ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


CA Sex Offender Management Board to Release Recidivism Report


The CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) will soon release the results of a 10-year study on recidivism rates for those convicted of a sex offense, according to a CASOMB member. The study is expected to include topics such as the number of people convicted of indecent exposure who later committed a sex contact offense. According to the board member, a preliminary copy of the report reveals that number is zero out of a group of more than 300 people.

During today’s CASOMB meeting, several additional reports were issued including a report from the CA Department of Justice (CA DOJ) representative who stated that there are currently 105,825 people on the state’s sex offender registry. Of that total, about 77,000 are living in the community while the remaining number of registrants are incarcerated and/or institutionalized in a state hospital. There are about 6,500 transient registrants of which about 1,500 (23 percent) are “in violation” for failure to register. The total number of people who are “in violation” is about 16,500 (15.6 percent).

The Department of Adult Parole Operations reported today that there are a total of 5,971 registrants who are currently required to wear a GPS unit. About half of the registrants wearing GPS units are considered to be “high risk” because they have a Static-99R score of 4 or higher.

The State Department of Hospitals reported today there are 944 sexually violent predators (SVP’s) who are currently institutionalized. The annual cost of institutionalizing each person designated as an SVP is at least $205,000. The annual cost increases to $310,000 after an SVP is conditionally released from the hospital. There are two or three SVP’s who have recently been released as transients and additional releases are expected. The annual cost of each SVP released as a transient is $653,000.

Related links:




Join the discussion

  1. Thoughtasweak

    Glad they are releasing the recidivism report, as the CDCR hasn’t publicly released any new recidivism reports since 2015. Looking forward to this report.

    • Lisa

      CASOMB writes reports saying the polygraph is scientific, when true scientists have said the contrary. CASOMB backs the Static 99, when clearly there are too many flaws to it. So many of CASOMB’s committee members are in conflict of interest, including vice chair, and Sharper Future CEO, Tom Tobin. These are hard facts that can’t be ignored. Until these clearly eggregous problems are fixed, I will not trust anything that comes out of CASOMB. CASOMB has been less than transparent — and quite frankly untruthful, in so many ways!

      I am very skeptical when these government agencies come out with their official “reports” and “statistics.”

      • YES!


      • YES!

        Just to add: As someone who once was required to attend Sharper Future—and *if* Tom Tobin runs CASOMB anything like he runs his Sharper Future scheme—I’d be very worried to all the unethical behavior that goes on behind the scenes in CASOMB. Reiterate: Very worried. Unless you’ve been in the Sharper Future “treatment” program, you would not understand how terribly unprofessional and misleading those “doctors” and interns can be, both in what they tell you personally, as well as in their embellishment of report writing. I’m still disgusted by the whole experience—and sometimes think I need treatment to undo the trauma/malpractice from Sharper Future’s version of “treatment.” If I were to give a Yelp review to Sharper Future, it would be *0 stars.*

        Also, has anyone read the 2016 paper by Alissa Ackerman and Marshall Burns? Read page 13, under the subtitle “Withholding Information,” to see how CASOMB and CDCR both concealed data. In the paper, CASOMB is referred to as “SOMB:”

        It’s terribly disgusting what these government officials get away with. Disgusting.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Did you ever have any contact with Tom Tobin, himself? What a bastard! I’ve told this story before so won’t go into detail but before he had his own company he was one of the “clinicians” at “Center For Special Problems” in San Francisco. This was back in the early ’90s. We really hated each other. I told him exactly what I thought of him and his program.

        • YES!


          Without getting into the specifics here (but would be glad to tell you what happened in person, depending if we ever attend the same ACSOL meeting), there was a lot of retaliation in the program. A lot of HIPAA violations. A lot of ethical violations. Yes, I’ve communicated with Tom Tobin. And from the way my grievance was handled, I was immediately disturbed that that is the person in charge of California’s biggest sex offender “treatment” program—as well as CASOMB.

          If you haven’t met him—and you are forced into Tobin’s Sharper Future “treatment” program—then I think you can get a good idea from the way the Sharper Future program is operated, that Tobin is not a good man.

          Same with the lack of transparency into CASOMB. Which has me seriously doubting some of the above figures. I guess what I’m saying is that I see similar (and disturbing) undertones to Sharper Future and CASOMB.

    • FYI

      CASOMB’s Chair, DA Nancy O’Malley, “took $10K from fremont police union before clearing Fremont cops in killing of pregnant teen.” Nancy O’Malley and Tom Tobin both lead CASOMB.

