Recommendations for SSOSA Reforms

all 2022

Recommendations for SSOSA

reforms; treatment

alternatives for certain sex

offenses; lifetime supervision;

failure to register; washouts;

and system improvements.

Sex Offender Policy Board

Report submitted to the House Public Safety

Committee

Prepared by

Whitney L. Hunt,

MACRCJ, MSW, LICSWA

Coordinator, Sex Offender Policy Board

Table of Contents

Sex Offender Policy Board membership .................................................................... 2

Executive summary .................................................................................................. 4

Subcommittee membership ...................................................................................... 5

What we recommend ............................................................................................... 8

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 16

Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) .............................................. 20

Recommendations: SSOSA .................................................................................... 22

New Treatment Alternatives for Certain Sex Offenses ............................................. 24

Recommendations: New Treatment Alternative .................................................. 32

Lifetime Supervision ............................................................................................... 37

Recommendations – Lifetime Supervision ........................................................... 44

Failure to Register (FTR) .......................................................................................... 50

Recommendations: Failure to Register ................................................................ 54

Offender Score Washouts for Prior Sex Offenses ..................................................... 57

Recommendations: Washouts .............................................................................. 57

Sex Offender Management System Improvements ................................................. 63

Recommendations: System Improvements .......................................................... 63

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 68

To accommodate a person with a disability, you can get this document in alternate formats by calling the Office

of Financial Management at 360-902-0599. TTY/TDD users can contact OFM through the Washington Relay

Service at 711 or 1-800-833-6388. You can also visit the Sex Offender Policy Board website, sgc.wa.gov.

2 | Page

Sex Offender Policy Board membership

Brad Meryhew, SOPB Chair

Attorney | Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Jedd Pelander, SOPB Vice-chair

Youth who have Sexually Offended program administrator | Department of Children, Youth, and

Families, Juvenile Rehabilitation

Blanche Barajas*

Executive director | Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

Keith Devos*

Chief executive officer | Special Commitment Center, Washington State Department of Social and

Health Services

Linda Farmer

Lakewood City Council councilmember | Association of Washington Cities

Jimmy Hung

Chief deputy prosecutor | Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Nelson Lee

Judge | Superior Court Judges Association

Michael O’Connell, Ph.D.

Board member | Washington Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

Christine Minney

San Juan County councilmember | Association of Washington Counties

Terrina Peterson

Program coordinator |Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs

Mac Pevey*

Assistant secretary | Department of Corrections

Lori Ramsdell-Gilkey

Board member | Indeterminate Sentence Review Board

Shawn Sant

Franklin County prosecutor | Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Richard Torrance

Managing director | Office of Crime Victims Advocacy

Jamie Weimer

Projects and programs manager |Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs

3 | Page

*Members with Proxy Voters

Proxy for Blanche Barajas

Amber Rodriguez, advocacy coordinator | Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

Proxy for Keith Devos:

Candice Yi, chief of transition and program accountability | Special Commitment Center,

Behavioral Health Administration

Proxy for Mac Pevey:

Donta Harper, Ed.D., regional administrator | Department of Corrections

4 | Page

Executive summary

Washington has a robust sex offender management system that values and implements best

practices and treatment for sexual offending. At the Legislature’s request, the Sex Offender Policy

Board (SOPB) created subcommittees made up of experts and stakeholders to review and make

recommendations related to the following topics: the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alterative

(SSOSA), treatment alternatives for certain sex offenses, lifetime supervision, failure to register,

washouts, and system improvements. This report outlines the 26 recommendations made by the

SOPB in these areas.

Research shows that SSOSA is an effective treatment alternative in reducing risk of recidivism and

providing essential treatment while still holding the individual who caused harm accountable.

SSOSA has support across all stakeholder groups, including the victims’ community who has

championed it throughout the years, and we strongly encourage the SSOSA statute be protected

and preserved. We conducted a review of research and academic literature related to non-contact

sexual offending (such as depictions of sexual exploitation, sting cases, and other non-contact,

internet-based sexual offenses). Based on the review of research and the effectiveness of treatment

alternatives for individuals who commit sexual offenses, as well as the lowered costs associated with

diverting individuals from prison while still holding them accountable for their actions, we

recommend that a new treatment alternative should be created to expand treatment services to low-

risk individuals who have committed certain sexual offenses. We recommend modeling the new

treatment alternative based on the SSOSA statute as reference. Additionally, we have found that

there are not enough treatment resources available in Washington for individuals who have

committed sexual offenses. Current funding streams for treatment services have been

substantially limited over the years. Additionally, Washington has a shortage of certified Sex Offense

Treatment Providers (SOTPs) who can deliver treatment services to this population. Addressing this

provider shortage is essential to expanding treatment alternatives and community safety. We

recommend ways to expand treatment access in this report along with other system improvements.

The SOPB examined Washington’s current practices and procedures related to lifetime supervision.

We reviewed nationwide research and practices and the monetary and collateral costs associated. We

recommend that a pathway off of lifetime supervision be created for individuals who are eligible and

have met all of the necessary requirements. Eligibility and timeframes for discharge from supervision

should be based upon risk level and compliance while under supervision. A proposed pathway off

lifetime supervision is provided based on up-to-date research.

We reviewed the current practices related to Failure to Register (FTR) and recommend that FTRs be

reduced from a Seriousness Level II to an Unranked Felony for the purposes of sentencing. We

further recommend that FTRs no longer be defined as a “sex offense” under RCW 9A.44.128 and

9.94A.030. A review of “washouts” was conducted, however, we were unable to reach consensus on

this topic. We offer 3 possible solutions, and the corresponding votes and supporting statements of

each board member, on this topic.

5 | Page

Subcommittee membership

SSOSA & Sentencing Alternatives Subcommittee

Subcommittee Chairs

• Megan Allen, manager of legal advocacy programs | King County Sexual Assault Resource

Center

• Michael O’Connell, Ph.D., board member | Washington Association for the Treatment of

Sexual Abusers

Members:

• Heidi Brodt, member | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Brian Drake, community member

• Bruce Glant, founder | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Kathleen Hambrick, founder | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Sonja Hardenbrook, attorney | Snohomish County Public Defenders Association

• Katherine Hurley, special counsel for criminal policy and practice | King County

Department of Public Defense

• Chris Johnson, director of prevention | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center

• Jenny Johnson-Riley Ph.D., sexual violence researcher and therapist| Kahn and Hansen

and Associates

• Catherine Johnston, community member

• Shoshana Kehoe-Ehlers, program managing attorney, 71.09 RCW Civil Commitment and

Trial Level Programs | Washington State Office of Public Defense

• Nelson Lee, judge | Superior Court Judges Association

• Corey McNally, clinical quality assurance training manager | Department of Corrections

• Brad Meryhew, attorney | Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

• Bryce Nelson, deputy prosecuting attorney, special assault unit | Prosecuting Attorney of

Pierce County

• Terrina Peterson, program coordinator |Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police

Chiefs

• Shawn Sant, Franklin County prosecutor | Washington Association of Prosecuting

Attorneys

• Lydia Schoen, community member

• Joanne Smieja, board member | Washington Voices

• Jamie Weimer, projects and programs manager |Washington Association of Sheriffs and

Police Chiefs

6 | Page

Lifetime Supervision Subcommittee

Subcommittee chair

• Jamie Weimer, projects and programs manager |Washington Association of Sheriffs and

Police Chiefs

Members

• Megan Allen, manager of legal advocacy programs | King County Sexual Assault

Resource Center

• Heidi Brodt, member | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Bruce Glant, founder | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Sonja Hardenbrook, attorney | Snohomish County Public Defenders Association

• Katherine Hurley, special counsel for criminal policy and practice | King County

Department of Public Defense

• Chris Johnson, director of prevention | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center

• Shoshana Kehoe-Ehlers, program managing attorney, 71.09 RCW Civil Commitment and

Trial Level Programs | Washington State Office of Public Defense

• Pamela Madill, community corrections officer | Department of Corrections

• Alex Mayo, executive director | Washington Voices

• Corey McNally, clinical quality assurance training manager | Department of Corrections

• Brad Meryhew, attorney | Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

• Terrina Peterson, program coordinator |Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police

Chiefs

• Mac Pevey, assistant secretary | Department of Corrections

• Joanne Smieja, board member | Washington Voices

• Dominic Winter, education services manager | Department of Corrections

7 | Page

Failure to Register (FTR) & Washouts Subcommittee

Subcommittee chair

• Terrina Peterson, program coordinator |Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police

Chiefs

Members

• Megan Allen, manager of legal advocacy programs | King County Sexual Assault Resource

Center

• Carolyn Gray, legal advocacy supervisor | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center

• Bruce Glant, founder | Citizens Against Government Entrapment

• Sonja Hardenbrook, attorney | Snohomish County Public Defenders Association

• Jimmy Hung, chief deputy prosecutor | Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

• Katherine Hurley, special counsel for criminal policy and practice | King County

Department of Public Defense

• Larraine Lynch, clinical manager | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center

• Alex Mayo, executive director | Washington Voices

• Jedd Pelander, Youth who have Sexually Offended program administrator | Department

of Children, Youth, and Families, Juvenile Rehabilitation

• Joanne Smieja, board member | Washington Voices

• Jamie Weimer, projects and programs manager |Washington Association of Sheriffs and

Police Chiefs

• Jennifer Williams, corrections specialist | Department of Corrections

8 | Page

What we recommend

This is the Sex Offender Policy Board’s final report in response to the Legislature’s March 2022

request. We list our 26 recommendations below. This report also explores our subcommittee

process, SOPB process, and applicable historical context. Twelve members of the board voted on

these recommendations, though all 13 board members participated in the process.

Icon key

Next to each recommendation, you will see an icon that indicates:

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 1 (SSOSA)

The SOPB recommends that the SSOSA statute be protected and preserved. We believe

the evidence is strong that this sentencing alternative is an effective tool to resolve many

cases and has proven itself over the decades.

No. 2 (SSOSA)

The SOPB recommends that cost barriers to SSOSA be reduced by the implementation

of sliding scale fee schedules for evaluations and treatment and the creation of low-cost

treatment options.

No. 3 (SSOSA)

The SOPB recommends that, where possible, work release programs be established and

expanded to allow those who otherwise lack the resources to take advantage of SSOSA

and other treatment alternatives.

No. 4 (SSOSA)

The SOPB recommends that RCW 9.94A.670 be clarified to include language that

requires an individual to enter a plea of guilty prior to trial in order to be eligible for this

sentencing alternative.

Statement by SCJA regarding voting: “The SCJA does not take a formal position at this time until such time as the

Legislature drafts a bill. The SCJA does appreciate the increased judicial oversight and discretion being considered in

these recommendations.” Additionally, Judge Lee was an active participant at the subcommittee and full board level. As

SCJA is not formally weighing in on the recommendations with a vote, 12 votes in favor is a unanimous vote.

9 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 5 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to SSOSA be enacted for

those convicted of violations of RCW 9.68A. related to Depictions of Minors Engaged

in Sexually Explicit Conduct so long as the person did not create the images in question.

No. 6 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to SSOSA be enacted for

those convicted of an internet sting or other sex offense not involving an identifiable

victim.

Voting results

Yes: 8 votes — DCYF, WAPA, WACDL, ISRB, AWC, WSAC, WATSA, WCSAP

No: 2 votes – WASPC, OCVA

Abstain: 2 votes – SCC, DOC

No. 7 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends that this treatment alternative only be available to those who

are willing to take responsibility for some sexual misbehavior/a strong willingness to

address behaviors that led them to their offense.

No. 8 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends the following criteria for this treatment alternative, similar to

the current criteria for SSOSA eligibility, which we endorse:

• No prior sex offense convictions or adjudications, and no adult convictions for a

violent offense committed within five years of the instant offense; and

• A standard sentencing range incudes a sentence of eleven years or less.

No. 9 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends that the Court impose standard conditions similar to SSOSA:

• Annual review hearings, including treatment termination hearings; and

• Up to five years of community-based SOTP treatment.

No. 10 (treatment alternative)

The SOPB recommends that the Court hold a supervision termination hearing at the

end of the suspended sentence for the Court to agree with the termination of

community custody.

10 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 11 (lifetime supervision)

The SOPB recommends that a pathway off of lifetime supervision should be created for

individuals who have committed sexual offenses and meet eligibility criteria, including all

of those currently subject to lifetime community custody. Specifically, the SOPB

recommends the following time frames and criteria for eligibility for discharge from

lifetime community custody:

Level I. Individuals who are recommended as a Level 1 upon their release from prison

by the End of Sentence Review Committee shall be discharged from community custody

five (5) years after their return to the community so long as they meet the eligibility

requirements of not committing a “disqualifying event.” The Department of Corrections

shall review the relevant records to determine if the individual meets the eligibility

criteria and process them off of community custody if they meet that criterion.

If the Department determines that a Level I individual does not meet the criteria for

discharge from lifetime community custody, or can identify a specific safety concern,

then that case file shall be sent by DOC to the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board

(ISRB) for review. DOC may make a referral to the ISRB for review of a Level 1 at least

90 days prior to discharge from community custody if DOC has reasonable grounds to

believe the person poses a significant risk of sexual recidivism.

Level II. Individuals who are recommended as a Level II by the End of Sentence

Review Committee upon their release from prison should be eligible for discharge from

supervision ten (10) years after their return to the community so long as they meet the

eligibility requirements of not committing a “disqualifying event.” For Level II

offenders the ISRB shall review their file, submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine

if the individual qualifies for discharge from community custody and may extend the

period of supervision for good cause shown. A review hearing shall be held at least 120

days before the end of the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from release for a Level II

individual, the individual will not be eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5

years from the disqualifying event date. A review hearing by the ISRB should be held at

least 120-days prior to the discharge from supervision date.

Level III. Individuals who are recommended as a Level III by the End of Sentence

Review Committee upon their release from prison should be eligible for discharge from

supervision fifteen (15) years after their return to the community so long as they meet

the eligibility requirements of not committing a “disqualifying event.” For Level III

offenders the ISRB shall review their file, submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine

if they qualify for discharge from community custody and may extend the period of

11 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

supervision for good cause shown. A review hearing shall be held at least 120 days

before the end of the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from release for a Level III

individual, the individual will not be eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5

years from the disqualifying event date. If a disqualifying event occurs within the last 5

years of supervision for a Level III, then the individual would not be eligible for

discharge from supervision for at least 3 years from the disqualifying event date. A

review hearing by the ISRB should be held at least 120-days prior to the discharge from

supervision date.

We recommend the following as “Disqualifying Events” for discharge from Lifetime

Community Custody:

An individual would not be eligible for discharge from community custody if they have

had disqualifying events. A disqualifying event is defined as:

• The individual has been found guilty of any serious and risk-relevant violation of

the conditions of community custody, as determined by the ISRB at an on-site

hearing. “Serious violation” is to be further defined in a future WAC, to include

violations such as contact or attempted contact with prohibited person(s) or

classes of individuals; use of prohibited drugs/alcohol if these substances were

involved in the individual's offense; willful failure to complete required treatment;

absconding from supervision, and other violations deemed high-risk by the WAC.

• The individual has been convicted of any new felony offense or any misdemeanor

sex offense as defined in RCW 9A.44.128 or 9.94A.030;

• The individual has not completed all recommended treatment as required in the

Judgement & Sentence and ISRB Conditions; The SOPB recommends that the

ISRB be able to waive this condition if there is a finding that this resulted from

the individual’s indigence.

• The individual has been found to be non-compliant with conditions of

supervision on a repeated basis as documented by DOC and referred to the ISRB.

These violations would be addressed on a formal basis by the ISRB prior to

release from community custody; and

• The individual has been assessed to be at significant risk for sexual recidivism on

an empirically validated DOC approved dynamic risk assessment completed

within 120 days of eligibility for discharge.

Voting results

Yes: 8 votes — DCYF, WASPC, WAPA, WACDL, ISRB, AWC, DOC, WSAC, WATSA, ISRB

No: 2 votes – OCVA, WCSAP

Abstain: 2 votes – SCC, WAPA

12 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 12 (lifetime supervision for SSOSA cases)

The SOPB recommends that individuals who are granted a SSOSA sentence should be

supervised by the Department of Corrections for the length of their suspended sentence

or 36 months, whichever is longer.

No. 13 (lifetime supervision for SSOSA cases)

The SOPB recommends for SSOSA cases that the sentencing Judge in the Superior Court

hold a supervision termination hearing at the end of the presumed community custody

period to determine if the person should be released from community custody.

No. 14 (lifetime supervision)

The SOPB recommends that the DOC and ISRB submit an annual report to the

governor and appropriate committees of the legislature detailing the number of

individuals eligible for discharge from lifetime supervision; the number of individuals

granted discharge from lifetime supervision; and the number of individuals who,

subsequent to discharge from lifetime supervision, are investigated for a recent overt act

as defined by RCW 71.09.020 or new sex offense as defined by RCW 9A.44.128 or

9.94A.030.

No. 15 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that the offense of Failure to Register, pursuant to RCW

9A.44.132, be reduced from a Seriousness Level II offense to an Unranked Felony for

the purposes of sentencing. This would result in a presumed sentencing range of 0 – 12

months.

No. 16 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that for the crime of Failure to Register, defendants shall be

given one year of community custody regardless of risk level for a first offense and two

years of community custody for subsequent offenses.

No. 17 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that Failure to Register offenses should not be defined as a “sex

offense” under RCW 9A.44.128 of 9.94A.030. Under current law the second offense of

Failure to Register and thereafter are defined as “sex offenses.”

13 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 18 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that Failure to Register should be classified as a “disqualifying

offense” as defined in RCW 9A.44.128, which would restart the waiting periods for relief

from registration for a conviction.

No. 19 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that individuals under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Corrections for a Failure to Register offense, whether they are in the community or still

in prison, be assessed to identify the individual’s barrier(s) to registration compliance and

provided with resources and tools to support compliance and improve functioning in the

community, including housing, vocational rehabilitation, treatment as necessary, and

community supports. The SOPB specifically endorses the use of navigators or other

specialized corrections approaches in meeting the needs of this population.

No. 20 (failure to register)

The SOPB recommends that the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs

(WASPC) review the Model Policy for Washington Law Enforcement regarding Adult

and Juvenile Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification (4.24.5501) to

identify opportunities to utilize technology to streamline initial and ongoing registration

processes.

14 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 21 (washouts)

The SOPB has been unable to achieve any consensus on this difficult issue. We offer

three possible solutions and the vote of our Board for those positions.

• Option 1: The SOPB recommends no washouts for subsequent offenses. The

current state of the law.

Voting results

Yes: 2 votes — WAPA, WASPC

No: 9 votes — DCYF, WACDL, WCSAP, WSAC, WATSA, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, AWC

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

• Option 2: The SOPB recommends the law allow washouts for subsequent offense

only if those are non-violent offenses that are not sex offenses as defined in RCW

9.94A.030.

Voting results

Yes: 4 votes — WACDL, DCYF, AWC, WSAC

No: 7 votes — WCSAP, WATSA, WASPC, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, WAPA

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

• Option 3: The SOPB recommends that the portion of this assignment related to

washouts be completed after the Criminal Sentencing Task Force has completed

their work on this subject.

Voting results

Yes: 10 votes —WACDL, ISRB, OCVA, AWC, DOC, SCC, WATSA, WCSAP, WAPA, WSAC

No: 1 vote — DCYF

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

No. 22 (system improvements)

The SOPB recommends that the Department of Health Sex Offense Treatment Provider

requirements outlined in RCW 18.155.020 be amended to expand the definition of

providers who are eligible to be Affiliate SOTP providers by allowing Licensed Mental

Health Counselor Associates (LMHCAs), Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker

Associates (LICSWA), Licensed Advanced Social Worker Associates (LASWA), and

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Associates (LMFTAs) to increase provider

availability to ensure a sufficient supply of appropriate providers.

15 | Page

We had unanimous

support

We need

additional funds

from Legislature

We need action from

Legislature

This is a repeat

recommendation

No. 23 (system improvements)

The SOPB recommends that the Department of Health Sex Offense Treatment provider

requirement in RCW 18.155.020 be modified to allow SOTPs to supervise up to 4 Affiliates,

regardless of full-time or part-time status.

No. 24 (system improvements)

The SOPB recommends that an agency be directed to administer a funding program to

assist in reducing the costs associated with the licensure for Sex Offender Treatment

Providers (SOTPs).

No. 25 (system improvements)

The SOPB recommends that, subject to judicial approval by the sentencing court, the

ISRB may recommend, via letter to the sentencing court, modification to conditions of

supervision imposed by the court under ISRB jurisdiction. The ISRB may not address

restitution or other legal financial obligations and the sentencing court retains the

authority to delete or modify conditions.

