ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


CA: Sex Offender Management Board Reveals Current Statistics

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) today revealed current statistics regarding registrants during its monthly meeting. According to the board, the total number of individuals required to register in the state of California is 106,915.

Of that total number, there are 77,451 registrants living “in community”, that is outside of jail, prison or state hospitals. Within the group of registrants “living in community”, there are 16,353 who are currently in violation for failure to register.

Also living “in community” are 6,649 individuals who have registered as transients. Of that total, there are 1,495 transients who have failed to register.

There are a total number of 6,112 registrants who are on parole and are currently required to wear GPS monitors. Of that total, there are 3,245 who are considered high risk. Also of that total, there are 5,349 parolee registrants who are currently undergoing treatment that includes counseling and/or polygraph exams.

There are a total number 955 registrants confined to Coalinga State Hospital of whom 510 have been determined to be sexual violent predators. There are also 442 registrants confined to Coalinga State Hospital who are being detained for probable cause.

Coalinga State Hospital currently has a total of 18 registrants who are being prepared for conditional release into the community. Of that total, four have received court approval for their release and are pending placement in a county.

A total of 46 registrants have been conditionally released from Coalinga State Hospital thus far. Of that total, only one registrant was convicted of a subsequent sex offense and that offense was possession of child pornography.

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    So the statistic of very low re-offense seems to be on par with the information given here. Even the super-duper-sure-to-offend-again Coalinga residents are at about 2%. And the vast majority of “re-offenses” are simply failing to comply with otherwise 100% legal activity.

    • matthew

      Considered high risk always makes me groan. Most cases on Tier 3 of non-contact offenses yet as it stands now and in the bill current form, for life. They are definitely contradicting themselves.

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        The Static-99R adding one extra point for non-contact and non-violent offenses does not help the fact that many are classified as “Tier 3” and/or “high risk.”

        • matthew

          Funny part is static 99 is not meant to be for some no-contact offenses, including CP. It says it right on the form that it is not to be used for it.

        • AO

          @Matthew – Static-99 isn’t supposed to be used when there’s no “live” victim such as CP possession. It can be applied to non-contact crimes such as exposing yourself or setting up a meet with the victim without actually getting to that point because you were arrested before then. That’s why there’s an entire question about contact. That isn’t there randomly inserted by the state despite the documentation stating otherwise.

        • Eddie

          Once again congress is doing all they can to make it harder to get off the registration today the Supreme court hears the Gundy case. And another federal case is chalenging registration after a plea bargain to register for ten years…stay tune

        • AJ

          “today the Supreme court hears the Gundy case.”
          Huh? Gundy was argued on October 2, the second day of the Term. Do you have information showing it’s being re-argued so Kav can take part?

          Today (11/6), SCOTUS is hearing Bucklew v. Precythe and BNSF Railway Company v. Loos.

  2. Lake County

    “A total of 46 registrants have been conditionally released from Coalinga State Hospital thus far. Of that total, only one registrant was convicted of a subsequent sex offense and that offense was possession of child pornography.”

    Of course the definition of what is considered child pornography is very vague.

    • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence

      Not only is it vague but we really don’t know, with any specificity, what will be charged as “child abuse material” as the moral landscape architects now prefer to call it. People are charged all the time with material which straddles an increasingly vague border – and then accept plea deals – all without the public ever knowing precisely what that material was. It’s not as though we can ever view the “offending” material. Instead, it gets described for our benefit solely by notoriously unreliable, intensely-invested, histrionic players in the arena of bad-faith misinformation.

  3. Anonymous

    Does report make mention of how much “treatment” or ”therapy” those on probating are mandated to receive? Me=10 years proba =10 years forced weekly treatment = crazy expensive = extremely disruptive to my career & family is suffering. My lawyer says nothing he can do.

    • dph

      Wow Anon, ten years for everyweek must feel and sounds like extra punishment, the only advantage is NOT being admitted to Coalinga or Atascadero State Hosp Prison CDC nightmares not being released. Many here have endured worse, but ten years for your paycheck therapy Every WEEK for a decade is just obsured.
      Sorryou and your family have to being financially hurting and takes away from fam time and vacays.
      If I were you, IF you are in Calif., like most here, would talk to our President as legal counsel and ask him if court could poss. go back and adj or change the ten years of weekly therapy that it is a worse burden than prison time itself with the ten years probation after a year of this, if you already haven’t endured this timeline.
      Good Luck!

    • NPS @Anonymous

      When was your conviction date? The “containment model” (PC 1203.067) took effect on July 1, 2012. For those probationers who were adjudicated before that date had to complete no less than one year and the length of the program depended on the recommendation of the therapist, the PO and the court. I was adjudicated prior to that date. I only completed less than 5 months of the treatment because it was determined that sex offender treatment wasn’t necessary. My PO allowed my therapist to instead provide treatment for PTSD and anxiety. The court wasn’t involved. Of the 7 months I had remaining, I went bi-weekly and then eventually once a month for the last 3 months. Then I filed for early termination of probation, reduction to misdemeanor and expungement. All three were granted.

      For those adjudicated on July 1, 2012 and after, the law states “The length of the period in the program shall be not less than one year, up to the entire period of probation, as determined by the certified sex offender management professional in consultation with the probation officer and as approved by the court.”
      The added change post 07/01/12 was saying treatment could run the entire duration of probation. I think because of this addition, filing early termination of probation is more difficult, though I admit I have no data to confirm this.