      Are ya’ll still going to trust whatever information comes out of CASOMB? Personally, I’d be very skeptical.

  2. AlexO

    That’s awesome but will the politicians actually care and pay attention? I mean, logically and rightfully, if this reports states that over all we’re at some very low number (less than 5% and I kept seeing that a previous CASOMB report had it at 1%!!), what would their argument be to continue with the registry at all?

    I also question that line about people wearing the GPS units because they scored 4+. I have a 4 and that wasn’t even on the table. My probation was fairly simple and straight forward. Other guys in our group had the GPS and scored lower. They wore the GPS as a deal to avoid actual jail time.

    • Agamemnon

      It’s not the politicians that worry me, it’s the judges who ultimately decide what does or does not constitute punishment. And while some judges are starting to show a progressive outlook, it’s the US Supreme Court judges who continually quote outdated and discredited statistics.

  3. Anonymous

    If I have no future in this country then I’m at a high risk to reoffend & spend my years in jail. Thankfully things are getting better. I am very gainfully employed!! I have a beautiful (longtime) significant other!! I am now a homeowner!! I have made many new friends. They may know my past, they may not. I don’t really think about it, I just live as happy as I can. It’s not always great, I suffer from some depression and a lot of shame. It was cp. NY. but I am more than my past. I am my present new, better self. I will NOT bump up those great low statistics and you can bet your last dollar on it.

    • AlexO

      That’s great! I’m glad you were able to make a very positive life for yourself. Hopefully more and more people in our position can do so.

    • cool CA RC

      You earn the title “Living Beyond the LABEL”!!! Good Job!

      • Anonymous

        Many opportunities for my chosen career were shut in my face but EVENTUALLY I got a crappy job in that field. I kept making notes that would look good when transferred onto my resume. I made as many business contacts as possible. Some became a bit more but that didn’t actually help me find a job but it did give me a great reputation as a worker. I used my brain & loyalty to my employer to get an(unpaid) promotion with more responsibility & in my mind I gave myself the title to go along with it. I put that on my resume. I used everybody that could possibly help me & even though it was very little, I am grateful to them. I put myself out there. It was (is) extremely scary. I used my courage. I’ve had 2 very challenging jobs since and I am doing very well. It has been a 5 year challenge. Actually, all of my non felon, non s.o. neighbors & friends run their careers up the same exact way & it’s scary for them too. Just do it!! No excuses.I will begin to donate here.

    • Matt

      Anonymous, I’m in the same boat. Same charge, I was 19, am now 29 will be 30 later this year. I’ve got a church I’m very involved with who the pastor and very select few members know about my past, I am gainfully employed, I have a cozy roof over my head(not a homeowner yet, but it’s my parents house they own while they live elsewhere because of my dad’s job and we rent out the extra rooms), and I’m due to be married next month. Every so often a detective comes to check up on me, and besides having to go to the sheriff’s office everything someone with a new vehicle moves in and my regular registration times twice a year, my life is going pretty well. None of my neighbors bother me, and we have alot of new houses being built around me, including couples with kids. The crappy thing is having to take off work Every time we get a new tenant who has a vehicle so I can go report their vehicle onto my registration, but all in all I don’t have it too bad. Many of the cops and detectives I speak with about it say this whole thing is bullshit, it’s actually quite refreshing. I do have my moments of depression and have made several suicide attempts over the last 10 years and I got heavy into drugs and drinking after getting out of prison, but 3 years ago I had a successful suicide attempt only to be revived, and since then I’ve been clean and sober and have just been determined to live my life the best I can

      • dph

        Good for you Matt…what a turn around,
        What State are you in?
        Or better yet what County that is having you register twice a year?
        I was nineteen and am almost sixty, not to look forward too, but you’re working and living in a newer housing track is so uplifiting… worth right now going back to the station to add the roomates plates.
        Right track and good for you getting married, this will help too. So,
        don’t feel that you are alone out there and the only one being punished since 19.
        Glad you were revived, life is worth it, things can get better, attend *(if in Cali) one of L.A. or NorCal Berkeley group sessions for RC’s that is just support, it adds to keeping afloat and positive thinking.

  4. Different Definition To "High Risk?"

    The Static-99R scam developers—including “doctor” Karl Hanson—call a score of “6 or higher” to be “high” risk. CASOMB and CDCR claims that a score of “4 or higher” is “high” risk. Which one is it?

    • AlexO

      4-5 is moderately high, 6+ is high. I think they just used a shorthand.

      • Different Definition To "High Risk?"


