); and the
Violence Risk Scale – Sex Offender (VRS-SO). The
CDCR should be mandated and funded to use
the best available dynamic assessment instrument and regularly review adult parolee PC
290 registrants to determine which individuals
should become and or remain designated HRSOs.
In addition, as with the STATIC-99, a process to
review additional relevant information must be
formulated to allow parole agents experience and
professional training to be considered in the process of designating HRSOs.

Recommendation 3
All California inmates required to register as sex
offenders that are designated as HRSOs should
be required to receive appropriate specialized sex
offender treatment as warranted while incarcerated.

In the management and treatment of sex offenders, there will be measurable degrees of progress
or lack of progress. Because of the cyclical nature
of offense patterns and fluctuating life stresses,
a sex offender’s level of risk is constantly in flux.
Success in the management and treatment of sex
offenders cannot be assumed to be permanent.
For these reasons, monitoring of risk through
treatment must be a continuing process as
long as sex offenders are under criminal justice
supervision. These offenders must be required
to participate in specialized treatment, which
focuses on the identification of high-risk situations, behaviors and the development of an
appropriate relapse prevention plan.
Dr. Thomas J. Tobin, Public Policy Chair of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending, is a licensed
clinical psychologist and the co-founder/CEO
of a private sector mental health organization
that provides evaluation and treatment services
for sex offenders. Dr. Tobin attended Task Force
meetings as a guest and specifically addressed
the members on the issue of treatment of sex
offenders. Dr. Tobin stated that in-custody treat-

ment of sex offenders has merit and that such
treatment should begin three to five years prior
to release into the community. Conceptually, if
treatment is viable, it is inefficient to wait until
an inmate is released on parole before beginning a program. If it enhances public safety,
intensive and specialized sex offender treatment
should begin during incarceration and continue
while on supervised release.
The treatment issue involved discussion of treatment while in custody and treatment while on
parole. For purposes of this recommendation,
the members found that in addition to early
identification of HRSOs while incarcerated,
treatment should be a part of the in-custody
programming for sex offenders. Additional
discussion included the concept of amending
applicable statutes and regulations to deny incustody credits to sex offenders who refuse to
participate in treatment.
There are many forms of sexual offending and
offenders may have more than one pattern of
offending behavior and often have multiple victims. The propensity for such behavior is often
present long before it is detected. It is the nature
of the disorder that sex offenders’ behaviors are
inherently covert, deceptive, and secretive, and
sex offenders often exhibit varying degrees of
denial about the facts, severity, and or frequency
of their offenses.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

11

Recommendation 4
Notification of Release of HRSOs
• The Task Force recommends that CDCR be

Task Force, however, recognized that outreach and
assistance to victims must be improved as the current percentage of victims requesting relief under
the law is not significant.

required to notify victims 90 days prior to the
anticipated release of an HRSO in relation to
PC 3003(c). Victims should have a minimum
of 21 days to challenge the HRSO residential
placement in accordance with established CDCR
procedures.
• The CDCR should be required to provide notice
of the release and recommended placement of
HRSOs at least 60 days before release using mail
service as required by law and an additional
reliable method such as email, fax, or telephone
to a list of designated law enforcement
recipients.
• Local law enforcement should be required
to provide timely and sufficient notice to
the receiving communities of the residential

The CDCR should be required to provide notice
of the release and recommended placement of
HRSOs at least 60 days prior to release. Whenever
practical, notification should be made 120 days
before any anticipated release of an HRSO. The
designated entities to be notified should include
the district attorney, sheriff, police chief, Department of Justice, and the Sexual Assault Felony
Enforcement Team (SAFE), or their designates.
The notification should include the fact that the
CDCR has designated the inmate as high risk
and the relevant assessment and criminal history
and background attendant to that assessment.
In addition, the CDCR should provide a second
notification of the HRSO’s actual release within 96
hours of release and placement in the community.

placement of HRSOs.

The notification of pending release of HRSOs to
local law enforcement is a significant issue that,
while not specifically required by law, should
have been done by the CDCR to enhance public
safety and better prepare receiving communities. A primary concern is for the victims of these
sex offenders who are in the communities where
these offenders are returning.
Currently, PC 3003(c) authorizes the CDCR to
place a parolee in a county other than the last
legal residence if it is in the best interest of the
public and for the safety of witnesses and victims.
In most circumstances, victims are asked to fill out
a form by the institution (pursuant to PC 679.03)
where they can request release, escape, execution
and/or death notification. If the victim does not
want the parolee to return to the county where
the victim lives, they may make such a request to
the CDCR. Victims are also aided by county victim/witness coordinators familiar with current law
who can assist victims in asking for parolees to
be placed outside of a 35-mile radius of a victim’s
residence in accordance with the statute. The

12

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

By providing designated law enforcement with
advance notice of the release and placement of an
HRSO, local law enforcement can provide timely
and sufficient notice to the receiving community.
Based on local dynamics, law enforcement in the
receiving community is in the best position to
provide outreach in relation to returning parolees that are designated as high risk. This would
include a determination of what form and substance sufficient notice to the community actually
means. Although communities will have reasonable levels of anxiety when receiving an HRSO, the
concept of having an established and advance
law enforcement and parole plan for designation,
treatment, residence, monitoring and supervision
should provide a level of comfort and security.
The process below articulates existing statutory
notice procedures performed by the CDCR that
will continue to remain in effect (by contrast,
these notices are not specific to the HRSO designation as recommended by the Task Force above):
While an Offender is Still In Custody

• Pursuant to PC 3058.6, the CDCR is required to
notice, in writing, the sheriff, chief of police, or

both, and the district attorney’s office, of the
release information of any offender serving a
term for the conviction of any offense listed in
PC 667.5 (Violent Offenses), of the release 45
days prior to their release.
• Pursuant to PC 3058.65, whenever any person
confined in the state prison is serving a term
for the conviction of child abuse, pursuant
to PC 273a, 273ab, 273d, or any sex offense
specified as being perpetrated against a minor,
the CDCR is required to inform the immediate
family member of the parolee who requests
notification and shall also inform a county
child welfare service agency that requests
notification of the release, 45 days prior to the
release.
• Pursuant to PC 3058.8, the CDCR is required
to notice, in writing, the witnesses, victims and
next of kin of the release information of any
offender serving a term for the conviction of
any offense listed in PC 667.5, 45 days prior to
their release. Pursuant to PC 3058.9, whenever
a person is confined to state prison serving
a term for the conviction of any sex offense
perpetrated against a minor, the CDCR is
required to inform the sheriff, chief of police or
both and the district attorney’s office of their
release, 45 days prior to the release.
• PC 3060.6 requires that when any parolee is
returned to custody or has his or her parole
revoked for conduct described in subparagraph
(a) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of PC
290, the parole authority is required to report
the circumstances that were the basis for the
return to custody or revocation of parole to
the law enforcement agency and the district
attorney that has primary jurisdiction over
the community in which the circumstances

occurred and to the CDCR. The Board of
Parole Hearings (BPH) currently complies
with this requirement by noticing the DAPO,
chief of police or county sheriff and the
district attorney. The BPH also provides the
offenders projected revocation release date.
The institution where the parolee is housed
subsequently notices similar parties upon rerelease of the offender to parole.
Prior to an Offender’s Release on Parole

