Califfornia Sex Offender Managem
ment Board
d
 
 
N
Nancy O’Malley
CA
ASOMB Chair
D
District Attorney
Alameda C
County District Attorney''s
Office

1515  S Street, 2 12‐North, SSacramentoo, CA 95811
Telep
phone: (916
6) 323‐2660
0   Web: ww
ww.casomb.o
org 
 

Janu
uary 6, 2016
6

 
 

 

Toom Tobin, Ph.D.
CAS
SOMB Vice-Chair
Clinnical Psychologist
California Coalition on Sexual Offend
ding

D. Blasingame, Psy.D.
Gerry D
Licensed Marrriage and Family Therapist
California Coalition on Sexual Offend
ding
Rich
hard DaBell, Ph.D.
Consulting Psychologist
Departm
ment of State Hospitals
The Honorable Peter Espinoza
Judge
Los Angelees County Superior Courrt
Janet Neeley
Deputty Attorney General
Office off the Attorney General
Jeff Green
Asssociate Director
Division off Adult Parole Operation
ns
California Deppartment of Corrections and
Rehabilitation
JJerry Powers
Chieff Probation Officer
Loss Angeles County
Jay Atkinson
Reseearch Manager III
Califoornia Department of
Correctioons and Rehabilitation
L
Lauren Rauch
Detective
Registration E
Enforcement & Compliaance
Teeam Coordinator
Los Angeeles Police Department
Max Bosel
Police Chief
Mountain V
View Police Departmen
nt
San
ndra Henriquez
Exxecutive Director
California C
Coalition Against Sexuaal
Assault
Monica Nino
Couunty Administrator
Sann Joaquin County
Micchelle Steinberger
Diivision Manager
Venturra County Probation

B Quirk
   The Honorable Bill
Cha
air – Assemb
bly Committe
ee on Public Safety
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA
A 95814

Dea
ar Assemblym
man Quirk and
a Memberss of the Assembly Comm
mittee on Pu
ublic Safety,
The California Sex
S Offenderr Manageme
ent Board (C
CASOMB) ha
as been follo
owing
asse
embly Bill 20
01 and has determined
d
tthat it would be importan
nt for CASOMB to offer
som
me contributio
ons to the de
eliberations about wheth
her to pass tthis propose
ed legislation
n
through the Pub
blic Safety Committee.
As you
y know, AB
B 201 is an attempt to a
authorize the
e state’s 540
0 local jurisdiictions to
crea
ate their own
n local ordina
ances regula
ating where registered ssex offenderss may not liv
ve
(Res
sidence Res
strictions) an
nd where the
ey may not b
be present (E
Exclusion Zo
ones).
CAS
SOMB sees this Bill as a very importtant and welll intentioned
d effort to co
ontribute to the
safe
ety of California citizens by reducing the chancess that individ
duals previously convicted
of a sex offense
e (Penal Cod
de 290 Regisstrants) will ccommit a ne
ew sex offense.
Base
ed upon kno
owledge of th
he research and scientiffic evidence related to p
policies such
as th
he ones prop
posed by AB
B 201, CASO
OMB has pre
eviously con
ncluded that policies
crea
ating these ty
ypes of restrrictions are n
not effective
e and, in factt, actually inccrease the riisk
of se
exual recidiv
vism.
In ad
ddition, they
y have many
y other conse
equences, ssome intende
ed and some
e unintended
d,
whic
ch make their implementtation undessirable.
The Board there
efore registe
ers its strong opposition tto moving th
his legislaturre forward an
nd
urge
es Public Safety Committtee membe rs to vote ag
gainst it in th
he January 1
12, 2016
hearring.
In th
he hope that the information will be o
of assistance
e to Committtee memberrs in making
ga
wise
e decision, CASOMB
C
has prepared a statement reviewing m
many of the iissues and
conc
cerns raised
d by AB 201 and has pro
ovided that d
document in the following
g pages.
nia and yourr efforts to support wise
Thank you for yo
our service to
t the citizen
ns of Californ
and productive policies.
p
Sinc
cerely,

Allma Underwood
CASOM
MB Board Coordinator
Paroole Administrator
Division off Adult Parole Operation
ns
California Deppartment of Corrections and
Rehabilitation

m Tobin, Ph.D
D.
Tom
Vice
e-Chair
Califfornia Sex Offender
O
Man
nagement B
Board