No. 26 (system improvements)

The SOPB recommends the following in order to correct the current contrast between

RCW 4.24.550 and Washington’s Public Records Act:

• The SOPB recommends that RCW 4.24.550 be amended to add a new

section: (12) Sex offender and kidnapping offender registration

information is exempt from public disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW,

except as otherwise provided in 4.24.550.

• The SOPB recommends that RCW 42.56.240 be amended to add a new

section: Information compiled and submitted for the purposes of sex

offender and kidnapping offender registration pursuant to RCW 4.24.550

and 9A.44.130, or the statewide registered kidnapping and sex offender

website pursuant to RCW 4.24.550, regardless of whether the information

is held by a law enforcement agency, the statewide unified sex offender

notification and registration program under RCW 36.28A.040, the central

registry of sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 43.43.540,

or another public agency.

16 | Page

Introduction

In March 2022, the House Public Safety Committee convened the Sex Offender Policy Board

(SOPB) to review several topics related to individuals who have committed sexual offenses.

The SOPB met virtually once a month beginning March 31, 2022. At that meeting, the board

determined the need to organize subcommittees to properly address all assignments within the

project’s letter (Appendix A). Each subcommittee responded to different aspects of the request.

Request items from the March 2022 letter

We pulled the following directly from the letter:

1. Conduct a current review of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) and make

recommendations for improvements to the SSOSA process, including the current eligibility

criteria, judicial discretion and barriers to accessibility. These recommendations should address

any shortages in sex offender treatment or other services employed by this alternative sentence.

2. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices related to sentencing

alternatives for individuals with sexual offenses, including “non-contact” sex offenses.

3. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices and procedures related to

lifetime supervision of adults convicted of sexual offenses to include: the monetary and collateral

costs of lifetime supervision; the impact on community safety of lifetime supervision; and any

recommendations regarding procedures to end lifetime supervision in individual cases or in its

entirety.

4. Review research and current practices and procedures for Failure to Register (FTR) cases and

make recommendations regarding how to ensure community safety most effectively while wisely

using scarce public resources.

5. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices for felony “washout”

periods for sex offenses, as provided in RCW 9.94A.525(2).

6. Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and practices related to the above

referenced policies, and make recommendations as appropriate regarding improvements to

treatment, housing, community re-entry and other relevant policies.

How we created subcommittees

We invited each SOPB member to serve on at least one subcommittee and informed them they

could serve on multiple committees if they chose. Membership limitations included no more than

six SOPB members on a subcommittee, otherwise it would create a quorum. For the Washington

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (WAPA) and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and

Police Chiefs (WASPC) who have co-representatives, we allowed both members to serve on a

subcommittee. We also invited community members and other stakeholders to serve on one or

multiple subcommittees if they wished.

17 | Page

In instances where multiple representatives from one agency or organization were on a

subcommittee, each person could speak and discuss with the group and vote in the subcommittees

but for full board votes they could vote only once on behalf of their agency/organization. Each

subcommittee worked to address their specific assignments over the course of six months.

Subcommittees

SSOSA & Sentencing Alternatives Subcommittee

We asked this subcommittee to review the current policies and practices for the following item:

• Item No. 1: Conduct a current review of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative

(SSOSA) and make recommendations for improvements to the SSOSA process, including

the current eligibility criteria, judicial discretion and barriers to accessibility. These

recommendations should address any shortages in sex offender treatment or other services

employed by this alternative sentence.

• Item No. 2: Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices related to

sentencing alternatives for individuals with sexual offenses, including “non-contact” sex

offenses.

• Item No. 6: Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and practices related to

the above referenced policies, and make recommendations as appropriate regarding

improvements to treatment, housing, community re-entry and other relevant policies.

Lifetime Supervision Subcommittee

We asked this subcommittee to review the current policies and practices for the following items:

• Item 3: Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices and

procedures related to lifetime supervision of adults convicted of sexual offenses to include:

the monetary and collateral costs of lifetime supervision; the impact on community safety of

lifetime supervision; and any recommendations regarding procedures to end lifetime

supervision in individual cases or in its entirety.

• Item 6: Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and practices related to the

above referenced policies, and make recommendations as appropriate regarding

improvements to treatment, housing, community re-entry and other relevant policies.

Failure to Register (FTR) & Washouts Subcommittee

We asked this subcommittee to review the current policies and practices for the following items:

• Item 4: Review research and current practices and procedures for Failure to Register (FTR)

cases and make recommendations regarding how to ensure community safety most

effectively while wisely using scarce public resources.

• Item 5: Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices for felony

“washout” periods for sex offenses, as provided in RCW 9.94A.525(2).

18 | Page

• Item 6: Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and practices related to the

above referenced policies, and make recommendations as appropriate regarding

improvements to treatment, housing, community re-entry and other relevant policies.

We initially reviewed the research and the current practices and processes of each component of the

request and then proposed recommendations. Each subcommittee met regularly between March and

September to hear from guest speakers, review relevant research and data (as available) and facilitate

discussions to brainstorm potential recommendations. Once reviews were complete, subcommittee

members developed, voted upon and then submitted their final recommendations to the full SOPB

for consideration. The three subcommittees provided their recommendations to the full board by

September 30, 2022, so that board members had time to review recommendations before voting on

their adoption at the October 13

and 27

full SOPB meetings.

19 | Page

Chapter I: Treatment

Alternatives

20 | Page

Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA)

Our response to: “Conduct a current review of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing

Alternative (SSOSA) and make recommendations for improvements to the SSOSA

process including the current eligibility criteria, judicial discretion, and barriers to

accessibility. These recommendations should address any shortages in sex

offender treatment or other services employed by this alternative sentence.”

Brief history of SSOSA statute

The Sentencing Reform Act was adopted in 1984 and authorized the Special Sex Offender

Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) as an alternative sentence. The original purpose of SSOSA was to

encourage victims to engage in the criminal justice system, knowing there was opportunity for the

offender to receive treatment without a lengthy term of incarceration.

The SSOSA decision is made by the court. A SSOSA sentence consists of a suspended sentence,

incarceration up to 12 months, treatment for up to 5 years, and a term of community custody. Prior

to 2004, an individual was eligible for SSOSA if

• The individual was convicted of a sex offense other than Rape 1 or Rape 2

• The individual had no prior convictions for felony sex offenses in this or any other state; and

• The standard sentence range for the offense includes the possibility of confinement for less

than 11 years.

After 2004, in accordance with ESHB 2400, in order for an individual to be eligible for SSOSA, the

following criteria also apply:

• The individual has no prior violent offenses within five years of the current offense;

• The current offense did not cause substantial bodily harm to the victim; and

• The individual has an established relationship or connection to the victim.

The 2004 Legislature also expanded what the judge is to consider in the SSOSA decision

• An examination report provided by a treatment provider.

• The victim’s opinion must be given great weight in considering whether to grant a SSOSA.

• Whether the individual and the community will benefit from the SSOSA

• Whether the individual had multiple victims

• Whether the individual is amenable to treatment

• The risk the individual poses.

To be eligible for a SSOSA, a defendant must be assessed as

low-risk.

• Whether the SSOSA is too lenient in light of the circumstances.

ESHB 2400 (2003-2004)

A state Court of Appeals later determined that internet-based crimes (such as depictions offenses and individuals

convicted of sex offense through sting operations) were excluded from eligibility for SSOSA due to the requirement of

having an established relationship with the victim.

ESHB 2400

Washington State uses locally validated risk assessment tools to determine the defendant’s risk of re-offense. These risk

assessment tools have also been empirically validated and normed on state and national populations.

21 | Page

One of the most successful and valuable components of this legislation is the involvement and

support from the victims in the criminal process, which is unique. SSOSA is intended to allow for

accountability and to encourage victims to disclose without fear that the individual known to them

who caused them harm (ex: their parents, guardians, grandparents, etc.) would be subject to a

lengthy term of incarceration

Review of research on SSOSA statute:

The Washington Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) published its findings on SSOSA in 2004.

The

study found that individuals who meet eligibility criteria and are granted a SSOSA have lower rates

of recidivism than those meeting the criteria but sentenced to prison.

The SOPB reviewed the SSOSA program in 2013

and noted that the number of defendants

receiving a SSOSA was declining even though the data showed SSOSA is an effective sentencing

alternative for individuals assessed as low risk.

Current status of SSOSA sentences:

The number of SSOSA sentences granted each year continues to decline, Figure 1.

In the early

2000’s, more than 200 individuals benefitted from a SSOSA per year (approximately 25% of eligible

individuals). In the last five years, the average number of individuals benefitting from a SSOSA has

decreased to less than 70 individuals per year (less than 15% of eligible individuals)

Multiple factors contribute to

the observed decrease in

SSOSA sentences. The most

significant barrier for many

eligible individuals is cost.

Individuals granted a SSOSA

sentence are expected to pay

for their own treatment.

Treatment includes group

and/or individual therapy

sessions and polygraph testing

on a regular basis.

Other defendants choose to take a plea for a lesser charge (a Class B or Class C offense) with a

prison term rather than pursue a SSOSA if it would result in a Class A conviction with lifetime

supervision. As discussed later in this report, prior to 2001, SSOSA cases involving a Class A

offense were supervised for the period of the suspended sentence or 36 months, whichever was

longer. After 2001, SSOSA sentences for a Class A sex offense resulted in lifetime supervision with

no pathway off. (This topic will be discussed further in Chapter II: Lifetime Supervision of this report.

https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/928/Wsipp_Special-Sex-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative-Trends_Report.pdf

https://sgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/sopb/documents/SSOSA_review_201401.pdf

Data obtained from Caseload Forecast Council annual Statistical Summary of Adult Felony Sentencing reports.

100

150

200

250

2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022

Individuals

Year

Figure 1: Number of people who recieved a

SSOSA in last 20 years

22 | Page

Appendix 1 provides information on the number and type of convictions granted a SSOSA sentence

in the last 10 years. We recommend changes to lifetime supervision in recommendations #11-14 of

this report.)

Recommendations: SSOSA

No. 1 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the SSOSA statute be protected and preserved. The evidence is strong

that this sentencing alternative is an effective tool to resolve many cases and has proven itself over

the decades.

Background

SSOSA is a successful alternative that works in reducing risk and has widespread support, including

the victims’ services community. We are concerned that making further changes, other than those

referenced in this report, could negatively impact SSOSA. We are unanimous in strongly urging that

this alternative remain. The worst outcome would be SSOSA being removed as an alternative.

No. 2 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that cost barriers to SSOSA be reduced by the implementation of sliding

scale fee schedules for evaluations and treatment and the creation of low-cost treatment options.

Background

SSOSA is a successful treatment alternative for those who qualify and participate, with a very low re-

offense rate. However, there are disparities in accessing this alternative due to the cost associated

with paying for treatment. The statute requires that an individual must pay for treatment. We

recognize that this requirement can have a disproportionate impact on access to this alternative due

to financial barriers. Finances shouldn’t be a disqualifier from receiving the necessary treatment if an

individual meets all of the other SSOSA criteria. To decrease the known disparities to access of

treatment, and to not negatively impact the limited amount of SOTPs that Washington has, we

recommend that the Legislature allocate funding to support the creation of a sliding scale. The

sliding scale should be subsidized by funding from the Legislature and not be the burden of the

SOTP.

No. 3 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that, where possible, work release programs be established and expanded to

allow those who otherwise lack the resources to take advantage of SSOSA and other treatment

alternatives.

23 | Page

Background

There has been a steady decrease in county jail work release programs being available and

accessible. As of the time of the writing of this report, few work release programs remain available

across the state. Work release is a helpful program for individuals on SSOSA. Individuals on

SSOSA are required to pay for their treatment in order to be eligible for the alternative.

Employment is a protective factor and known to reduce risk of future criminogenic behavior. Also,

in many situations, family members are dependent on the individual’s income. Any amount of jail

time without work release jeopardizes the individual’s ability to pay for treatment and support his

or her family. Having funding designated for work release for individual’s on SSOSA would help

address the disparities that currently exist. Individuals who are incarcerated and who cannot

continue their employment and therefore cannot afford to pay for treatment are not eligible for the

alternative.

No. 4 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that RCW 9.94A.670 be clarified to include language that requires an

individual to enter a plea of guilty prior to trial in order to be eligible for this sentencing alternative.

Background

The SSOSA statute prohibits an Alford plea but allows for the possibility for a SSOSA to be granted

post-trial. This recommendation’s goal is to close the current loophole that exists that could

potentially allow for an individual to request a SSOSA post-trial. We recommend that an individual

pursuing this alternative should only be eligible for this alternative if it is sought and agreed to in

advance of trial. The legal system and trial process can be a very lengthy, taxing, and distressing

process for victims. Allowing for a SSOSA to potentially be granted post-trial can be very damaging

to the victim(s) who was harmed, especially after the trial process has concluded.

24 | Page

New Treatment Alternatives for Certain Sex Offenses

Our response to: “review research and make recommendations regarding best practices

related to sentencing alternatives for individuals with sexual offenses, including non-

contact sex offenses.”

The SSOSA program is an effective community-based intervention for people identified as low-risk

for a sexual re-offense. However, since 2004 the SSOSA program has been restricted to individuals

whose sexual offense involved a victim with whom they had an established relationship. For

individuals convicted of other sexual offenses, there is no alternative available.

We began our work on this topic by looking at other groups of individuals who have committed a

sexual offense, including those who may have been identified as low risk, and with non-contact

offenses. Two groups were identified and explored in detail: individuals whose offense is limited to

downloading, copying, or viewing illegal depictions of minors unknown to them obtained from the

internet, and defendants convicted of a sexual offense as a result of a law enforcement sting

conducted online. These two groups of individuals are not eligible for the SSOSA program under

current law since they do not have an established relationship with the victim.

History of depiction laws in Washington

In 1984, Washington state enacted the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, Chapter 9.68A, with the

intent of preventing sexual exploitation and abuse of children. The Act created multiple new

offenses, including the following involving depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit

conduct:

• Dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a class C felony, for

people duplicating, disseminating, exchanging, or buying the illegal photographs or copies of

the photographs.

• Sending or bringing into the state depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a

class C felony, for people who bring illegal photographs or copies into the State for sale or

distribution.

• Possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a gross misdemeanor,

for people who knowingly possess illegal photographs or copies

Multiple changes have been made to Chapter 9.68A since 1984. In 1990, the seriousness of the

possession offense was increased from a gross misdemeanor to an unranked class C felony. In

2006

, the possession offense was reclassified from a non-sex offense to a sex offense requiring

individuals with this offense to register as a sex offender and the seriousness level for offense was

increased from unranked class C felony to a seriousness level 6 class B felony. With this change the

average length of incarceration greatly increased, Figure 2.

In the field, the term “non-contact” offenses also includes exhibitionism and voyeurism, both of which tend to have

higher recidivism rates and are intentionally excluded from the sentencing alternative recommendation.

2SSB 6172.

All data for Washington state was obtained from the American Equity & Justice Group Dashboard,

https://www.americanequity.org/

25 | Page

Prior to ESSB 6172 becoming law, the average

length of incarceration for people whose most

serious offense was a possession offense was 5.1

months. Post the enactment of the 2006 bill, the

length of incarceration increased more than 9-fold.

In 2019, the average length of incarceration for a

person whose most serious offense was a possession

offense was 46.7 months. (Due to the COVID-19

pandemic, 2020 and 2021 were not used to illustrate

the trend.)

In 2010, ESHB 2424 was enacted in response to the

changing nature of technology. The depiction offenses were modified to include first- and second-

degree offenses and two new viewing offenses were created. The first-degree offenses were classified

as class B felonies and the second-degree offenses were classified as class C offenses. All were

classified as sex offenses.

With the addition of the new second-degree

possession offense and the two new viewing

offenses, the number of convictions with the most

serious offense being possession or viewing of

illegal depictions increased, Figure 3.

Prior to the enactment of ESHB 2424, 32

individuals per year on average were convicted of a

possession offense. In 2019, 92 individuals were

convicted with a possession or viewing of an illegal,

internet depiction as their most serious offense.

With advancement in technology and the creation of the worldwide internet, the increase in

convictions observed in Figure 3 is not surprising. Accessing and collecting illegal images is much

easier now that they are available from a home computer or smart phone. The exact number of

illegal depictions on the internet is unknown. Estimates are in the millions.

A recent report

describes the exponential growth of available child sexual abuse depictions on the internet.

surprising fact is the rate of child sexual abuse in the U. S. has decreased 64% since 1990.

This

decrease has occurred simultaneously as the number of available illegal, internet depictions has

increased dramatically.

Government of Canada (2009). Every image, every child backgrounder: Fast facts and statistics. Retrieved from

https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/media/news-nouv/bg-di/20090507b.html.

Bursztein et al (2019). Rethinking the Detection of Child Sexual Abuse Imagery on the Internet. WWW '19: The

World Wide Web Conference. 2601-2607. doi: 10.1145/3308558.3313482

Finkelhor, D., Saito, K., & Jones, L. (2020). Updated trends in child maltreatment, 2020. Crimes Against Children

Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/sites/default/files/media/2022-03/updated-trends-2020-

final.pdf. (Note: This study included CPS data and not cases referred to law enforcement. Other studies have found

similar reductions in incidents reported by the National Crime Victims Survey and reports to law enforcement.)

100

1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018

Number of convictions

Year

Figure 3: Total convictions with

possession or viewing depictions as most

serious offense

1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

Months

Year

Figure 2: Average length of incarceration

(months) for Possession 1 convictions

26 | Page

Review of research: depiction-only offenses

Numerous studies have gathered information concerning individuals convicted of depiction-only

offenses (viewing, possessing, duplicating, disseminating, or exchanging illegal, internet depictions)

and have compared these individuals to individuals who commit contact sexual offenses and to

individuals who commit both depiction offenses and contact sexual offenses. The latter group of

individuals will be referred to as mixed offenders.

Depiction-only individuals compared to contact sexual offenders

Multiple studies have compared individuals convicted of a depiction-only offense to individuals

convicted of a contact sexual offense against a child. In a study involving 638 individuals released

from federal custody, individuals convicted of a depiction-only offense were found to be

significantly different than individuals convicted of a contact sexual offense.

Depiction-only

offenders were more likely than contact offenders to be better educated and employed at the time of

their arrest. In addition, depiction-only offenders were less likely to have a history of criminal

behavior or substance abuse than contact sexual offenders. During a follow-up period of 4.8 years,

3% of the 428 depiction-only offenders and 5.7% of the 210 contact sexual offenders were arrested

for a contact sexual offense.

Other studies show a very low rate of sexual recidivism for depiction-only offenders. In a meta-

analysis of nine studies involving 2,630 depiction-only offenders, 2.0% had a subsequent contact

sexual offense conviction and 3.4% had a subsequent depiction offense conviction in follow-up

periods ranging from 18 months to six years.

Of the 1,093 people released from federal prison in

2015 for a conviction limited to possession or viewing of illegal, internet depictions, 1.3% were

rearrested within three years for a subsequent contact sex offense and 3.3% were rearrested for a

subsequent non-contact sex offense.

Desistance from crime has no official definition in the literature, however a generally agreed upon

definition is desistance is achieved when someone whose rate of sexual re-offense is reduced to or

has become less than the rate of sexual offense by an individual whom has never been arrested for a

sexual offense. A recent review found a rate of sexual offense among nonsexual offenders to be in

the range of 1% to 2% in five years.

Consequently, most individuals convicted of depiction-only

offenses are below, or close to, the desistance level of committing a contact sexual offense at the

time of their conviction. We discuss this further in Chapter 2: Lifetime Supervision.

A comprehensive literature review summarizing studies done prior to 2017 comparing depiction-

only offenders to contact sexual offenders also concludes individuals convicted of a depiction-only

Faust, E., Bickart, W., Renaud, C., & Camp, S. (2015). Child pornography possessors and child contact sex offenders:

a multilevel comparison of demographic characteristics and rates of recidivism. Sex Abuse, 27(5), 460-478. doi:

0.1177/1079063214521469

Seto, M. C., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2011). Contact sexual offending by men with online sexual offences.

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 124–145. doi: 10.1177/1079063210369013

U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2021). Federal Sentencing of Child Pornography Non-Production Offenses. Retrieved from

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2021/20210629_Non-

Production-CP.pdf

Hanson, R. K., Letourneau, E., Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on

time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 24(1): page 2. doi:10.1037/law0000135

27 | Page

offense display more factors associated with a pro-social orientation (employment, education) and

less factors associated with a criminal orientation (substance abuse, criminal history, childhood

abuse).

The authors suggest depiction-only offenders are a special group of offenders whose

criminal behavior is limited to accessing and collecting illegal, internet depictions, and aside from

this criminal behavior, these individuals are similar to the average member of the community.

The reasons for accessing and collecting illegal, internet depictions are many and varies for each

individual.

Studies have shown that individuals convicted of depiction-only offenses have higher

Internet preoccupation, higher proneness to fantasy, higher levels of sexual pre-occupation, and

more deviant sexual interests.