• Upon receipt of a “pre-parole” file, the agent
conducts a risk and needs assessment. In
parole districts that have HRSO caseloads,
PC 290 cases are screened by an HRSO
agent to determine risk level (low, moderate,
high). Cases determined to meet the HRSO
screening are supervised on a HRSO caseload.
All others are classified at the High Control
level of supervision. Districts/Parole Units
without HRSO caseloads supervise all PC
290 registrants at the High Control level of
supervision (or as a Second Striker/Enhanced
Outpatient case, if so designated).6
• The DAPO assesses conditions of parole
appropriate to the offender based on the
individual’s criminal history. This could
include, but not be limited to, restricting
contact with specific people, types of people,
curfews, areas the offender may travel, and
where they may live.
Upon an Offender’s Release to Parole

• The parole agent ensures that the proper
notifications noted above have been made by
reviewing the notification documents in the
field file/central file. If not, the appropriate
case records office is notified, who in turn will
issue the appropriate notice.

On June 16, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-09-06, which included a direction to
provide advance screening and notice for each identified HRSO with a verified, compliant residence to the
affected district attorney’s office, the sheriff’s department of the appropriate county and the police department of the appropriate city. In response, the DAPO issued a directive that advance notification should be
implemented immediately as the confirmation of HRSO designations are received. As the initial process is
brought on line, the notice times will increase with the goal being a minimum of 45-day advance notice.
6

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

13

• The parole agent ensures the parolee registers
within the required time frames with law
enforcement, upon moving to another
residence, and as required annually.
• The parole agent monitors the parolee’s
activities to ensure compliance with applicable
statutes and parole conditions.

14

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

• The parole agent notifies local law enforcement
and the district attorney’s office when a paroled
sex offender moves to another residence and/
or is transferred to another parole unit.

Recommendation 5
The parole supervision of HRSOs should follow the
“Containment Model,” which recognizes the risk
that sex offenders pose to the community, and
thus provides a focus on “containing” offenders in
a tight supervision and treatment network with
active monitoring and enforcement of rules. This
‘Containment Model’ is formed by four components:
The supervision components led by the specialized
parole agent and his team; the treatment component
directed by a qualified therapist who uses an
evidence-based approach in conformity with
recognized guidelines and standards; the polygraph
component to be performed by qualified postconviction polygrapher(s); and the victim advocacy
component focused on what is best for the victim.
In addition, all HRSOs should be placed on GPS
monitoring (the Task Force recognized the value of
more intensive supervision and GPS monitoring for
all paroled sex offenders, but acknowledge that it is
beyond the scope of the Executive Order).

The Containment Model is supported by the
Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)
and is based on established research and
standards that acknowledge that sex offenders present a danger in our communities, and
that while there may not be a cure, this system
provides a method of reducing the risk to
the community through the interdisciplinary
team approach of strict supervision, treatment,
accountability, and victim sensitivity.
The “Containment Model” has been identified
as the most promising method currently used
throughout the United States for community
supervision of HRSOs. This model is proactive,
coordinated and brings a multidisciplinary
approach to the management of sex offenders. The containment approach is a particular
method of individual case processing and case
management of sex offenders in the criminal
justice system and rests on the dual premise
that sex offenders are one hundred percent
responsible for the damage they inflict on
others and that they must constantly and consistently be held accountable for their

inappropriate thoughts and feelings along with
their actions.
In the “Containment Model,” offenders are caught
in a tight web of surveillance, monitoring, and
treatment by participants including a parole
agent, a treatment provider, a polygraph examiner, and a victim advocate.
The supervision of sex offenders designated as
high risk must be conducted by parole agents
that have received specialized training and education in the proper guidelines and procedures
for the supervision and management of those
offenders. The training and education should
include the proper use of validated risk assessment tools such as: the STATIC-99, the proper
analysis of criminal history and background and
associated risk factors, the proper implementation of the Containment Model, the proper
evaluation of appropriate community based
treatment providers, the proper evaluation of
information obtained from the polygraph, the
formulation of appropriate parole conditions
that increase control and reduce the likelihood of
future victims such as use of the Internet, association with minors, or use of alcohol/drugs.
In addition, the ratio of designated high risk sex
offenders per parole officer should not exceed 20
to 1. These specialized parole officers will work in
teams where each team member is familiar with
the caseload of their team members so that they

Containment Model
�����������

���������

���������

���������������

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

15

can provide effective back up and supervision
during days off or the mandatory updated training in this area. All parole officers dealing with
sex offender parolees will receive specialized
training that would qualify them to competently
handle the high risk population. This will serve
to provide sufficient experts to do the job and
also it will allow sex offender parolees at every
designated risk level to receive the appropriate supervision and provide the expertise for a
parole agent to recognize the potential risk that
might elevate their parolee to a higher level.

The Task Force engaged in discussion of the
efficacy of GPS inclusion and exclusion zones
as a beneficial enhancement to HRSO parole
supervision. The GPS equipment allows the
parole agent to receive alerts when a parolee
enters a restricted area. The GPS “tracks” or
printout of the parolee movement can then be
used to locate and arrest the parolee as well as
provide administrative or criminal evidence of
criminal conduct. Accordingly, the DAPO should
also collaborate with local law enforcement and
make GPS track access available for their use.

In terms of supervision, parole agents must have
sufficient resources, structure and equipment
necessary to meet mission objectives.
Comprehensive supervision by a parole agent
includes surveillance, searches, parole sweeps,
special conditions of parole, drug testing,
mandatory programming, collateral contacts,
home visits and enhanced supervision to name
a few. In addition, the specialized caseloads
for HRSOs should include prescriptive parole
planning, team supervision, relapse prevention
programs, and law enforcement offender
meetings. The supervision of sex offenders
designated as HRSO must be conducted by
parole agents that have received specialized
training and education in the proper guidelines
and procedures for the supervision and
management of those offenders.