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

CONSIDERATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD (CASOMB)
TO THE

ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REGARDING

ASSEMBLY BILL 201 - LOCAL REGULATIONS CREATING
RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND EXCLUSION ZONES
FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
PART ONE: PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERTS
PART THREE: ASSUMPTIONS APPARENTLY UNDERLYING AB 201
PART FOUR: CONSEQUENCES – INTENDED AND UNINTENDED
PART FIVE: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

PART ONE: PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
The following document presents a written statement provided to the Assembly Public Safety
Committee regarding Assembly Bill 201, a proposed Bill which addresses local regulation of sex
offender residence restrictions and exclusion zones.
Although the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) has not been able to meet at a
time which permitted a direct specific response prior to the January 12 Assembly Public Safety
Committee hearing on AB 201, CASOMB’s published papers and Reports certainly make it
unambiguously evident that the Board does stand in strong opposition to this piece of legislation.
Even though the present document appears lengthy, each of the statements below represents only a
condensed summary of the important points which merit the Committee’s attention as this Bill is
considered. CASOMB is prepared to provide any needed references or additional clarifications.
For the information of any readers who are not aware, the California Sex Offender Management
Board was created by the Legislature nearly ten years ago and has, since then, provided a
substantial number of reports and statements regarding various aspects of sex offender
management in California. CASOMB was created to fill a need, namely that there had been no
forum at the statewide level at which the many perspectives on sex offender management issues
could be considered by and discussed among major stakeholders and experts so that
recommendations on best policies could be provided. CASOMB, housed within CDCR but
independent in its operations, is made up of 17 members who represent the major stakeholders
in sex offender management in California. The Board’s mission is the protection of the state’s
citizens from future victimization by previously convicted sexual offenders. More information is
available at www.CASOMB.org.

1

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

One of the principles under which CASOMB operates is that policies and practices should be guided
by the best available scientific research. Making such research available and recommending policies
and practices consistent with verifiable knowledge and recommending against policies and practices
which the research finds ineffective, useless, or counterproductive is a major part of CASOMB’s efforts
to increase public safety. A national panel of experts on sex offender management issues – convened
by the United States Department of Justice’s SMART Office - stated the following:
Perpetrators of sex crimes are often seen as needing special management practices. As a
result, jurisdictions across the country have implemented laws and policies that focus
specifically on sex offenders, often with extensive public support. At the same time, the
criminal justice community has increasingly recognized that crime control and prevention
strategies—including those targeting sex offenders—are far more likely to work when they are
based on scientific evidence. (Emphasis added.) http://smart.gov/SOMAPI/index.html
CASOMB consistently urges policy makers to be familiar with and follow what is known and supported
by research and, whenever such relevant research is available, not to advance policies which are not
evidence-based.
When it comes to residence restrictions and, to a slightly lesser extent, exclusion zones, the research
and evidence is sufficiently clear. There is no research which supports the use of these strategies,
there is substantial research showing that such policies have no effect on preventing recidivism, and
there is growing body of research which indicates that residence restrictions actually increase sex
offender recidivism and decrease community safety.
In support of the statement that residence restrictions actually make communities less safe because
they increase the risk of sexual recidivism, some yet-unpublished research recently conducted as part
of a 2016 California study provides data showing that about 18% of sexual re-offenses in the probation
group of registered sex offenders were committed by individuals who were registered as transients at
the time of arrest on the new sex offense. Even more striking is the finding that 29% of sexual reoffenses in the parolee sex offender group were committed by individuals who were registered as
transients at the time of re-arrest. Since transient sex offenders make up only about 8% of the overall
population of sex offenders living in California communities, it is obvious that the rate of reoffending
among those who are transient is quite disproportionately high. (Source: verbal report by California
Department of Justice (DOJ) staff at a CASOMB meeting on November 19, 2015.) A substantial body
of criminal justice research supports the fact that “lifestyle stability” is a “protective factor” and that
anything which undermines such stability amplifies the risk of reoffending.