In addition, depiction-only offenders are less likely to be married

than contact sexual offenders suggesting deficits in forming interpersonal relationships.

Depiction-only individuals compared to mixed offenders

Other studies include mixed offenders; individuals who are convicted of a depiction offense after

being convicted of a contact sex offense. A meta-analysis of 30 distinct studies examined the

demographic and clinical characteristics that differentiate depiction-only offenders (online offenders)

from contact sexual offenders and mixed offenders.

Depiction-only offenders display lower levels

of antisocial traits and greater victim empathy than either contact or mixed offenders. (Antisocial

traits include a disregard for societal norms and the safety of others, a lack of remorse, impulsivity,

and persistent rule breaking.)

Two recent literature reviews summarize the differences between depiction-only offenders and

contact offenders including mixed offenders.

23, 24

To date, all of the literature reviewed during this

assignment indicates individuals who restrict their offending behavior to depiction-only offenses are

a distinct subgroup of offenders who pose a lower risk of committing a sexual offense in the future.

Therefore, individuals who commit depiction-only offenses may be good candidates for a sentencing

alternative. However, mixed offenders pose a higher risk and need different treatment. Therefore,

individuals who have a previous sex offense conviction should not be eligible for the proposed

alternative.

In addition, candidates for the proposed alternative must be carefully screened using a psychosexual

analysis and a polygraph test. Many cases of sexual abuse are not reported to law enforcement. In a

study involving 1,145 enlisted male navy personnel, 13% reported engaging in prior criminal sexual

Henshaw, M., Ogloff, J., & Clough, J. (2017). Looking beyond the screen: A critical review of the literature on the

online child pornography offender. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 416–445. doi: 10.1177/

1079063215603690

Seto, M. C., Reeves, L. & Jung, S. (2010). Explanations given by child pornography offenders for their crimes. Journal

of Sexual Aggression, 16(2), 169-180. doi: 10.1080/13552600903572396

Henshaw, M., Ogloff, J., & Clough, J. (2017). Looking beyond the screen: A critical review of the literature on the

online child pornography offender. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 416–445. doi:

10.1177/1079063215603690

Babchishin, K., Hanson, R., and VanZuylen, H. (2015). Online child pornography offenders are different: A meta-

analysis of the characteristics of online and offline sex offenders against children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 45-66.

doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0270-x

Babchishin, K., Merdian, H., Bartels, R., & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offender: A review.

European Psychologist, 23(2), 130-143. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000326

Ly, T., Dwyer, R., & Fedoroff, J.(2018). Characteristics and treatment of internet child pornography

offenders. Behavioral Sciences & Law, 36, 216-234. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2340

28 | Page

behavior.

These behaviors had not been reported and consequently did not result in a sexual

offense conviction. Similarly, individuals convicted of a sex offense have self-reported prior illegal

behavior that had not been reported to law enforcement.

The new alternative must include a

robust evaluation to determine if an individual is a good candidate to be treated in the community

and to determine treatment needs.

In conclusion, the available evidence indicates individuals whose behavior is limited to viewing,

possessing, duplicating, disseminating, or exchanging illegal, internet depictions are at low-risk of

reoffending. Consequently, treatment in the community can be done at a low risk to the community,

a risk similar or lower than individuals convicted of a qualifying SSOSA-related offense.

Review of research: other internet-facilitated offenses

Research regarding internet sting cases is a growing field as technology continues to evolve. There is

currently not a lot of available research on this topic, though we know there are efforts being made

to expand and address this shortage.

For this project, we reviewed the currently available research

and consulted with experts in this field.

A limited study (n=48) found that internet sex offenders were diagnosed as having lower levels of

deviance and less impulsivity than contact offenders.

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers (ATSA) released a statement on internet-facilitated sexual offending in April 2021. They

note that “studies suggest internet-facilitated cases are less antisocial and therefore at less of a risk to

commit a new offense or a probation violation than contact offending cases.”

We consulted with Dr. David Thornton

, an expert in the field, regarding risk for reoffense of

internet sting cases. Dr. Thornton stated that, “though there is no data that speaks directly to the

risk presented by this group… there is no obvious reason why sting cases where someone believes

they are interacting with a child via the internet would be different from cases where someone was

actually interacting with a child via the internet”. He further stated “this offense in part resembles

McWhorter, S., Stander, V., Merrill, L., Thomsen, S., & Milner, J. (200=9). Reports of rape reperpetration by newly

enlisted male navy personnel. Violence and Victims, 24 (2), 209-224. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.24.2.204

Dietz (2020). Denial and minimization among sex offenders. Behavior Sciences & the Law, 38, 571-585. doi:

10.1002/bsl.2493

Hernandez (2000). Self-reported contact sexual offenses by participants in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Sex

Offender Treatment Program: Implications for internet sex offenses. Bureau of Prisons,

https://ccoso.org/sites/default/files/import/Hernandez-et-al-ATSA-2000.pdf

We are aware that the 2021 Legislature directed WSIPP to examine Washington State’s Operation

Net Nanny and similar fictitious victim sting operations. A report is due to the Legislature on this

issue on June 30, 2022, and we look forward to the results.

Tomak et al. (2009). An empirical study of the personality characteristics of internet sex offenders. Journal of Sexual

Aggression, 15(2), 139-148. doi: 10.1080/13552600902823063

ATSA (2021). ATSA position statement on internet-facilitated sexual offending.

https://www.atsa.com/pdfs/InternetFacilitatedOffending2021.pdf

Dr. David Thornton is the co-developer of the Static-99R, Static-2002R, and SAPROF-SO

(empirically validated risk tools that we currently use in Washington State) and has published over 90

papers in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

29 | Page

typical contact offenses and in part resembles CSEM [child sexual exploitation materials] internet

offenses” and “to the extent that it resembles contact offenses then regular static actuarial results

should apply while to the extent that it resembles internet CSEM offenses then it should signal a

lower risk”. Essentially, there is no data showing that these individuals are at a higher risk than those

who commit hands-on offenses, the tools used to assess risk can be used to assess this population,

and there isn’t any evidence that indicates these individuals would not be amenable to treatment

(assuming they were assessed to be amenable).

Although the research is limited and developing, there is reason to believe individuals caught in law

enforcement stings may benefit from treatment in the community without posing undue risk to the

community.

Individuals convicted of an internet-facilitated sex offense and assessed as low-

risk to reoffend should be considered for treatment alternatives

Based on the success of the SSOSA program, we believe other individuals convicted of a sex offense

who are assessed as low-risk to reoffend are good candidates to be considered for a sentencing

alternative that minimizes the use of incarceration and focuses on treatment in the community.

Washington uses the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model as a framework for determining the

best intervention to use for an incarcerated individual. Research has shown that interventions are

most effective when the following occurs:

• The intensity of the intervention matches the individual’s risk of re-offense.

• Programming targets the individual’s assessed criminogenic needs.

• Programming is delivered in a way the individual is most likely to learn.

Risk of re-offense is determined by static factors and dynamic factors. The currently used risk

assessment tools (Static-99R and STABLE 2007) are not recommended for an individual convicted

of a depiction-only offense. The tools overestimate the risk of re-offense for this type of

individual.

There is a risk assessment tool specific for individual convicted of a depictions-related offense,

however, the information necessary to score the assessment accurately is not easily available in

Washington State. Based on the research studies discussed above, there is general agreement that

individuals convicted of depiction-only offenses tend to be similar to those assessed to be a low risk

of re-offense. For most individuals, their conviction for a depiction-only offense is their first

encounter with law enforcement. For example, of the 202 individuals in Washington who were

convicted of possession of depictions in the first degree in 2015-2019, 165 (82%) were first-time

offenders. Washington does have a sentencing alternative for first-time offenders but currently

individuals convicted of a sex offense are ineligible. The RNR principle recommends the intensity of

the intervention be related to the risk to reoffend. Interventions include incarceration, supervision,

and treatment.

Please see Appendix E for the full correspondence.

Babchishin, K., Merdian, H., Bartels, R., & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offender: A review.

European Psychologist, 23(2), 130-143. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000326

30 | Page

Incarceration of individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend

The use of incarceration for individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend is known to be

problematic.

As discussed above, individuals convicted of depiction-only offenses display more

factors associated with a pro-social orientation (employment, education) and less factors associated

with a criminal orientation (substance abuse, criminal history, childhood abuse).

If low-risk

individuals are incarcerated even for a short time, they may lose some of the factors that make them

low-risk such as their job, housing and prosocial support. In addition, their relationships with

prosocial contacts will be replaced with interactions with high-risk, antisocial peers.

A recent

literature review concludes that incarceration without programming, as is currently done for low-risk

offenders in Washington, can be criminogenic.

Canada and many European countries use

probation, not incarceration, to treat people whose conviction is limited to possession or viewing of

illegal, internet depictions.

Supervision of individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend

Intense supervision of individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend has also been shown to produce

adverse effects, including the potential of increasing re-offense rates.

To maximize the benefit of

the intervention and to minimize negative outcomes, supervision levels must correspond to risk

level. In addition, the length of supervision needs to be appropriate for individuals deemed as low-

risk to reoffend. As discussed further in Chapter II: Lifetime Supervision of this report, requiring

individuals to remain under supervision after they have reached the desistance level of risk results is

unnecessary and often results in both monetary and collateral costs.

Treatment of individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend

Similarly, high-intensity treatment for individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend may inadvertently

increase the risk for re-offense:

“Low-risk sex offenders who were released to the community without intensive interventions faired 27% better

than low-risk offenders who were exposed to halfway house sex offender treatment.”

According to a recent review of research results published prior to 2018, individuals assessed as low-

risk convicted of a depictions-related offense who are required to undergo treatment programs

designed for individuals assessed as high risk have a higher rate of re-offense than individuals

Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can

harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/Risk-

principal--accessible-442577.pdf

Henshaw, M., Ogloff, J., & Clough, J. (2017). Looking beyond the screen: A critical review of the literature on the

online child pornography offender. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 416–445. doi: 10.1177/

1079063215603690

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions

can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/

Risk-principal--accessible-442577.pdf

Loeffler, C. E. & Nagin, D. S., (2022). The Impact of Incarceration on Recidivism. Annual Review of Criminology, 5, 133-

152. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112506

Pederson, K., & Miller, H. (2022). Application of the risk principle in the supervision and treatment of individuals who

have sexually offended: Does “oversupervision” matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(3), 350-370. doi:

10.1177/00938548211040852

Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make

some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89(3), 344–357. doi: 10.1177/0032885509339509

31 | Page

assessed as low risk that have had no or little treatment.

The author of the review concludes lower

treatment dosage should be considered for individuals assessed as low-risk to reoffend.

As noted above, depiction-only offenders have a range of motivations and behaviors associated with

their offending.

To be effective, treatment must address an individual’s needs. One common need

for depiction-only offenders is the development of healthy internet usage.

“Regulation of access to the Internet and, ultimately, the development of healthy internet usage would be expected to be a

central consideration in treatment and supervision. This treatment target is largely unique to this population.”

Preliminary results are promising for the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy that includes

appreciating the impact of online offending on its victims, practicing interpersonal skills,

differentiating between emotional and physical intimacy, and improving self-esteem of the

offenders.

Others have noted that loneliness and boredom are particularly important predictors of

internet pornography use

so treatment plans that encourage prosocial use of leisure time should be

considered.

Still others have noted that some depiction-only offenders may require little or no

treatment.

For example, an individual who viewed illegal, internet depictions out of curiosity and is

a low risk to re-offend may need minimum treatment. There are a number of community-based

programs available that focus on the unique needs of depiction-only offenders but they currently are

only available outside of the U.S.

A recent review describes these programs.

These programs

focus on some potential risk factors such as sexual preoccupation and intimacy difficulties. They are

relatively new so there is little data available on their effectiveness. However, the needs of this

population that are identified in the available research suggests their profiles are similar to others in

treatment for a sexual offense. Therefore, treatment modalities could be adapted to meet the needs

of the individual on a treatment alternative for a depictions-related offense.

Babchishin, K., Merdian, H., Bartels, R., & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offender: A review.

European Psychologist, 23(2), 130-143. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000326

Henshaw, M., Ogloff, J. R., & Clough, J. A. (2017). Looking beyond the screen: A critical review of the literature on

the online child pornography offender. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 416–445. doi: 10.1177/

1079063215603690

Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse (2021). ATSA position statement on internet-facilitated sexual

offending. Retrieved from https://www.atsa.com/pdfs/InternetFacilitatedOffending2021.pdf

Hirschtritt, M. E., Tucker, D., & Binder, R. L. (2019). Risk assessment of online child sexual exploitation offenders.

Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(2), 1-10. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.003830-19

Babchishin, K., Hanson, R. & VanZuylen, H. (2015). Online child pornography offenders are different: A meta-

analysis of the characteristics of online and offline sex offenders against children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 45-66.

doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0270-x

Babchishin, K., Merdian, H., Bartels, R., & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offender: A review.

European Psychologist, 23(2), 130-143. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000326

Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse (2021). ATSA position statement on internet-facilitated

sexual offending. Retrieved from https://www.atsa.com/pdfs/InternetFacilitatedOffending2021.pdf

Hirschtritt, M., Tucker, D., & Binder, R. (2019). Risk assessment of online child sexual exploitation offenders. Journal

of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(2), 1-10. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.003830-19

Babchishin, K., Merdian, H., Bartels, R., & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offender: A review.

European Psychologist, 23(2), 130-143. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000326

32 | Page

Recommendations: New Treatment Alternative

No. 5 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to SSOSA be enacted for those

convicted of violations of RCW 9.68A. related to Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually Explicit

Conduct so long as the person did not create the images in question.

Background

We have significant support for this recommendation and believe that an additional treatment

alternative should be created for individuals who have committed certain sexual offenses. Research

shows that individuals who possess depictions, but who did not create the material, tend to

recidivate at low rates and may be good candidates for a treatment alternative. Incarceration is very

costly and public resources are scarce. Though treatment for sexual offending is offered through

DOC while an individual is incarcerated, these resources are very limited and focus on the highest-

risk individuals. This means that lower-risk individuals are often screened out of treatment eligibility

and likely will not receive any treatment while they are incarcerated. The recommendation of the

creation of a new treatment alternative does not diminish the behavior or harm caused by the

individual. By diverting eligible individuals who are deemed appropriate from prison to the new

sentencing alternative, the individual will receive critical treatment services and still be held

accountable for their choices. SSOSA is a successful, known statute and we recommend modeling

this new alternative off of the SSOSA statute.

No. 6 (Voting results – Yes: 8, No: 2, Abstain: 2)

Recommendation offenders

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to SSOSA be enacted for those

convicted of an internet sting or other sex offense not involving an identifiable victim.

Background

In addition to including individuals who possess depictions, we recommend expanding the new

treatment alternative to include individuals who have been convicted of an internet sting or other

sex offenses not involving an identifiable victim. As there was not a consensus on this topic, we

present supporting statements for each voting response:

Support for Inclusion. We reviewed the currently available research and believe the new treatment

alternative should be expanded to include individuals who have been convicted of an internet sting

or other sex offenses not involving an identifiable victim. In 2019, the most recent, pre- COVID-19

pandemic year, 112 individuals were convicted of a depiction-only offense.

By expanding the

All data for Washington state was obtained from the American Equity & Justice Group Dashboard,

https://www.americanequity.org/

33 | Page

alternative to include these two groups in addition to individuals convicted of depiction-only

offenses, the new treatment alternative will have greater impact.

Based on the available research and consultation with a leading expert in the field of assessments

and risk, and taking into account the limited treatment resources as well as community safety, we

believe there is sufficient evidence indicating that some of this population may be low enough risk

and amenable to treatment to be included in the new treatment alternative (as determined on an

individual basis). Additionally, SSOSA allows an alternative for hands-on offenses, which are

associated with higher risk, and these cases are not hands-on offenses. We recommend that this

population be included to be considered for eligibility for the new treatment alternative and that this

treatment alternative be modeled off of the SSOSA statute. SSOSA is a successful, known statute

that has been shown to be effective in reducing risk and recidivism and ensuring the individual

receives necessary treatment. Diverting individuals who meet the eligibility criteria from prison to

this new treatment alternative will ensure that the individual is still held accountable and receives the

necessary treatment while saving the fiscal costs and impacts of incarceration. Additionally,

expanding eligibility to the treatment alternative for this population will allow for increased judicial

discretion and options for accountability and treatment.

Support for Exclusion. We do not believe there is enough evidence to support the inclusion of

sting and other internet-based crimes not involving an identifiable victim in this new treatment

alternative. One study we found noted that minimizations and denial of offenses are common and

that polygraph examinations have revealed “striking numbers of undisclosed offenses and victims”.

Bourke et al (2015) reviewed the use of tactical polygraphs in understanding an individual’s offense

history. The authors recommend that researchers “should avoid placing offenders into groups

labeled as ‘hands-off’ based on the absence of such crimes in their history” and noted that tactical

polygraphs are able to obtain real, measurable results.

A 2011 Seto et al study recommended that

individuals soliciting minors on the internet “are more similar to contact offenders than to depiction

offenders in the child-related activities, suggesting more interest in having contact with children”.

This population cannot be compared to individuals eligible for SSOSA because an individual that is

caught communicating or using the internet to groom an identifiable child would never be eligible

for a SSOSA, even if it was their first intervention. We are concerned that expanding the alternative

to include this population is premature and may not be truly reflective of risk.

Support for Abstention. This is a growing field with limited literature to review. We would like to

see the results of additional studies before making a determination about the appropriateness of this

population being included in the new treatment alternative.

Please see Appendix E for further detail.

Dietz (2020). Denial and minimization among sex offenders. Behavior Sciences & the Law, 38, 571-585. doi:

10.1002/bsl.2493

Bourke et al (2015). The use of tactical polygraph with sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(3), 354-367.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.886729

Seto et al (2012). Online solicitation offenders are different from child pornography offenders and lower risk contact

sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 320-330. doi: 10.1037/h0093925

34 | Page

No. 7 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that this treatment alternative only be available to those who are willing to

take responsibility for some sexual misbehavior/a strong willingness to address behaviors that led

them to their offense.

Background

It is important that an individual pursuing this alternative accept responsibility for the behavior that

led them to their situation. This is important for the community, the victims, and for assessing

amenability to treatment and participation in the alternative.

No. 8 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends the following criteria for this treatment alternative, similar to the current

criteria for SSOSA eligibility, which we endorse:

• No prior sex offense convictions or adjudications, and no adult convictions for a violent

offense committed within five years of the instant offense; and

• A standard sentencing range incudes a sentence of eleven years or less.

Background

Prior sex offense convictions or adjudications and a history of violent offenses are known risk

factors. We recommend modeling this criteria off of SSOSA.

No. 9 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the Court impose standard conditions similar to SSOSA:

• Annual review hearings, including treatment termination hearings; and

• Up to five years of community-based SOTP treatment.

Background

Judicial oversight is critical in SSOSA and we recommend that it be a critical component of the new

sentencing alternative.

35 | Page

No. 10 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the Court hold a supervision termination hearing at the end of the

suspended sentence for the Court to agree with the termination of community custody.

Background

Judicial oversight is critical in SSOSA and we recommend that it be a critical component of the new

sentencing alternative. Requiring a termination of community custody hearing allows for increased

judicial oversight and serves as a safety valve to ensure that an individual is ready to be released from

community custody.

36 | Page

Chapter II: Lifetime

Supervision

37 | Page

Lifetime Supervision

Our response to: “Review research and make recommendations regarding best

practices and procedures related to lifetime supervision of adults convicted of sexual

offenses to include: the monetary and collateral costs of lifetime supervision, the impact

on community safety of lifetime supervision, and any recommendations regarding

procedures to end lifetime supervision in individual cases or in general.”

Definition of lifetime supervision v. community custody

Throughout the remainder of this section of the report, we use “supervision” and “community

custody” interchangeably. “Community custody” is defined in RCW 9.94A.030(5) as that portion of

an offender’s sentence of confinement in lieu of earned release time or imposed as part of a

sentence under this chapter and served in the community subject to controls placed on the

offender’s movement and activities by the department. We refer to an individual being “discharged”

from supervision so as not to confuse the process with relief from registration (which is not

discussed in this report).

Research related to supervision

Post-release supervision serves multiple purposes. According to the American Law Institute

Sentencing Model Penal Code,

those purposes include promoting the rehabilitation and

reintegration of individuals transitioning from prison to the community. This is achieved by setting

supervision conditions that reduce the risk of committing a new offense and addressing the

individual’s needs for housing, employment, family support, medical care, and mental-health care.

The Sentencing Model Penal Code recommends using reliable risk-needs assessment instruments

when deciding the length of the supervision term and what conditions of supervision to impose.