Recognizing that HRSOs require intensive
supervision and status as a specialized caseload,
the DAPO reduced caseloads for HRSO agents
from 60 to 40 parolees per agent. With the
addition of GPS technology, parole agents with
HRSO caseloads on GPS were further reduced to
20 parolees per agent. While the GPS technology has proven to be an effective enhancement
for supervision, it has significantly impacted the
workload of GPS agents. The DAPO shall complete a valid and supported workload study to
review the caseload and specifications for GPS
agents. Supervisory tools can only be effective
if parole agents are able to properly supervise
their caseloads.

GPS represents another individual supervisory
tool for use as part of the entire supervisory
program. The DAPO should utilize the most
technologically advanced continuous electronic
monitoring equipment and services with the
primary objective of enhancing public safety.
GPS devices utilize signals from orbiting satellites to determine their location with a high
degree of accuracy. By placing a GPS receiver
on an HRSO parolee, a parole agent receives
a tremendous amount of information about
parolee activities, allowing him or her to verify
compliance with parole conditions such as curfews, and to investigate suspicious patterns of
behavior.

16

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

An additional element of supervision under the
“Containment Model” is the use of polygraph
examinations. It is recommended that the CDCR
incorporate the use of polygraph examinations
in conjunction with the treatment phase of the
HRSO parole program.
The polygraph examination is a central component of the “Containment Model” and is
considered a promising practice in the management of sex offenders. Numerous probation
and parole departments nationwide have
incorporated the polygraph into their sex
offender management programs with remarkable success for holding offenders accountable
and reducing public risk. The use of polygraph
examinations on sex offenders has been cited
as an extremely effective way to obtain detailed
information about habits and offending pat-

terns of sexual offenders so they can be effectively
supervised and managed in the community.7
Sexual offenders must be held accountable and
polygraph testing is a valid tool to be used in
enforcing an expectation of honesty. Polygraph
examinations should be conducted by examiners
that are qualified under the standards required by
the American Polygraph Association.
The polygraph examination has not been used
by the CDCR in the past based on legal concerns.
However, the courts have held that pursuant to
PC 1203.1, “trial courts have broad discretion to
impose conditions of probation to foster rehabilitation and reformation of the defendant, to
protect the public and the victim and to ensure
that justice is done.” Specifically, in People v Miller
(1989) 208 Cal. App.3d 1311, the California Appeals
court held that: 1) requiring submission to a polygraph test was not unreasonable; 2) the polygraph
was a valuable investigative tool, not withstanding their unreliability for evidentiary purposes;
3) the polygraph condition was imposed not to
gather possible evidence, but solely to serve as a
catalyst for further investigation; 4) the polygraph
condition was not overbroad since the exam
was limited to questions relevant to compliance
with probation; 5) the condition did not violate
defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination
unless and until defendant invoked the privilege
by showing a realistic threat but was nevertheless
required to answer a question. This was reaffirmed
in the California case, People v Brown (2002) 101
Cal app 4th 313,319, where the courts held that if
the polygraph examination is used to specifically
to look at behaviors related to condition compliance and not “new offenses” the examination as a
condition of release is constitutionally legal.
In spite of polygraph use being identified as a
best practice for sex offender supervision and the
courts upholding their use, the CDCR does not
currently require sex offenders to participate in
polygraph examinations. In order for the CDCR to

have a credible sex offender management program, the introduction and use of the polygraph
examination is vital.
The combination of comprehensive sex offender
treatment and carefully structured and monitored behavioral supervision conditions assist
many sex offenders as they develop internal controls for their behaviors.
Treatment is a major component of the coordinated effort of the interdisciplinary team under
the “Containment Model” of community supervision. Sex offenders present a danger in our
communities. When sexual assault occurs there
is always a victim. Both the literature and clinical
experience suggest that sexual assault can have
long lasting effects on the lives of victims and
their families.
The DAPO currently provides comprehensive
treatment for 250 HRSOs under 12 separate
provider contracts. These contracts should be
expanded to serve all high and moderate risk sex
offender parolees.
Sex offender treatment is a specialized field and
quality sex offender therapy is not available in all
geographical areas. In locations where the DAPO
is unable to secure comprehensive contracted
therapy, adult sex offender parolees are required
to be seen by Parole Outpatient Clinic (POC) clinicians who have been trained in sex offender
treatment consistent with the “Containment
Model” treatment standards.
The final prong of the “Containment Model”
involves participation of victim’s advocates, which
traditionally has not been funded. It is common
in cases of sex offenses that the victim(s) and the
perpetrator come from the same family. In these
instances, the familial relationships impact treatment and supervision in a manner that can be
complex and require sensitivity.

Research Overview: Sex Offender Treatment and Programs – Prepared for the New Mexico Sentencing Commission. October 2003, compiled by researcher S. Colby Phillips.
7

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

17

It is imperative that a comprehensive HRSO management program consider the best interest of
victim(s) while maintaining community safety. A
victim-oriented philosophy is one of the key components of a successful containment approach.
While the victim component is extremely important, it is noted that there have been no fiscal
considerations or funding provided to victims of
violent crime for this purpose. The State should
review as part of this recommendation various
funding sources to allow full integration of the
victim’s component of the “Containment Model”
in relation to the monitoring and supervision of
high risk sex offenders.

law enforcement to identify strategic areas
where parolees can be housed and safely
monitored in their county of last legal residence,
consistent with current law (PC 3003(g)).

As an additional measure of community safety,
the DAPO has conceptually put forward the idea
of parole agent participation in existing county
Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) teams.
Parole agents assigned to SAFE teams will work
with local law enforcement jurisdictions and/or
existing task forces specifically assigned to monitor sex offenders. They will work with local law
enforcement in a coordinated effort to track
down, arrest and prosecute sex offenders who
jeopardize public safety by trying to stay anonymous through absconding and failing to register.

Parole agents assigned to SAFE teams will work
in interagency teams with victim advocacy
groups specifically assigned to assist victims of
sex crimes with temporary restraining orders,
notification and reparation.

Additionally, parole agents assigned to SAFE
teams will collaborate with existing DAPO
regional sex offender housing coordinators and

18

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

To reduce further community victimization,
parole agents assigned to SAFE teams will work
with GPS parole agents to surveil active HRSO
parolees who have been determined through
polygraph, treatment and/or a collateral source
to be at high risk to sexually re-offend. They will
conduct compliance searches and assist with
the retrieval and recapturing of GPS equipment
when a parolee absconds parole supervision.

Parole agents assigned to SAFE teams will need
real time data points on HRSO GPS parolees
to assist victims with safety plans and for the
purpose of apprehension and surveillance
efforts. Additionally, the primary work locations
of parole agents assigned to SAFE teams will be
in the field, where immediate access to Parole
computer data bases (LEADS, GPS) will be essential to their team membership.

Recommendation 6
The CDCR and local law enforcement should partner
to create a viable program for community education
and communication specific to HRSO issues.