The proponents of residence restrictions and exclusion zones, as put forth in AB 201, appear to begin
with the premise and assumption that such policies will make California citizens safer. The Analysis of
AB 201 by the Assembly Committee on Local Government provides the following Author’s Statement:
"Prior to this ruling many cities and counties had taken action by enacting ordinances that
would protect their residents. These cities and counties are now faced with the harrowing
choice of repealing local ordinances, compromising the safety of their communities, or face the
excessive cost of litigation. AB 201 restores a jurisdiction issue that has left local governments
unable to protect their communities in an appropriate way. AB 201 will restore authority to local
agencies and authorize the ability to implement their own ordinances to protect their friends
and neighbors from becoming victims of convicted sexual predators."
As articulated in several places in this paper, the claim that residence restrictions make communities
safer is one which has no support in the scientific literature. It is a claim which CASOMB and
2

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

numerous other authoritative sources strongly reject as untrue. It is not a proper foundation upon
which to build effective policies.

As CASOMB has stated previously, those who are really interested in reducing the risk of recidivism
by registered sex offenders should be raising and addressing the question of where can they safely
live rather than merely creating restrictions on where they cannot live.

PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERTS
Whether residence restrictions and exclusion zones are good public policies is not a question which
should be decided by “common sense” or other considerations, including the impulse to further punish
sex offenders because of the damage they have done to innocent victims. The understandable anger
many citizens feel about sex offenders and their crimes makes it difficult to think clearly and legislate
wisely with the goal of preventing future victimization. Therefore the body of knowledge produced by
scientific research should be the guiding force in identifying effective policies.
A number of respected bodies have reviewed the research regarding residence restrictions and
exclusion zones and have published their conclusions. CASOMB is not aware of any similar
statements from experts in support of such policies.
(1) USDOJ SMART Office: A national group of highly respected experts has issued recommendations
against the adoption and continued use of residence restrictions. The United States Department of
Justice under the auspices of the “SMART Office” convened a panel of recognized national experts.
This panel, named the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI),
issued its Report in October of 2014. In that document, the participants recommended against
adopting residence restrictions.
“Finally, the evidence is fairly clear that residence restrictions are not effective. In fact, the
research suggests that residence restrictions may actually increase offender risk by
undermining offender stability and the ability of the offender to obtain housing, work, and family
support. There is nothing to suggest this policy should be used at this time.” “SOMAPI
forum participants do not recommend expanding the residency restriction policy.”
(Emphasis added.) (http://smart.gov/SOMAPI/index.html)
(2) ATSA: The international Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) issued a
statement regarding residence restrictions. In that document, ATSA strongly recommended against
the use of residence restriction policies. The research supporting that conclusion is also provided.
ATSA supports evidence-based public policy and practice. Research consistently shows that
residence restrictions do not reduce sexual reoffending or increase community safety. In
fact, these laws often create more problems than they solve, including homelessness,
transience, and clustering of disproportionate numbers of offenders in areas outside of
restricted zones. Housing instability can exacerbate risk factors for reoffending. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence that these laws accomplish goals of child protection, ATSA does
not support the use of residence restrictions as a feasible strategy for sex offender
management. (Emphasis added.) (www.ATSA.org)
(3) California Supreme Court: In the landmark Taylor case regarding residence restrictions in San
Diego County, the California Supreme Court determined that the restrictions, as applied in San Diego
County, were unconstitutional. The published decision included a number of strong statements about
3

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

the practice of imposing residence restrictions and the Justices based their decision in part on the “no
rational basis” principle. In other words, the court held that, although the intentions of protecting the
community may have been admirable, there was no reason to think that residence restrictions did
anything meaningful to actually achieve that end. It is difficult to advance a “no rational basis”
argument because the presumption is that the government has implemented a policy which bears
some relationship to the goal it is attempting to achieve. The Taylor decision is believed to be the first
“no rational basis” determination regarding residence restrictions which has been decided against the
government.
The court’s decision, filed on March 2, 2015, included the following language:
“As will be explained, we agree that section 3003.5(b)’s residency restrictions are
unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered
sex offenders on parole in San Diego County. Blanket enforcement of the residency
restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in
compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among them,
and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services,
psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees,
while further hampering the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to
monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety. It thus has
infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational
relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from
sexual predators, and has violated their basic constitutional right to be free of
unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.” (Emphasis added.)
In re WILLIAM TAYLOR et al., on Habeas Corpus. Ct.App. 4/1 D059574 S206143

(4) CASOMB: For many years, CASOMB has recommended against adopting or continuing residence
restrictions in California. These repeated recommendations can be found in papers and Reports
available at www.CASOMB.org, and include numerous research references and facts supporting the
Board’s position.
“CASOMB has … repeatedly stated that the promulgation of conditions which actually create
homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders while producing no discernible
benefit to community safety is counterproductive and continues to be the single most
problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California. CASOMB continues to
recommend the elimination of one-size-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders
may live.”
(www.CASOMB.org Year End Report, February 2015)

It is worth noting that none of the statements and arguments made by proponents and supporters of
this Bill and none of the Analysis provided by the Assembly Committee on Local Government have
made any reference to these highly credible authorities.