        When it comes to law, CASOMB, CDCR, and the California Department of Justice must be EXACT. Especially if they’re going to impose Fake Science on registrants.

        The difference between “moderate-high” and “high” is expressly clear in a part of the Megan’s Law website that registrants are legally permitted to visit:

        For whatever reason, CDCR has long considered a 4 or higher to be “high” risk, which is absolutely contrary to Karl Hanson’s “former score” system. In Karl Hanson’s former score system, a 6 or higher was considered to be “high” risk.

        Under Hanson’s new literal score system, the moderate-high and high risk levels have been changed to “above average risk” and “well above average risk,” respectively. In other words, scores that are 4 and 5 are now “above average risk,” while 6 through 12 are “well above average risk.” Under the tiered registry law, it would be those in the “well above average risk” (i.e. a 6 or higher) that would be pushed into Tier 3. Even if one would otherwise fall into Tier 1. See Cal. Penal Code Section 290(d)(3)(D) [“The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.].


        Karl Hanson, just very recently (and once again), began changing the risk levels in adding a I, II, III, and (get this) “IVa” and “IVb.” “Doctor” Hanson is going to have us running around in circles because the tiered bill essentially made Hanson an unchecked legislator in being able to redefine the “Coding Rules” at Hanson and the SARATSO committee’s whim. See, i.e., Cal. Penal Code Section 290(d)(3)(D) [“as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument”].

        Because the Static-99R isn’t expressly stated in the tiered bill, and it is legally referred to as “SARATSO” or “SARATSO tool,” the California Department of Justice, CASOMB, and SARATSO can essentially change what “tool” it wants to use in the future when the Static-99R is (presumably, but who knows?) exposed for the fraud that it is. This will probably be many years down the road though… maybe even a decade. So what the CASOMB and SARATSO committee are doing is buying time to impose the registry for as long as possible (and thus milk $$ for self-interested [Tom Tobin] committee members, as well as gain as much political points for the politicians to use the registry to target “high risk sex offenders”).

        By not expressly writing “Static-99R” in the bill, and instead use “SARATSO tool,” legislators can continuously change around the “risk” assessments in the future.

        It’s absolutely ridiculous. And given the many flaws to the Static-99R, it’s insult to injury.

        • Cassandra

          This is what Gundy v United States is about nondeligation.

        • Different Definition To "High Risk?"

          Thanks for reference to Gundy. Also, I read my comment once more. To correct myself, in addition to legislators, who are at least checked by committees, Hanson or SARATSO will be able to change the tiered law’s “risk” assessment tool. The power to define “SARATSO tool” will fall entirely on the SARATSO Committee and/or Karl Hanson (as Hanson writes the “Coding Rules”).

          Now, I was browsing the SARATSO Committee’s website and its website is entirely devoid of *who* is on the SARATSO Committee. Does anyone know just who sits on this committee?? I say this because this committee will have the power to define exactly what defines the “SARATSO tool.” Right now, it’s the Static-99R. But in the future, either Karl Hanson can rewrite the Coding Rules -OR- SARATSO can redefine its “SARATSO tool” and, at least the way the bill is written, either Hanson or the SARATSO Committee *will* have a monumental effect on who will be registered according to “risk” assessment. This is absolutely absurd.

          Does the SARATSO Committee not include its board members on its website because it, like CASOMB, is also plagued with conflict of interests? So, just WHO is on the SARATSO Committee?

  5. New Person

    Will CASOMB go and re-adjust the recidivism rates from the years that included ‘Failure to Register’ (FTR) as part of the recidivism rates? Because once they separated that away from actual re-offense rates, then that’s when the recidivism rates dropped to under 1%.

  6. David

    Wow! “The annual cost increases to $310,000 after an SVP is conditionally released from the hospital.” So….. you could have three people, working 8-hour shifts, 365 days a year, each being paid $100,000/year, watching the SVP for 24 hours a day, every day of the year …. and it would STILL COST LESS than the current cost of monitoring! Good Lord, that’s ridiculous!! And it is equally ridiculous that the tax-paying members of the public have allowed themselves to become so frightened by media hysteria and politicians’ hyperbole that they willingly accept these absurd costs without complaint!!

  7. Gralphr

    What I want to know is are they going to be truthful when reporting? Seperate the new offenses and don’t lump them together with people who actually sexually offend again. The majority of people who do get new charges down the road did NOT commit a new sex offense and that’s important for the true percentage.