The release and community placement of HRSOs
can generate fear, misunderstanding and a
feeling of the community being placed under
threat. The public has an expectation they will
be informed about the release and relocation of
HRSOs.
Community members and public safety is best
served by the dissemination of timely, accurate and comprehensive information from law
enforcement and criminal justice agencies. In
addition, community education creates a framework, which assists community members in
understanding the particular risk an individual
offender might pose. Education is also an
important tool that helps community members
understand the resources and strategies, which
will promote public safety and include the com-

munity as potential stakeholders in creating
effective offender management strategies. Community education can also include information
on various aspects of parole supervision, such as
GPS and other components of the containment
model.
There are a variety of ways that HRSO information
can be shared with the community including web
sites, notice flyers, door to door visits, and community meetings. Law enforcement agencies in each
jurisdiction should make the determination about
which mechanism will effectively inform the community about the potential risk that an offender
poses, and will assist the community in identifying appropriate precautions and resources.
Community education can also be used to inform
the public on pending and recently enacted legislation, as well as information available to the
public such as the Megan’s Law website. However,
it is only through a thoroughly informed public
that true community safety can be achieved.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

19

Recommendation 7
The Task Force recommends legislative changes
to the Megan’s Law Website to specifically identify
HRSOs who are on parole and those that are being
monitored by GPS.

The purpose of this recommendation is to better inform the public as to the status of HRSO
parolees on the website. This reiterates the
empowerment concept from Recommendation
#1 that knowledge is power. Communities receiving HRSOs are often fearful and apprehensive.
Californians seeking information on the Megan’s
Law Website are not provided with sufficient
information to determine which state or local
entity, if any, is accountable for the supervision of
the sex offender.
Currently, the registered sex offender database
in California is maintained by the California
Department of Justice (DOJ) Sex Offender Tracking Program. Individuals convicted of specific
sex crimes are required by law to register as sex
offenders with local law enforcement.
Sex offenders are notified of their responsibility
to register prior to release from custody, mental
hospitals or probation. A copy of the notification

20

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

is sent to the DOJ and the registration information is forwarded to the DOJ after the individual is
released into the community.
Registered sex offenders must update their information annually, within five working days of their
birthday. Transient sex offenders must update
every 30 days, and sexually violent predators,
must update every 90 days. The Sex Offender
Tracking Program updates the website on a daily
basis and keeps track of the next required update.
If a registered sex offender is in violation of the
update requirements, the Internet web site will
show the registrant as being in violation.
Currently, however, there is no information
included within the database that provides the
public with information on offenders who have
been designated by the CDCR to be HRSOs.
The DOJ notes that PC 290.46 requires the posting of specified information and prohibits the
posting of other specified information. Although
the DOJ may have discretion to post additional
information, the DOJ would request the Task
Force to recommend introduction of legislation
to change the posted information on the website.
The DOJ would have significant resource and
workload impact should such changes occur.

Recommendation 8
The CDCR should be required to assess the fiscal
and programmatic impact of the Task Force
recommendations within 90 days and work with the
Administration and the Legislature to secure funding
and/or legislative changes in order to implement
recommendations. In the event the CDCR cannot
meet the timeframe on any recommendation,
a public letter should be sent to the Governor
explaining the reasons why the Department cannot
comply with the recommendations.

Throughout the several meetings held by the
Task Force, it reviewed and discussed numerous
suggestions and recommendations designed to
provide a more effective, statewide strategy for
identification, placement, supervision, monitoring,
and treatment of HRSOs. Many of these recommendations were fairly straightforward, common
sense approaches, such as earlier identification
of HRSOs prior to their parole. In addition, the
Task Force believes that many of the recom-

mendations contained in this report may be
implemented by the CDCR without additional
funding and/or legislative changes.
However, there are several recommendations
that the Task Force realizes cannot be accomplished without either a stable funding source
or a change in the law. Due to the short period
of time the Task Force had to put together these
recommendations, it did not attempt to estimate
the fiscal costs associated with any individual
recommendation, nor did it attempt to draft any
necessary changes to law needed to accomplish
any recommendation.
Therefore, the Task Force recommends that the
CDCR take immediate steps to assess both the
fiscal and programmatic implications of the
recommendations, and then to work with the
Administration and the Legislature to secure
funding and/or legislative changes in order
to implement the recommendations of the
Task Force.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

21

Recommendation 9
The CDCR should be required to establish a
permanent Sex Offender Management Board that
will review practices of the CDCR regarding the stated
goals of the California High Risk Sex Offender Task
Force. Stakeholders such as sheriffs and police chiefs,
district attorneys, county probation chiefs and line
parole officers should have permanent positions on
this Board.

The Task Force has demonstrated the benefits
of bringing multi-jurisdictional stakeholders
together to address issues of common concern
with respect to HRSOs. There is no question that
the recommendations from this Task Force will
enhance public safety when fully implemented.
The comprehensive management of HRSOs,
however, is an area of constant change that will
require ongoing oversight and implementation.
It is imperative that an oversight body be tasked
with continuing the review of statutory requirements and departmental policies in relation to
HRSOs to maximize public safety.
Assemblymembers Judy Chu and Todd Spitzer
introduced Assembly Bill 1015 to create a Sex
Offender Management Board under the CDCR.
The bill presents an opportunity to advance
public safety by strengthening the supervision
of violent sex offenders in order to better protect
the public.
Community leaders, law enforcement agencies
and concerned residents recognize that inefficient communication between state and county
agencies responsible for sex offender management have led to violations of state law. There
are many recent examples of sex offender placement issues that have not been consistent with
public safety. These situations are not a result
of negligence on the part of any department or

22

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

agency, but are the result of poor or absent communication within and between departments
responsible for handling sex offender placement.
California has the unique distinction of being the
most populous state in the union that does not
have a separate agency designated solely to handle sex offender management. Texas, Colorado,
New Mexico, Illinois, Tennessee and Minnesota are
just a few states that have such departments.
The Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender
Management Board (SOMB) in Colorado was created by a legislative mandate in 1992 with the
charge of developing standards and guidelines
for the evaluation, treatment, and behavioral
monitoring of sex offenders. Additionally, the
Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment
develops and implements policy that provides
education concerning effective interventions and
management of sex offenders.
Separate departments such as these are essential
in ensuring both the safety of those on parole as
well as the residents around the homes in which
parolees are placed. The departments listed
above work to ensure that sex offenders are provided with treatment when necessary, but more
importantly, these departments monitor sex
offender placement and behavior. The creation of
a similar department in California is imperative to
maintain the safety of families and quality of life
for residents of this state.
Convicted sex offenders and their placement in
our residential communities will always remain
a key concern for residents, community activists, law enforcement officials and policy makers.
We must be diligent in our obligation to protect
communities and our children from this constant
threat. The aforementioned failures in communication between agencies demonstrate the
absolute need for the California Sex Offender
Management Board.