PART THREE: ASSUMPTIONS APPARENTLY UNDERLYING AB 201
Assumptions and beliefs and myths
The push to pass AB 201 and thereby empower local jurisdictions to create their own versions of
residence restrictions and exclusion zones appears to be grounded on the acceptance by proponents
of a large number of assumptions which are simply not true.
4

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

ASSUMPTION 1. The foundational assumption which appears to be accepted by the proponents of
this Bill is this: Residence restrictions and exclusion zones are actually effective in preventing the
commission of new sex offenses by previously identified (PC 290 Registrant) individuals. (See the
Author’s statement provided in PART ONE above.) As stated previously, this assumption is not true.
These types of policies simply do not accomplish the purposes for which they have been enacted.
ASSUMPTION 2. All convicted sex offenders are equally likely to reoffend and so it is effective to
develop “one-size-fits-all” policies. This assumption is false. There is a wide range of re-offense risk
among sex offenders. For this reason, California has put a great deal of thought and effort into
developing systems to evaluate the risk level for each PC 290 Registrant and into following the widely
accepted “Risk Principle,” which urges that more effort be put into the management of higher risk
offenders and less into those whose risk to reoffend is lower. Risk levels are determined through a
system developed by the legislatively-created State Authorized Risk Assessment Tools for Sex
Offenders (www.SARATSO.org) committee. The SARATSO system is being effectively used
throughout the state and the various management interventions are calibrated to take that risk into
account. Opening the door to “blanket” one-size-fits-all policies would move the state back in the
opposite direction and would ignore California’s thoughtfully developed risk-based approach.
ASSUMPTION 3. Most convicted sex offenders will reoffend. Therefore extremely robust controls
and restrictions are needed to stop them. This assumption is not supported by the research.
Measuring and accurately stating recidivism rates is very complex. However, all of the various
published studies indicate that the overall rate is considerably lower than is commonly believed. The
largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3
percent for the entire sample of sex offenders based on an arrest during the 3-year follow-up period.
As more time passes, the re-offense rate continues to drop.
Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the
world has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk
assessment instruments (cf. www.SARATSO.org ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2
percent.
ASSUMPTION 4. Every sex offender will continue to be a significant risk to reoffend for the remainder
of his or her life. The research provides ample evidence that this assumption is not true. The longer a
sex offender remains offense-free in the community, the lower the risk that that individual will reoffend
in the future. Because California continues to be one of the four states requiring universal lifetime
registration, many, many thousands of California’s approximately 83,000 registered sex offenders
living in the state’s communities have reached the point where, according to the risk assessment
research, their risk of reoffending is negligible. Yet apparently they would all fall under the scope of
this Bill and, with no scientifically defensible justification, would be subject to residence restrictions and
exclusion zones.
ASSUMPTION 5. Previously convicted sex offenders account for a substantial proportion of the new
sex offenses committed. This assumption is false. The research has found that only about 5% of new
sex offenses were committed by individuals previously convicted of a sex offense. Conversely, almost
all new sex offenses are committed by individuals who have never been previously convicted of a sex
offense. Efforts to prevent new sexual victimizations by focusing on PC 290 Registrants are
misplaced and a waste of resources. Instead, increased attention and resources should be directed
toward broader prevention strategies.
ASSUMPTION 6. Sex offenders are all alike in terms of their potential danger of offending against a
juvenile victim. Therefore all need the same restrictions with respect to limiting their access to
5