In general, individuals released from incarceration are at the highest risk for re-offense immediately

after release and individuals convicted of a sex offense follow this same pattern. A substantial body

of research exists demonstrating (1) a wide range in risk for recidivism among individuals convicted

of a sexual offense; (2) risk for recidivism predictably declines over time and; (3) risk can become so

low that it becomes indistinguishable from the risk of someone with a criminal history but no

history of sexual offending spontaneously committing a sexual offense.

The policy of supervision

of individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offense is to provide oversight and guidance to

further mitigate the risk of committing another sexual offense. Policies should in turn change as the

risk presented to the community changes.

American Law Institute. (2022). Model penal code: Sexual assault and related offenses: Tentative draft No. 6:

Submitted by the Council to the membership of The American Law Institute for consideration at the 2022 Annual

Meeting on May 16–18, 2022. Philadelphia, PA: The Institute.

Hanson, R., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-

free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1): 48-

63. doi:10.1037/law0000135

38 | Page

Desistance from crime has no official definition in the literature, however a generally agreed upon

definition is someone who has a criminal history’s risk to commit a new offense is reduced to

become equal to or less than the rate of an individual who has never been arrested spontaneously

committing a crime. Hanson and colleagues

propose their rationale and the definition of desistance

for individual convicted of a sexual offense as:

“… a plausible threshold for desistance is when their risk of a new offense is no different than the risk of

spontaneous sexual offense among individuals who have no prior sexual offense history but who have a history

of nonsexual crime. If we are going to manage the risk of an individual with a history of sexual crime

differently from an individual with a history of nonsexual crime, then their risk of sexual offending should be

perceptibly different. A rate recent review of 11 studies from diverse jurisdictions (n= 543,024) found a rate

of spontaneous sexual offense among nonsexual offenders to be in the 1% to 2% range after 5 years. This is

meaningfully lower than the sexual recidivism rate of adults who have already been convicted of a sexual

offense. However, it is not zero. A sexual recidivism rate of less than 2% after 5 years is a defensible

threshold below which individuals with a history of sexual crime should be released from conditions associated

with the sexual offender label.”

The process of desistance is sped up with the presence of factors that lead the individual toward

lifestyle stability to include but not limited to, meaningful social connections, housing and

employment. While under supervision, the individual is held accountable to build the foundation of

a prosocial lifestyle long enough for it to become routine, habitual and reinforcing, furthering the

desistance process. Longitudinal studies of risk of recidivism demonstrates a reliable pattern of

desistance the longer the individual is offense free in the community.

Of a sample of greater than

7,000 individuals convicted of a sexual offense, few individuals presented much risk after 15 years

and none after 20 years.

These findings were replicated in a study by the Washington State Statistical Analysis Center in 2020

with a sample of over 7,600 individuals convicted of a sexual offense released in Washington State

between 2000 and 2003 and followed their re-arrest data for 15 years.

The report found

individuals were at the highest risk in the first 5 years after release and the rate of rearrest tapered as

time went on. The report found that less than 25% of the sample were responsible for

approximately 80% of the arrests for the entire group, indicating that a small group of higher risk

individuals committed the majority of the crimes following the initial release. Finally, findings

indicated the relative risk of rearrest for the sample dropped below the public average (2.68%) by

the 9

year post release and “…additional risks to public safety appears to vanish around the 10

”

(pg. 3).

Hanson, R., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-

free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1):

page 2. doi:10.1037/law0000135

Hanson, R., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-

free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1): 48-

63. doi:10.1037/law0000135

Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, (2020). Long-term recidivism of Washington sex offenders.

https://sac.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/pdf/long-term_recidivism_of_washington_sex_offenders.pdf

39 | Page

In an examination of recidivism data of over 7,000 individuals determined that an individual’s risk to

reoffend is approximately cut in half every 5 years they are sexual offense free in the community

regardless of risk level.

Moreover, in a more detailed analysis over 80% of higher risk individuals

are never convicted of another sexual offense, supporting the notion that individuals convicted of a

sexual offense present a perceptibly low risk for recidivism in general.

In both studies, there was no

meaningful rate of recidivism after 15 years offense free in the community even for those assessed as

being of higher risk. It was determined that individuals assessed at a higher risk level tended to

reoffend quickly upon release and those who did not reoffend had a higher chance of being

successful and remaining in the community offense free.

Moreover, the detailed analyses in 2018 by Hanson and colleagues examined non-sexual recidivism

and how it impacted the overall risk to reoffend. It was determined non-sexual recidivism did

increase the risk of sexual recidivism, however didn’t override the effects of time sexual offense free.

The research indicates that our current system of lifetime supervision is not necessary for public

safety. An expert in the field, R. Karl Hanson, and colleagues recently concluded:

“The vast majority of individuals with a history of sexual crime desist from further sexual crime. Although sexual

crime has serious consequences, and invokes considerable public concern, there is no evidence that individuals who

have committed such offenses inevitably present a lifelong enduring risk of sexual recidivism. Critics may argue

that the near zero recidivism rates observed in the current study should not be trusted because most sexual crimes

remain undetected. This type of argument, however, distances policy decisions from evidence. If the goal is increased

public protection (not retribution or punishment), then efficient policies would be proportional to the risk presented.

Risk in most individuals with a history of sexual crime will eventually decline to levels that are difficult to

distinguish from the risk presented by the general population. Instead of depleting resources on such low risk

individuals, sexual victimization would be better addressed by increased focus on truly high risk individuals,

primary prevention, and victim services.”

History of Washington community custody laws

In 1981, the legislature passed the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) which established determinate

sentencing for individuals who committed a crime on or after July 1, 1984, including those convicted

of sexual offenses. Under determinate sentencing, the court must sentence an individual to a specific

number of years with a standard range.

The SRA also authorized SSOSA as an alternative sentence.

However, the SRA system was found to be problematic, specifically for sex offense cases, because

individuals were automatically released to the community after completion of their sentence and/or

after release from relatively short terms of community custody. After a series of high-profile sex

Hanson, R. K. Harris, A., Helmus, L., & Thornton, (2014). High risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2792–2813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514526062

Hanson, R.., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-

free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1): 48-

63. doi:10.1037/law0000135

Hanson, R., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time

offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,

24(1): pages 59-60. doi:10.1037/law0000135

The standard range is determined by referencing a sentencing grid using the individual’s criminal history score and a

rank based on the seriousness level of the crime.

40 | Page

crimes, the Community Protection Act of 1990 was enacted in Washington State. This Act

established the civil commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator process, increased statutory

maximum prison sentences for sex offenses, increased penalties for crimes committed with sexual

motivation, and reduced the amount of early release time that could be earned. In 2001, the

Legislature added determinate-plus sentencing for certain sex offenders. Individuals with

determinate-plus sentences are sentenced to both a minimum and maximum sentence where the

maximum term is the statutory maximum sentence for the crime.

A determinate-plus offender is

subject to the jurisdiction of the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB).

The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB)

The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) was first established in 1935 as the Board of

Prison Terms and Paroles. There are four main functions of the board: 1) To make decisions about

whether an individual is appropriate for release from prison for individuals under ISRB jurisdiction,

in which the ISRB must follow relevant RCW, WAC, and court decisions in decision making; 2) to

approve/deny offender release plans for individuals under ISRB jurisdiction; 3) to impose

conditions of parole/community custody for individuals that are appropriate for that individual

under ISRB jurisdiction;

and 4) to address violations of parole/community custody that occur in

the community for individuals under ISRB jurisdiction. ISRB jurisdiction includes:

• Pre-1984 (PAR) cases

: Individuals who committed felony level offenses prior to July 1,

1984, and were sentenced to prison. These individuals serve 3 years of parole supervision

upon their release from confinement.

• Community Custody Board (CCB) cases

: Individuals who have committed certain sex

offenses after September 1, 2001. Nearly all of these cases have lifetime community custody

requirements upon their release from confinement.

• Juvenile Board (JUVBRD) cases

: Juveniles who have been convicted of Aggravated Murder

in the 1

Degree or who have been sentenced to confinement terms of over 20 years. These

individuals serve 3 years of community custody upon their release.

ESSB 6151 (2001-2002)

Community custody is the portion of an offender’s sentence spent in the community under the supervision of the

Department of Corrections. DOC is required to supervise offenders on community custody

RCW 9.95.100

RCW 9.94A.507

RCW 10.95.030 and RCW 9.94A.730

41 | Page

CCB cases make up the largest percentage of cases, by far, under ISRB jurisdiction. The following

offenses in Table 1 are CCB qualifying offenses:

Table 1: Offenses that make up CCB cases

Pursuant to RCW

9.94A.507

• Rape in the First Degree

• Rape in the Second Degree

• Rape of a Child in the First Degree

• Rape of a Child in the Second Degree.

• Child Molestation in the First Degree

• Indecent Liberties with Forcible Compulsion Sexually Violent Predator Escape

Or any of the following

offenses with a finding

of sexual motivation

• Murder in the First Degree

• Murder in the Second Degree

• Homicide by Abuse

• Kidnapping in the First Degree

• Kidnapping in the Second Degree

• Assault in the First Degree

• Assault in the Second Degree

• Assault of a Child in the First Degree

• Burglary in the First Degree

Individuals who have committed these offenses are under the jurisdiction of the ISRB until the

expiration of their maximum term. All the offenses referenced above are Class A offenses, which,

under current law, requires lifetime supervision. There is currently not a pathway for an individual

who is sentenced to lifetime community custody to be reviewed for a potential discharge from

supervision. Table 2 details the number of individuals who are incarcerated or under community

custody jurisdiction per year. The number of CCB cases continues to grow, and, without the

creation of a pathway off of lifetime supervision, will only continue to grow.

Table 2: Total ISRB Population by Year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

# of individuals in Prison

2108

2115

2175

2273

2376

2429

2415

2349

# of individuals on

community custody

644 717 842 942 1066 1130 1307 1457

42 | Page

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of CCBs on

community custody by ESRC-recommended

risk level: Anecdotally, sexual recidivism for

individuals released under ISRB jurisdiction is

low.

Most frequently, when an individual is

revoked from community custody, it is related

to: 1) drug or alcohol use and/or other

substance related violations; 2) unapproved

dating/sexual relationships – especially with

people that have care or custody of minors, and

3) sexually explicit material.

What other states do

We reached out to numerous states to understand their processes and procedures related to lifetime

supervision. We were able to gather some data on 22 states, though gathering and confirming this

information was challenging due to the lack of information publicly available and the significant

variances in systems. (Please see Appendix H for further detail). Practices for discharge from lifetime

supervision vary greatly amongst the states: For example, Arizona, California, and Hawaii, have

processes where an individual can petition for discharge from supervision. Colorado’s process only

allows for a step-down to a lower level of supervision, but not discharge from supervision

altogether. Connecticut allows discharge if an individual receives an absolute pardon and Rhode

Island has a process for a conditional release. Indiana and Michigan do not have a process in place

for an individual to be discharged from lifetime supervision.

Monetary costs of lifetime supervision

According to data from DOC at the time of the writing of this report, there are currently 1,866

individuals under lifetime community custody in Washington. The average length of time an

individual convicted of a sexual offense spends under lifetime community custody is 27.9 years.

The average cost for supervision of a low-risk individual is $2,436 per year and the average estimated

costs of lifetime supervision is $67,934 per individual.

Recidivism refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior. It is measured by criminal acts that result in a return to a

Department prison facility with or without a new sentence during a three-year period (36 months) after being released

from prison (NIJ ). The legislative intent is that the system should positively impact inmates by stressing personal

responsibility and accountability and by discouraging recidivism (RCW 72.09.010 ).

https://www.doc.wa.gov/information/definitions.htm#:~:text=Recidivism%20refers%20to%20a%20person%27s,relea

sed%20from%20prison%20(NIJ%20).

This number was informed by the average number male life expectancy of 78.69 years and female life expectancy of

82.56 years.

These numbers are estimates based off of the cost of supervision of a low-risk individual and are subject to change.

As risk is based on individual factors, there are outliers that carry a higher classification and increased costs. Additionally,

the numbers utilized are based on DOC’s workload study (2004) which has not yet been completed. Given the initial

results of the study, it is suspected that the costs represented here may be lower than the current actual costs. DOC is

currently conducting a more current workload study that is anticipated to be published around the beginning of 2023.

724

355

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL III

Figure 3: Registration Level

Breakdown

43 | Page

Collateral costs of lifetime supervision

There are costs associated with lifetime supervision in addition to the financial costs born by the

state. These include, but are not limited to, impacts to employment, mental health, and family

systems. Lifetime supervision can limit an individual’s job prospects as some employers won’t hire

an individual who is under supervision. This is compounded if the individual is under supervision

for the entirety of their life. Supervision generally requires regular contact with a community

corrections officer (CCO) which can be challenging to balance if the individual is able to secure

employment. Without a pathway off of lifetime supervision, mental impacts, such as lack of hope

and ongoing stress and anxiety, may be experienced. We heard from individuals with lived

experience that one of their greatest challenges under lifetime supervision is having hope since there

isn’t currently a pathway off supervision. They reported feeling like there isn’t “a light at the end of

the tunnel”, even if they successfully complete treatment, are deemed low-risk, and are compliant.

They further reported increases in stress and anxiety due to the changing of CCOs and the fear that

the CCO has the power to immediately disrupt their lives and their families’ lives with little to no

available recourse to them. Lifetime supervision requirements can also impact the individuals’

families and loved ones by conditions that may limit the individual’s ability to maintain and sustain

pro-social family relationships.

Challenges with Washington’s current lifetime supervision system

There are several challenges with lifetime supervision:

1. First, there is currently no formal step-down process from lifetime supervision. This

means that when an individual is sentenced to lifetime supervision, currently, they will remain

under ISRB jurisdiction for the remainder of their life. The number of people on community

custody under the ISRB has continued to grow because of the lifetime supervision requirement;

the population under supervision has dramatically increased through the years. Essentially the

only relief from supervision is through death. This has led the number of people under the

ISRB’s jurisdiction to balloon requiring more and more resources. As shown in Figure 3,

approximately 2/3

rds

of individuals currently under the ISRB jurisdiction are considered to be in

the lowest risk category and they are taking up a large portion of the ISRB and DOC resources

to supervise and manage. This is not an efficient use of resources.

2. Second, the individual on supervision has to abide by both the conditions set in their

Judgement & Sentence and those imposed by the ISRB. The ISRB cannot modify

conditions set in the Judgement & Sentence.

Between the two bodies setting conditions, this

leads to a large number of conditions the individual must abide by and the CCO to monitor.

Additionally, the conditions set in the Judgement and Sentence are unable to be modified

without substantial effort to reflect changes in risk by the individual and can be a relic that is no

longer applicable to manage current risk presented to the community.

We recommend that this process be changed to allow the ISRB to send a letter to the Court for consideration of

amended conditions. Please see Recommendation #25 of this report for the full recommendation and supporting

reasoning.

44 | Page

3. Third, although Washington uses a risk-based tiering system, currently, the conditions

and level of supervision all look the same regardless of the risk level of the individual.

Currently, the ISRB does not have the resources to go back and amend conditions it has

imposed with all individuals under their jurisdiction. The ISRB is only able to review conditions

on a case-by-case basis, as requested by the individual on supervision (this is typically a written

request). Though the ISRB would like to be able to review the conditions for everyone under

their jurisdiction, they just aren’t able to at this time due to limited resources taken by the

ballooning number of people under their jurisdiction.

4. Fourth, individuals on supervision will likely experience changes in their community

corrections officers (CCOs). Supervision in many counties is assigned by where an individual

lives. If the individual moves, even if it’s a nearby move, there may be a change in the CCO.

Additionally, some offices require individuals to report to different locations. These changes

often result in the CCO needing to “learn” the individual under community custody, which has

been known to have a significant impact on the individual being supervised (ex: changes in

expectations, earned privileges, check-ins, etc.). If a CCO wants to change an individual’s level

of supervision, the ISRB does not have a say in that. CCOs are required to monitor the

conditions that the board and the court have imposed and make sure the individual is following

the conditions. A working relationship between the individual and CCO is critical for the

success and stability of the individual under supervision. Frequent changes in CCOs and the

large number of conditions individuals under supervision are required to abide by leads to

CCO’s not developing working relationships with the individual, thus making it harder for the

individual to be successful while on supervision for life.

Recommendations – Lifetime Supervision

No. 11 (Voting results – Yes: 8, No: 2, Abstain: 2)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that a pathway off of lifetime supervision should be created for individuals

who have committed sexual offenses and meet eligibility criteria, including all of those currently

subject to lifetime community custody. Specifically, the SOPB recommends the following time

frames and criteria for eligibility for discharge from lifetime community custody:

Level I. Individuals who are recommended as a Level 1 upon their release from prison by the End

of Sentence Review Committee shall be discharged from community custody five (5) years after

their return to the community so long as they meet the eligibility requirements of not committing

a “disqualifying event.” The Department of Corrections shall review the relevant records to

determine if the individual meets the eligibility criteria and process them off of community

custody if they meet that criterion.

If the Department determines that a Level I individual does not meet the criteria for relief from

lifetime community custody, or can identify a specific safety concern, then that case file shall be

sent by DOC to the ISRB for review. DOC may make a referral to the ISRB for review of a

Level 1 at least 90 days prior to discharge from community custody if DOC has reasonable

grounds to believe the person poses a significant risk of sexual recidivism.

45 | Page

Level II. Individuals who are recommended as a Level II by the End of Sentence Review

Committee upon their release from prison should be eligible for discharge from supervision ten

(10) years after their return to the community so long as they meet the eligibility requirements of

not committing a “disqualifying event.” For Level II offenders the ISRB shall review their file,

submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine if the individual qualifies for relief from

community custody and may extend the period of supervision for good cause shown. A review

hearing shall be held at least 120 days before the end of the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from release for a Level II individual, the

individual will not be eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5 years from the

disqualifying event date. A review hearing by the ISRB should be held at least 120-days prior to

the discharge from supervision date.

Level III. Individuals who are recommended as a Level III by the End of Sentence Review

Committee upon their release from prison should be eligible for discharge from supervision

fifteen (15) years after their return to the community so long as they meet the eligibility

requirements of not committing a “disqualifying event.” For Level III offenders the ISRB shall

review their file, submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine if they qualify for relief from

community custody and may extend the period of supervision for good cause shown. A review

hearing shall be held at least 120 days before the end of the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from release for a Level III individual, the

individual will not be eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5 years from the

disqualifying event date. If a disqualifying event occurs within the last 5 years of supervision for a

Level III, then the individual would not be eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 3

years from the disqualifying event date. A review hearing by the ISRB should be held at least 120-

days prior to the discharge from supervision date.

We recommend the following as “Disqualifying Events” for discharge from Lifetime Community

Custody:

An individual would not be eligible for discharge from community custody if they have had

disqualifying events. A disqualifying event is defined as:

• The individual has been found guilty of any serious and risk-relevant violation of the

conditions of community custody, as determined by the ISRB at an on-site

hearing. “Serious violation” is to be further defined in a future WAC, to include

violations such as contact or attempted contact with prohibited person(s) or classes of

individuals; use of prohibited drugs/alcohol if these substances were involved in the

individual's offense; willful failure to complete required treatment; absconding from

supervision, and other violations deemed high-risk by the WAC.

• The individual has been convicted of any new felony offense or any misdemeanor sex

offense as defined in RCW 9A.44.128 or 9.94A.030;

46 | Page

• The individual has not completed all recommended treatment as required in the

Judgement & Sentence and ISRB Conditions; The SOPB recommends that the ISRB

be able to waive this condition if there is a finding that this resulted from the

individual’s indigence.

• The individual has been found to be non-compliant with conditions of supervision on a

repeated basis as documented by DOC and referred to the ISRB. These violations would

be addressed on a formal basis by the ISRB prior to release from community custody; and

• The individual has been assessed to be at significant risk for sexual recidivism on an

empirically validated DOC approved dynamic risk assessment completed within 120

days of eligibility for discharge.

Background

For individuals who are considered a Level I, an assumption of eligibility and/or discharge from

supervision will be an efficient process for lower-risk, cooperative individuals to be relieved of

supervision and will reduce liability concerns for those involved. It will focus resources on those

who pose an increased risk (Level II and Level III) and utilize resources more efficiently. Time-free

offense research indicates the risk for recidivism cuts in half every 5 years. This was why the 5-year

length of time is recommended because cutting risk in half over 5 years would provide a reasonable

safeguard against future re-offense. If the disqualifying event occurs reasonably close to a new

offense (sexual or non-sexual), the time free calculator suggests that it sets an individual’s risk level

back at least 3+yrs, so 5 years was chosen as a safeguard. DOC is able to request an ISRB review as

a mechanism for the individuals involved in the case to voice concerns to the ISRB in rare cases

where risk level does not accurately capture risk.

