(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Parole agent Clint Cooley, right, talks with a sex offender parolee during an unannounced parole visit in Sacramento, Calif. State corrections officials recently completed a review how many sex offenders must comply with voter-approved residency restrictions based on a state supreme court decision. The corrections department announced a dramatic reduction in the number of offenders barred from living near schools and parks.

AP Exclusive: California sex offenders exempt from ban on housing location

Three-quarters of California's paroled sex offenders now face no restrictions on living near schools or parks after the state changed its policy.

Three-quarters of California's paroled sex offenders previously banned from living near parks, schools and other places where children congregate now face no housing restrictions after the state changed its policy in response to a court ruling that said the prohibition only applies to child molesters, according to data compiled at the request of The Associated Press.

The rate is far higher than officials initially predicted. The state expected half of the 5,900 parolees would have restrictions on where they can live or sleep lifted when the corrections department changed its policy following the March ruling. Instead, data shows that 76 percent of offenders no longer are subject to the voter-approved restrictions.

Corrections officials said last spring that about half of the convicted sex offenders are considered child molesters who would still be subject to the housing ban.

But even some whose offense involved a child no longer face the 2,000-foot residency restriction, officials disclosed in explaining the higher number. That's because the department's new policy requires a direct connection between where a parolee lives and the offender's crime or potential to reoffend. Only rarely is the assailant a stranger to the victim, the type of offender whose behavior might be affected by where he lives.

"A parole agent cannot simply prevent a parolee from living near a school or park because the offender committed a crime against a child," Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Jeffrey Callison said in a statement.

The decision largely reverses a blanket housing ban imposed by California voters nine years ago. Many states impose a variety of residency restrictions on sex offenders, though states including Iowa, Georgia and Oklahoma rescinded or changed their residency restrictions and some now also tailor restrictions to individual sex offenders.

As a result of California's policy change, more than 4,200 of the state's 5,900 offendersno longer qualify for the residency restrictions, according to data compiled by the corrections department at the AP's request. However, their whereabouts still are monitored with tracking devices and they must still tell local law enforcement agencies where they live.

One in five sex offenders who used to be transient have been able to find permanent housing because they are no longer subject to the rule, the department said.

"These numbers are absolutely astounding," said state Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, who co-authored the original ballot initiative. "Kids in kindergarten living across the street from a sex offender is not what the people voted for in Jessica's Law. Seventy percent of the people voted to keep them away from schools and parks."

The department spent months reviewing offenders' criminal backgrounds before deciding that the ban should continue to apply to about 1,400 offenders. The department couldn't provide the status of nearly 300 other offenders.

"That's a pretty dramatic reduction in numbers, so that's scary. That's scary for victims," said Nina Salarno, executive director of Crime Victims United of California.

She and Criminal Justice Legal Foundation president Michael Rushford, who represents crime victims, said the department is broadly interpreting the March court ruling, which applied only to San Diego County. Officials have refused to release the legal advice from the state attorney general that they are relying upon in making the decision.

In the March ruling, justices found that blanket restrictions violate offenders' constitutional rights by making it difficult for them to find housing and other services, without advancing the state's goal of protecting children. One of the San Diego Countyoffenders sued after he was forced to live in a dry riverbed, while two others slept in an alley near the parole office.

Susan Fisher, a board member of the victims support group Citizens against Homicide, said she would have been surprised at the low number of parolees still facing residency restrictions had she not spent so much time as a parole commissioner and as victims' rights adviser to former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Most people think "that around every corner is a child molester," she said. Yet experts say most child molesters are family members or acquaintances of the victim.

Ending the blanket housing restriction tracks recommendations that have been made for years by the Sex Offender Management Board, an advisory panel made up of law enforcement and treatment professionals.

Board vice chairman Tom Tobin said California parole officers who are responsible for enforcing the prohibition are doing a much better job now of tracking sex offendersbased on their individual risk.

Tobin, a psychologist who also is on the board of the California Coalition on SexualOffending, said agents can still apply the housing ban where it makes sense, and the department said it still prohibits many offenders from having contact with minors or loitering near parks, schools or other places where children gather.

Tobin and Fisher said the public is safer with about 260 fewer transient sex offenderswho now have been able to find housing since the rule changed.

"If somebody's living under a bridge or going from one house to the next ... we're putting ourselves at greater risk," Fisher said.

Runner disagreed. She intends to try again next year to pass stalled legislation that would let judges in each county decide if the 2,000-foot limit is too restrictive in their jurisdiction.

"Unfortunately, that many people coming from transient to living near schools is not good," Runner said.

Twenty-four percent of sex offender parolees now face residency restrictions, down from 100 percent, based on a court decision and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's policy change this year. The change reduced the number of paroledsex offenders who have no permanent home.

Here's a county-by-county breakdown on the number restricted by and released from the requirement that they live beyond 2,000 feet of a school or park, and the change in the number of transient offenders. The number of transient parolees is smaller than the statewide total because some cannot be placed in a specific county.

County Residency restriction No residency restriction Transient February 2015 Transient October 2015
Alameda 29 162 137 68
Alpine 1 0 0 0
Amador 0 5 0 0
Butte 24 51 12 13
Calaveras 1 4 1 1
Colusa 0 2 0 0
Contra Costa 26 66 30 23
Del Norte 2 5 5 1
El Dorado 1 23 6 3
Fresno 42 165 53 40
Glenn 1 7 1 0
Humboldt 9 30 8 5
Imperial 2 6 1 0
Inyo 1 0 0 0
Kern 35 195 11 12
Kings 7 37 13 8
Lake 10 19 6 6
Lassen 1 6 1 0
Los Angeles 415 922 144 165
Madera 4 27 4 4
Marin 2 8 8 3
Mariposa 0 3 0 0
Mendocino 7 22 5 0
Merced 22 34 12 6
Modoc 1 4 0 0
Mono 0 0 0 0
Monterey 23 61 23 16
Napa 4 17 14 12
Nevada 4 7 3 1
Orange 46 173 69 75
Placer 13 33 7 11
Plumas 1 3 0 0
Riverside 114 253 50 44
Sacramento 49 249 56 42
San Benito 2 7 2 1
San Bernardino 137 351 44 58
San Diego 76 309 85 80
San Francisco 10 50 19 11
San Joaquin 33 128 46 31
San Luis Obispo 40 4 8 13
San Mateo 28 35 34 26
Santa Barbara 25 23 18 13
Santa Clara 49 202 121 86
Santa Cruz 1 14 9 7
Shasta 13 68 20 17
Sierra 0 0 0 0
Siskiyou 0 11 2 3
Solano 12 64 38 25
Sonoma 9 47 22 19
Stanislaus 24 54 38 29
Sutter 2 6 3 1
Tehama 3 16 3 4
Trinity 0 3 0 0
Tulare 17 75 25 16
Tuolumne 7 2 0 0
Ventura 8 73 37 21
Yolo 2 14 5 4
Yuba 13 32 13 9
Not available 8 29 0 0
California 1416 4216 1272 1033

Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to AP Exclusive: California sex offenders exempt from ban on housing location
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today