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

children. This assumption is obviously not true. Many sex offenses involve victimization of adult
women or men. When it comes to offenders with no history of victimizing children, community safety is
not improved by regulating their access to places where children gather.
ASSUMPTION 7. Molests perpetrated by persons who are strangers to the victim make up a
substantial portion of sex offenses against children. Sex offenders prowl California communities
looking for children to molest. This assumption is discredited by the research. Although the “stranger
danger” perspective paints compelling images of sex offenders lurking in the bushes in order to snatch
and molest a child, the reality is that sex offenses perpetrated against strangers account for only about
5% of total offenses. In the vast majority of cases, the offender is already known to the victim through
some existing relationship, including being a member of the same family. Formulating policies based
on the belief that “stranger danger” represents much of the problem needing attention diverts attention
from the other types of prevention efforts are needed to attempt to reduce the 95% of actual
victimization events.
ASSUMPTION 8. Sex offenders find their victims and commit their crimes in or around schools or
parks or other places where children gather. This assumption is not correct. Research on these
questions discloses that such scenarios are by far the exception. Most contact with child victims and
most actual offenses occur in the home of the victim or the offender. Of the very small number of sex
offenses actually committed in or around a school, the majority were committed by teachers or staff
who had never been convicted of a prior sex offense. Similarly, very few victims were encountered or
offenses committed occurred in parks or similar locations. Where do sex offenders find their victims
and commit their offenses? In almost all cases, not in the places from which they would be restricted
by this Bill.
(Note that the research upon which each of the above statements is based can be provided upon
request.)
PART FOUR: CONSEQUENCES – INTENDED AND UNINTENDED

ANTICIPATED OVERALL CONSEQUENCES
It is likely that many of California’s 540 local jurisdictions (58 Counties and 482 Municipalities) will
enact some form of residence restriction and exclusion zone regulations. It is impossible to predict
how many will actually do so. Prior to the court ruling determining that they were in violation of the
California constitution, many local ordinances had been put in place. Numbers cited suggest that 70
Municipalities and 5 Counties had restrictions in place. Others were presumably in the process of
being enacted.
Because there is no system in place or anticipated to keep track of all of the possible local ordinances
and regulations, it will be very difficult for anyone governed by or involved with this local-jurisdiction
system to actually know what the rules are. Before the court decision prohibiting such local
regulations was issued, CASOMB staff had made attempts to track the emergence of new local
regulations. Staff found the effort frustrating, challenging, and extremely time-consuming and
eventually were unable to continue the monitoring. This Bill makes no provision for any such tracking
as a new set of regulations begin to roll out across the state.
The Bill also makes no provision for the notification of registered individuals who might be directly
impacted by new local residence restrictions or exclusion zones. If the Bill and the new local
ordinances are written so that they apply to all registrants, then as many as 83,000 individuals could
be impacted. Since it is likely that not all local jurisdictions will create local regulations, the number
would probably not be that high, but could easily be tens of thousands. How would they learn of and
6

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

be given the specific information which would allow them to follow the proliferation of new restrictions
in their own localities and across the state?
Because the introduction of regulations purporting to prevent sexual reoffending is often – in the view
of some observers – driven more by political factors than by well-informed policy considerations, it
appears quite possible that local jurisdictions, especially those in certain parts of the state where many
smaller jurisdictions are geographically contiguous, will vie with each other to avoid being seen as a
“safe-haven” for sex offenders and will escalate efforts to match or surpass the restrictions imposed by
their neighboring communities. A notorious example of this mentality on the national stage is that
politicians in Georgia openly stated that their intent was to put in place stringent regulations which
would drive sex offenders out of the state. Such a stance reflects an attitude of “we don’t really care
where they go, just get them out of here.”
ANTICIPATED DESIRED CONSEQUENCES
Although, based on the above information, it seems highly unlikely, it is possible that a very small
number of offenses might be prevented by the actions of local jurisdictions made possible by this Bill.
ANTICIPATED UNDESIRED CONSEQUENCES
Since AB 201 would open the door for them to do so, it appears likely that local restrictions will apply
to ALL PC 290 registrants. Because Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law) was completely unclear about the
populations it intended to target, its restrictions were never applied to all registrants. The state’s
previous experience with residence restrictions is based upon their application primarily to those on
state parole – approximately 6,500 individuals. By contrast, ordinances developed under AB 201
could impact as many as 83,000 PC 290 registrants living in California communities, regardless of
whether they are currently under parole or probation supervision or not under any formal criminal
justice system supervision. The number of individuals who might be impacted by AB 201 would be
exponentially larger. The potential for dislocation, loss of previously stable living arrangements,
fragmentation of families, disruptions of children’s lives, loss of jobs due to exclusion zones, and other
foreseeable consequences would be massive.
The consequences of efforts to apply residence restrictions and exclusion zones to all of the state’s
Registrants who live in jurisdictions which would implement AB 201 must be considered. No one
appears to have made any estimate regarding the number of citizens who would be forced by
residence restrictions to move, including those who own their own homes. There is no estimate about
the amount of homelessness and transience which would result. Projections based on the experience
of CDCR in enforcing residence restrictions on parolees suggest that those numbers would be
considerable. There has been no apparent effort to estimate the number of jobs which would be lost
because the place where a Registrant works – and may have worked for many years – happens to be
in an area declared an exclusion zone by the local jurisdiction.
Historically and currently, CDCR Parole Agents have been depending on Global Positioning
Monitoring (GPS Ankle Bracelets) information to monitor exclusion zones. (Such case-specific
exclusion zones can be and frequently are imposed by parole authorities in response to individualized
needs and concerns.) The use of this costly equipment and the supporting tracking systems is now
limited to parolees and some county probationers. The cost of requiring such tracking for all PC 290
registrants would be absolutely prohibitive. Yet without such a system, it would appear impossible to
do any type of consistent enforcement of exclusion zone restrictions. Only if local law enforcement
should happen to find a registrant in an exclusion zone would the presumed effectiveness of creating
such zones have any chance of being realized.