For individuals who are considered a Level II or Level III, we recommend a thorough review

process to determine if the individual should be discharged from supervision. Leaving this decision

up to the ISRB, who takes in consideration the information from DOC, is important because: 1)

the ISRB already follows a similar process with the Pre-1984 cases, and 2) the ISRB has been

overseeing these individuals throughout their supervision. For these reasons we recommend the

ISRB have the jurisdiction to discharge the individual from lifetime supervision and not the court.

The proposal of providing a path off lifetime supervision is based on the significant body of

research supporting the longer an individual is in the community offense-free the risk for re-offense

predictably declines. The above cited studies in the research section of this report are specific to

individuals convicted of a sexual offense, when the larger body research applies to individuals

convicted of non-sexual offense indicating the same desistance pattern exists between both

populations. The terms of 5, 10 and 15 years offense-free are used to determine when an individual

may become eligible to be removed from lifetime supervision based in initial assessed risk level.

Lower risk individuals who are already close to the desistance level of risk upon release will cross

this threshold within 5 years. While moderate and the majority of high-risk individuals will cross this

threshold in 10 and 15 years respectively as risk cuts in roughly half every 5 years. As an

There are also challenges with current tort law for social services agencies in Washington. Please see our 2022 report

entitled Updates Regarding Implementation of Chapter 236, Laws of 2021, January – June 2022 for more information about these

challenges.

47 | Page

approximate heuristic, at 10 years, the individual will present as 1/4

the risk they did at release,

while at 15 years the individual will present as 1/8

the risk they did upon release.

The proposal incorporates the findings of non-sexual offending increases risk to commit a new

sexual offense. It does this by adding time if an individual commits a serious violation or new non-

sexual offense. Finally, for outlier cases the ability to have the ISRB review any case is available.

In conclusion, supervision resources should be focused on those individuals who have recently

returned to the community and who present the greatest risk of recidivism.

Requiring individuals

to remain under supervision after they have reached desistance level results in unnecessary monetary

and collateral costs and is not the best use of limited resources.

Additionally, allowing the ISRB to

work with the sentencing court to modify conditions to reflect the risk the individual presents in the

present will provide a flexible up to date supervision strategy for higher risk individuals.

No.12 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that individuals who are granted a SSOSA sentence should be supervised by

the Department of Corrections for the length of their suspended sentence or 36 months, whichever is

longer.

Background

This is a repeat recommendation based on the SOPB’s review of SSOSA and corresponding report

from 2013.

As noted in Chapter 1: Treatment Alternatives of this report, some individuals choose to

take a plea for a lesser charge (a Class B or Class C offense) with a prison term rather than pursue a

SSOSA if it would result in a Class A conviction due to the current lifetime supervision

requirement. Individuals on SSOSA are not under the jurisdiction of the ISRB, they are purely

under the supervision of DOC and the sentencing court. Prior to the enactment of the

Determinate-Plus (indeterminate) sentencing for Class A sex offense on September 1, 2001,

SSOSA cases were supervised for the period of the suspended sentence or 36 months, whichever

was longer. Class A offenses often have a suspended sentence of up to 131 months. That was the

term of community custody for these defendants before Determinate-Plus. Specifically, the newly

adopted statute said:

RCW 9.94A.670, as amended in 2001 added Determinate Plus sentences.

(a) The court shall place the offender on community custody for the length of the

suspended sentence,

the length of the maximum term imposed pursuant to section

Rhine, E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K., (2015). Improving parole release in America. Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 28 (2):

96–104. doi: 10.1525/fsr.2015.28.2.96

We recognize that, should a pathway be created for an individual to be discharged from lifetime supervision, the result

would be a significant change to Washington’s current system. During this process, we heard from the victims’

advocates who expressed concerns that there will be an impact on the victims’ community as a result of this change: the

truth in sentencing may be impacted since victims were told during the legal process that the individual who caused

them harm would have lifetime supervision, which will likely result in victims having to further manage their

expectations, and may contribute to a further lack of trust in the legal system.

https://sgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/sopb/documents/SSOSA_review_201401.pdf

48 | Page

303 of this act (Determinate-Plus)

, or three years, whichever is greater, and require the

offender to comply with any conditions imposed by the department under RCW

9.94A.720.

Our recommendation is to simply return to the prior terms of community custody. A person who is

granted a SSOSA is on community custody for the length of the suspended sentence or 36 months,

whichever is longer. The current SSOSA statute would be amended to say:

(b) A term of community custody equal to the length of the suspended sentence, the

length of the maximum term imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.507, or three years,

whichever is greater, and require the offender to comply with any conditions imposed by

the department under RCW 9.94A.703. A supervision termination hearing shall be

scheduled with the sentencing court within the last 60 days of the expiration of

community custody.

No. 13 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends for SSOSA cases that the sentencing Judge in the Superior Court hold a

supervision termination hearing at the end of the presumed community custody period to determine if

the person should be released from community custody.

Background

The Court determines whether a SSOSA is granted. If a pathway off of lifetime supervision is

created, we recommend that a safety valve of requiring a termination hearing at the end of the

presumed community custody period be required for individuals on SSOSA prior to being relieved

of supervision. The Court would maintain authority in determining whether the individual is ready

to be released from community custody.

No. 14 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the DOC and ISRB submit an annual report to the governor and

appropriate committees of the legislature detailing the number of individuals eligible for discharge

from lifetime supervision; the number of individuals granted discharge from lifetime supervision;

and the number of individuals who, subsequent to discharge from lifetime supervision, are

investigated for a recent overt act as defined by RCW 71.09.020 or new sex offense as defined by

RCW 9A.44.128 or 9.94A.030.

Background

Should the Legislature decide to move forward with creating a pathway off lifetime supervision, we

recommend that monitoring be put in place. Having DOC and the ISRB submit annual reports on

these topics will help ensure transparency, monitoring and accountability, and create and provide

access to reliable data to help inform future decisions.

49 | Page

Chapter III: Failure to

50 | Page

Failure to Register (FTR)

Our response to: “Review research and current practices and procedures for Failure to

community safety while using state resources wisely.”

History and literature review of Failure to Register (FTR) offenses

In 1990, Washington state passed an omnibus bill called the Community Protection Act. This bill

created several new laws including one that requires people convicted of a sex offense to register

with local law enforcement and another one that authorizes law enforcement agencies to notify the

public when a person identified as “high risk” of sexual re-offense moves into the community. The

rationale for the Act included the following:

“The legislature finds that sex offenders pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses even after being

released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders is a

paramount governmental interest.”

The law regarding community notification was the first of its kind in the nation. Following

enactment of the Community Protection Act in Washington, similar registration and community

notification laws were enacted by the federal government and by the other 49 states. Since their

enactment, numerous governmental agencies and academic researchers have examined the

effectiveness of the sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws in improving public

safety. As early as 2009, the Sex Offender Policy Board asked the Washington State Institute for

Public Policy (WSIPP) to evaluate the effectiveness of the SORN laws on reducing crime.

Based

on the limited number of rigorous studies available at that time, it was tentatively concluded that the

laws had no statistically significant effect on reducing recidivism.

Since the 2009 WSIPP study, many additional research studies have been completed throughout the

country examining SORN laws. A recent meta-analysis of these studies provides comprehensive

evidence that the implementation of SORN laws over the last 25 years has had no effect on

recidivism.

The null effect with respect to sexual offending is not surprising: the research reviewed

in this report demonstrates the marked low rate of recidivism in general for individuals convicted of

a sexual offense. This leads to the conclusion that the majority, perhaps 85-90% of newly reported

sex offenses are committed by people with no prior sex offense convictions and who would

therefore not be on the registry.

The null effect of the SORN laws on recidivism and public safety

was used as evidence in a recent Pennsylvania decision which concluded such laws are

unconstitutional.

Drake, E. & Aos, S. (2009). Does sex offender registration and notification reduce crime? A systematic review of the

research literature. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Document No. 09-06-1101.

Zgoba, K. & Mitchell, M. (2021). The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of

25 years of findings. Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09480-z

Sandler, J., Freeman, N. & Socia, K. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York state’s sex

offender registration and notification law. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 14(4), 284-302. DOI: 10.1037/a0013881.

Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, No. 15-CR-0001570-2016, (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 22, 2022).

51 | Page

“Accordingly, based on the evidence of scientific and academic consensus presented, we find that SORN laws do

not have the effect on recidivism and public safety anticipated by the Legislature, and that they are not rationally

related to the purposes for which they were enacted.”

In addition to creating registration and notification laws, the Community Protection Act also created

a new law pertaining to people who failed to comply with the registration requirements. At the time

the Act was enacted, a Failure to Register (FTR) offense by someone convicted of a Class A sex

offense was classified as an unranked (seriousness level 0), Class C felony, C(0), non-sex offense.

Unranked offenses have a standard sentencing range of less than 365 days. For an FTR offense

committed by someone convicted of a misdemeanor, Class C felony or Class B felony sex offense,

the 1990 law classified the FTR offense as a misdemeanor.

Since the passage of the Community Protection Act, multiple changes have been made to 9A.44.130,

the statute pertaining to FTR offenses. With each change, the penalties associated with an FTR

offense have increased:

• In 1997

, an FTR offense committed by someone convicted of Class C felony or Class B

felony sex offense was reclassified from a misdemeanor to a C(0) non-sex offense.

• Post 2009

, the first FTR offense remained classified as a C(0) non-sex offense and a new

2+ FTR offense was created for second and subsequent FTR offenses. The new 2+ offense

was given a seriousness level 2 and classified as a Class C sex offense. Since it was classified

as a sex offense, a term of community custody was imposed.

• Post 2012

, the first FTR remained classified as a C(0) non-sex offense, the second FTR

remained classified as a C(2) sex offense and a new 3+ FTR offense was created for third

and subsequent FTR offenses. This new 3+ offense was given a seriousness level 2 and

classified as a Class B sex offense.

The creation of the new FTR offenses with greater seriousness classifications resulted in longer

periods of incarceration for second and subsequent FTR convictions. From 2000 through 2019, the

average sentence for a FTR offense classified as a C(0) non-sex offense has remained approximately

2.5 months. Since its creation in 2009, the average sentence for a FTR offense classified as a C(2)

sex offense has been 22.2 months and since its creation in 2012, the average sentence for a FTR

offense classified as a B(2) sex offense has been 31.4 months. Please see Figure 4.

HB 1924 (effective 7/27/1997)

SSB 6414 (effective 6/10/2010)

SSB 5154 (effective 7/24/2015)

52 | Page

The number of people required to register as a sex offender in Washington state has steadily risen

since the enactment of the Community Protection Act. As of September 2022: 20,502 people are

required to register in Washington as a sex offender. Data from the 20-year timeframe from January

1, 2000, through December 31, 2019, shows the following

• The number of annual felony FTR convictions has ranged from 295 to 782 with a median of

493.

• 7,349 people have been convicted of a FTR classified as a C(0) non-sex offense.

• 1,622 people have been convicted of a 2 FTR or attempted 2 FTR.

• 1,098 people have been convicted of a 3+ FTR or attempted 3+ FTR.

Multiple governmental and academic studies have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of

FTR laws in improving public safety. The first study was done by WSIPP in 2006 upon request of

the Washington State Legislature.

Using data from 1990-1999, some differences in recidivism rates

were observed between people who complied with the registration requirements and people who

failed to comply; however, not enough information was provided to determine if the observed

differences were statistically significant. Using criminal history data for 2,970 registered sex

offenders in South Carolina, no significant difference was found in the recidivism rates between

people who complied and people who failed to comply with registration requirements.

It was

observed that people who failed to comply were significantly more likely to be a minority race and to

be younger than people who complied.

A study using data for 1,561 registered sex offenders in Minnesota found that having a current or

prior FTR conviction did not significantly increase the risk of sexual or nonsexual recidivism,

All data for Washington state was obtained from the American Equity & Justice Group Dashboard,

https://www.americanequity.org/

Barnoski, R. (2006). Sex offender sentencing in Washington state: Failure to register as a sex offender—Revised.

Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Document No. 06-01-1203A.

Levenson, J., Letourneau, E., Armstrong, K., & Zgoba, K. M. (2010). Failure to register as a sex offender: Is it

associated with recidivism? Justice Quarterly, 27, 305-331. doi: 10.1080/07418820902972399.

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Months

Year

Figure 4: Average sentence (months) 2000-2019

C(0) non-sex, C(2) sex, and B(2) sex

C(2) sex

B(2) sex

C(0) non-sex

53 | Page

however an FTR conviction did increase the risk of a subsequent FTR conviction.

Similar to

previous studies, the observed risk of an FTR offense was significantly higher for minorities. In

addition, education appeared to have an impact on FTR offenses. The results showed that having

either a GED or high school diploma reduced the risk of FTR recidivism from 43% to 39%. It was

noted that FTR offenses are the most common form of recidivism among people convicted of a sex

offense in Minnesota. The same situation is observed in Washington.

A quasi-experimental study analyzed the recidivism outcomes of 1,125 sexual offenders.

Failure to

convictions were more likely for younger defendants and defendants from minority groups. In

addition, defendants with an FTR conviction had a higher number of supervision violations

suggesting that an FTR offense may be more a reflection of rule-violating patterns than sexual

deviance. Using criminal history data for 7,055 registered sex offenders in New York, the risk factors

associated with an FTR conviction were examined.

The results reinforced many of the previous

observations. FTR offenders were found to be younger, to be of a minority race, and to have a more

extensive and varied prior criminal history as well as a record of violating supervision orders. The

authors suggest failing to register may reflect a host of underlying characteristics including defiance,

carelessness, negligence, confusion, general criminality, or apathy.

Using the scientific evidence gathered over the last 25 years concerning SORN and FTR laws, the

American Law Institute recently revised the Model Penal Code pertaining to sexual assault and

related offenses.

In the revised code, the number of registerable offenses is reduced, the maximum

registration period is 15 years, the information on the registry is for law enforcement only (i.e. no

community notification), and the penalty for a FTR offense is a misdemeanor. Currently, Maryland

is the only state where all FTR offenses are misdemeanors. In Alaska, Iowa, Virginia, and West

Virginia, the first FTR offense is a misdemeanor and subsequent FTR offenses are felonies. In

South Carolina, the first and second FTR offenses are misdemeanors and the third and subsequent

FTRs are felonies. In New Hampshire, an individual convicted of a sexual offense against children

who is required to register and who negligently fails to register is guilty of a misdemeanor. If the

defendant willfully fails to comply it is a felony. In Oregon, failing to register upon release, failing to

report change in address, failing to report an association with an institution of higher education, and

failing to sign the sex offender registration form are felony FTR offenses while failing to make an

annual report, failing to provide complete and accurate information, failing to participate in a sex

offender risk assessment, and failing to submit to fingerprinting or to have a photograph taken are

misdemeanor FTR offenses.

Duwe, G. & Donnay, W. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 37, 520-536. doi: 10.1177/0093854810364106.

Zgoba, K. & Levenson, J. (2012). Failure to register as a predictor of sex offense recidivism: The big bad wolf or a red

herring? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(4), 328 –349. doi: 10.1177/1079063211421019.

Levenson, J., Sandler, J., & Freeman, N. (2012). Failure-to-register laws and public safety: An examination of risk

factors and sex offense recidivism. Law and Human Behavior. Online First Publication. doi: 10.1037/b0000002.

American Law Institute. (2022). Model penal code: Sexual assault and related offenses: Tentative draft No. 6:

Submitted by the Council to the membership of The American Law Institute for consideration at the 2022 Annual

Meeting on May 16–18, 2022. Philadelphia, PA: The Institute.

54 | Page

Recommendations: Failure to Register

No. 15 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the offense of Failure to Register, pursuant to RCW 9A.44.132, be

reduced from a Seriousness Level II offense to an Unranked Felony for the purposes of sentencing.

This would result in a presumed sentencing range of 0 – 12 months.

Background

Multiple large-scale research studies involving thousands of individuals have shown an FTR

offense is not a significant predictor of sexual or nonsexual recidivism. Incarcerating people for

an FTR offense has not been shown to improve public safety which is the state goal of the

Community Protection Act. We tried to review data to understand the specific reasons that

Washingtonians who are required to register fail to register. Unfortunately, this data is not readily

available. Based on the research reviewed and our anecdotal experience, due to the complexity of

the registration requirements, some people fail to comply due to oversight or confusion. Others

fail to comply due to carelessness, lack of resources (such as transportation), employment,

housing, mental illness, defiance, apathy, or negligence. An unranked felony will hold these

people accountable for their lack of compliance and the potential to receive a felony could help to

encourage registration compliance. Additionally, making FTRs an unranked felony will keep the

cases in Superior Court, where the judges have subject-matter expertise, and any resulting offense

related to that conviction should remain in Superior Court.

No. 16 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that for the crime of Failure to Register, defendants shall be given one year

of community custody regardless of risk level for a first offense and two years of community

custody for subsequent offenses.

Background

The first offense for FTR should allow for an intervention to help bring the individual into

registration compliance. Requiring community custody still provides for accountability without the

costs of incarceration and provides a safety valve of supervision. It is important that the individual is

supervised regardless of risk to help ensure the individual’s needs are assessed and appropriately

addressed based on their individual need and identified barriers to registration. We recommend

increasing the length of DOC supervision for subsequent FTR offenses up to 2 years so that DOC

can provide resources to address barriers to compliance. DOC supervision can promote registration

compliance and, since most of these cases will likely not result in a prison term, there should be an

effective cost savings.

55 | Page

No. 17 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that Failure to Register offenses should not be defined as a “sex offense”

under RCW 9A.44.128 of 9.94A.030. Under current law the second offense of Failure to Register

and thereafter are defined as “sex offenses.”

Background

FTRs and subsequent FTRs do not need to be classified as sex offenses. Classifying them as sex

offenses may minimize the seriousness of actual sex offenses.

Research has shown that an FTR offense is not a significant predictor of sexual recidivism. However,

established risk factors for sexual recidivism include noncompliance with supervision and violations

of conditional release. Trends of noncompliance signify higher likelihood of recidivism Registration

is an indicator of compliance with the conditions of release. There is evidence that defiance of

registration requirements is consistent with other inappropriate behavior.

No. 18 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that Failure to Register should be classified as a “disqualifying offense” as

defined in RCW 9A.44.128, which would restart the waiting periods for relief from registration for a

conviction.

Background

Signifiers of general criminality are “non-compliance with supervision [and] violation of conditional

release,” both of which directly relate to failure to register.

Keeping FTRs as a disqualifying

offense from petitioning for removal from sex offense registration takes into account the research

and is a tool for compliance. Subsequent FTRs will restart the time required for registration removal

eligibility.

No. 19 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that individuals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections

for a Failure to Register offense, whether they are in the community or still in prison, be assessed to

identify the individual’s barrier(s) to registration compliance and provided with resources and tools

to support compliance and improve functioning in the community, including housing, vocational

rehabilitation, treatment as necessary, and community supports. The SOPB specifically endorses the

use of navigators or other specialized corrections approaches in meeting the needs of this population.

Gotch, K. and Hanson, R. (2016). Risk Assessment for Males Who Have Engaged in Harmful or Illegal Sexual

Behavior. ATSA. https://www.atsa.com/pdfs/ATSA_Risk_Assessment_for_Males_(2016).pdf

56 | Page

Background

There is currently not any available data that identifies the reasons individuals who are required to

of an FTR offense are younger and of a minority race. Other risk factors for an FTR offense

include a lack of high school education, cognitive impairments, and homelessness. We

recommend focusing attention and our limited resources on understanding the individual

factors/reasons that are contributing to failure to register to see if we can help mitigate some of

these barriers. DOC navigators will help with resources to address barriers to registration. We

recommend increasing the length of DOC supervision for each subsequent FTR offense so that

DOC can provide resources to address barriers to compliance.

No. 20 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)

review the Model Policy for Washington Law Enforcement regarding Adult and Juvenile Sex

Offender Registration and Community Notification (4.24.5501) to identify opportunities to utilize

technology to streamline initial and ongoing registration processes.

Background

Registration requirements and processes are done at the county level and vary by county. As

technology continues to evolve, we recommend that WASPC look into increasing and modernizing

access to reporting. This will help reduce barriers to reporting and increase compliance.

57 | Page

Offender Score Washouts for Prior Sex Offenses

Our response to: “Review research and make recommendations regarding best

practices for felony washout periods for sex offenses as referenced in RCW

9.94A.525(2).”