      Bottom line, consider your conviction date. If it’s before 07/01/2012, then the duration of probation is not applicable. If after, you don’t have to go the entire 10 years. One year is required and the therapist can recommend treatment cease because you met all the requirements. There is nothing in the law that says you are mandated to go every week. If your therapist recommends bi-weekly or monthly and provides a written statement, it may be allowed by the PO. My understanding is treatment ends once you pass the lie detector test.

      So your lawyer just sounds like he’s not interested in helping. Get another lawyer or have a talk with your appointed therapist. Good luck.

    • Tim Moore

      My probation lasted for 5 years and my weekly treatment lasted for that 5 years. The probation ended 13 years ago but I still had to get treated for depression a few times after that. Mine was a serious crime, and I am grateful I was able to drive to the therapist’s office instead of the alternative of 8 years in a prison cell. The weekly therapy charge did make me more in debt, yet prison would have made me lose all I cared about, people, a somewhat free life, everything. I had to take personal inventory almost daily to get through it.
      Things I think have gotten worse in sentencing since then. 10 years probation? That’s like a jail term in itself, not a suspended sentence.

      • Will Allen

        I have to agree that paying a weekly fee to stay out of prison is probably a good deal.

        But the whole idea that a person who commits a $EX crime needs therapy and people who commit other types of crime do not is really just completely incomprehensible to me. I really, really don’t get that. Do people with sense actually believe that? I know they’ve got a whole get-money scheme fashioned all around $EX crimes but does anyone actually believe it?

        BTW, I think good therapy can be helpful for just about anyone. I just don’t get the “only $EX crimes” thing. I think it is little more than taking advantage because they can.

        I can’t imagine that forced, adversarial “therapy” that is nothing but an extension of the probation/parole department could be that useful for most people. Could it be really? I’m not going to work with or “deal” with anyone that forces me to take polygraph tests.

        For me personally, no one will be able to convince me in a million years that I should be listed on a Registry OR “need” therapy and these dreg gangbangers (etc., etc., etc.) who commit crimes literally every month do not. I’m not drinking the kool aid.

        I think the reason that $EX offenses are treated differently is because of hate and capitalizing on opportunity. That is what I’ve seen proven.

        • wonderin

          @Will Allen
          Well said. I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who wasn’t guilty of some type of dysfunctional thinking; some more than others.

  4. USA

    Interesting statistics. This is a lot of people! The scary part is that more and more are put on the registry daily!!!! I keep hearing mentions regarding the new tier system? If you can get your charge reduced to a misdemeanor or expunged, it will help! This could be the difference between Tier 1, 2 or 3! What if your offense is reduced to a misdemeanor? Expunged?

    • Matthew

      I think that is the million dollar question. Where does this put people who have had either an expunged record or reduction or even both.
      I have been wondering the same thing. One would think that it would be a tier 1 on both due to the fact that it is no longer a guilty verdict but rather dismissed so no felony is active

  5. Joe123

    Am I seeing this correctly?

    Out of a total of about 107,000 people, there are virtually no people with re-offenses? Are we reading this right? This is way below 1%.. Please confirm.

    • CR

      The re-offense rate isn’t mentioned at all, so you can’t draw any conclusions.

      This is just a summary of statistics from the CASOMB about “the total number of individuals required to register in the state of California.” Most are “in community”, and many are not. The reason why some of them are NOT “in community” is not given. It could be because of the offense for which they were originally required to register, or it could be from a subsequent offense, sexual or not.

      • AO

        @CR – I think the do define it. “In community” means not behind bars. So that means there are about 30k currently incarcerated. Of the 77k currently in community, 16k are in violation of the registration in one form or another (whether they failed to register or dared to support their children in school). So true re-offense of another actual sex crime are just about non-existent. CASOMB has been reporting it to be in the 1% range for a few years now, if not longer (you can find previous such updates on this site where that’s specifically mentioned).

        • CR

          @AO, I understand what they mean by “in community”, and I didn’t say it wasn’t defined. I was replying to @Joe123 regarding his request for confirmation regarding his assumption that “… there are virtually no people with re-offenses” out of the 107k+ people required to register.

          I do not count FTR as re-offense, so I do not consider the 16k with FTR violations to be relevant. My response was, and still is, that one cannot draw any conclusions about the re-offense rate from the statistics that were posted because none of them relate to that.

  6. TS

    How many of the FTRs are no longer living and have no need to register? Asking for the deceased and their family who may not know to notify LE of their passing, including an transients. Would hate for the stats to be inflated based upon a deceased registrant still being counted after they have passed.

    • Will Allen

      I’ve done a good job of isolating my family from the harassment of LE. My children are grown now and have children of their own. My children do not support LE or ever speak to them. They are teaching their children the same thing – LE is not to be trusted and you should never freely interact with them. You can do it via an attorney if absolutely necessary. But other than that, forget about it.

      So my family knows that one of the stipulations in my will is that do not discuss my Registrant status with LE. I’ve thought about tying piles of money to those stipulations. Maybe. But when I’m gone, LE needs to know that is their cue to F off even more than they must now. They must never even try to speak to my family again. So F notifying LE of anything. They can shove their stats up their asses. My dream is the LE would think that I am still alive and waste piles of time, money, and other resources to try to find me. Perfect scenario. Heck, that is a great scenario even if I were alive.

      Also, I would love it if FTRs were as high as possible. It would be beyond awesome if about a million people simply refused to Register and disappeared. Another great scenario. FTR doesn’t happen nearly enough.

  7. Double A

    I think the total number of registrants is deceiving. When I had to go to court required counseling, it seemed like everyone in the group I attended were only required to register while on probation. I don’t know if that is something the judge in Long Beach was doing or something judges are doing through the entire state.

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 *