7

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16

PART FIVE: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Experts advise that case-by-case decisions about where sex offenders may live or be present are far
preferable to blanket, one-size-fits-all policies. Fortunately, California’s current system allows such
case-based determinations to be made for individual sex offenders under direct criminal justice system
supervision. The time when convicted sex offenders are most likely to commit a new offense occurs
during the initial period after release. Over time the risk diminishes. It is during this initial period that
authorities have the greatest control over these individuals since they are supervised under the
authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Parole Operations
(CDCR-DAPO) or under one of the state’s 58 County Adult Probation Departments. These
supervising agencies can use case information to impose individually-tailored requirements regarding
where specific offenders may live or may be present during their period of supervision. These periods
of parole or probation vary in length. CDCR parolees are under supervision for periods of 5, 10, or 20
years or, in certain cases, for life. Those on county probation are usually supervised for periods of 3
or 5 years. This system of sex offender management is already in place in California. The Legislature
has included in the Penal Code explicit requirements that sex offenders under supervision be engaged
in a certified specialized treatment program and that supervisors and treatment providers hold regular
meetings and communicate regularly in accord with the “Containment Model.” This sex offender
management approach, including individualized supervision guided by the “Risk Principle” paired with
a specialized rehabilitative treatment program, is viewed by experts as the most effective approach to
reducing sex offender recidivism.
Although it is extremely difficult to estimate the costs involved with implementing, enforcing, and
defending the local ordinances which might be created under this Bill, it is clear that they could be
substantial. It may be true that there would be no direct costs to the state itself. There would definitely
be costs to local government jurisdictions. The costs of filing, pursuing and responding to anticipated
lawsuits would be considerable. It is certain that there would be fiscal impacts on individual citizens,
including potentially tens of thousands of registrants who could lose their housing and, in some cases,
their jobs. Landlords would lose income as tenants were forced to relocate. Whether it would even be
possible to estimate all of the costs is questionable. To pass such legislation without even attempting
to do so seems irresponsible.
Given the history of residence restrictions in California, the proliferation of previous court challenges,
and the decision returned by the California Supreme Court in the Taylor case, it seems predictable
that there will be numerous court cases subsequent to the implementation of this Bill. The process of
bringing lawsuits is, of course, a very costly one and much of the cost would be incurred by local
jurisdictions defending their ordinances. Ultimately, such a process is also likely to take years.
It seems improbable that decision makers in the state’s 540 local jurisdictions would have the internal
expertise or access to such expertise to support the crafting of local ordinances which would really
have some chance of improving sex offender management and reducing recidivism. Based upon past
history, it seems more likely that the local decisions would be influenced by “common sense” and other
considerations which would not be helpful in drafting solid policies. The history of the emergence of
sex offender management policies throughout the United States is filled with experiences of
jurisdictions creating policies which are not grounded in good science and verifiable knowledge.

FINAL NOTE: As CASOMB has stated repeatedly in its Reports and other documents, it is unfortunate
that so much energy goes into introducing and even implementing policies and practices which
research says do not work rather than into actualizing the many possible policies and practices which
could actually reduce sexual victimization in California.

8