Recommendation 10
The CDCR should be required to continue working
with local law enforcement and local government to
find appropriate and equitable housing solutions for
placement of HRSOs. The Task Force recommends
that a committee of appropriate stakeholders, such as
this Task Force, continue to convene to address these
critical issues.

The critical issue of housing for HRSOs was one of
the main factors leading to the formation of the
Task Force. The Task Force acknowledges the significance of issues surrounding housing of HRSOs
and engaged in several discussions and developed
critical foundational recommendations, however,
no viable long-term solutions were identified in
the 90 days available prior to the dissolution of the
Task Force in accordance with the Executive Order.
The CDCR acknowledges that comprehensive communication with local law enforcement on HRSO
placement issues has been lacking in the past. In
addition, locating housing that complies with the
law and multitude of local ordinances in city areas
is becoming virtually impossible.
Further research and consultation with appropriate stakeholders is required in order for workable
solutions to be identified. Although the Task
Force has addressed some of the issues that have
exacerbated community placement of HRSOs,
such as identification and notice, the problems
are so extremely complex that finding solutions
to this problem in 90 days was not enough time.
Therefore, the Task Force recommends that this
committee continue to convene to further address
this issue.
Currently, there are more than 100,000 individuals
living in California who are required to register as a
sex offender. Over 9,000 of these offenders are currently on active adult parole. Of those, over 2,000
have been designated as HRSOs.8

In accordance with the PC 3003, an inmate who
is released on parole shall be returned to the
county that was the last legal residence of the
inmate prior to his or her incarceration. There
are specific identifiable exceptions to this statute
relating to areas such as victims issues. There
were considerable discussions within the Task
Force of recommending that these placements
occur in the city of last legal residence where
viable in order to further goals of equitable distribution.
Although it is the inmate who bears the primary
responsibility for locating his/her residence, both
state and local government have a role in ensuring that HRSOs are housed in accordance with
the law. At the same time, California cities and
counties understand the serious concerns and
ramifications of sex offender residential placement. Paramount of these concerns is the safety
of children and maintaining the appropriate
distance between the offenders and children,
which includes parks, schools, residential areas
and pathways regularly frequented by minors. As
a result, many cities have recently begun to pass
local ordinances that prohibit the presence of sex
offenders in their community. These ordinances
are making it increasingly difficult for the CDCR to
locate suitable housing and placement of HRSOs,
and are also leading to an inequity in housing
HRSOs statewide.
The lack of a stable residence for an HRSO places
the community at risk. Homeless sex offenders
cannot be effectively tracked and monitored
by parole agents and local law enforcement.
Communities and victims are unaware of their
location and presence, which adds to the uncertainty that offenders are being supervised
The Task Force has begun to build a road map
to accomplish the objective of compliant HRSO
housing that maximizes public safety. On Friday,
July 28th, Co-Chair Spitzer, Member Padilla (also

8

There are over 3,000 individuals currently identified by the DAPO as HRSO, however, based on identification
of these individuals prior to release, a significant number of them remain incarcerated at the present time.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

23

serving as chair of the League Executive Board),
Acting Director Fagot and Agent Speed held a
one hour briefing with the League of California
Cities Executive Board regarding partnership
issues pertaining to sex offender placement. This
was the first time the League had ever discussed
the issue. After much discussion and expression
of concerns, it was agreed that the League would
hold a workshop of the subject matter at its September meeting in San Diego.
Recommendations have been made to identify
HRSOs appropriately and provide sufficient notice
to local law enforcement, victims and the community. Additional recommendations have been
made relating to monitoring and supervision of
HRSO parolees, community education, providing
a definition of an adult parole HRSO and the providing of sex offender treatment.
Consistent and fair standards for housing HRSOs
will not only aid in their placement, supervision,
treatment, and monitoring—it will also provide
victims and communities with confidence that
both state and local law enforcement are working together in a collaborative fashion in order to
insure public safety.
The Task Force has advocated for the formation
of a permanent Sex Offender Management Board

24

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

and continued research and discussion specifically on placement issues. The multidisciplinary
make-up of the members of the Task Force has
been extraordinarily beneficial to the process.
The progress that has been made is of great value
in terms of public safety however there is much
work to be done.
Once reconvened, the Task Force will consider
and make recommendations covering the
following areas:
• Relationship between State and local
communities and how to partner in order
to provide an effective housing strategy for
HRSOs, while at the same time interacting with
various affected stakeholders;
• Best practices for housing HRSOs, which
includes a review of how other States have
grappled with community placement issues;
• Appropriate and equitable distribution of
HRSOs, and how placing them in their city of
last legal residence may help to balance the
effect on any one community; and
• How the use of transitional housing may be
able to provide an effective means of providing
hard-to-place offenders within the community,
which will limit the chances of an HRSO
becoming homeless.

Other Issues
The Task Force identified additional sex offenderrelated issues that were not within the bounds
of the Executive Order. These issues are inclusive
of concepts that could be the responsibility of
the Sex Offender Management Board, should the
Governor sign AB 1015.
For example, the task force discussed proposing
statutory changes including proposing lifetime
parole for all PC 288 and PC 288.5 child molesters.
The impetus for this change is based on studies that show that child molesters continue to
recidivate despite factors such as age. The Board
of Parole Hearings could hear considerations for
discharge from parole based partially on length
of time crime free.

3. The DAPO’s Policy and Procedures Unit is
responsible for the development of policy,
modifications/updates to the DOM, and incorp
orating regulatory revisions to Title 15, relative
to parole operations. The Regulation and Policy
Management Branch is responsible for the
administrative processing and promulgation of
updates to the DOM and Title 15 for the entire
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. However, both entities have
historically experienced resource issues, which
make it difficult to maintain both the DOM and
Title 15, particularly within this rapidly changing
political environment, and given the operational
impact of constant modifications and/or
enactment of new statutes.