  8. ReadyToFight

    Once the CASOMB releases the actual recidivism rate, what’s next??? Can we then go for the throat on that Frightening and High BS?
    In which they will be forced to admit that the Registry’s only function is to shame and punish human beings till the end of time.

    • CR

      Did you see this post in the General Comments section?

      That is quoting from a recent SMART/DOJ study. There is a link to it in that post. It shows sexual recidivism increasing over time. It seems to suggest that other studies looked at too short a period of time, and that if you look for a longer period, the recidivism rates continue to rise over time.

      They also looked at rates for different types of sexual offenses, and found higher rates for some of them. Unrelated boy offenses higher than unrelated girl higher than related boy higher than related girl, for example.

      If this study is accurate, or if courts rely upon it as such, then IMO it doesn’t bode well for us.

      Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever get relief. Not fully. As they have done from the beginning, SCOTUS will find ways to bend the meaning of the constitution so that government can continue to treat us as a disfavored minority of second class citizens, stripped of most of our rights, and subject to constant subjugation, regulation, derision, obloquy, and scorn, outcasts forever, never to be treated with dignity and respect again.

      • TS


        This is where you fight fire with fire. As @AlexO says, how can the rate increase when the test administered says contrary? The studies mentioned can be found and researched in depth to understand what they are saying. The USG is not going to publish a study not in their favor, whether they paid for it or got it from another source, e.g. Hanson. That is what the rest of the country does to combat their INFO OPS campaign. It is dueling studies between entities, e.g. academics, governments, contractors, etc. This is what Mike R is looking and asking for.

        Until the full disclosure of the data used in the studies is shown, it will always be who can paint the best or worst picture for the masses, courts, legislatures, Congresses, et al to use.

        I say continually find students on campuses who want a study topic and have them do studies on this topic. The more data, the better that shows the reality of situation with no biases.

      • Tim Moore

        Of course the longer the time measured the greater the total offenses. One can’t subtract offenses. They have to measure number of offenses per year from some start date and track it by year and see if the curve goes up or down with each progressive year. But the real issue is due process. People aren’t commodities where the group defines the idividual. I still believe, and I think the Bill of Rights concurs, that you can’t punish one innocent person for the transgressions of even 99 or 999,999. There is a danger here when we use these statistics in that it is validating the idea that registration is merely regulation, and then it becomes a matter of what the numbers are not what the rights are.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          We need to introduce a term that has not often been used to describe the treatment of sex offenders: “collective punishment.” Collective punishment is, quite simply, a form of sanction imposed on persons or a group of persons in response to a crime committed by one of them or a member of the group. I’d say that that fits what is happening to us pretty well.

          Collective punishment is the basis for war crimes and is forbidden by the Geneva Convention. The State of Israel has come under withering criticism for its continued program of punishing the families of those Palestinians accused of terrorism.

          Collective punishment is not tolerated when directed at any other class of American citizens but it is, not only tolerated but celebrated when it is imposed upon us.

          We are being collectively punished.

        • Tim Moore

          Calling it like it is, David, that is just what it is. It is like punishing the whole classroom because Johny Doe pulled Lisa’s pants down. We didn’t think that was fair then, but now that everyone’s grown, it’s OK. It’s law. People can recognize that term better than bill of attainder.

        • Agreed

          Agreed, David. Each person should be judged individually. Not by blanket offense. And not by some bogus “risk assessment” that claims to “scientifically” assess vast swaths of people.

  9. An RC emasculated

    Ha! So what this recidivism report. No state legislator cares about how low the recidivism rate is because proponents of sex offender (SO) laws, state legislator’s constituency, doesn’t care. I’d make 5:1 that even if the rate was 0.00000001% proponents of SO laws would still holler “Frightening and High”!

  10. Joe

    Going to guess that these new recidivism stats are going to praise the Static 99R and praise the great “doctor” Karl Hanson’s science.

    When these stats aren’t transparent, and when Static lumps all crimes into one “risk assessment,” why is it going to be law?? To add insult, they hide it under “SARATSO” so they can change it up??

  11. dph

    well David’s any ideas where their report is or WHEN it’s gonna be released, on their site?
    Ten more days and it’s been a month since the above article note.
    CASOMB will be somber? California style? We will see.
    How do we find out who are the one’s who knocked down the registry bill alot off the original and made it worse?
    Good pt. Matt

  12. Tim

    These laws are little more than “HATE LAWS” playing in simple. I cannot believe how far this country has come in treating the Constitution as though it were some valuable object to be bent in whatever way they so choose. Shame on you Supreme Court! You all discuss me.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *