Lawmakers from the 35th Legislative District are frustrated after the failure of another bill that would require post-sentence housing for sexually violent predators (SVPs) to be owned, operated or contracted through the state, which they say would improve oversight of those facilities.
The proposal comes after extended community outrage over a proposed facility near Tenino last year, which was ultimately scrapped, that would have housed five SVPs.
House Bill 2093, which failed to advance out of the Community Safety, Justice and Reentry Committee, would have also placed additional regulations on where less restrictive alternatives (LRAs) can be placed.
"Protecting the public is one of our primary duties as state lawmakers, and we have come up woefully short here because of the majority party's tunnel vision on reforming violent criminals," Sen. Drew MacEwen said. “My seatmates and I have worked extensively with all stakeholders on this issue, and it is insulting to every community in the state now faced with the release of SVPs into their neighborhoods not to be given a voice in Olympia."
SVPs are defined as offenders who suffer from a “mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence" and are considered the most likely to reoffend.
Under the 1990 Community Protection Act, prosecutors can petition courts to designate a sex offender an SVP and have the offender transferred to civil commitment on McNeil Island.
While the law previously allowed SVPs to be committed indefinitely, court challenges mean SVPs must receive treatment and assessments to determine if the treatment was sufficient. If so, the offender can qualify to be released to either a secure transition facilities run by the state, or a less restrictive alternative, typically run by a third party.
Residents of Tenino rallied against a proposed facility in January 2023. In that case, a community meeting was scheduled less than a month before the facility was scheduled to open.
After extended backlash, the third-party operator who planned the facility announced it would not move forward with the project. According to previous reporting by The Chronicle, the third-party operator stated “that due to resources and expenses associated with land use requirements, it will not proceed with providing supportive housing services at its Tenino property.”
In a statement, Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders said at the time that “it is imperative to convey to the public that Supreme Living runs a number of successful and much-needed supportive housing programs in our county, and we particularly appreciate the mental health housing services they provide for those needing assisted living.”
“This incident exposed a number of substantial flaws in how we handle LRAs, and I look forward to working with our state government and representatives in the future to find a long-term solution to this problem that protects everyone,” Sanders said.
If passed, Senate Bill 2093 would have placed restrictions on where SVPs can be released, restricted where LRAs can be located, added notification requirements for the Department of Social and Health Services to the community, barred SVPs from choosing the LRA where they reside, and added transparency around the treatment an SVP received.
"This is outrageous," said Rep. Dan Griffey. "We have heard loud and clear from our constituents in the 35th District and many other communities across the state that are being caught off guard when the state places SVPs in their communities with little to no notice and, in some cases, virtually no oversight that we need a better system. We offered the starting point for that system overhaul, and despite verbal promises that our bill would be given a hearing, it was ignored."
Last session, the lawmakers proposed a pair of bills, which would have also increased notification requirements for proposed LRAs, but those failed to advance out of committee.
"We did not come up with these proposals without careful thought and consideration," said Rep. Travis Couture. "For the better part of two years — and especially over this recent interim — we have been hard at work on this issue, meeting with stakeholders, and receiving a tour of McNeil Island to fully understand the current process. For all of that work to be ignored at the cost of public safety is outrageous."
While the bill to restrict LRAs failed to advance, a separate bill that would ban SVPs serving concurrent sentences from also earning credit for community custody supervision credit which counts toward their community custody supervision requirements remains in play in the Legislature.
"I am pleased to see my bill regarding Department of Corrections (DOC) supervision credit is still moving, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to all we need to do to improve the current system related to SVPs," Couture said in a statement. "We are not done. We will continue to fight for these reforms that are so important for the people of the 35th District and the state of Washington."
The lawmakers encouraged community members concerned with the placement of LRAs to contact the chair of the House Community Safety, Justice and Reentry Committee at https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/memberEmail/45/1.
While the legislation around LRAs failed to advance in the current session, the lawmakers said they also plan to propose similar restrictions in the 2025 session.
"I look forward to the chair of the Community, Safety, Justice, and Reentry Committee hearing this important issue when we bring it back in a fresh bill in 2025," Griffey said. "My concern is that it is nearly a year from now, and in the meantime, the state has plans to release more SVPs into communities across the state that I truly believe will be at risk due to the gaps in oversight, transparency and security in the current system."