An additional area for Board follow-up involves
an update of the CDCR Department Operations
Manual (DOM). The DAPO has developed a list
of DOM and Title 15 sections that fall under
the purview of adult parole operations. The
DAPO continues to diligently work towards
updating changes in the Department Operations
Manual, Chapter 8, Parole Operations, and the
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Division

The DOM sections relative to parole have not
been updated in their entirety since 1989 and
Title 15 parole sections have not been updated
since 1991 (Subchapter 6, Parole). The Division
continues to operate via operational policy memorandums, as opposed to updated DOM sections
and regulatory changes. The risk is the potential
to end up with underground regulations as
opposed to properly codified procedures.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

25

Appendix
Letter from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger __________________________________________A-2
Executive Order S-08-06 _____________________________________________________________A-3
Letter from California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary (A) James E. Tilton _______________________________________A-3
Executive Order S-09-06 _____________________________________________________________A-4
Letter from Attorney General Bill Lockyer _______________________________________________A-5
Assembly Member Rudy Bermúdez Biography __________________________________________A-9
Assembly Member Todd Spitzer Biography ____________________________________________A-12
CDCR Secretary James Tilton Biography _______________________________________________A-13

G O V E R N OR A R N OL D S C H WA R Z E N E G G E R

Dear High Risk Sex Offender Task Force Members,
Ensuring public safety is a fundamental responsibility of our government. The proper
placement of paroled sex offenders is a crucial aspect of this responsibility, and it is an
essential component of any effort to safeguard California’s children and families.
As members of the newly created High Risk Sex Offender Task Force, you are charged
with the important task of reviewing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
policies relating to the placement and monitoring of paroled sex offenders. This is a tall
order, as these policies can seriously impact the lives and safety of the citizens of this
state. That is why I am proud that all of you have come together to improve the current
system and better protect California.
No one may ever know how many horrible crimes your recommendations will prevent,
but I assure you that the noble mission you are undertaking is a great service to the
children and families of California. Thank you for participating in this historic effort, and
I wish you the best as you strive to make our state a safer and happier place to live and
thrive.
Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

S TAT E C A P I TOL • S A C R A M E N TO , C A L I F OR N I A 9 5 8 1 4 • ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 5 - 2 8 4 1

A–2

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-09-06
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, it is the primary role of government to ensure the public safety; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, upon release of an inmate to parole, is required by law to
return the offender to his/her county of last legal residence, with certain exceptions, pursuant to Penal Code section 3003(a); and
WHEREAS, high risk sex offenders are among those being paroled to our local communities; and
WHEREAS, last year I signed legislation so that, as of January 1, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code section 3003, the placement or residence of certain high risk sex offenders is prohibited within one-half mile of any private or public K-12 school and the placement or
residence of sex offenders is prohibited within one-quarter mile of any private or public K-8 school; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2006, I issued Executive Order S-8-06 directing the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation to create a High Risk Sex Offender Task Force to make recommendations for improving departmental polices
related to the placement of high risk sex offenders in local communities; and
WHEREAS, identifying high risk sex offenders before they are released from a state correctional institution to parole is critical to
ensure the public’s safety is not compromised; and
WHEREAS, the current practice of releasing sex offenders who have completed their sentence to the custody of parole officers for
determination of those that are considered high risk jeopardizes the public safety by not giving parole officers and local law enforcement officials adequate time to protect the public before placing high risk parolees in the community; and
WHEREAS, verifying that the high risk sex offender’s intended residence complies with state law for high risk sex offenders before
they are released to parole is critical to ensure the public’s safety is not compromised.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power and authority
vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California do hereby issue this Order to become effective immediately:
1. Based on suggestions from the High Risk Sex Offender Task Force, and with the full support of the High Risk Sex Offender Task
Force, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall immediately implement procedures to take
the following actions before the release to parole of any sex offender incarcerated in a state correctional institution: (a) conduct an
assessment to determine whether the sex offender is deemed to pose a high risk to the public of committing violent sex crimes (high
risk sex offender); and (b) require the verification of a residence that is compliant with state law.
2. On an immediate, interim basis, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with the assistance
of the Director of the Department of Mental Health, shall coordinate the placement of necessary personnel at the state correctional
institutions to implement a pre-release assessment procedure to identify whether the sex offender is a high risk sex offender, with the
goal of conducting a pre-release assessment for over 1400 sex offenders scheduled to be released from State correctional institutions
in the next 90 days. It is expected that these assessments will be completed within 30 days of this Executive Order.
3. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall immediately develop and implement an
interim procedure to ensure that verification of a high risk sex offender’s intended residence that is compliant with state law occurs
before the release to parole of any identified high risk sex offender.
4. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in consultation with the High Risk Sex Offender
Task Force created by Executive Order S-08-06, shall develop and implement a permanent pre-release assessment procedure to
identify high risk sex offenders and a pre-release residence verification procedure for identified high risk sex offenders, with the
intent to provide at least 45 days notice to the affected District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department of the appropriate county
and the Police Department of the appropriate city of the upcoming release of a high risk sex offender.
5. Until the implementation of the pre-release assessment and pre-release residence verification procedures described in the above
paragraph, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall provide advance notice for each identified high risk sex offender with a verified, compliant residence to the affected District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department
of the appropriate county and the Police Department of the appropriate city.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the
sixteenth day of June 2006.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–3

June 1, 2006
Dear Colleague:
Thank you for participating in the California High Risk Sex
Offender Task Force. The impact of residential placement of
sex offenders in our communities is of paramount importance.
Your input and cooperation in working as a collaborative group
to define, review and recommend solutions is critical to
successful completion of the task force objectives.
While final recommendations are due to the Governor and the
Legislature by August 15, 2006, it is our desire to complete a
draft report within 60 days to allow public comment, feedback
and any necessary amendment of the initial draft report.
Community placement of High Risk Sex Offenders is in fact a
community issue and your willingness to participate in this
discussion is of great value.
I look forward to establishing and maintaining a cooperative
partnership on all sex offender issues of mutual concern.
Thank you again for your dedication to public safety.
JAMES E. TILTON
Secretary (A)

A–4

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-08-06
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, it is the primary role of government to ensure the public safety; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, upon release of an inmate to parole, is required by law to
return the offender to his/her county of last legal residence, with certain exceptions, pursuant to Penal Code Section 3003(a); and
WHEREAS, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is required by law to notify local law enforcement, district attorneys,
specified witnesses and victims of crime 45 days prior to the release of a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code Sections 3058.6 and
3058.8; and
WHEREAS, as of January 1, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code Section 3003(g)(2), high risk sex offenders are prohibited from living
within one-half mile of any private or public K-12 school; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Section 3003(g)(1) prohibits placement of sex offenders within one-quarter mile of any private or public K-8
school; and
WHEREAS, prior to the placement of a high risk sex offender, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must consider proximity to the victim, day care facilities, schools, and/or parks; and
WHEREAS, state law requires certain sex offenders to register with local law enforcement within five days of placement, change of
address, or homelessness and registered sex offenders must update registration at least annually within five days of their birth date; and
WHEREAS, Megan’s Law is an important public safety tool that requires the information of certain sex offenders’ conviction, physical description, and home address to be listed and available to the general public. Since 2005, this information is available via the
Internet; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive and consistent placement and supervision policy should be developed with input among all entities
responsible for public safety within each community, including but not limited to police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys, parole
agents, probation officers, and local and state officials.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power and authority
vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California do hereby issue this Order to become effective immediately:
1. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations shall create a High Risk Sex Offender Task Force to
review the current statutory requirements and departmental policies on notification, placement, monitoring, and enforcement of parole
policies with regard to high risk sex offenders and provide recommendations to improve each.
2. The High Risk Sex Offender Task Force membership shall include:
a. Two representatives from the California State Legislature, who will serve as co-chairs
b. California District Attorneys Association, president or his/her designee
c. California State Sheriffs Association, president or his/her designee
d. California Police Chiefs Association, president or his/her designee
e. Chief Probation Officers of California, president or his/her designee
f. League of California Cities, president or his/her designee
g. California State Association of Counties, president or his/her designee
h. Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his designee
i. Director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his designee
j. Representative of victims of violent crimes
k. Other representatives to be determined by the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
3. The High Risk Sex Offender Task Force shall provide the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as well as
the Governor and Legislature, with recommendations to improve departmental polices related to the placement of high risk sex offenders in local communities thereby ensuring public safety is not compromised. The High Risk Sex Offender Task Force shall submit its
recommendations no later than August 15, 2006, in the following four areas:
a. Notification to local law enforcement and officials prior to release from a state correctional institution;
b. Placement planning for paroled sex offenders that is compliant with state law, and consistent with public safety;
c. Monitoring and supervision of high risk sex offenders; and
d. Enforcement of all parole requirements and special conditions of parole.
4. The High Risk Sex Offender Task Force shall be disbanded once recommendations are delivered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the
fifteenth day of May 2006.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–5

A–6

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–7

A–8

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–9

Assembly Member Rudy Bermúdez
Biography

For more than 20 years, Assembly Member Rudy Bermúdez
has served the people of
California by promoting public
safety, improving education,
and championing the rights of
working men and women.
A law enforcement officer
by profession, Bermúdez was first elected to
represent the 56th district in the California State
Assembly in November 2002. Located in the heart
of southern California , the 56th district includes
portions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties ,
as well as the cities and communities of Artesia,
Buena Park , Cerritos , Hawaiian Gardens , Lakewood , Los Nietos, Norwalk , Santa Fe Springs,
South Whittier , Whittier and West Whittier . The
district includes the popular destination points of
Knott’s Berry Farm in the city of Buena Park and
Little India in the city of Artesia .
Assembly Member Bermúdez, in his second term
in office as a legislator, has the unique honor of
serving as chair of Budget Sub-Committee #4
on State Administration. He also serves on the
Assembly committees on Aging, Governmental
Organization, and Water, Parks, and Wildlife.
Legislative Achievements

Assembly Member Bermúdez has made an immediate impact in the legislature by tackling tough
issues and standing up for not only our community, but all Californians. Bermúdez has received
many leadership and legislator of the year awards
for his work on a whole range of issues affecting
California .

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bermúdez authored and secured
passage of legislation (AB 1153) that outlawed
the use of counterfeit firefighter badges and
employee identification. This ensures that these
items will not fall into the wrong hands and can
never be used to gain unauthorized access to
sensitive sites and facilities.
Bermúdez has been awarded many honors for
his commitment to public safety and for his support and appreciation of the brave men and
women who keep our communities safe. In
2003,his first year in the Assembly, Bermúdez was
named Legislator of the Year by the California
Police Activities League and was honored with
the prestigious “Street Sweeper” award by the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
(CCPOA). In 2004, Bermúdez was honored with
the California State Fire Fighters Association legislator of the year award. Most recently Bermúdez
was honored with the 2005 LA County Probation
Officers Union Legislative Leadership Award, the
2005 Crime Victims United of California Legislator
of the Year Award, and the 2006 State Coalition
of Probation Organizations Legislator of the Year
Award.
A Commitment to Education

As a father and former law enforcement officer,
public safety is an issue monumental importance
to the Assemblymember.

Mr. Bermúdez is the proud author of AB 2407
which has allowed school districts to begin
implementation of full-day kindergarten, so that
every child in California can receive the education he/she deserves. He has also been a strong
supporter universal preschool and of lowering
college tuition fees.

In his first term in office, Assemblymember
Bermúdez authored and secured passage of legislation (AB 236) that ensured the most egregious
sexual predators would never be able to practice

Recognizing his strong commitment to public
education and his successes in the legislature, the
California State University System and the Faculty
Association of the California Community Colleges

A Commitment to Public Safety

A–10

medicine in California, keeping residents of the
Golden State safe from harm and enabling them
to put faith and trust in their doctors. Bermúdez
has also fought hard to increase the distances
from which sexual predators are allowed to live
from schools.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

both named Assembly Member Bermúdez as
their 2003 Legislator of the Year.
A Commitment to Jobs and Economic Growth

Assemblymember Bermúdez recognizes the
need for a strong and economically prosperous California that generates an abundance
of high paying jobs. The American Electronics
Association named Bermúdez their 2004 High
Tech Legislator of the Year for his efforts to bring
high tech jobs and technology to California . The
Assemblymember has also championed and
defended the rights of California ’s small business owners. For example, in 2003, Bermúdez
authored AB 282 to protect the practice of “hair
threading” and prevent small cosmetology salons
from being unfairly fined for performing this
ancient practice.
For his commitment to upgrading our transportation infrastructure to create jobs and ensure
the safe, fast, and continual flow of people and
goods Bermúdez received the 2003 Legislator of
the Year award from the Professional Engineers in
California Government. Most recently, the Assemblymember was named the 2005 Legislator of the
Year by the California Attractions and Parks Association for helping to maintain California ’s vibrant
tourism industry.

As a board member, Bermúdez fought for
additional funding and systemic changes to
improve student achievement. He worked to cut
wasteful spending and promote fiscal accountability. Because of his efforts, the school district
maintained one of the healthiest budgets in Los
Angeles County , with a fiscal reserve of over
10%, more than three times the state’s required
reserve. He and his colleagues achieved this goal
while opening three new schools, reducing class
sizes, introducing new educational programs,
strengthening classroom student achievement,
improving security on school campuses, and
providing salary increases and benefit enhancements of over 28% to district employees.
The issue of ethics has been the Assembly
Member’s hallmark as an elected official. He
championed a strict anti-nepotism policy, a code
of ethics for school board members, and procedures to discipline members who breached the
code of ethics.

For his hard work on behalf of our community,
Bermúdez received the 2004 Federation of IndoAmerican Associations of Southern California
Man of the Year Award.

In 1999 Mr. Bermúdez was elected to the city
council of Norwalk , the fifteenth largest city in
Los Angeles County . In his election to the city
council, he received the most votes of any candidate, including incumbents. As a City Council
Member, he worked to attract new businesses
and retain existing ones, promote strong fiscal policies, eliminate the utility user tax and
encourage development to strengthen the city’s
economy. He strengthened law enforcement by
enacting community-based policing and helped
to enhance senior and youth community services.
In 2001, the Norwalk City Employees Association, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, IAM District 777 honored
Assembly Member Bermúdez with their inaugural
“Excellence in Organizing” Award. Later that year,
the Los Angeles County Democratic Party named
him as their “Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic
Man of the Year.”

Dedicated to Public Service

Personal

Mr. Bermúdez first entered public service in 1991
when he was elected as a board member on the
Norwalk-La Mirada Board of Education.

Assembly Member Bermúdez graduated from
the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)
in 1983, with a bachelor’s degree in sociology.

A Commitment to our Community

Assemblymember Bermúdez has also been very
active in issues critical to his district. He continues
to fight for increased funding for home-to-school
transportation, led efforts to increase business
and commerce in the city of Artesia , and fought
for the City of Whittier ‘s right to the property formerly occupied by the Nelles School for Boys.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–11

He received a master’s degree in public administration from California State University at Long
Beach , where he also received a graduate certificate in employee/employer relations, human
services and personnel.

7) 2004 California State University Legislator of
the Year

Assembly Member Bermúdez and his wife, Nancy,
are homeowners in Norwalk and have two sons,
Rudy and Nicolas. Prior to being elected to the
Assembly, he was a parole agent with more than
20 years of experience with the Department of
Corrections and California Youth Authority. He is a
member of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) and is also a member of
the Norwalk Knights of Columbus, and the Parent
Teacher Association.

9) 2004 American Electronics Association High
Tech Legislator of the Year

Legislative Awards and Honors

1) 2003 Faculty Association of the California
Community Colleges Legislator of the Year
2) 2003 Professional Engineers in California
Government Legislator of the Year
3) 2003 California Police Activities League
Legislator of the Year
4) 2003 “Street Sweeper” award by the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association
(CCPOA)
5) 2004 Certificate of Appreciation from
Automotive Services Councils of California
6) 2004 California Chiropractic Association
Legislator of the Year

A–12

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

8) 2004 Federation of Indo-American
Associations of Southern California Man of the
Year

10) 2004 California Chiropractors Association
Legislator of the Year
11) 2004 California State Firefighters Association
Co-legislator of the Year
12) 2005 Boy Scouts of America You Make A
Difference Award
13) 2005 LA County Probation Officers Union
Legislative Leadership Award
14) 2005 Crime Victims United of California
Legislator of the Year
15) 2005 Indian American Heritage Foundation
India Heritage Leadership Award
16) 2005 California Attractions and Parks
Association Legislator of the Year
17) 2005 Professional Engineers in California
Government, Los Angeles Section Recognition
of Public Service
18) 2005 Golden State Gaming Association,
Assembly Member of the Year
19) 2006 State Coalition of Probation
Organizations, Legislature of the Year

Assembly Member Todd Spitzer
Biography

Assembly Member Todd
Spitzer was elected to the
State Legislature in 2002 to
represent the 71st Assembly
District. He currently serves as
a member of the committees
on Public Safety and Human
Services and on the leadership team of Assembly Republican Leader Kevin
McCarthy.
As part of his commitment to public safety,
Assembly Member Spitzer was a leading force
behind Proposition 69, the DNA Fingerprint Initiative, and the defeat of Proposition 66, which
would have significantly weakened California’s
3 Strikes Law. For his efforts, Assembly Member
Spitzer was named the 2005 “Legislator of the
Year” by Crime Victims United. In September
2004, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Member Spitzer’s landmark legislation putting
Megan’s Law on the Internet. For his work on this
measure, the California Sexual Assault Investigators named Spitzer their Legislator of the Year.
Additionally, Assembly Member Spitzer serves
as an Honorary Board Member to the Doris Tate
Crime Victims Bureau.
In 2003, Assembly Member Spitzer was the
recipient of the Orange County Council of the
Boy Scouts of America’s Visionary Award, which

honors a person who exemplifies the attributes
of the Scout Oath, the Law and has demonstrated
leadership and philanthropy in the Hispanic and
Latino communities of Orange County.
Prior to his election to the State Assembly, Assembly Member Spitzer served on the Orange County
Board of Supervisors beginning with his election
in November of 1996 and was re-elected in March
of 2000. Prior to joining the Board of Supervisors, Assembly Member Spitzer was an elected
Trustee of the Brea-Olinda Unified School District
from 1992-1996. From 1990-1996, he served as a
Deputy District Attorney in the Orange County
District Attorney’s Office, receiving the Outstanding Prosecutor Award in 1992. Before serving
as a Deputy District Attorney, Assembly Member
Spitzer taught English at Roosevelt High School in
East Los Angeles.
Assembly Member Spitzer served, for a decade,
as a Reserve Police Officer for the Los Angeles
Police Department’s Hollenbeck Division. In 1999,
he was named the Reserve Officer of the Year by
both the Division and the Central Bureau.
Assembly Member Spitzer earned his Bachelor’s
Degree from the University of California at Los
Angeles, a Master’s in Public Policy from Cal
Berkeley, and a Juris Doctorate from UC Hastings.
He, his wife Jamie, son Justin, and daughter Lauren make their home in Orange County.

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

A–13

CDCR Secretary (A) James Tilton
Biography

James E. Tilton was named
Secretary (A) of the California
Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
on April 20, 2006. He previously had served as a program
budget manager for the
Department of Finance (DOF)
since 2003, responsible for the CDCR, State and
Consumer Services Agency, Criminal Justice,
Labor and General Government.
Tilton began his career in public service in 1976
as a budget analyst for DOF. From 1980 until
1985, he served as Director of Expenditure Forecasting for the Commission on State Finance. He
joined the California Department of Corrections

A–14

High Risk Sex Offender Task Force

(CDC) in 1985, serving as its Deputy Director for
Administrative Services until 1998, where he was
responsible for peace officer selection, personnel, training, budget, offender information, and
environmental health and safety. While at CDC, he
served as chair of the Correctional Peace Officer
Standards and Training Commission (CPOST).
In 1998, Tilton was named Assistant Program
Budget Manager for the Capital Outlay Unit and
Executive Secretary to the State Public Works
Board for the Finance Department, a position
he held until 2003. He was promoted in 2003 to
Program Budget Manager for that department, a
position he held until being named CDCR Acting
Secretary.
Tilton earned a Bachelor of Science degree from
Sacramento State University.