Definition of “washouts”

Standard range sentences for felony convictions in Washington State are based on an individual’s

offender score. The offender score is a combination of the individual’s prior criminal convictions

and the seriousness level of the current charge. All felony convictions and adjudications must be

counted as criminal history for purposes of sentencing, unless they “wash-out.” The term “wash-

out” does not appear in statute but is a term of art used by Courts and lawyers to describe the point

at which a prior felony conviction can no longer be used to calculate the offender score on a

subsequent felony conviction. Prior convictions “wash out” if the individual has spent a designated

period of time in the community without committing any crime that results in a conviction. For

eligible convictions, ordinarily the designated “wash out” period is 5 or 10 years. Class A felonies

and sex offenses never "wash out." By way of example:

• After a conviction for the class C felony of Forgery, a person would need to be in the

community without committing any crimes for a period of 5 years. After that 5 years, the

Forgery conviction could no longer be scored against the person on any future felony

convictions. However, the Forgery conviction would remain on the individual’s criminal

history.

• After a conviction for the class C sex offense of Rape 3, even if a person is in the

community without committing any crimes for a period of 20 or 30 years, that conviction

will always score against the person on any future felony convictions because sex offenses

never "wash out."

An offense that “washes out” remains on the individual's criminal history for all purposes except the

calculation of a future offender score.

Recommendations: Washouts

The SOPB and our FTR & Washouts Subcommittee have discussed washouts at length since the

board was convened on this issue. We spent time researching and trying to understand this difficult

issue from all perspectives. Unfortunately, during this process we discovered that there is very little

research or data on washouts that could help inform our discussions. We offer three possible

solutions and supporting statements for these positions (Note: Board members were asked to cast

their vote on each washout option which resulted in board members voting a total of 3 times. The

following supporting statements represent the voice and opinion of the stakeholder(s) who voted in

favor of that option only):

58 | Page

No. 21

Recommendation

The SOPB has been unable to achieve any consensus on this difficult issue. We offer three possible

solutions and the vote of our Board for those positions.

• Option 1: The SOPB recommends no washouts for subsequent offenses. The current state of the law.

• Option 2: The SOPB recommends the law allow washouts for subsequent offense only if those are

non-violent offenses that are not sex offenses as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

• Option 3: The SOPB recommends that the portion of this assignment related to washouts be

completed after the Criminal Sentencing Task Force has completed their work on this subject.

Statement of support for Option 1: The SOPB recommends no washouts for

subsequent offenses. The current state of the law.

Voting results

Yes: 2 votes — WAPA, WASPC

No: 9 votes — DCYF, WACDL, WCSAP, WSAC, WATSA, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, AWC

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

Crimes against persons must be treated differently. Crimes against persons are not crimes of

survival. Recent data we were able to gather from DOC indicate that the majority of the crimes

committed for re-offenses were crimes against persons (approximately 68%).

The victim(s) of a

crime against persons, such as a sexual assault, domestic violence or other violent crime, do not

get the luxury of “washing out” the long-term and life-altering traumatic impacts they sustain.

Washouts for sex offenses is dismissive of the experience and impacts on victims of crime. We are

concerned about the message this sends to victims. Washouts do not recognize the unique aspects

of sexual assault and abuse in which reports of sexual assault are both unreported, underreported

and/or delayed. This is particularly true with regards to child victims who often report year(s), or

even decades, later. Some longitudinal research studies spanning 10, 15, and 25 years, have shown

increasing recidivism rates and suggest approximately a third of sexual offenders with child victims

will be detected for new sexual offenses after 20 to 30 years of opportunity.

The prevalence was

higher when self-report information was used, with approximately half of the online offenders

admitting to a contact sexual offense, consistent with the observation that official records are a

conservative estimate of actual offending (even if some of the self-reported offenses are false

confessions and did not actually occur).

Recidivism of general crime may be a sign of continued

antisocial behaviors and beliefs which are connected to risk.

Sexual recidivism rates for

individuals who commit sex offense are generally low, however, research suggests that individuals

who have been convicted of a sex and then continue to commit subsequent sex offenses after

After offenses for “Failure to Register” and “Attempted Failure to Register” have been excluded.

Hanson, R., Steffy, R., & Gauthier, R. (1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 61(4), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.646

Seto, M., Hanson, R., & Babchishin, K. (2011). Contact sexual offending by men with online sexual offences. Sexual

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 124–145. doi: 10.1177/1079063210369013

Yates, P. (2013). Treatment of sex offenders: Research, best practices and emerging Models. International Journal of

Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8 (3-4): 89-95. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017917.pdf

59 | Page

receiving an intervention are a greater risk to community safety.

Additionally, research has

demonstrated that repeat offenders account for a disproportionate amount of crime.

If sex offenders don’t reoffend, then whether it “washes out” is irrelevant. “Second chances” are

treatment alternatives, possible step-downs from supervision, release from prison, good time, and

work release. If an individual continues to engage in criminal behavior despite significant

interventions by law enforcement, our courts, supervision, treatment providers, etc. over a period

of time, we should not offer a more lenient response for persistent offenders when they are

demonstrating what certified SOTPs would categorize has high risk behaviors. We should not

craft a more lenient response, especially when each new sex offense involves at minimum one new

victim and countless secondary victims in our society.

Statement of support for Option 2: The SOPB recommends the law allow

washouts for subsequent offense only if those are non-violent offenses that are

not sex offenses as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

Voting results

Yes: 4 votes — WADCL, DCYF, AWC, WSAC

No: 7 votes — WCSAP, WATSA, WASPC, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, WAPA

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

States have multiple reasons for the use of incarceration. Washington State’s sentencing scheme

focuses on two of these reasons: retribution and incapacitation. Retribution, sometimes referred to as

the “just desserts” model, implies that if someone causes harm to the community, that person should

be punished and the amount of punishment depends on the seriousness of the harm. Consequently,

Washington’s sentencing grid has 16 rows for the 16 different levels of felony seriousness, with the

shortest sentences for the least serious offenses and the longest sentences for offenses deemed most

serious. Incapacitation, through the use of incarceration, is used as a method for improving public

safety. If we incarcerate people who are deemed at risk of committing an offense, we can improve

public safety. That’s the primary reason for the 9 columns in the current sentencing grid. A criminal

history score is used as a proxy for an individual’s risk to reoffend. To protect the public, a person

with a greater criminal history score is deemed a greater threat to public safety and therefore needs

to be incarcerated longer than someone who is a first-time offender. Consequently, someone with

two previous felonies is given a longer sentence for the same offense than someone with no prior

felony convictions.

Research studies concerning incapacitation to achieve public safety show prisons can be

criminogenic,

especially for persons identified as low-risk.

In addition, multiple studies show a

According to the Static 99.

Lobanov-Rostovsky (2015). Adult sex offender management. SOMAPI Research Brief. https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/

files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/adultsexoffendermanagement.pdf

Loeffler, C. E. & Nagin, D. S. (2022). The impact of incarceration on recidivism. Annual Review of Criminology, 5(1).

Barnosk, R. (2006). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Special sex offender sentencing alternative trends.

Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; Document No. 06-01-1205.

60 | Page

person’s recent behavior relates to the risk of reoffending, but behavior in the distant past is not

related.

100

People convicted of either a sex offense or a non-sex offense desist from criminal

behavior as they age and live in the community offense-free.

101

102

103

104

105

R. Karl Hanson, an

expert in the field of sex offenses, in his 2018 article concludes that desistance is the norm:

“A criminal conviction, however, is a time-dependent risk factor. During the past decade, researchers

have examined desistance using statistical models of residual hazards. These studies find that after

about 10 years offense-free (5 years for juveniles), the risk presented by most individuals with a

criminal record is not meaningfully different from that of the general population. Similar time-free

effects are found for both sexual and nonsexual offenses.”

106

Therefore, a person who lives in the community offense-free for some period of time after a

conviction, is not riskier to public safety than someone who has never had a conviction.

Consequently, public safety is not enhanced by giving a longer sentence to a person with a long-ago

conviction. Washington state recognizes that desistance is the norm for people convicted of a Class C

and/or Class B non-sex offense. If a person convicted of a Class C non-sex offense, lives in the

community five years offense-free, that conviction is not counted in the criminal history score for

any future offense. It is “washed out.” Similarly, if a person convicted of a Class B non-sex offense,

lives in the community ten years offense-free, that conviction will wash out and will not count in the

criminal history score for any future offense.

However, currently, Washington state does not allow any sex offense to wash out, which is

inconsistent with well- documented research: people convicted of a sex offense desist from criminal

behavior with time and eventually pose no more risk than someone from the general population.

We’ve learned from the research that public safety is not enhanced by giving a person with a long-

ago, sex offense conviction a longer sentence than others. The only reason to give a person with a

long-ago sex offense conviction a longer sentence is to enact retribution. We acknowledge that other

current Washington state laws include a blanket exclusion for people convicted of a sex offense. For

example, a sex offense conviction makes a person ineligible for the First Time Offender Waiver and

all other sentencing alternatives except for SSOSA (available only to certain people). Similarly,

Kurlychek, M., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. (2006). Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict

future offending? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3): 483-504. http://clerk.seattle.gov/~cfpics/cf_320351g.pdf

100

Kurlychek, M., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. (2006). Enduring risk? Old criminal records and short-term predictions of

criminal involvement. Crime & Delinquency, 53(1): 1-24. doi: 10.1177/0011128706294439

101

Bushway, S. , Thornberry, T., & Krohn, M. (2003). Desistance as a developmental process: A comparison of static

and dynamic approaches. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023050103707

102

Bushway, S. D. & Piehl, A. M. (2007). The inextricable link between age and criminal history in sentencing. Crime &

Delinquency, 53(1): 156-183.doi: 10.1177/0011128706294444

103

Blumstein, A. & Nakamura, K. (2009). Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks.

Criminology, 4(2): 327-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00155.x

104

Soothill, K. & Francis B. (2009). When do ex-offenders become like non-offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal

Justice, 48(4): 373-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2009.00576.x

105

Hanson, R., Letourneau, E., Harris, A., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2017). Reductions in risk based on time offense-

free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1): 48-

63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000135

106

Hanson, R. K. (2018). Long-term recidivism studies show that desistance is the norm. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

45(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818793382

61 | Page

people convicted of a sex offense are excluded from earning the maximum earned release time for

good behavior while incarcerated. Excluding people with a sex offense conviction from benefits

given to people with a non-sex offense conviction is not unique to Washington. Such exclusions

exist in all 50 states and at the federal level. In contrast to all the other states and the federal

government, Washington is the only one currently that does not allow any sex offense to wash out.

A recent opinion piece by C. L. Carpenter, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School, describes

the history behind these blanket exclusions and the faulty assumptions that drive them.

107

She

concludes with the following:

“Blanket exclusions are but a small piece of a larger tapestry of legislative and community animus targeting

registrants. Fueled by inaccurate data and community panic, “all except for provisions” only further punitive

measures designed to isolate and marginalize this community. Saying something is true does not make it so.

And saying it louder does not make it truer.”

Statement of support for Option 3: The SOPB recommends that the portion of this

assignment related to washouts be completed after the Criminal Sentencing Task

Force has completed their work on this subject.

Voting results

Yes: 10 votes —WACDL, ISRB, OCVA, AWC, DOC, DSHS, WATSA, WCSAP, WAPA, WSAC

No: 1 vote — DCYF

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

We are aware that the Criminal Sentencing Task Force and the Sentencing Guidelines

Commission are reviewing Washington’s current sentencing system, including washouts for

offenses that are non-sex offenses. We are concerned that without knowing the finalized

recommendations from the Commission and Task Force, any recommendation that the SOPB gives

regarding washouts for sex offenses could compound or conflict with recommendations for other

offenses made by these groups.

107

Carpenter, C. L. (2020). Blanket exclusions, animus, and the false policies they promote. Southwestern Law School Law

Review.

62 | Page

Chapter IV: Sex Offender

Management System

Improvements

63 | Page

Sex Offender Management System Improvements

Our response to: “Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and

procedures related to the above referenced policies, and make recommendations as

appropriate regarding improvements to treatment, housing, community re-entry and

other relevant policies.”

During this assignment, and on previous projects from the Legislature, we have identified areas of

Washington’s sex offender management system that we believe could benefit from improvements.

One identified area of significant importance is related to treatment availability for individuals, both

adults and juveniles, who have committed sexual offenses. Washington has a serious shortage of sex

certified offense treatment providers (SOTPs). In our review of treatment practices we conducted in

2021 related to juveniles, we identified that current pay rates and licensing requirements may

discourage new providers from treating problematic and illegal sexual behaviors.108 In our 2021

project related to increasing treatment provider capacity for treating LRA clients, we recommended

changes to current practices and procedures to address Washington’s treatment provider shortage

and expand our pool to include new providers.109 Numerous studies have been published locally

and nationally that show the effectiveness of treatment for individuals who commit sexual offenses.

We offer the following recommendations to improve Washington’s current sex offender

management system and help increase and expand Washington’s treatment services:

Recommendations: System Improvements

No. 22 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the Department of Health Sex Offense Treatment Provider

requirements outlined in RCW 18.155.020 be amended to expand the definition of providers who

are eligible to be Affiliate SOTP providers by allowing Licensed Mental Health Counselor Associates

(LMHCAs), Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker Associates (LICSWA), Licensed

Advanced Social Worker Associates (LASWA), and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

Associates (LMFTAs) to increase provider availability to ensure a sufficient supply of appropriate

providers.

Background

There is a shortage of certified SOTPs in the state. Earning an SOTP license is a difficult and

lengthy process. The license requirements and fees for SOTPs to provide services are cumbersome

and contribute to the shortage of SOTPs and access to services in Washington State. The current

pay rate and service fees for providers are major barriers to recruiting new providers to work in

108

Please see our report entitled Recommendations and Current Practices for Minors who have Committed Sex Offenses for further

information and recommendations regarding treatment for minors and

109

Please see our report entitled Recommendations to Increase the Capacity of Sex Offense Treatment Providers who serve Less

Restrictive Alternative (LRA) Clients

64 | Page

Washington. Quite often, treatment providers are paid higher rates in other states compared to pay

rates here. However, this comparison is difficult because Washington’s licensing requirement system

is structured differently. Treating problematic or illegal sexual behavior is difficult work and requires

a substantial investment of time and money to obtain the necessary education and skillset to be an

effective provider. Given the level of liability associated with being a treatment provider, the low rate

of pay and reimbursement discourages providers from practicing in Washington. Improving these

items would expand access to vital treatment. Removing as many barriers as possible for SOTPs will

help contribute to youth and families receiving the treatment services they need.

Current licensing requirements for SOTPs within state statute

110

also impose limits that are

confusing and disincentivize the need to expand the field of treatment providers. These providers

are considered either a “Certified” SOTP or a “Certified Affiliate” SOTP. A Certified SOTP is a

licensed psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed social worker, licensed mental

health counselor, or psychiatrist, who is certified to examine and treat clients who commit sex

offenses. If these providers are licensed affiliates (i.e., individuals who hold one of the above

underlying credentials who are working towards full licensure as an SOTP), then the state considers

them Certified Affiliate SOTPs. Certified Affiliate SOTPs are supervised by Certified SOTPs until

they complete the required number of supervised hours and other criteria to become a Certified

SOTP (Chapter 246-930 WAC and RCW 18.155.030). Certified SOTPs who supervise Affiliates

typically take on the supervisory responsibility because they have the expertise and capacity to do so.

Currently, Certified SOTPs can supervise no more than two Certified Affiliates per state law. The

second path to become a certified SOTP is to work for a state-run treatment program for

individuals who have committed a sexual offense.

RCW 18.155.020 defines an Affiliate SOTP. In June 2020, there was a change in how the underlying

credential for an affiliate SOTP was legally written and subsequently interpreted by DOH. The

language now reads that providers need to be a licensed social worker, licensed mental health

counselor or licensed LMFT to provide treatment services with this population. However, DOH

interprets that wording as “fully licensed,” — not as an associate social worker or LMHC — which

is a major barrier to increasing access to treatment and providers. Affiliates are closely supervised

and have significant oversight. As the law currently states (and how DOH puts it into practice)

providers must complete the number of hours of supervised work that comes to three years of full-

time work to obtain full licensure of their mental health professional credential to get fully licensed

and then an additional three years to become an SOTP (which cannot happen concurrently) before

they can work with this population. This creates an undue hardship for licensed mental health

providers and a barrier for new treatment providers entering the field. Providers have also expressed

it’s a deterrent to becoming an SOTP.

Providers who are an LMHCA, LICSWA, LASWA, or LMFTA are not considered by DOH to hold

the underlying credential required to become an SOTP-Affiliate. We consulted with members of the

Sex Offender Treatment Provider Advisory Committee under the Department of Health to better

understand the amount of applications by clinicians to become SOTPs. Since the legislative changes

and subsequent DOH interpretation, as of the writing of this report, the SOTP Advisor Committee

110

See RCW 18.155.020.

65 | Page

reports almost no new applications for providers to become SOTPs through the affiliate path. The

path to becoming an SOTP through working for a state-run treatment program has produced some

new SOTP’s but not as many as originally expected.

No. 23 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that the Department of Health Sex Offense Treatment provider

requirement in RCW 18.155.020 be modified to allow SOTPs to supervise up to 4 Affiliates,

regardless of full-time or part-time status.

Background

There is a shortage of SOTPs in Washington and a shortage of providers who can supervise affiliate

and prospective-affiliate providers. RCW 18.155.020 states a supervisor can supervise only 2

affiliates. This affects the availability and accessibility of treatment providers and creates additional

barriers for increasing SOTPs. Increasing the number of affiliates that an SOTP can supervise will

improve provider accessibility.

No. 24 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that an agency be directed to administer a funding program to assist in

reducing the costs associated with the licensure for Sex Offender Treatment Providers (SOTPs).

Background

We have a shortage of SOTPs. Removing barriers, such as the extra costs associated with getting a

SOTP license, could encourage clinicians to become SOTPs. All credentials through the

Department of Health are required to be self-supporting. The small number of credentialed SOTPs

creates a burdensome fee structure that is a disincentive to providers working in this field.

Essentially, this problem is a “Catch 22” situation in which providers do not apply to become

SOTPs because the costs to them are high, however, in order for the costs to be lowered, more

providers need to be credentialed as SOTPs. The Legislature should look for ways to subsidize the

cost of SOTP licensure fees to encourage clinicians to become credentialed SOTPs.

No. 25 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends that, subject to judicial approval by the sentencing court, the ISRB may

recommend, via letter to the sentencing court, modification to conditions of supervision imposed by

the court under ISRB jurisdiction. The ISRB may not address restitution or other legal financial

obligations and the sentencing court retains the authority to delete or modify conditions.

66 | Page

Background

There currently isn’t a formal process for an individual to have a condition of community custody

changed and/or amended. Conditions are imposed at the time of sentencing and may need to be re-

evaluated as time goes on. The purpose of this recommendation is to create an avenue for which

duplicative, non-applicable, and/or archaic conditions can be modified to streamline conditions of

supervision to more appropriately support successful reentry and risk management. For example, a

blanket prohibition on internet access creates barriers to employment, education, housing and other

stabilizing resources in today’s web-based world. Other examples include conditions that are

imposed at the time of sentencing which may have been relevant at that time, but, if the individual is

on supervision for life, may no longer be applicable many years later as the individual, and their

circumstances and life situation, have changed. There are some individuals who are caught in a

“Catch 22” situation due to the current process: because the ISRB cannot currently amend any

conditions imposed by the sentencing court, and some counties across the state will not amend

conditions in the Judgement & Sentence, the individual can be stuck with no recourse.

No. 26 (Unanimous)

Recommendation

The SOPB recommends the following in order to correct the current contrast between RCW 4.24.550

and Washington’s Public Records Act:

- The SOPB recommends that RCW 4.24.550 be amended to add a new section: (12) Sex

offender and kidnapping offender registration information is exempt from public disclosure

under chapter 42.56 RCW, except as otherwise provided in 4.24.550.

- The SOPB recommends that RCW 42.56.240 be amended to add a new section:

Information compiled and submitted for the purposes of sex offender and kidnapping

offender registration pursuant to RCW 4.24.550 and 9A.44.130, or the statewide registered

kidnapping and sex offender website pursuant to RCW 4.24.550, regardless of whether the

information is held by a law enforcement agency, the statewide unified sex offender

notification and registration program under RCW 36.28A.040, the central registry of sex

offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 43.43.540, or another public agency.

Background

There is currently a contrast between RCW 4.24.550 and Washington’s Public Records Act.

Addressing this contrast regarding publicly disclosable registration information by making

amendments to RCW 4.24.550 and RCW 42.56.240 will have significant positive impacts as it relates

to keeping information on compliant level I offenders, of which most juveniles are leveled, as

outlined in RCW 4.24.550. Washington’s risk-based, leveling and community notification matrix are

considered a model across the county. It should be our priority to maintain the integrity of the

system by correcting the contrast between statutes. This recommendation is a repeat

recommendation from us that we originally made to the Legislature in 2015 and again in 2021.

111

SOPB 2015 Report

67 | Page

Washington’s comprehensive statutory scheme that controls the release of information to the public

regarding sex and kidnapping offenders contained in RCW 4.24.550 has worked well since its

inception with the passage of the Community Protection Act in 1990.

112

RCW 4.24.550 should be

considered an “other statute” under RCW 42.56.070. Washington’s Public Records Act requires

agencies to produce public records upon request "unless the record falls within the specific

exemptions of this chapter, or any other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific

information or records”.

113

Releasing Level I sex and kidnapping offender information is the

equivalent to broad-based community notification, which is generally reserved for higher-risk sex

and kidnapping offenders in our state. This functionally eliminates our tiered risk-level approach to

community notification, which the Legislature and many other stakeholders have worked diligently

over the last 20 plus years to develop, implement and improve.

114

The widespread dissemination of Level I offender information has harmfully impacted victims who

are often known to, related to, or connected with offenders. This particularly impacts Level I minors

who did not have community notification requirements.

115

The social science research we reviewed

indicates that widespread dissemination of information collected for all sexual offenders often

unintentionally creates obstacles to community reentry that may actually undermine, rather than

enhance, public safety.

116

The widespread dissemination of Level I offender information has even

greater collateral consequences for low-risk juvenile offenders and their families. Minors who

commit sex offenses already have many challenges re-integrating into society and this would be

another obstacle. Releasing their information likely negatively impacts a variety of known risk

factors, which may ultimately increase their risk for participating in future criminal behavior.

117

Widespread dissemination of their registration information also undermines the legal rationale for

upholding the constitutionality of the registration and notification process that the Washington

Supreme Court adopted.

118

112

SOPB 2015 Report page 17

113

See RCW 42.56.070. SOPB 2015 Report page 18

114

SOPB 2015 Report page 18

115

SOPB 2015 Report page 19

116

SOPB 2015 Report page 20

117

SOPB 2015 Report page 20

118

SOPB 2015 Report page 22

68 | Page

Appendices

Appendix A

House Public Safety Committee Request Letter

March 29, 2022

Brad Meryhew

Chair, Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board

P.O. Box 43124

Olympia, WA 98504-3124

Dear Mr. Chair,

I deeply appreciate and highly value the well-informed advice from the Sex Offender Policy Board

(SOPB) to the Governor and the Legislature on issues relating to sex offender policy and management.

To that end, in my capacity as Chair of the House Public Safety Committee, I hereby request that the

SOPB convene, pursuant to RCW 9.94A.8673, to undertake the following projects to assist the

Legislature in addressing sex offender policy:

1. Conduct a current review of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA)

and make recommendations for improvements to the SSOSA process, including the

current eligibility criteria, judicial discretion and barriers to accessibility. These

recommendations should address any shortages in sex offender treatment or other

services employed by this alternative sentence.

2. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices related to

sentencing alternatives for individuals with sexual offenses, including “non-contact” sex

offenses.

3. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices and procedures

related to lifetime supervision of adults convicted of sexual offenses to include: the

monetary and collateral costs of lifetime supervision; the impact on community safety of

lifetime supervision; and any recommendations regarding procedures to end lifetime

supervision in individual cases or in its entirety.

4. Review research and current practices and procedures for Failure to Register (FTR) cases

and make recommendations regarding how to ensure community safety most effectively

while wisely using scarce public resources.

5. Review research and make recommendations regarding best practices for felony

“washout” periods for sex offenses, as provided in RCW 9.94A.525(2).

6. Make recommendations regarding sex offender policies and practices related to the above

referenced policies, and make recommendations as appropriate regarding improvements

to treatment, housing, community re-entry and other relevant policies.

Washington State Legislature

Public Safety

Chair

Statute Law

Chair

Criminal Sentencing Task

Force

Co-Chair

State Representative

Legislative District

Roger Goodman

Brad Meryhew, Chair, Sex Offender Policy Board

March 29, 2022

page two

I request that the SOPB transmit a final report with recommendations on the policy matters enumerated

by December 1, 2022. I intend to invite you and other representatives of the SOPB to present and report

on these issues to the House Public Safety Committee during a public work session.

Thank you in advance for the efforts of the SOPB members and staff to accomplish this important work.

I hope and believe that the information and recommendations from your report will significantly assist

the ongoing work of the Legislature and Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force.

Yours sincerely,

Representative Roger Goodman

Chair, House Public Safety Committee

Co-Chair, Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force

Appendix B

Voting Results by Stakeholder

SOPB Voting Results by Member Affiliation

The SOPB includes members who represent the following twelve organizations:

1) Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families, Juvenile Rehabilitation (DCYF)

2) Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)

3) Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (WAPA)

4) Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL)

5) Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (ISRB)

6) Washington State Superior Court Judges Association (WASCJA)

7) Office of Crime Victims Advocacy (OCVA)

8) Association of Washington Cities (AWC)

9) Department of Corrections (DOC)

10) Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC)

11) Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Special Commitment Center (SCC)

12) Washington Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (WATSA)

13) Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs (WCSAP)

The table below outlines the voting results for the juvenile sex offense treatment recommendations from

the SOPB by members’ affiliate organization. 12 votes in favor is a unanimous vote.

Recommendation

Results

No. 1

The SOPB recommends that the SSOSA statute be protected

and preserved. We believe the evidence is strong that this

sentencing alternative is an effective tool to resolve many cases

and has proven itself over the decades.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 2

The SOPB recommends that cost barriers to SSOSA be

reduced by the implementation of sliding scale fee schedules

for evaluations and treatment and the creation of low-cost

treatment options.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 3

The SOPB recommends that, where possible, work release

programs be established and expanded to allow those who

otherwise lack the resources to take advantage of SSOSA and

other treatment alternatives.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 4

The SOPB recommends that RCW 9.94A.670 be clarified to

include language that requires an individual to enter a plea of

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

119

Statement by SCJA regarding votes: “The SCJA does not take a formal position at this time until such time as the

Legislature drafts a bill. The SCJA does appreciate the increased judicial oversight and discretion being considered in

these recommendations.” As SCJA is not formally weighing in on the recommendations with a vote, 12 votes in favor

is a unanimous vote.

guilty prior to trial in order to be eligible for this sentencing

alternative.

No. 5

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to

SSOSA be enacted for those convicted of violations of RCW

9.68A. related to Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexually

Explicit Conduct so long as the person did not create the

images in question.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 6

The SOPB recommends that a sentencing alternative similar to

SSOSA be enacted for those convicted of an internet sting or

other sex offense not involving an identifiable victim.

Yes: 8 No: 2 Abstain: 2

DCYF

WAPA

WACDL

ISRB

AWC

WSAC

WATSA

WCSAP

WASPC

OCVA

SCC

DOC

No. 7

The SOPB recommends that this treatment alternative only be

available to those who are willing to take responsibility for

some sexual misbehavior/a strong willingness to address

behaviors that led them to their offense.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 8

The SOPB recommends the following criteria for this

treatment alternative, similar to the current criteria for SSOSA

eligibility, which we endorse:

- No prior sex offense convictions or adjudications, and

no adult convictions for a violent offense committed

within five years of the instant offense; and

- A standard sentencing range incudes a sentence of

eleven years or less.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 9

The SOPB recommends that the Court impose standard

conditions similar to SSOSA:

- Annual review hearings, including treatment

termination hearings; and

- Up to five years of community-based SOTP treatment.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 10

The SOPB recommends that the Court hold a supervision

termination hearing at the end of the suspended sentence for

the Court to agree with the termination of community custody.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 11

The SOPB recommends that a pathway off of lifetime

supervision should be created for individuals who have

committed sexual offenses and meet eligibility criteria, including

all of those currently subject to lifetime community custody.

Specifically, the SOPB recommends the following time frames

and criteria for eligibility for discharge from lifetime community

custody:

Level I. Individuals who are assessed as a Level of 1 upon their

release from prison by the End of Sentence Review Committee

shall be discharged from community custody five (5) years after

their return to the community so long as they meet the

eligibility requirements of not committing a “disqualifying

event.” The Department of Corrections shall review the

relevant records to determine if the individual meets the

eligibility criteria and process them off of community custody

if they meet that criterion.

If the Department determines that a Level I individual does not

meet the criteria for discharge from lifetime community

custody, or can identify a specific safety concern, then that case

file shall be sent by DOC to the ISRB for review. DOC may

make a referral to the ISRB for review of a Level 1 at least 90

days prior to discharge from community custody if DOC has

reasonable grounds to believe the person poses a significant

risk of sexual recidivism.

Level II. Individuals who are assessed as a Level II by the End

of Sentence Review Committee upon their release from prison

should be eligible for discharge from supervision ten (10) years

after their return to the community so long as they meet the

eligibility requirements of not committing a “disqualifying

event.” For Level II offenders the ISRB shall review their file,

submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine if the individual

qualifies for discharge from community custody and may

extend the period of supervision for good cause shown. A

review hearing shall be held at least 120 days before the end of

the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from

release for a Level II individual, the individual will not be

eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5 years from

the disqualifying event date. A review hearing by the ISRB

should be held at least 120-days prior to the discharge from

supervision date.

Level III. Individuals who are assessed as a Level III by the

Yes: 8

No: 2

Abstain: 2

DCYF

WASPC

WACDL

AWC

DOC

WSAC

WATSA

ISRB

OCVA

WCSAP

SCC

WAPA

End of Sentence Review Committee upon their release from

prison should be eligible for discharge from supervision fifteen

(15) years after their return to the community so long as they

meet the eligibility requirements of not committing a

“disqualifying event.” For Level III offenders the ISRB shall

review their file, submitted by DOC to the ISRB, to determine

if they qualify for discharge from community custody and may

extend the period of supervision for good cause shown. A

review hearing shall be held at least 120 days before the end of

the supervision period.

If a disqualifying event occurs within the first 10 years from

release for a Level III individual, the individual will not be

eligible for discharge from supervision for at least 5 years from

the disqualifying event date. If a disqualifying event occurs

within the last 5 years of supervision for a Level III, then the

individual would not be eligible for discharge from supervision

for at least 3 years from the disqualifying event date. A review

hearing by the ISRB should be held at least 120-days prior to the

discharge from supervision date.

We recommend the following as “Disqualifying Events” for

discharge from Lifetime Community Custody:

An individual would not be eligible for release from community

custody if they have had disqualifying events. A disqualifying

event is defined as:

• The individual has been found guilty of any

serious and risk-relevant violation of the

conditions of community custody, as determined

by the ISRB at an on-site hearing. “Serious

violation” is to be further defined in a future

WAC, to include violations such as contact or

attempted contact with prohibited person(s) or

classes of individuals; use of prohibited

drugs/alcohol if these substances were involved

in the individual's offense; willful failure to

complete required treatment; absconding from

supervision, and other violations deemed high-

risk by the WAC.

• The individual has been convicted of any new

felony offense or any misdemeanor sex offense

as defined in RCW 9A.44.128 or 9.94A.030;

• The individual has not completed all

recommended treatment as required in the

Judgement & Sentence and ISRB Conditions;

The SOPB recommends that the ISRB be able to

waive this condition if there is a finding that this

resulted from the individual’s indigence.

• The individual has been found to be non-

compliant with conditions of supervision on a

repeated basis as documented by DOC and

referred to the ISRB. These violations would be

addressed on a formal basis by the ISRB prior to

release from community custody; and

• The individual has been assessed to be at

significant risk for sexual recidivism on an

empirically validated DOC approved dynamic

risk assessment completed within 120 days of

eligibility for discharge.

No. 12

The SOPB recommends that individuals who are granted a

SSOSA sentence should be supervised by the Department of

Corrections for the length of their suspended sentence or 36

months, whichever is longer.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 13

The SOPB recommends for SSOSA cases that the sentencing

Judge in the Superior Court hold a supervision termination

hearing at the end of the presumed community custody period to

determine if the person should be released from community

custody.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 14

The SOPB recommends that the DOC and ISRB submit an

annual report to the governor and appropriate committees of

the legislature detailing the number of individuals eligible for

discharge from lifetime supervision; the number of individuals

granted discharge from lifetime supervision; and the number of

individuals who, subsequent to discharge from lifetime

supervision, are investigated for a recent overt act as defined by

RCW 71.09.020 or new sex offense as defined by RCW

9A.44.128 or 9.94A.030.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 15

The SOPB recommends that the offense of Failure to Register,

pursuant to RCW 9A.44.132, be reduced from a Seriousness

Level II offense to an Unranked Felony for the purposes of

sentencing. This would result in a presumed sentencing range

of 0 – 12 months.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 16

The SOPB recommends that for the crime of Failure to

Yes: 12

Unanimous

No: 0

custody regardless of risk for a first offense and two years of

community custody for subsequent offenses.

support

No. 17

The SOPB recommends that Failure to Register offenses

should not be defined as a “sex offense” under RCW 9A.44.128

of 9.94A.030. Under current law the second offense of Failure

to Register and thereafter are defined as “sex offenses.”

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 18

The

SOPB recommends that Failure to Register should be

classified as a “disqualifying offense” as defined in RCW

9A.44.128, which would restart the waiting periods for relief

from registration for a conviction.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 19

The SOPB recommends that individuals under the jurisdiction

of the Department of Corrections for a Failure to Register

offense, whether they are in the community or still in prison, be

assessed to identify the individual’s barrier(s) to registration

compliance and provided with resources and tools to support

compliance and improve functioning in the community,

including

housing, vocational rehabilitation, treatment as

necessary, and community

supports. The SOPB specifically

endorses the use of navigators or other specialized corrections

approaches in meeting the needs of this population.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 20

The SOPB recommends that the Washington Association of

Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) review the Model Policy

for Washington Law Enforcement regarding Adult and Juvenile

Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification

(4.24.5501) to identify opportunities to utilize technology to

streamline initial and ongoing registration processes.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 21

The SOPB has been unable to achieve any consensus on this difficult issue. We offer three possible

solutions and the vote of our Board for those positions.

- Option 1: The SOPB recommends no washouts for

subsequent offenses. The current state of the law.

Voting results

Yes: 2 votes — WAPA, WASPC

No: 9 votes — DCYF, WACDL, WCSAP, WSAC, WATSA, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, AWC

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

- Option 2: The SOPB recommends the law allow

washouts for subsequent offense only if those are

non-violent offenses that are not sex offenses as

defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

Voting results

Yes: 4 votes — WADCL, DCYF, AWC, WSAC

No: 7 votes — WCSAP, WATSA, WASPC, DOC, ISRB, OCVA, WAPA

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

- Option 3: The SOPB recommends that the portion

of this assignment related to washouts be completed

after the Criminal Sentencing Task Force has

completed their work on this subject.

Voting results

Yes: 10 votes — WADCL, ISRB, OCVA, AWC, DOC, SCC, WATSA, WCSAP, WAPA, WSAC

No: 1 vote — DCYF

Abstain: 1 vote — SCC

No. 22

The SOPB recommends that person-first language be

incorporated into newly written statutes and in every-day

written and verbal communications in regard to minors who

have committed sexual offenses.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 23

The SOPB recommends that the Department of Health Sex

Offense Treatment provider requirement in RCW 18.155.020

be modified to allow SOTPs to supervise up to 4 Affiliates,

regardless of full-time or part-time status.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 24

The SOPB recommends that an agency be directed to

administer a funding program to assist in reducing the costs

associated with the licensure for Sex Offender Treatment

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

Providers (SOTPs).

No. 25

The SOPB recommends that, subject to judicial approval by the

sentencing court, the ISRB may recommend, via letter to the

sentencing court, modification to conditions of supervision

imposed by the court under ISRB jurisdiction. The ISRB may

not address restitution or other legal financial obligations and

the sentencing court retains the authority to delete or modify

conditions.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

No. 26

The SOPB recommends the following in order to correct the

current contrast between RCW 4.24.550 and Washington’s

Public Records Act:

- The SOPB recommends that RCW 4.24.550 be

amended to add a new section: (12) Sex offender and

kidnapping offender registration information is

exempt from public disclosure under chapter 42.56

RCW, except as otherwise provided in 4.24.550.

- The SOPB recommends that RCW 42.56.240 be

amended to add a new section: Information compiled

and submitted for the purposes of sex offender and

kidnapping offender registration pursuant to RCW

4.24.550 and 9A.44.130, or the statewide registered

kidnapping and sex offender website pursuant to RCW

4.24.550, regardless of whether the information is held

by a law enforcement agency, the statewide unified sex

offender notification and registration program under

RCW 36.28A.040, the central registry of sex offenders

and kidnapping offenders under RCW 43.43.540, or

another public agency.

Yes: 12

Unanimous

support

No: 0

Appendix C

WASPC’s Response to 2022 SOPB Recommendations (November

28,2022, to SOPB Chair)

3060 Willamette Drive NE

Lacey, WA 98516

360-486-2380 (Phone)

360-486-2381 (Fax)

www.waspc.org

Serving the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington

President

Chief Steve Crown

City of Wenatchee

President-Elect

Sheriff Kevin Morris

Douglas County

Vice President

Chief Darrell Lowe

City of Redmond

Past President

Sheriff Rick Scott

Grays Harbor County

Treasurer

Chief Brett Vance

City of Montesano

Executive Board

Chief Michelle Bennett

City of Edmonds

Chief Cherie Harris

City of Kirkland

Sheriff Clay Myers

Kittitas County

Chief Rafael Padilla

City of Kent

Sheriff James Raymond

Franklin County

Sheriff Brad Thurman

Cowlitz County

Chief Sam White

Lower Elwha Klallam

Police Department

Chief John Batiste

Washington State Patrol

Richard Collodi, SAC

FBI—Seattle

Steven D. Strachan

Executive Director

November 28, 2022

Brad Meryhew, Chair

Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB)

Deliver to [email protected]om

Subject: WASPC Response to 2022 SOPB Recommendations

The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) recognizes the

SOPB’s efforts to reach a consensus on the slate of recommendations to be provided

in response to the assignment from Representative Roger Goodman as Chair of the

House Public Safety Committee. Although our organization was able to agree to most

of the recommendations through compromise, we cannot agree with all of them. The

following is not an attempt to undermine the work of the SOPB, rather the following

is a memorialization of our concerns regarding certain recommendations, and in one

case, our strong support.

Treatment Alternatives Recommendation 5: WASPC agrees that in most cases, a

conviction for violation of RCW 9.68A, related to depictions of minors engaged in

sexually explicit conduct, is often an individual’s first intervention for sexual

offending. If the system can make a meaningful intervention and engage the

individual in treatment, the likelihood of continued sexual offending decreases. It is

for this reason, that WASPC voted in favor of this recommendation. However, we

have concerns regarding those individuals convicted of dealing in depictions (RCW

9.68A.050) being offered a SSOSA-like alternative. Dealing depictions is more serious

than possession/viewing. Much like creating depictions, dealing/sharing depictions

further victimizes the actual victims depicted in the images and warrants a more

serious intervention.

Treatment Alternatives Recommendation 6: WASPC objects to the recommendation

to offer a SSOSA-like alternative to individuals convicted of an internet sting or other

sex offense not involving and identifiable victim.

• Seeking underage stranger victims is predatory behavior and should not be

eligible for sentencing alternatives.

• If an individual was seeking, and making contact with, identifiable juvenile

victims on the internet, they would not be eligible for a sentencing alternative.

The offense behavior is no different when there is an identifiable juvenile victim

compared to an internet sting victim.

WASPC Response to 2022 SOPB Recommendations Page 2 of 3

• The SOPB, in a 2013 report stated that, “the purpose of SSOSA was to support

and encourage family member victims to engage in the criminal justice system,

knowing there was an opportunity for the offender to receive treatment rather

than exclusively a prison term.”

• The creators of the Static 99 Risk Assessment, the risk assessment tool used to

determine an individual’s risk to sexually reoffend within the community at

large in Washington State, do not differentiate between a real victim and a

“

sting” victim when assessing risk.

• We are unaware of any documented research demonstrating decreased ris

among this population.

• The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) observed a

97.5% increase from 2019 to 2020 in reports of online enticement

. According

o Lindsey Olsen, NCMEC’s executive director, “Offenders are very effective at

grooming children, gaining their trust, isolating them from their parents and

then exploiting them. Parents often think that it would ‘never’ happen to their

child, but we know that is simply not true.”

Furthermore, WASPC objects to the ongoing consideration that the SOPB has authority over law

enforcement investigations

. Discussions regarding sting investigations, and specifically “Net Nanny

Investigations,” lacked any law enforcement input.

Lifetime Supervision Recommendation #11: WASPC voted in favor of this recommendation. However,

we do have concerns with the inconsistency in the agency responsible for determining if an individual

meets the eligibility criteria for discharge from lifetime supervision. For those individuals where the End

of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC) recommends a level I risk determination, this responsibility will

be with the Department of Corrections. For those individuals where the ESRC recommends a level II or III

risk determination, this responsibility will be with the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board.

dditionally, the “disqualifying events” for discharge from lifetime supervision do not specifically include

mechanisms for victim or law enforcement concerns to be considered.

Failure to Register Recommendation #16: WASPC voted in favor of this recommendation. However, we

want to memorialize our belief that any individual ordered to supervision for a failure to register (FTR)

conviction shall be supervised by the Department of Corrections and shall not be eligible to be

“screened off” of supervision. Furthermore, any individual ordered to supervision for an FTR conviction

shall not be eligible for supervision compliance credits.

Sex Offender Management System Improvements Recommendation # 26: WASPC strongly supports

the recommendation to correct the current contrast between RCW 4.24.550 and Washington’s Public

Records Act (PRA). The current landscape allows for abuse of the PRA, undermining Washington’s very

intentional sex offender registration and notification laws. Abuse of the PRA is allowing shadow

websites to publish more detailed information, including photos, full residential address and a synopsis

of crime/victim information, regarding level I registrants, who are generally not published to the

Washington State Sex Offender Public Website. This causes privacy concerns for victims and safety

concerns for registrants and their families/co-habitants. Level I offenders are least likely to sexually

reoffend within the community at large.

Rise in Online Enticement and Other Trends: NCMEC Releases 2020 Exploitation Stats (missingkids.org)

RCW 9.94A.8673: Sex offender policy board—Membership—Expenses and compensation. (wa.gov)

WASPC Response to 2022 SOPB Recommendations Page 3 of 3

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We respectfully request that WASPC’s concerns

regarding certain recommendations, and our strong support of the PRA recommendation, be included

as an appendix in the final SOPB report.

incerely,

amie Weimer, Projects and Programs Manager

c: SOPB: Vice-Chair Jedd Pelander, Whitney Hunt

WASPC: Terrina Peterson, James McMahan

Appendix D

Data on SSOSA Cases by Year

Offense

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

Assault 3

2 1 1 2 6

Assault of a child 2

1 1 2

Burglary

1 1

Child molest 1*

24 23 32 30 23 21 32 16 16 15 232

Child molest 2

11 5 5 7 12 8 13 9 8 13 91

Child molest 3

4 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 23

Commer sex abuse

1 1

Communication with minor

1 1 1 3

Dealing depictions 1

1 2 3

Extortion 2

1 1

Incest 1

3 3 4 2 2 2 4 1 21

Incest 2

1 1 1 3

Indecent exp

1 1

Indecent Lib - DD victim

3 6 2 2 1 5 4 1 24

Indecent lib with force*

2 1 2 1 3 9

M/D/P W/I Marij 1st offense

1 1

Poss of depictions 1

2 1 3 2 8

Poss of depictions 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Rape 2 (attempt)*

1 1 2

Rape 3

2 1 2 5

Rape of a child 1*

18 15 22 22 13 14 12 12 10 8 146

Rape of a child 2*

11 5 13 3 6 5 3 7 4 7 64

Rape of a child 3

10 11 13 6 11 10 5 7 8 9 90

Residential burglary

1 1

Sexual exploitation

1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 15

Number of SSOSA Cases Granted Per Year by Offense Conviction

Sexual misconduct

1 1 1 3

Tampring with a witness

1 1

Unlawful imprisonment

1 1

Viewing depictions 2

1 1

Voyeurism

1 1 2

Total SSOSA granted per year: 93 75 99 78 74 76 80 68 60 65 768

* = Denotes Class A offenses Requring Lifetime Supervision

SSOSA Cases Per Year

Year

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

# of Cases

Eligible for SSOSA

822 857 861 769 773 702 632 682 622 587 606 547 579 584 522 553 570 635 547

# of Cases

Granted SSOSA

224 207 222 152 175 121 105 118 131 98 93 75 99 78 74 76 80 68 60

% of Individuals

Granted SSOSA

27% 24% 26% 20% 23% 17% 17% 17% 21% 17% 15% 14% 17% 13% 14% 14% 14% 11% 11%

100

150

200

250

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Individuals

Year

Number of Individuals Granted a SOSSA by Year

Appendix E

Email Communications - Re: Empirical Information on Sting Cases

from Experts

From: Michael O'Connell <moconnell@droconnelltx.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 2:41 PM

To: Hunt, Whitney (OFM)

Subject: FW: empirical info on sting cases

Ext

ernal Email

Her

e is the personal communication I got from (and I'm sure I shared with

you and the subcommittee)

on the risk profile of persons caught in sting cases. I recall this was

discussed in the subcommittee and

led to greater support of a sentencing alternative for sting cases. This

addressed the concern that these

cases must present greater risk of reoffense than for people who knew

their vicim ahead of time and

were eligible for a SSOSA.

I w

ould hope this gets addressed in the subcommittee report and the

footnote attached for this

personal communication from the co-developer of the Static-99R and the

Stable.

Mic

hael A. O'Connell, Ph.D., MSW

9800 Harbour Pl., #204

Mukilteo, WA 98275

425-374-8504

Fax: 425-404-3948

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.droc

onnelltx.com%2F&

data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C799fa5465f2c48a82b0b08dab86402

34%7C11d0e2

17264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7C0%7C638025037357288924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb

GZsb3d8

eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000

%7C%7C%7C&a

mp;sdata=8O5J2tPm078%2FYH%2BYrzxfOphduH9MG9%2FGpwIXHiW%2F4lE%3D&reser

ved=0

This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the

intended recipient(s) and may contain

confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,

disclosure, or distribution is

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the

sender by email and destroy all

copies of the original message.

---

--Original Message-----

From: David Thornton <davidsmthornton@icloud.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:59 AM

To: Michael O Connell <moconnel@mindspring.com>

Cc: atsa-ml@mail-list.com

Subject: empirical info on sting cases

Hi Michael

As yo

u know there is no data that speaks directly to the risk presented

by this group.

To pu

t this in context, most evaluations are of people who differ in some

ways from the typical

individuals in research studies. Minimally, we are evaluating someone

now, but research data is usually

from people who were released 10 to 20 years ago. Further, although

static actuarial instruments have

been widely studied, most people in the USA will be practicing in states

for which there haven’t been

large scale local trials of these instruments.

Goi

ng beyond this, there are often particulars of someone’s history that

distinguish them. I recently

evaluated someone whose parents used to punish him by making him dress in

female clothes and

threatening to tell everyone he was gay. I am sure that others have come

across similar histories but this

specific punishment is rare enough that only a small proportion of those

in research samples would

have been punished in just this specific way.

temptation is to responding to this by trying to say that we should do

some kind of individualized case

formulation to take this uniqueness into account, and should disregard

actuarial assessment. However,

we know this does not work. Over-riding actuarials in an unstructured way

generally makes prediction

less accurate.

I s

uggest the general principle should be that one should assume that

actuarial assessment applies

unless you have strong reasons based on theory or evidence for believing

that actuarial assessment will

materially over-estimate or materially underestimate risk for this kind

of case. The justification for this

principle is that it has generally held true in previous research.

In the example you are concerned with there is no obvious reason why

sting cases where someone

believes they are interacting with a child via the internet would be

different from cases where someone

was actually interacting with a child via the internet. I think therefore

that the question would be better

framed as whether this more general class of cases are likely to present

a different level of risk. I am

guessing that the kind of cases you are talking about divide into

“Internet luring” cases and cases where

there is some kind of sexual communication or display that is illegal

because it is directed towards a

minor.

Even for this broader group, I doubt we yet have sufficient data this to

demonstrate the calibration of

risk assessment instruments. A way to approach this would be to say that

this offense in part resembles

typical contact offenses and in part resembles CSEM internet offenses. To

the extent that it resembles

contact offenses then regular static actuarial results should apply while

to the extent that it resembles

internet CSEM offenses then it should signal a lower risk.

There is no basis for asserting that it implies a higher risk than is

implied by static actuarial results.

David Thornton, Ph.D.

FAsTR LLC

> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:18 PM, Michael O Connell (moconnel at

mindspring.com) <atsa@mail-list.com>

wrote:

> This message was sent by Michael O Connell moconnel@mindspring.com

> I had no responses when I posted this question a couple of weeks ago.

> I'd REALLY like to hear anything the list has to offer:

> -----Original Message-----

> From: atsa@mail-list.com (mailto:atsa@mail-list.com)

> <atsa@mail-list.com (mailto:atsa@mail-list.com)> Sent: Wednesday,

> August 17, 2022 1:48 PM

> To: atsa-ml@mail-list.com (mailto:atsa-ml@mail-list.com)

> Subject: RE: [ATSALIST] Sting Operations

> The Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board has been asked by the

> state's sentencing guidelines commission to make recommendations for

> sentencing alternatives for cases that currently have no sentencing

> option except for a prison term.

> Since 1984 Washington has had a Special Sex Offender Sentencing

> Alternative

> (SSOSA) where those who are convicted of many sex offenses, found

> amenable to treatment and safe to participate in community-based

> treatment and community supervision (mostly with some jail time) and

> have the balance of their sentence suspended (with a list of

> supervision conditions.)

> A couple (maybe 15 years ago) legislative revisions included changed

> eligibility requirements to say that the relationship between victim

> and offender could not have been solely for the purposes of sexual

> exploitation. You would not be eligible if you grabbed a kid off a

> schoolyard and molested them in the woods.

> About 12 years ago a defendant got a SSOSA for Possession of

> Depictions of Minors. The prosecutor appealed and, in a published

> o

pinion, the appeals count said this case did not meet the definition.

ere was not a pre-established relationship with an identified victim.

> As the Board has considered sentencing alternatives, there seem broad

pport for sentencing alternative for depictions cases.

> But sting cases have, for years, also been deemed ineligible because

> t

here is not an identifiable victim (as listed in the charging

cuments.) There has been only some support for a sentencin

> al

ternative for these cases. One argument is there is no way to asses

> r

isk, since the actuarial tools were not normed on these types o

cases. Yes, the coding rules do say that this was not a strange

victim if there was contact for more than 24 hours before th

> at

tempted meet-up. But that's a post-hoc coding decision, not base

on many of these cases, since they are a relatively new phenomenon.

Plus there is an "ick factor" associated with these cases, especiall

fter reading the sexual nature o

he message exchange.

> So, a substantial minority of the Board members do not appear inclined

> t

o consider offering the sentencing court the option (hardly a

directive) to hand down a community-treatment and sentencin

alternative to a mandatory prison term.

> Is there a response to the argument that we have no idea how risky

these guys are (or they must be higher risk) because the risk tool

> h

ave not been normed on this sub-population?

> Michael A. O'Connell, Ph.D., MSW

9800 Harbour Pl., #204

kilteo, WA 98275

> 4

25-374-8504

Fax: 425-404-3948

> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d

> roconnelltx.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C799f

> a5465f2c48a82b0b08dab8640234%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7C

> 0%7C638025037357288924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ

> QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=

> 8O5J2tPm078%2FYH%2BYrzxfOphduH9MG9%2FGpwIXHiW%2F4lE%3D&reserved=0

> (https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.

> droconnelltx.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C799

> f

a5465f2c48a82b0b08dab8640234%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7

> C

0%7C638025037357288924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC

> J

QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata

> =

8O5J2tPm078%2FYH%2BYrzxfOphduH9MG9%2FGpwIXHiW%2F4lE%3D&reserved=0

> )

> "

Follow your heart but take your brain with you."

> -- Alfred Adler

> -----Original Message-----

> From: <iccsnw@gmail.com (mailto:iccsnw@gmail.com)>

> Sent: Aug 17, 2022 11:46 AM

: <atsa@mail-list.com (mailto:atsa@mail-list.com)>

Subject: RE: [ATSALIST] Sting Operations

> Totally agree and all great points, Laurie - I think I've evaluated

> e

very single example you provided! And this is exactly why it is s

very important to utilize validated risk/need tools in order t

> i

ndividualize responses IMHO.

> Katie

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:32 AM Humbert, Laurie H (SOR) wrote:

>> I ha

ve read dozens of sting police reports (including the chat logs),

>> an

d as in everything, they vary substantially and the details matter.

>> I am

not addressing citizen vigilante stings. Often times a

>> un

dercover officer

>> (

UC))

>> wi

ll post a profile on a site or enter a chat room (sometimes tee

>> ch

at rooms

>> - wh

at's an adult male doing there?!!) and wait for someone t

>> co

ntact them.

They usually disclose very early that they are underaged, usually 1

>> or

>> 15

(some sites often require you to be 18 to register). That's pretty

>> st

andard.

>> Af

ter that, it depends. Some UCOs work pretty hard to get the male to

>> di

scuss sexual topics and push for meetings. You wonder if the gu

> wouldn't go to meet the child if not so tempted by such a willin

> vixen. But other UCOs play it pretty innocent, and let the male lead

>> th

e discussion. These cases feel much more worrisome. Sometimes it i

>> so

mewhere in between. They often remind the guy multiple times of

their age. Often the offender will ask them if they are a cop

>> (especially when the "child" refuses to send nude pictures), yet take

>> the denial on face value. Often they talk about how they could get in

>> trouble for meeting up with the child. Yet, they go to the meeting

>> place...

>> I note that the Static99R coding rules consider these to be

>> legitimate crimes against a "victim":

>> For internet offences as per the sections on victim items (page

>> 85-8

6), the victim is identified as the person the offender believe

>> he

is in contact with (e.g., a female child), even if the person on

>> th

e receiving end of the communication is actually an adult polic

>> of

ficer.

Also, several of the crimes charged in these cases are considered

Category A offenses:

>> * Contributing to the delinquency of a minor (where the offence had a

>> sexual

>> element)

>> * Distributing obscene materials to minors (no economic motive;

>> presume that intent is sexual unless there is clear economic motive)

>> * Internet Luring

>> * Online Solicitation

>> * Sexual Communication with a Minor

>> as well as attempted indecent assault. Since the police don't send

>> nude photos back (they make excuses like their phone camera function

>> is broken or they don't have a webcam), they don't get charged with

>> things like posing a child in the nude or possession of child

>> pornography, but often it's not for want of trying.

>> I guess my point is, just because it is a sting doesn't mean it

>> wouldn't happen (or hasn't happened!) with a real child, though there

>> are definitely cases where the UCO enticement of the guy is so

>> intense it is hard to know.

>> As always, the devil is in the details. Just because it is a police

>> sting operation does not mean the behavior should be discounted, IMHO.

>> Laurie

> --

> Katherine "Katie" Gotch, MA, LPC, ATSA-F *she/her pronouns* Oregon

> SOTB Certified Clinical Sexual Offense Therapist Integrated Clinical &

> Correctional Services, LLC 21370 SW Langer Farms Parkway Suite 142

> #424 Sherwood, Oregon

> 97140 (503) 498-8119

> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i

> ccsnorthwest.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C799

> fa5465f2c48a82b0b08dab8640234%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7

> C0%7C638025037357288924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC

> JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata

> =YZhjDZGuElfavV5amPlcFFzCYS6l2dMDrjiQ%2F%2FAMIyQ%3D&reserved=0

> (https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.

> iccsnorthwest.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C79

> 9fa5465f2c48a82b0b08dab8640234%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%

> 7C0%7C638025037357288924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL

> CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdat

> a=YZhjDZGuElfavV5amPlcFFzCYS6l2dMDrjiQ%2F%2FAMIyQ%3D&reserved=0)

> *Confidential Notice*: This email message is intended only for the

> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential

> and/or legally privileged materials. The authorized recipient of this

> information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any

> other party unless required to do so by law or regulation and is

> required to destroy the information after its stated need has been

> fulfilled. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, discussion,

> dissemination, distribution or copying of this information by anyone

> other than the intended recipients or his or her employees or agents

> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have

> received this information in error, please destroy all copies of the

> original message without further review or distribution and contact me

by reply email or at 503-498-

8119. Thank you.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> --

> Post your message to the list by sending it to ATSA@mail-list.com.

> To contact the list owner, send your message to atsa@atsa.com.

> ATSA 4900 SW Griffith Drive Beaverton, OR 97005 USA

> To unsubscribe, switch to/from digest or get on/off vacation click

here.

> <

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmem

r.mail-list.com%2Fu%3Fln%3Datsa%26nm%3Ddavidsmthornton%2540icloud.co

> &

amp;data=05%7C01%7Cwhitney.hunt%40ofm.wa.gov%7C799fa5465f2c48a82b0b08

dab

8640234%7C11d0e217264e400a8ba057dcc127d72d%7C0%7C0%7C63802503735744513

8%7CUnkn

own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ

XVCI6Mn0%3D%

7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=et1JuNUo%2BlRet5dL743ClW%2FsOwjU%2Bol5xeocmpx%2

Bu8g%3D

&reserved=0

Appendix F

What Other States Do: Lifetime Supervision

State

Lifetime Supervision

Relief (Y/N)

Process for Relief (if applicable)

Arizona Yes

The Court on its own initiative or on application of the probationer, after notice

and an opportunity to be heard for the prosecuting attorney and, on request, the

victim, may terminate the period of probation or intensive probation and

discharge the defendant at a time earlier than that originally imposed if in the

court's opinion the ends of justice will be served and if the conduct of the

defendant warrants it.

Colorado Yes

There is relief but only tolower the level of supervision. Of note is the lengthy

annual report out to their Legislature that does not information about how this is

protecting their community or assisting those on supervision. In 1998, the General

Assembly passed the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, which requires

lifetime supervision for most class 2, 3, and 4 felony sex offenses. There are a

number of sentencing options available to the Court under the Act: Probation for

a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of life for a class 4 felony, and a minimum

of 20 years and a maximum of life for a class 2 or 3 felony. Intensive supervision

probation (ISP) is required for all lifetime probationers until further order of the

court. Department of Corrections for at least the minimum of the presumptive

range of sentencing to a maximum of life.

Connecticut

Yes

If an individual receives an absolute Pardon.

Hawaii

Yes

Parole Board can grant early discharge. No specifics known.

Indiana Yes

No Stepdown process. The individual may petition the Court to remove the finding

of Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) after 10 years of no new charges. This ends

lifetime supervision.

Illinois Yes

Prisoner review Board can look at them after 20 years for most serious offenses

and 10 years for others. Parole Officer and Treatment Provider shall make

recommendations to the Board. Recommendations shall be based on the criteria

established by the Management Board under section 3-17-40.

Georgia Yes

May request discharge after 15 years in the community. Some serious offenses

are barred by statute from seeking early discharge. If the individual has a new

conviction of any kind they are never eligible for relief. Requires a court order or

commutation. There is no step-down process.

Maryland Yes

The Maryland Sex Offender Policy Board has recommended several changes to the

law. Their lifetime supervision is not in lieu of prison like Washington's. It is after

all confinement and probation time is done. They have no punishment mechanism

in place to address violations that may occur short of charging them with a new

misdemeanor offense. Persons may petition to be discharged after 5 years and

every year thereafter. Victims are not involved in the process. A risk assessment

must be completed by a sex offender treatment provider within 3 months of the

petition being filed. The report must indicate "The petitioner is no longer a danger

to others" and requires a report from the CCO and polygrapher. The law doesn’t

clearly state how the process is supposed to work. a polygrapher too. Unclear if

law enforcement can weigh in.

Michigan No

Has Lifetime GPS. Persons can be imprisoned for up to 2 years for not complying

with the GPS requirements. No step down process or process for discharge.

Minnesota Unknown

Conditional release of sex offenders. (a) Notwithstanding the statutory maximum

sentence otherwise applicable to the offense or any provision of the sentencing

120

This chart contains data that we were able to collect during the time of the assignment. Gathering this data was

challenging and there is some missing information. Additionally, this data is accurate as of the time of the writing of this

report and is subject to change.

guidelines, when a court sentences a person to prison for a violation of section

609.342, 609.343, 609.344, or 609.345, the court shall provide that after the

person has completed the sentence imposed, the commissioner of corrections

shall place the person on conditional release. If the person was convicted for a

violation of section 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, or 609.345, the person shall be

placed on conditional release for five years, minus the time the person served on

supervised release. If the person was convicted for a violation of one of those

sections a second or subsequent time, or sentenced under subdivision 6 to a

mandatory departure, the person shall be placed on conditional release for ten

years, minus the time the person served on supervised release.

Nevada Unknown

Conditional release. (b) The conditions of release may include successful

completion of treatment and aftercare in a program approved by the

commissioner, satisfaction of the release conditions specified in section

244.05, subdivision 6, and any other conditions the commissioner considers

appropriate. If the offender fails to meet any condition of release, the

commissioner may revoke the offender's conditional release and order that

the offender serve the remaining portion of the conditional release term in

prison. The commissioner shall not dismiss the offender from supervision

before the conditional release term expires.

West

Virginia

Yes

No discharge or step down process in place. Up to 50 years of supervision. With

exemplary behavior can be released after 2 years by the sentencing court.

Sex

Offender Policy Board

Office of Financial Management

P.O. Box 43113

Olympia, Washington

98504-3113

360-995-3847