February 20, 2007

Instructions for Use
Dear Reader:
This file has been provided with links and bookmarks
to allow easy navigation within the body of the report.
Click on the Bookmark tab to the left of the document in
order to see an index of the report. Clicking on any
individual bookmark will take you to that section of the
report, a specific chart or case study.
The report also contains links that appear as blue text
within the report. Click on the blue text and the link will
take you to either another related area of the report or to
specific portions of the appendices to review supporting
documentation.

From the Office of
Gerald A. Horne
Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney

Washington State Department of Correction Policies
&
Pierce County’s High Crime Rate

By:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Bertha B. Fitzer, LL.M.
February 6, 2007

Pierce County’s Criminal Courts
Criminal Presiding: Monday morning. Defendants jam into the courtroom while
latecomers spill into the hall. Forty to fifty lawyers mill about the courtroom. The
lawyers’ chatter is punctuated by a shout from jail staff. “Coming through” yells the
corrections officer as he and his colleague snake the first chain of prisoners through the
maze of lawyers. The first batch of defendants is heading for the jury room, now the
holding area for inmates. Before the end of the morning, two, three, four or more chains
of defendants arrive for court. Here in Presiding (PJ), the judge sends a case or two out
for trial, grants continuances and accepts pleas. The other cases that are also ready for
trial are in a holding pattern. Lawyers, defendants, and witnesses will all wait to see if
there is a judge and a courtroom available. Their chances are not good. There are not
enough judicial resources to handle the load. Those cases not sent out for trial this day
will be set over until tomorrow or continued to another date. Many cases are set over day
after day after day, creating issues for the judges, the lawyers, the victims, and the
witnesses.
The Fifth Floor: Get off the elevator on the fifth floor and there are more examples of too
many criminal cases and too few resources. Defendants and lawyers line the benches,
stand before the elevators or duck into the stairwell in an attempt to find privacy to
discuss their case.
The Pit: In the attorney pit, a narrow hallway between two fifth floor courtrooms,
attorneys haggle over the details of plea agreements. This is also the transport corridor,
the area between courtrooms the jail staff uses to transport still more chains of defendants
to other holding areas. Attorneys in the pit conduct their business as the inmates pass
within inches of the busy lawyers. Occasionally, the lawyers’ negotiations will be
interrupted by jail staff attempting to subdue disorderly defendants.
Criminal Divisions Courtrooms 1 & 2: Two special courtrooms flank the pit. With
secured gallery sections for out-of-custody defendants, the benches are packed. Judges
here spend their day taking pleas, entering scheduling orders, arraigning defendants and
setting terms of release. With barely time to glance at a file, the constant flow of bodies is
so stressful that judges remain in these courtrooms just one month and then rotate to some
other duty.
In the rest of the courthouse, the bulk of the remaining courtrooms are also
dedicated to handling the crushing load of criminal cases. A few lucky civil
litigants, after months of waiting, will finally be assigned to a courtroom in order
to resolve a dissolution, a personal injury case or a contract dispute.
In Pierce County, lawyers and court personnel dance at a maddening pace--every day-attempting to bring justice and reason to a dysfunctional and overtaxed criminal justice
system. The bottom line? Too little of everything---except criminal defendants and their
cases. How did we get so many people committing so many crimes in Pierce County?
Where do they come from?

1

INTRODUCTION
Those who work in the criminal justice system know first hand the stress of
handling heavy case loads and the frustration of repeat offenders. The above scenes are a
daily event. Pierce County’s prosecutors and public defenders carry some of the heaviest
case loads in the state, collectively handling thousands of felony cases each year. Judges
and court staff struggle to process the endless stream of offenders through the courts.
Pierce County government and Pierce County taxpayers pay the costs: judges, courtrooms,
correctional facilities, jail staff, law enforcement, prosecutors, and defense counsel. Many
times the system is simply reprocessing repeat offenders. Because the system is so
strained, more judges, courtrooms, lawyers and jail space are needed to handle the load
within the speedy trial timeframes required by our Constitution.
Many see these problems and shrug their shoulders. These individuals believe
some version of this system has always existed and nothing can be done to fix it.
Taxpayers must pay for the system. Lawyers and courts must struggle as usual.
But does it have to be this way? Pierce County Prosecutor Gerald A. Horne
believes it does not. Early in his administration, he recognized that the issue of Pierce
County’s high crime rate and its causes demanded special attention. Mr. Horne questioned
whether Pierce County had always had this problem. He identified a serious disparity
between Pierce County’s serious violent crime rate and its share of the state’s population.
Pierce County has the highest per capita violent crime rate in the state. A second fact also
became obvious; there exists a significant disparity between Pierce County’s violent crime
rate and that of the two most densely populated counties to the north.

2

Mr. Horne and his criminal deputies recognized an interesting phenomenon; a
large number of criminals that came through Pierce County courts had extensive prior
criminal histories from other counties. Could this be a factor in making Pierce County the
most violent county in the state?
Finding the answer to Mr. Horne’s question and developing solutions to stem the
tide of offender imports is one of the most important public policy issues facing Pierce
County. Pierce County has better uses for its scarce funds. Money now devoted to
handling these imported offenders and their excess crimes can be used to improve roads,
build new parks, educate our children, improve our health care, shelter our homeless and
otherwise improve life in our community. The investment the community has made in
revitalizing downtown Tacoma and Pierce County also is in jeopardy if we do not fix the
issue of too much crime and the negative implications of our designation as the state’s
leader in violent crime.
Mr. Horne called the disparity “Pierce County’s crime warp.” The numbers
presented during his speeches were compelling, but Mr. Horne transformed the raw
numbers into visuals that documented the problem. Chart #1 1 has been used to
demonstrate the disproportionately high violent crime rate Pierce County now has in
comparison to the per capita violent rates for King and Snohomish counties. This chart
reveals several telling facts: First, Pierce County was not always the most violent county
in the state. Chart #1 shows that in 1980, King County had the highest per capita rate of
violent crime. Second, the shift occurred between 1980 and 1990. Third, after 1982,
Pierce County has consistently had the highest per capita rate of violent crime in the state.

1

Underlying data taken from Washington State Uniform Crime Report, 2005 Annual Report, Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

3

Chart #1
Violent Crime Historical Comparison

9
8
7
6
Rate per
1,000
Population

5
King

4

Pierce

3

Snohomish

2
1
0
1980

1990

2000

2005

Years

How did Pierce County become number one? Prosecutor Horne asked members of
his staff to assist in identifying possible causes for the disparity and to examine the issue
of whether this situation was associated with the presence of the large number of
Washington State Department of Corrections (hereafter “DOC”) facilities and services
located in Pierce County. The investigative team, Prosecutor Gerry Horne, Chief
Administrative Deputy Dawn Farina, Chief Criminal Investigator Bill Garrison, Chief
Civil Deputy Douglas Vanscoy, Criminal Investigator Kenneth Swanson, and the author of
this report met regularly to discuss the how and why of getting to the bottom of this issue.
The team sought first to confirm or negate the premise that DOC imported a large
number of out-of-county offenders in Pierce County. Determining whether DOC had in
fact “dumped” imported offenders, and then tracking how that occurred, presented a
significant challenge. The problem of tracking the origin of an offender stems from the
way DOC lists this data. DOC looks to the offender’s county of most recent conviction to

4

determine issues relating to where an offender belongs. This simplistic characterization
almost always works against Pierce County. If one simply asked DOC for data regarding
whether or not there were a disproportionate number of out-of-county offenders here, the
data DOC provides would showed mixed results because Pierce County has so many
offenders who have been brought here by DOC. To determine whether or not dumping
occurred, data regarding the origins of the offenders was needed.
As described later in this report, this office eventually obtained information
concerning many of the imported offenders. Each of the offenders has a different story of
how they got to Pierce County and what they did when they arrived here. Some of these
stories are included in this report to bring into sharp focus the impact of DOC’s policies
for Pierce County and for its citizens.
Some of the stories illustrate the financial impact of the offenders, some the human
costs associated with violent crime. The real impact of offender dumping lies in the
consequences of an increased number of dangerous offenders on our streets and in
proximity of our children. Sex offenders are the most frightening. Yet, it seems almost
every day The News Tribune will publish the picture and history of some sex offender
DOC has released. Many of these sex offenders are imports. Case Study #1 tells the
story of how just one imported sex offender came to Tacoma.

Case Study #1
An Imported Predator on Our Streets
JEK is a Level 3 sex offender. Originally from Whatcom County, JEK has
Whatcom County felony convictions for Robbery in the Second Degree
(1989), Burglary in the First Degree (1990), and Rape in the First Degree
(1990). His entire “support system” of family and friends was from
Whatcom County,

5

The crime that led JEK to be classified as a Level III Sex Offender, those
most likely to re-offend, was a vengeful violent rape. This 1990 conviction
was committed against the 1989 robbery victim, who had testified against
him.
DOC placed JEK at Tacoma Pre Release, an early release facility then
located on the grounds of Western State Hospital. JEK was to go from
Tacoma Pre Release to Progress House, but it appears he may have been
sent back to prison instead. JEK obtained his first Pierce County
conviction after his stay at Tacoma Pre Release. This conviction was for
willful violation of conditions of community custody (1996). In 2001, JEK
failed to honor the registration requirement for sex offenders. As a result,
Pierce County convicted him of the felony of failure to register as a sex
offender.
In 2002, the chronological log 2 documents that JEK got drunk and
followed a police detective’s wife home from work and “tapped” at her
window. Apprehended, he justified his actions by saying that he had known
the woman for seven years. In reality, he knew her only from shopping at a
7/11 store. As a result of this incident, JEK spent an additional 40 days in
jail.
Level III sex offenders may take a while to re-offend, but frequently do so
in a violent manner. JEK was no exception. On February 16, 2006 at
about 8 p.m., JEK attacked a young woman at the Puyallup Transit Center
as she opened her car door to return home from work in Seattle. The
victim surrendered her keys on demand and then tried to escape from him.
That was not JEK’s plan. Instead of simply taking her car, JEK grabbed at
her, seizing her hair. JEK violently tore chunks of hair from the young
woman’s head, while she vigorously struggled to get away. Occupants of a
passing car heard the victim’s screams and saved her from further injury.
JEK was subsequently apprehended, charged and convicted by a jury of
robbery in the first degree and assault in the third degree.
JEK’s attack on this vulnerable young woman occurred just one week
before her wedding. This young bride now lives in terror as a result of
these events.
Violent criminal conduct can eventually catch up with the offender. In this case,
the attack was JEK’s “third strike.” Under Washington’s sentencing structure, JEK’s
conviction of a third violent offense resulted in a mandatory sentence of life in prison

6

without parole. The jury’s conviction is under appeal. Pierce County citizens bear the
costs of defense attorneys, mitigation packages by the defense, jail costs, prosecution and
court costs, and some needed victim assistance costs. JEK’s victim faces the burden of
living with the scars of this attack.
Just one offender. Only one story. How many out-of-county offenders have
individual stories that—cumulatively—created Pierce County’s disproportionate share of
violent crime and violent offenders? The diverse roads these offenders take makes
determination of the exact number of imported offenders impossible. Using a combination
of data collected through multiple sources and individual case studies, this report
documents the many origins of the problem. It concludes that DOC activities play a
central role in making Pierce County the most violent county in the state.
The journey, from Gerry Horne’s first coining the phrase “crime warp” to describe
Pierce County’s disproportionate share of crime and criminals, to this report has been long
and often frustrating. DOC refused this office direct access to its computerized Offender
Based Tracking System (OBTS) even though Pierce County provides DOC access to its
Legal Information Network Exchange (LINX) database. Instead, DOC forced this office
to go through the cumbersome and expensive public disclosure process although
statutorily, such requests are not required between law enforcement agencies. Then, DOC
procrastinated and set road blocks to production. In response to requests for files, DOC
told this office that it could expect one set of documents in the year 2013 and another in
about 160 years. 3

2

These documents were obtained through an individual public disclosure request. Although the request
came from law enforcement, DOC chose to block out large portions of the log. The entire document is
appended as Appendix #1.
3
See Appendix #2, Letter in Response to Public Disclosure Request

7

Limited access to the paper files came only after DOC agreed it would provide the
one to two page criminal history summary for each offender. Ultimately production of
these few documents took almost two years. While publicly defending the delay and
expense it forced on this office on one hand, on the other, DOC rapidly hired Donald
Lachman and his consulting firm to prepare DOC’s “study.” Lachman’s team rapidly got
data to “independently” look at the issues Gerry Horne was bringing to the public’s
attention. Lachman was provided with data and completed the report eleven months
before DOC sent the last documents pursuant to its agreement to provide this office with
requested information.
DOC’s reliance upon technicalities in the public disclosure laws forced this office
to limit the amount and type of information requested. These limitations restricted the
office’s ability to run comparison data. Nonetheless, the data DOC eventually produced
was enough to establish the essential initial premise; that DOC brought many out-ofcounty offenders to Pierce County. During the period 1997 to 2002, DOC directed out-ofcounty offenders to Pierce County at the rate of 2 to 1. 4 In other words, DOC placed two
out-of-county offenders in Pierce County early release facilities 5 for every Pierce County
offender residing there. This data allowed just a glimpse at the significant problem of
DOC dumping in Pierce County. To take the project further, this office needed more data
regarding the number of offenders released here, the identity of offenders released to other
facilities and the dates the offenders were admitted to early release facilities. Thankfully,

4

See discussion of data studied in §III, Chart #11.
The term “early release” includes all DOC programs that allow an offender to serve a portion of his or her
sentence outside prison. Work release is a particular type of early release. Pierce County’s current and
former early release facilities include Tacoma Pre Release, Progress House Work Release, RAP House
Work Release and Lincoln Park Work Release.

5

8

other community leaders also took up the cause, obtained data from DOC, reached their
own similar conclusions, and generously shared their information. The News Tribune and
The City Club of Tacoma provided information, additional data, and documents that form
important foundations of this report.
This report is the product of these multiple inquiries. The author is solely
responsible for any errors. That the problem is being recognized and addressed by the
community is a tribute to the determination and inspiration of Prosecutor Gerald A. Horne
and the concern of Pierce County leaders for making our community safe.

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.

General Summary

The remaining portions of this report consist of a combination of research, data,
case studies of individual offenders, and recommendations. Most of the offenders
discussed are imports – those out-of-county offenders brought here by DOC who have cost
the taxpayers of Pierce County money and jeopardized the safety of our communities.
Some case studies were chosen not to illustrate the problem of imports, but to reveal early
release program failures. The case studies regarding recidivism tell the story of those
whose repeated contact with early release facilities had no effect upon their conduct or left
them to commit crimes even more violent than that for which they originally served time.
The combination of data and cases studies illuminates the complex causes of Pierce
County’s excessive crime rate.
Section I of the report contains background information and definitions to assist
the reader in understanding general concepts and the procedures used to gather
information and analyze specific issues.
Section II continues the background analysis by looking at the issue of how DOC
has historically approached siting decisions. This section discusses Finding #1, that DOC
maintains a closed door approach to these decisions and contrasts that approach to the
agency’s statutory obligations.
Section III discusses those findings dealing with what has happened after work
release became established in Pierce County. This section specifically discusses Findings
2-6, which document Pierce County’s disproportionate crime rate as well as the DOC

10

policies that have caused Pierce County to have too many sex offenders, and too many
imported offenders who go on to commit new crimes in our community.
Section IV, covering Findings 7-11, should be of particular interest to those
making policy decisions regarding DOC’s intent to expand work release. This section
summarizes, in plain English, various studies regarding the effectiveness of work and
early release facilities. This section also compares that research to what has occurred at
Pierce County’s early release facilities. The analysis contained in this section is based on
reports done by other authors, DOC, and the original data compiled by this author.
Section V discusses Findings 12 & 13. It highlights issues regarding halfway
houses 6 and the question of whether residence in such facilities improves offender
outcomes. This section also discusses what occurs when an offender commits infractions
and/or new crimes. It suggests that the inadequate penalties for those offenders who return
to a life of crime hamper the criminal justice system’s ability to coerce law abiding
behavior.
Section VI contains the analysis of Findings 14 & 15. It is devoted a discussion
of the impact DOC policies have on our crime rate and the huge financial and human costs
of these programs. It concludes that DOC’s policies have had a major impact on Pierce
County’s criminal justice system
The final section, Section VII, offers the author’s recommendations regarding
mitigation and remedial action.

6

The halfway houses referred to in this report consist of private residential facilities that allow a number of
offenders to live in a communal style. The programs specific to each facility vary.

11

B.

Materials Studied

The data that forms the basis of this report came from a variety of sources
identified below:
(1)

Data produced by DOC pursuant to this office’s Public Disclosure Requests
(PDR);

(2)

Individual offender records obtained from the Felony Offender Reporting
System (hereafter FORS) as maintained on the website of the Office of the
Administrator of the Courts (hereafter AOC);

(3)

Data DOC provided to The News Tribune as part of the paper’s related
study; 7

(4)

Answers and materials DOC provided in response to questions propounded
by the City Club of Tacoma;

(5)

Existing research by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(hereafter WSIPP);

(6)

Court files and booking information maintained on Pierce County’s Legal
Information Network Exchange (hereafter LINX);

(7)

Teletype releases provided to Pierce County law enforcement as maintained
by the Law Enforcement Support Agency (hereafter LESA);

(8)

Information published at DOC’s website 8 regarding existing facilities and
policies;

(9)

Information DOC provided to the Tacoma High Risk/High Needs Task
Force and the resulting study; and

7

This office extends sincere thanks to the Editorial Staff of The News Tribune, and the reporters identified
at the end of this report, for their assistance in providing data and their commitment to discovering the
multiple causes of this complex problem which impacts the entire community. The reader is referred to
articles published by The News Tribune on October 22 and 23, 2006 regarding the newspaper’s study of
DOC “dumping” in Pierce County and to the study being published by the City Club of Tacoma.

7

This is not a “statistical study.” The author of this document is a lawyer, not a statistician. Thus, results
are reported in simple numbers or as percentages. Tests for statistical significance have not been applied to
the data. However many of the disparities documented herein, especially those relating to the excess
recidivism and disproportionate number of offenders dumped in Pierce County, would clearly meet such
statistical standards if they were to be applied.
8
See http://www.doc.wa.gov/

12

(10)

Existing research on recidivism and offender reentry programs from
various sources including the U.S. Department of Justice.

C.

Findings

Data developed from the above sources support the following 15 significant
findings:
Finding #1: In order to minimize public opposition to siting of facilities, DOC
has historically exhibited a closed door policy to the required public process of
locating or relocating early release facilities.
Finding #2: Pierce County has an inordinately high crime rate given its share
of the state’s population.
Finding #3: DOC has sent offenders to Pierce County in a number grossly
disproportionate to the number of offenders Pierce County contributes to
DOC facilities.
Finding #4: More than two-thirds of the offenders DOC placed in Pierce
County facilities were originally from some other county.
Finding #5: In 1997, neither King nor Snohomish County had facilities that
housed significant numbers of Pierce County offenders.
Finding #6: Pierce County has a disproportionate share of sex offenders
caused, in part, by DOC placement of sex offenders from other counties in
Pierce County early release facilities and transitional housing located here.
Finding #7: No current evidence supports the conclusion that work release
will reduce crime or the costs of incarceration.
Finding #8: Pierce County’s largest early release programs produced more
offenders who committed new felonies since their release than that which
would be associated with direct release from prison.
Finding #9: Based on a 1997 sample, Bishop Lewis Work Release and
Reynolds Work Releases in King County produced lower recidivism rates
than did Progress House Work Release and Tacoma Pre Release located here
in Pierce County.
Finding #10: Data from 2005 Indicates that All Three Remaining Pierce
County Work Release Facilities Have Below Standard Performance.

13

Finding #11: Because DOC is unwilling to restrict participation in RAP
House and Lincoln Park Work Releases to Pierce County offenders, these two
programs will continue to funnel dangerous out-of-county offenders into
Pierce County.
Finding #12: Sending offenders to halfway houses located in Pierce County
did not reduce the rate at which offenders committed new felonies.
Finding #13: Effective mechanisms are needed to deal with offenders who
violate terms and conditions of release or commit new crimes while on
community supervision/custody.
Finding #14: DOC’s placement of a large number of imported offenders in
Pierce County places a heavy burden on its taxpayers by increasing the cost of
the criminal justice system that must exist to service these offenders.
Finding #15: DOC’s placement of imported offenders in Pierce County
jeopardizes the safety of Pierce County’s citizens and reduces the ability of the
County to reach is full potential for economic growth while allowing counties
to the north to grow without this impediment.

I.

METHODOLOGY & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.

Why Study Early Release Facilities?

Data discussed throughout this report documents that DOC early release programs
sited in Pierce County have traditionally received a large percentage of offenders from
other counties. 9 This would be a less serious problem if residents of work release were
always directed to return to their home counties following their release from Pierce
County facilities. However, this approach is not compatible with the concept of work
release. Work release is designed to integrate the offender into the community wherein the
facility is located. The existence of the policy, and the fact that integration into the
community where the work release is located takes place, is a point established by DOC’s

9

See §III, infra.

14

own consultant. 10 That report substantiated the premise that if offenders were being
imported here through work release, they would remain here because offenders in work
release tend to be finally released by DOC to the county where the program is sited.
According to the Lachman Report:
Inmates are released to the county in which they have ties and ongoing
support, which includes family and employment. In the absence of such
supports, they are released to the county in which they were convicted.
Inmates are transported directly or given a bus ticket to the county of
release. 11 (Emphasis added.)
Offenders in work release are required to find some form of employment,
however. Consequently, when DOC considers employment when it decides which county
to release the offender to, the offender’s placement in work release and employment in
that county skews the release decision. Counties with work release facilities will have
more offenders employed in the county and therefore will get more offenders released
finally to that county. Table 39 of the Lachman Report vividly underscores this effect. 12
Lachman studied two periods, 1993-95 and 2000-2002. In both periods studied the
majority of the releases were skewed to the county where the work release was located. In
the 1993-95 group, 46% (90 of 196) of those first convicted in another county were finally
released by DOC to Pierce County. Similarly, in the 2000-2002 group, 67% (117 of 174)
of those first convicted in another county were finally released by the agency to this
county.
The importance of county of release becomes evident when the number of out-ofcounty offenders is factored into the equation. Data developed as a result of public

10

Lachman & Laing Consulting and Rinaldi & Associates, DOC Releases in Pierce County: Comparison
of County of Conviction and County of Release, December 2003 at p. 15. (Hereafter “Lachman Report.”).
11
Lachman Report at p. 31.
12
See Appendix #3 for this table.

15

disclosure requests to DOC showed that only 33% of the offenders placed in work release
in Pierce County during a six-year period (1997-2002) had Pierce County as the county of
first felony conviction. 13 Table 34 in the Lachman Report documents, however, that in
2002, 83% of the offenders finally released from work release programs sited in Pierce
County were released to Pierce County. 14 The end result? Pierce County has work
releases with a high proportion of out-of-county offenders. DOC has a policy that work
release is used for “integration into the community.” These two facts combine to allow
DOC to release a large number of out-of-county offenders to Pierce County.
Unfortunately, many of these offenders have made Pierce County their permanent home.
Therefore, those who do commit new crimes commit them in Pierce County.
B.

Research

In order to study the issues regarding the origin of offenders, DOC policies and
their impact on Pierce County’s crime rate, the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office obtained
the following original information from the Department of Corrections (DOC) pursuant to
public disclosure requests. 15
1.

Master list of Progress House residents from 1993 to 2003 in Excel Format;

2.

List of inmates residing in Pierce County work release facilities during the
period January 15, 1997 to November 2002; and

3.

DOC’s Current Criminal History Summary for each offender listed as
having resided in Pierce County work releases from January 1997 to
November 2002.

13

Based on analysis of criminal histories of offenders DOC produced in response to public disclosure
requests from this office.
14
Lachman Report at p. 45; Table 34.
15
Although the Pierce County Prosecutor’s office is a law enforcement agency, DOC chose not to
voluntarily release the requested information without formal public disclosure requests and payment of the
standard fees associated with public disclosure. See letter at Appendix #2.

16

DOC also provided the report prepared for DOC by Donald Lachman and Associates and
other background materials.
From The News Tribune, this office obtained:
1.

A list of inmates in Pierce County Work Release facilities during 20052006 as provided to The News Tribune by DOC;

2.

A master list of inmates released to work and pre release facilities from
1993 to October 2005 provided by DOC to The News Tribune; and

3.

Data contained in published pieces concerning the number of sex offenders
in Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties on August 1, 2006.

In addition, this office examined reports released to the Law Enforcement Support
Agency (hereafter LESA) during the summer of 2005. These reports contain information
regarding the locations to which DOC has released offenders in Pierce County.
The above materials were supplemented by examining Pierce County Superior
Court files and jail records that document when these offenders encountered the Pierce
County criminal justice system. Additional conviction and location data was taken from
the Felony Offender Reporting System (hereafter FORS), a general electronic data base
available to all law enforcement. Because the FORS records do not always include data
involving felonies that do not result in the offender being sent to prison, the felony
recidivism data throughout this study may be significantly underreported and therefore
would not document the full impact of these programs on Pierce County. 16
C.

Definitions
1.

Fair Share

16

The argument could be made that the lack of access to criminal records from other counties accounts for
the disparities in the results from King County work releases. Based on observations regarding the
additional felonies located in Pierce County records, the number of additional felonies located in local
records is too small to account for the large disparity in recidivism rates.

17

Fair share simply refers to the equitable notion that no county should receive more
offenders back from the State Department of Correction facilities than they contributed to
those facilities. This report develops the thesis that Pierce County’s “fair share” has been
improperly inflated by the excess number of imported offenders DOC sent over the
decades to early release facilities located in Pierce County. To correct the effects of prior
dumping, some criteria other than the county of current conviction must be used in the
decision of offender placement. 17
Moreover, equitable shares are not just about the raw number of offenders placed
in a county. The type of offender directed to that county is a second factor that must be
considered. Data developed during the course of this study indicates that DOC uses Pierce
County as a convenient dumping ground for some of the state’s worse offenders.
Equitable definitions of “fair share” must therefore also take into account the type of
offender DOC sends to each county.
2.

Out-of-County Offender

The definition of a “Pierce County offender” substantially influences the results of
any study concerning out-of-county offenders. DOC defines a Pierce County offender as
any individual whose last conviction was from Pierce County. DOC’s broad definition
thus includes many individuals who were brought to Pierce County by DOC programs and
who then committed a crime in Pierce County. The difficulty associated with tracking the
county of conviction for sex offenders illustrates the problem. As established later in this
report, DOC places out-of-county sex offenders in Pierce County and finances their

17

DOC will assert that they do not “place” offenders, but rather the offender makes the choice of county of
release. DOC approves all release plans, however. As established later, DOC also facilitates placement in
Pierce County. Consequently, DOC’s actions do have a major impact on the placement of an offender.

18

transitional housing. 18 That offender is then required to register in Pierce County under
the state’s sex offender registration statutes. If the offender fails to register and that fact is
discovered, he or she becomes subject to prosecution for the crime of failure to register as
a sex offender. Pierce County’s prosecution of that crime then results in a criminal
conviction in Pierce County. DOC then labels Pierce County as the county of conviction,
even though the underlying sexual crime took place in another county. The cases of two
imported Level III sex offenders, RV and LS, illustrate this point.

Case Study #2
An Imported Sex Offender
RV, a Level III Sex Offender, began his criminal career in Whatcom
County. Whatcom County convicted him of sexual assaults on a 4-yearold boy and an 8-year-old girl. On July 31, 1996, DOC placed RV at a
Pierce County work release facility. He resided there until January 10,
1997. After his release from work release, RV repeatedly failed to comply
with his obligation to register as a sex offender. As he was released to
Pierce County, this omission resulted in five Pierce County convictions for
failure to register as a sex offender over the course of the next seven
years. In addition, he engaged in other criminal conduct in Pierce County
that generated two other felony convictions. As a result of DOC’s release
of RV to Pierce County, Pierce County has incurred the costs of seven
prosecutions (and seven defenses) and the cost of 619 days in Pierce
County jail. The actual value of the time served in jail is $39,616.00. 19
RV committed no sex crimes in Pierce County. Nonetheless, the
Washington State Patrol website of sex offenders lists Pierce County as
the county of conviction for RV. 20

18

As will be discussed later in this report, out-of-county sex offenders are over represented in the subgroup
of out-of-county offenders. Detail as to how DOC places sex offenders in Pierce County is contained in §III,
infra.
19
This figure is based on the rate Pierce County charged other agencies for each day stay in the Pierce
County jail. The 2004 of $64.00 has been increased. This author chose to use the consistent figure of $64.00
for all references to jail costs. The references to costs are illustrative only, not an attempt to identify the
precise cost of each imported offender.
20
See http://ml.waspc.org/

19

Another sex offender, LS, illustrates the combined impact of facilities under the
control of the Department of Health and Social Services (DSHS) and DOC work release
facilities in bringing offenders to Pierce County.

Case Study #3
The Combined Impact of DSHS & DOC Facilities
LS is a King County offender who committed multiple rapes in that county.
LS has admitted to at least five rapes, including rapes where he stalked
the women and then broke into their homes while they slept to commit the
rapes. As a result of this criminal conduct, in 1977 King County convicted
LS of three counts of rape in the first degree.
LS entered the sexual psychopathy program at Western State Hospital on
October 27, 1977. He terminated his treatment at that facility in early
1981 and returned to prison. DOC released LS to Pierce County on parole
in April 1985 and he resided in Spanaway. In October 1986, LS was
found prowling the home of a 26-year-old female. He had opened her
bedroom window before he was apprehended. He pled guilty to criminal
trespass and the Indeterminate Sentencing Board revoked his parole.
After spending 18 months in prison, DOC released LS to Progress House
and then to the community.
LS has been convicted of a total of 30 crimes in Pierce County since being
brought here by the State. LS’s six felonies include theft in the second
degree, attempting to elude police officers, and failure to register as a sex
offender. His record also includes 24 misdemeanor convictions such as
multiple shopliftings, and driving with a revoked or suspended license.
LS has spent a total of 1038 days in the Pierce County jail at a cost to
Pierce County taxpayers of $66,432.00. Like RV, LS is listed as a Pierce
County offender on the Washington State Patrol Sex Offender website
even though, like RV, he has not been convicted of a sex crime in this
county.
These two examples illustrate that DOC’s reliance on “county of most recent
conviction” conceals the manner in which an offender comes to Pierce County. This
designation precludes meaningful discussion of whether or not the offender is, or is not, a
Pierce County offender. Because DOC’s policies regarding Pierce County and Pierce

20

County programs have been in place for decades, a better definition of a Pierce County
offender is needed to identify which offenders truly belong to Pierce County.
For purposes of this study, this office has identified the county of first adult felony
conviction for each offender. This information was obtained directly from the criminal
history summaries provided pursuant to public disclosure, from records in the FORS
system, and from Pierce County’s own court records.
3.

Recidivism

Recidivism is defined as “a tendency to relapse into previous conduct, especially
criminal behavior.” 21 This common definition simply means to go back to a life of crime.
Formal discussion of the term by corrections agencies or researchers often involves
variations or restrictions on the concept. It is important in undertaking any study that
compares recidivism rates to ensure that the same type of data is being compared. As
noted in one recent report on sex offender recidivism, “the way in which recidivism is
measured can have a marked difference in study results and applicability to the day-to-day
management of this population.” 22 This same report notes recidivism may be defined by
reference to a new arrest, new conviction or new commitment to custody, and that each of
these criteria is a valid measure of recidivism. 23
DOC sometimes reports recidivism in such a manner as to limit the total number of
repeat offenders to those individuals who have gone back to a state prison within a fiveyear period. 24 This is an extremely narrow standard of recidivism. Offenders with low

21

Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary and Thesaurus, p. 415 (2005 Edition)
Recidivism of Sex Offenders, May 2001 report from the Center for Sex Offender Management , p. 1.
23
Id at p. 2.
24
See Recidivism: Historical Review of Returns to Prison, Washington State Department of Corrections
Recidivism Briefing Paper No. 20 (April 2002).
22

21

offender scores and/or those who commit any one of the many felonies whose standard
range is less than 12 months are not be captured in this analysis. 25
The next broader measurement includes all individuals who commit a new felony
after their incarceration. This benchmark captures individuals who commit crimes that are
subject to a maximum sentence of at least a year, whether or not their actual sentence
results in them returning to prison.
A still more inclusive definition of recidivism includes all convictions, both
misdemeanors and felonies. 26 This benchmark, however, still limits the discussion to
those individuals whose criminal conduct has resulted in a completed conviction. It does
not count offenders who are either arrested or returned to prison because of serious rule
violations while in a particular program.
The broadest, commonly used, recidivism measurement is one that includes all
post-release convictions and arrests. This benchmark is helpful because it also captures
those individuals who have returned to a life of crime but whose guilt, for a variety of
reasons, cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. This definition comes closest
to estimating the actual number of repeat offenders and allowing policy makers to measure
their impact on a community. Statistically, only a fraction of the total number of crimes
committed actually results in a criminal conviction. Nationally, only 48% of violent
crimes and 36% of property crimes are reported to law enforcement. 27 In Washington
State, on average, 100 reported crimes produce 29 arrests. These 29 arrests translate into
25

Although every felon is theoretically eligible for a sentence in excess of a year to be served at a DOC
facility, many felonies actually carry a sentence less than a year. Where a felon is sentenced to less than a
year confinement, that sentence is served in the county jail, not a state institution. Only those individuals
actually sent to prison are returned through the work release system.
26
The Washington Institute of Public Policy sometimes uses combined conviction data and sometimes uses
just felony conviction data. See Aos & Barnoski, Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: A First Look
at Outcomes, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia WA (July 2005)

22

13 charges that ultimately produce 6 felony convictions. 28 Of these 6, only one-third will
receive a sentence that sends them to prison. The remaining offenders will serve their
sentence in county facilities at county expense.
To determine the total cost of imported offenders on Pierce County, recidivism
would have to include all arrests, criminal convictions and rule infractions of each
offender. This task is beyond the resources of this office. Therefore, for purposes of this
report, the author will define the measure of recidivism more narrowly. Generally, most
reported data will refer to recidivism as the number of new felony convictions an offender
has incurred since the date of admission to the early release facility. Those referring to
these numbers should remember that the number of felony convictions significantly
understates criminal conduct for the reasons discussed above. Felony conviction data is
useful, however, to illustrate the more significant costs an imported offender imposes on
Pierce County’s criminal justice system and to provide a clear standard that can be
fruitfully compared to other available data.
D.

Facilities in Pierce County

There have been as many as six facilities in Pierce County where offenders reside
and are under the direct management of DOC. 29 Two facilities are traditional prisons;
McNeil Island Corrections Center and the Washington Corrections Center for Women.
These facilities are not considered to be a major contributing factor to Pierce County’s
high crime rate as the residents of these institutions are on 24-hour lock-down and do not

27
28
29

Washington State Department of Corrections Strategic Plan, 2003-2009, p. 9.
Id.
Final Report of the City of Tacoma Intergovernmental High-Risk/High-Needs Task Force, April 2006.

23

interact with the community. At the end of serving their sentence, the residents may be
released directly back to the convicting county. 30
Of concern in this report are the non-prison, early release residential programs, and
the significant DOC supervision structure in place in Pierce County. DOC maintains three
work release facilities in Pierce County: Progress House Work Release, RAP House Work
Release, and Lincoln Park Work Release. A fourth program, Tacoma Pre Release (TPR),
existed here until April 2005. This program was located on the grounds of Western State
Hospital. Tacoma Pre Release, unlike the work release facilities, did not allow inmates to
leave without escorts. From July 2000 to April 2005, this program exclusively housed
women. Prior to that date, TPR housed mostly male inmates and played an important role
in contributing to Pierce County’s high crime rates by introducing thousands of convicts
into Pierce County.
Work release programs operate pursuant to DOC’s community access policy, DOC
Policy Number 300.550. 31 This policy allows an offender to have unsupervised
community access following orientation. 32 DOC places all offenders on a stepped access
plan. All offenders who complete orientation are placed at step one upon completion of
orientation. At step one, the participant has access to the community through
unsupervised, point-to-point passes “as needed to conduct essential business.” The term
point to point pass simply refers to a system where the offender signs out, agrees to go to a
specific place and is given a specific amount of time to reach his or her destination. As

30

McNeil Island is also the location of the civil commitment center for sexual offenders run by the
Department of Social and Health Services. Only those offenders who have been released to the less
restrictive alternative facility have access to the community during their residence at this facility.
31
See Appendix #4.
32
See §V, infra for discussion of events that can occur during this unsupervised time and DOC’s response
to such issues.

24

indicated later in this report, offenders have deviated from the approved destination
causing catastrophic results in at least one case.
To move to step two, an offender must be employed 24 hours per week, have a
Legal Financial Obligations (LFO) schedule established, be in compliance with his
“Offender Accountability Plan”, and be major-infraction free for the past 30 days. A
participant at step two has unsupervised point-to-point passes in the community, plus
unsupervised social outings in the community for up to 20 hours per week and “other
privileges established by the Facility Supervisor.” 33 At step three, the offender has
increased unsupervised social outing time (30 hours) and a different curfew.
At each step, an offender has substantial, unsupervised contact with the
community. Once the initial orientation phase is completed, the offender is simply given a
pass directing him or her where to go. Compliance depends entirely on voluntary
adherence to the rules and certain timing restraints associated with the point-to-point pass.
At steps two and three, the offenders have free social time in the community without
supervision. An offender who commits an infraction will be reduced a step.
This substantial freedom is given to offenders who meet minimum criteria to be
placed in work release in the first place. A review of DOC Directive 300.500 reveals that
there are few restrictions regarding what type of offender may be placed in the program.
The policy does state that no one convicted of first degree murder can be placed in the
program except for those “approved as part of their Mutual Agreement Program.” The
policy prohibits individuals who have been convicted of first degree rape, but only during
their first three years of confinement. 34 Other restrictions include the existence of new

33
34

Appendix #4 at p. 2
DOC Policy 300.500 p. 2.

25

felony detainers, immigration holds, end of sentence civil commitment recommendations
and “recent, local, high media profiles. . . .” 35
DOC may place violent offenders, who commit robbery, assaults, kidnapping, rape
in the second degree, murder in the second degree, child rape, or any other major violent
crime into work release. Review of the criminal records of inmates residing in Pierce
County early release facilities reveals DOC placed a large number of individuals with
violent crimes into these facilities. Their crimes included: first and second degree murder,
attempted murder, robbery, assault and kidnapping. Because RAP House and Lincoln
Park accept primarily those who are developmentally delayed or mentally ill, these violent
offenders may also have the overlay of serious mental illness, substance abuse or limited
skills and ability to learn. As discussed later in this report, a disproportionate number of
the inmates of these two programs have been sex offenders from other counties
Finally, there is no prohibition on admission of dangerously ill mental offenders in
the DOC policies. Offenders with overlays of mental illness are more likely to be located
in Pierce County because of the exclusivity of treatment of such offenders at Lincoln Park
and RAP House work releases.
E.

DOC Data & the Need for Independent Information

Pierce County requested and ultimately received data regarding the names of all
offenders admitted to Pierce County early release facilities for the period January 15, 1997
to October 2002 and documentation regarding each offender’s criminal history. Access to
the criminal history summaries provided the opportunity to cross check DOC data with
local court records, electronic databases and other available information.

35

Id.

26

The ability to cross-check information became crucial when review of offender
data DOC supplied to this office revealed that DOC’s documents were sometimes
inaccurate and/or incomplete. Most troubling were DOC’s production of criminal history
summaries that did not have the most current, and sometimes, most violent, crime listed.
For example, this office requested the most current criminal history summary for all
offenders sent to Pierce County work release from 1997 to 2002. Review of the 1997
Progress House data revealed more than a dozen instances where the offender had
convictions that should have been listed on the most current criminal history summary, but
were not. Some of these instances involved offenders with violent crimes, including one
homicide, committed after the work release.

II.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DOC’S APPROACH TO
SITING WORK RELEASE IN PIERCE COUNTY
Before discussing the problems caused by DOC facilities in Pierce County, it is

appropriate to establish some of DOC’s statutory obligations to communities. As
established in the documents discussed below, DOC has a closed door policy incompatible
with its statutory obligations. The challenge for communities such as Pierce County, is to
force DOC’s decision making into the open.

Finding #1: In order to minimize public opposition to siting of facilities, DOC
has historically exhibited a closed door policy to the required public process of
locating or relocating early release facilities.
DOC is required to operate under specific legislative mandates regarding facilities
that house offenders. Pursuant to the terms of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
72.65.220, DOC “may establish or relocate for the operation of a work release or other
community-based facility only after public notifications and local public meetings have
27

been completed consistent with this section.” RCW 72.65.220(1). This procedure
requires “early and continuous public participation in establishing or relocating work
release or other community-based facilities.” RCW 72.65.220(2).
The statute is clear that the process is to be public, early and comprehensive. RCW
72.65.220(2) provides:
This process shall include public meetings in the local communities
affected, opportunities for written and oral comments, and wide
dissemination of proposals and alternatives, including at least the
following:
(a) When the department or a private or public entity under
contract with the department has selected three or fewer sites for final
consideration of a department-owned, operated, or contracted work
release or other community-based facility, the department or
contracting organization shall make public notification and conduct
public hearings in the local communities of the final three or fewer
proposed sites. An additional public hearing after public notification shall
also be conducted in the local community selected as the final proposed
site.
(b) Notifications required under this section shall be provided to
the following:
(i) All newspapers of general circulation in the local area
and all local radio stations, television stations, and cable networks;
(ii) Appropriate school districts, private schools,
kindergartens, city and county libraries, and all other local government
offices within a one-half mile radius of the proposed site or sites;
(iii) The local chamber of commerce, local economic
development agencies, and any other local organizations that request
such notification from the department; and
(iv) In writing to all residents and/or property owners
within a one-half mile radius of the proposed site or sites.
(Emphasis added.) This law explicitly contemplates “early and continuous public
participation.” During the course of this investigation, it became clear that in Pierce

28

County, at least, “early”, “public” and “continuous” were descriptors that could not be
applied to the process DOC employs.
During the mid 90’s, DOC contemplated moving Tacoma Pre Release to a
different location on the tide flats. This office requested access to the siting file
DOC maintained for that project. Interesting correspondence and notes appear in
that set of materials.
Most troubling is a handwritten note from an unidentified author that
contains notes regarding the size of the facility, costs and general information.
Written in quotes across the top of the document is the following notation: 36

“decide—announce—defend”
Without more, there would be insufficient evidence to establish that this
notation referred to the notification process. Additional materials from that same
file, however, clarify the intent of the unknown author’s slogan. The first is an
email dated March 19, 1999 sent at 10:26 am. The email describes a meeting
between state officials and a potential seller of property. Discussing the property
owners’ concerns regarding tenant flight if the news of the purchase should get
out, the state official offers a potential solution. “We offered up two mitigating
strategies. 1. Sell us the option now and the advertisements for the public
process would not occur until the legislature passed the budget that gave us
the formal purchasing authority for the project to purchase the building.”
(Emphasis added.)

36
37

The complete note is set out in Appendix #5.
See Appendix #6.

29

37

An email later that day confirms the state’s intent to delay public
announcement of its plans. That email notes “The more the different steps of
commitment of DOC that can pass before any public announcement is made,
the more Riley, et. al will be comfortable.” 38 (Emphasis added.) These plans to
accomplish the acquisition without notification are simply incompatible with the
State’s statutory duty to inform the public “early and continuously” of its plans
regarding siting.
The objection could be made that these documents are too remote from what
occurs today. After all, a different administrator and perhaps lead staff were in control at
the time. A more recent example demonstrates that DOC is still hostile to its statutory
duty to inform early and continuously of its siting plans. This example involves the
controversial relocation of Progress House Work Release. That facility is currently on a
month to month tenancy at a county owned location in proximity to the county’s juvenile
detention facility. The Pierce County Superior Court, the agency that administers the
juvenile facility, conveyed its desire to use the county owned property for county purposes
in December 2003. 39 The lease on that property expired on June 30, 2005. In preparation
for the anticipated loss of its space, DOC hatched a plan to move Progress House Work
Release to a the site being vacated by Tacoma Pre Release at Western State Hospital.
Without public notification, DOC proceeded so far with those plans that the CEO of
Western State Hospital sent a general announcement to his staff “welcoming” the new
program. The complete text of that email is set out below:
"Phillips,

Andrew(WSH)" <PHILLAJ@dshs.wa.gov> 01/20/05
06:15PM >>>

38
39

See Appendix #7
See copy of Judges Letter at Appendix #8.

30

January 20, 2005
TO:

All WSH Staff

FROM:

Andrew J. Phillips, CEO
Western State Hospital

SUBJECT:

Tacoma Pre Release Center

The Tacoma Pre Release Center (TPR) is closing on April 15, 2005.
The program will be relocated to a DOC facility on the Olympic
Peninsula in Mason County. WSH will no longer have women from
the TPR working in our dietary service. TPR has served
incarcerated women well and provided much needed services to
the hospital. We wish them well in their new location.
At the end of June, a new DOC program will be moving into the
space vacated by TPR. Progress House Work Release now
located on 6th Avenue in Tacoma will be moving to the
WSH campus. Currently, they provide pre-release services for 69
Males and six (6) Females. If they receive additional funding,
they will expand from 75 to 130. These people have a shorter
time before being released than the women at TPR. The residents
of Progress House have check-in times and their travels to the
community are monitored. Yet, DOC staff do not travel with them.
All of the people are working in the community or making
arrangements with family and employers for their release. None of
these individuals will be working at WSH.
WSH will begin working with Progress House to develop a contract
that outlines our mutual expectations. Please welcome
Progress House and wish our neighbors TPR the best in their
new location.
cc:

Karl Brimner Director, MHD
Jack Morris Assistant Director, MHD
WSH Board Members

(Emphasis Added.) The above email illustrates that the community is being kept in the
dark regarding plans for DOC facilities located in Pierce County. Even if DOC informed
some officials of their plans, the statute requires “early and continuous public

31

participation.” 40 Instead of announcing to the public that it had narrowed its choices for
relocation to Western State Hospital, the State simply went about their plans. Fortunately,
the citizens of Lakewood and other leaders in the community stepped forward and
protested. They noted, quite correctly, that locating a work release facility on the grounds
of a mental hospital with its vulnerable patients was, to say the least, an incredibly poor
idea. This location is also within close proximity to a school and directly across the street
from a major park where team soccer, cross-country and other children’s sports occur.
DOC has yet to announce its plans to name a public siting committee, or to provide
the statutory notice and meetings concerning its plans for Progress House. 41
Conclusion Finding #1
DOC continues to ignore statutory requirements for public notification and
comment regarding siting of work release facilities in Pierce County. Unless the
community becomes active in this process, critical decisions regarding the future of
these programs will be made behind closed doors.

III.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2-6 REGARDING PIERCE
COUNTY’S VIOLENT CRIME PROBLEM

This section of the report discusses Pierce County’s violent crime problem and the
evidence that establishes that we have too many offenders when compared to our share of
the population. Finding #2 presents the general evidence regarding the disparity between
Pierce County’s population and its crime rate. Findings #3 and #4 begin the process of
presenting evidence that shows there is a link between the crime rate and DOC activities

40

RCW 72.65.220
Note: RCW 72.65.220 applies equally to the state and to independent contractors acting on their behalf.
DOC has an obligation under this statute to ensure that any program complies with these statutory
requirements. RCW 72.65.220 (3).
41

32

by establishing that DOC has used early release facilities located here to import out-ofcounty offenders. Finding #5 compares what occurred in Pierce County regarding these
facilities to what happened in King and Snohomish County. Finding #6 discusses the
specific issues relating to the importation of out-of-county sex offenders.

Finding #2: Pierce County has an inordinately high crime rate given its share
of the state’s population.
The issue of Pierce County’s serious crime problem became a focus of this office’s
attention upon Gerald Horne’s appointment as Pierce County Prosecutor. As Prosecutor,
Mr. Horne had direct access to the various crime statistics published annually by the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (hereafter WASPC). The statistics
published annually by that organization confirmed something that Mr. Horne had long
suspected to be true; Pierce County had a significant crime problem that was
disproportionate given its size and population. In 2001, Mr. Horne’s first year of office,
Pierce County’s prosecutors obtained nearly one-fifth (19.7%) of all felony convictions in
the state’s 39 counties. Pierce County’s share of the state’s population was just 12%.
Pierce County’s share of the total felony convictions exceeded its share of the state’s total
population by 7 percentage points. Chart #2 42 illustrates the percent of felony
convictions from Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties during the year 2001. King
County, with 29% of the population, had only 21% of all felony convictions. Snohomish
County had just 6.6% of the total felonies compared to its 10% share of the state’s
population. Like King County, Snohomish’s share of the total felony convictions was
markedly below its share of the state’s population.

42

This chart was published on the DOC website and is based on statistics compiled by the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC).

33

Chart #2
Pierce County’s Share of Felony Convictions

On a per capita basis, Pierce County’s violent crime, felony convictions, and per
capita crime rate far exceeded what an only slightly smaller Snohomish County
experienced. DOC is well-aware of this disparity. According to DOC’s own study, Pierce
County had the highest violent crime rate in the state for each of the twelve years from
1990 to 2001. 43 Pierce County is clearly the most violent county in the state.
There were those who believed that, with its military bases and other
demographics, this was simply the nature of Pierce County. But this conclusion flew in
face of the evidence that Pierce County had not always been the worst of the worst. In the
earliest years that WASPC kept statistics, (1980-82) King County was the most violent.
Chart #3 illustrates the relative violent crime rates of King, Pierce, and Snohomish
counties for the years 1980, 1981, and 1982.

43

Lachman Report at p. 15.

34

Chart #3
1980-82 Data on Violent Crime Shares

Rate per 1,000 Population

7
6
5
King

4

Pierce
3

Sno.

2
1
0
1980

1981

1982

Year

The red line represents King County, the yellow line Pierce and the green line Snohomish
County. In 1980, Pierce County’s violent crime rate was below that of King. Over the
next two years, King County’s violent crime rate slipped below that of Pierce. Gradually,
the safety of Pierce County’s citizens deteriorated as Pierce County overtook King County
as the county with the highest per capita violent crime rate. While King County’s violent
crime rate dipped below that of Pierce, Snohomish’s crime rate, (green line) dropped even
further.
The trend during the last 25 years established Pierce County as the most violent
county in the state. Chart #4 illustrates the rates over this period.

35

Rate per 1,000 Population

Chart #4
Long Term Violent Crime Trends
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

King
Pierce
Sno

1980

1990

2000

2005

Year

As Chart #4 demonstrates, Snohomish County’s violent crime rate took a sharp
downward turn from 1980 to 1990. This shift is important because it coincides with the
approximate timing of a major work release scandal in Snohomish County. In 1974,
Charles Rodman Campbell came to the home of Renae Wicklund and assaulted and
sodomized her while he restrained her young daughter at knife-point. 44 Eight years later,
on April 14, 1982, Charles Rodman Campbell was finishing out his prison term in the
Everett Work Release for this crime. Instead of going to work, he returned to the home of
the woman who years earlier had testified against him. While he was supposed to be
working, Campbell was savagely slaughtering Renae, her eight-year old daughter, and the
next door neighbor who had also been a witness against him. All three females had 7inch knife slashes across the neck. Renae had also been beaten and mutilated.
Campbell then met up with a fellow work release inmate with whom he shared a
quart of beer and disposed of materials relating to the crime. Campbell arrived back at the

36

Everett Work Release—drunk—about 8 pm that evening. The next day, law enforcement
traced the crime to Campbell, who was arrested, tried, convicted, and eventually executed.
Two years after the deaths, DOC bowed to public pressure. In 1984, DOC closed
the Everett Work Release facility. Snohomish County leaders have successfully kept
work release out of their county for the ensuing 23 years.
While Snohomish County proudly and successfully fought work release, DOC was
shifting work release inmates to other facilities. Pierce County’s emergence as the most
violent county followed these events. In the decades since these events, Pierce County has
remained the most violent county in the state.
Conclusion Finding #2
Pierce County has an inordinately high crime rate given its population,
relative size, and demographics. Pierce County’s status as the county with the
highest per capita violent crime rate commenced in 1983 and has continued through
today. At the same time, King County and Snohomish County have significantly
lowered their violent crime rate in relationship to that of Pierce County. This
increase in Pierce County’s violent crime rate occurred at the approximate time of
Snohomish County’s work release tragedy and the subsequent successful closure of
the Everett Work Release.

Finding #3: DOC has sent offenders to Pierce County in a number grossly
disproportionate to the number of offenders Pierce County contributes to
DOC facilities.
Over the decades they have been in existence, early release facilities have brought
thousands of offenders into Pierce County. Data provided by DOC to The News Tribune
44

This factual summary is taken from the reported decision in State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d 1, 6, (1983).

37

indicates that from January 1993 through October 2005, DOC directed 16,723 offenders to
the four early release facilities located in Pierce County. This number represents 26% of
the total statewide inmates who went through these programs during this period, or more
than twice the rate that would be commensurate with Pierce County’s 12% share of the
state population. This rate is also 7 percentage points in excess of Pierce County’s share
of felony convictions.
King County, on the other hand, received 26% of the offenders, which is three
points less than its population share of 29%. Pierce County’s treatment was in sharp
contrast to that of King County’s northern neighbor, Snohomish County. During the same
time, as discussed above, Snohomish County had no early release offenders housed within
the county.
The availability of early release beds in Pierce County has resulted in DOC
sending a greater number of offenders from prison to Pierce County than the number of
offenders Pierce County sends to prison. Chart #5 documents the total number of early
release offenders sent to each of the five largest counties during this time.

38

Chart #5
Total Early Release Offenders 1993-2005

Snohomish
0%

Others
16%

Clark

Spokane
29%

3%

King
Pierce
Clark

Pierce
26%

Spokane

Snohomish
King
26%

Others

These numbers are in sharp contrast to the share of the population that Pierce, King
and Snohomish counties have respectively. Chart #6 shows the population trends of
King, Pierce and Snohomish counties for the period 1990 to 2005. 45

45

This report does not discuss the impact of DOC’s policies on Spokane County. As established in The
News Tribune’s article on “Dumping”, DOC’s treatment of Spokane County may well have been more
egregious than the manner in which it treated Pierce County. See The News Tribune, October 22, 2006.

39

Chart #6
Population Comparison
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0

Sno. Co.
Pierce
King

1990

1995

2000

current

Pierce and Snohomish Counties are very close in population. King County, on the
other hand, has more than twice the population of Pierce.
To put it in perspective, Chart #7, puts the same data into a pie chart showing each
county’s share of the state’s total population.
Chart #7

29%
King
49%

Pierce
Sno
12%

Others

10%

Snohomish County, with 10% of the population, had no early release facilities.
King County, with 29% of the state’s total population, only got 26% of the total inmates

40

sent to early release facilities. Clearly, Snohomish and King County benefited by DOC’s
dumping of offenders into Pierce County.
The above data was based on the gross number of individuals who were listed by
DOC as someone admitted to these facilities during the 1993 to 2005 period. Some of
these individuals appear on the list a number of times or are temporary moves within the
system. In preparing its story on the issue of DOC’s unfair treatment of Pierce County,
The News Tribune staff used DOC admission codes to edit the list and eliminate
duplicates and temporary admittees.
This author took the reduced data and compared it to the results obtained when the
gross, unedited numbers were analyzed. This exercise produced some very interesting
results. Absent some other explanation, it appears that the King County facilities were
much more likely to be used as a temporary holding bed for the offender than the facilities
located in Pierce or Spokane counties. The unedited data established that DOC placed
26% of the total admittees (17,075) in King County facilities. When those individuals
whose admit codes indicated that they were at the facility only temporarily were removed,
King County’s relative share dropped from 26% to 21% (7,698) of the offenders.
Conversely, Pierce County and Spokane’s share of the offenders rose. DOC
released 27% of the total offenders placed in early release facilities to those located in
Pierce County. Chart #8 illustrates the relative shares of early release offenders when
temporary stays are eliminated.

41

Chart #8
Shares With Reduction for Temporary Residents

12%
0%

32%

4%

Spokane
Pierce

4%

King
Yakima
Cowlitz

21%

Others
Snohomish
27%

The proposition that Pierce County has received an inordinate number of offenders
is also supported by comparing the total number of offenders Pierce County sends to state
prisons to the total number of inmates released to Pierce County early release facilities.
The Washington Administrative Office for the Courts (AOC) tracks conviction data by
county. This information is available on AOC’s website in various forms. The data of
interest here is the actual number of convictions that result in the offender being sent to the
Department of Corrections. Pierce County consistently sent far fewer inmates than it
received through the work and early release system. Chart #9 tracks the data for the years
1998-2004.

42

Chart #9
Pierce County’s Share of Offenders
Based on AOC Numbers of Offenders Sent to Prison
Sent

Released

Share In/Out

30
20
10
0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Sent

16

16

16

19

18

16

17

Released

28

28

27

25

24

23

25

Year

The distance between the two lines illustrates the large gap between the share of
the total offenders DOC sent to Pierce County early release facilities and Pierce County’s
contribution to the total number of offenders sent to prison. The red line, those released to
Pierce County facilities, hovers 6-12 points above the level of total sent.
Pierce County’s experience is in sharp contrast to the situation our neighbor to the
north faces. For the same period, King County received offenders in their facilities at or
about the same rate they contributed offenders to the system. Chart #10 illustrates how
King County’s share of released offenders carefully tracks the share it sends to prison,
with both lines within a few points of each other.

43

Chart #10
King County’s Share of Released and Sent Offenders
King County's Share
Share of Total In/Out

30
20

Released
Sent

10
0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Released

26

26

24

26

23

24

26

Sent

28

26

26

23

24

22

22

Year

For these years, Snohomish County contributed approximately 7% of the total
offenders sent to DOC facilities. Since 1984, however, Snohomish County has had no
work release facilities. Snohomish County’s share of received offenders was therefore
zero. Because seven percent of the total offenders, those contributed by Snohomish
County, have no facilities in their home county, DOC sends Snohomish County offenders
to other counties whenever work release is part of the offender’s approved release plan.
The above data refers to early release programs only. In addition to the formal
residential programs, in Pierce County DOC maintains a substantial presence with
multiple field offices and supervision programs. There are currently five field offices and
four outstations where offenders can report in Pierce County. 46
Supervised offenders often reside in private facilities that are extremely hard to
track. DOC maintains that it has no formal agreements with the numerous halfway houses
and residential homes in Pierce County, and therefore has declined to reveal their location.

44

Research indicates that offenders are directed to willing property owners by word of
mouth and informal arrangements. What is known is that a large number of homes exist
where more than one offender, sometimes multiple sex offenders, are located. Whether
formal arrangements exist or not, it is likely that these offenders are provided with
information concerning how to obtain disability payments and other government funds
which subsidize their residence in Pierce County. Without resources dedicated
specifically to this issue, this office was unable to analyze the impact of supervision and
halfway houses on Pierce County.
Conclusion Finding #3
Even without taking into account supervision and other DOC programs in
Pierce County, the above numbers demonstrate unequivocally that Pierce has been
unfairly impacted by DOC policies regarding early release facilities. Overwhelming
evidence establishes that DOC has sent offenders to Pierce County in a number
grossly disproportionate to the number of offenders Pierce County sends to prison.
Pierce County received more than twice its share of offenders compared to its share
of the population.

Finding #4: More than two-thirds of the offenders DOC placed in Pierce
County facilities were originally from some other county.
The gross number of early release offenders directed to Pierce and Spokane
counties indicates that a large number of these offenders had to have committed their
criminal acts in other counties. A number of analyses were done to confirm this
proposition.
46

High-Risk/High Needs Task Force Report at p. 10.

45

First, at the outset of this project, this office sought data from DOC that would
allow the office to determine how many offenders DOC imports into Pierce County. As
part of this study, the office requested a complete list of all individuals released to Pierce
County facilities during a specific period, January 15, 1997 through November 2002.
DOC eventually provided that master list which contained in excess of 5,000 names.
Next, this office requested information regarding the criminal files for each of the
individuals on the master list. DOC responded to that request by indicating that
production of the data would require 160 years. 47 In response, this office requested and
received the right to review sample offender files to determine what information could be
obtained from the files to facilitate the desired analysis. Offender files contain extensive
detail regarding individual infractions, criminal histories, a chronology of the offender’s
interaction with DOC, inmate movement, and other supporting documentation. Through
this review, this office determined that each offender file contained a one or two page
document entitled “Department of Correction Criminal History Summary.” These
summaries included a narrative description of the most current offense, a summary of the
offender’s juvenile record, a summary of the offender’s adult record along with
dispositions, and data regarding violent and/or escape behavior, gang affiliations and
outstanding warrants or detainers. This form centralized the pertinent data regarding
current and past criminal history and includes date of offense and county of offense.
Based on the information obtained during the review, this office modified its
formal public disclosure request. The new request asked only for the criminal history
summaries for each offender. Production of the requested data began in mid 2003 and
continued to November 2004. Each offender’s name and DOC tracking number was then

46

placed in a spreadsheet. Information regarding the county of first adult felony conviction,
and the county of current conviction was then added to the database. All information was
taken either from the offender’s criminal history record, or from Pierce County court files
if the offender’s criminal history summary was incomplete. The only manipulations of the
data were simple data sorts to group offenders by county.
The results of the analysis confirmed the premise that DOC imports a large number
of out-of-county offenders into Pierce County. Two-thirds of the offenders DOC placed in
Pierce County’s early release facilities during this timeframe were imports. Reductions in
the scope of the initial request as well as a lack of data 48 for some offenders, resulted in a
reduction of the total number of offenders studied to 4,212. This office was eventually
able to determine the county of first conviction for 4,212 offenders. Of this total, only
1,401 offenders were originally from Pierce County. The remaining 2,811 offenders
began their criminal careers in some other county. Chart #11 reflects this data for the
original database of work release offenders in Pierce County’s early release facilities
between 1997 and 2002.

47

See Appendix #2.
The total number of offenders sent to Pierce County early release facilities during this period exceeds
5,000 names. DOC does not maintain paper records on individuals who have been out of the system for
certain periods of time. Consequently, DOC did not provide criminal history records for these offenders. In
addition, this office reduced the scope of its request to save the time and expense associated with the public
disclosure request.
48

47

Chart #11
Out-of-County Offenders
1997-2002 Database
33%

Pierce
Others

67%

This data established that the vast majority of offenders residing in Pierce County
work release during the 1997 to 2002 period were not Pierce County offenders.
To determine if the data would shift significantly if the analysis focused on the
county of current conviction rather than the court of first conviction, this office did a
second analysis. It next tracked the number of offenders who, according to their criminal
history summaries, had current convictions from some other county. The results of this
analysis mirrored that of the county of first conviction. This analysis resulted in a total
database of 4,148 offenders. This number was smaller than that used for the first analysis
because some data as to current offenses was missing and other offenders had multiple
counties of current conviction. Of these 4,148 offenders, only 1,469 offenders had current
convictions from Pierce County. The remaining 2,679 offenders had current convictions
from some other county. Chart #12 illustrates that the approximate share of out-of-

48

county to in-county offenders changed by only 2% when the county of current conviction
was the criteria used to determine if DOC was importing offenders from other counties.

Chart #12
County of Current Conviction for Offenders
At Pierce County Work Release 1997-2002

35%

Pierce
Others

65%

These two analyses thus confirmed the basic premise that work release facilities in
Pierce County, at least through 2002, were used primarily as a resource for out-ofcounty offenders, not as a service for Pierce County offenders returning from prison.
Apparently in response to the results of this initial investigation, DOC officials
made verbal statements in the fall of 2004 and early 2005, that they would no longer be
sending out-of-county offenders to Progress House Work Release. 49 This office set out to
determine if that commitment was being met. In February 2005, DOC produced a list of

49

It is not known what criteria DOC is applying for determining whether an individual is a Pierce County
offender. DOC has not committed to looking at the county of first conviction as a standard. The large
number of offenders who had been imported into Pierce County in the 2005 database illustrates the need to
have an equitable definition of Pierce County offender when selecting who is eligible to be admitted to
Progress House.

49

75 offenders present at Progress House on February 9, 2005. DOC claimed that only six
of 75 inmates were from other counties. This office chose to take a closer at this assertion.
This author pulled individual offender records to determine the county of first
conviction and to track, if possible, how the offenders originally came to Pierce County.
This analysis dramatically diminished the ratio of Pierce County offenders to out-ofcounty offenders. Twenty-one of the inmates began their criminal career in some county
other than Pierce. The story of one offender, EDC and his family illustrates how imported
offenders become integrated into our community.

Case Study #4
A New Generation
EDC began his criminal career in Grays Harbor County in 1981. From
1981 to 1991, he committed nine felonies, including forgery, multiple
counts of trafficking in stolen property, a drug violation, and taking a
vehicle without permission. On November 11, 1997, he became an inmate
of Progress House Work Release and thereafter shifted his criminal
conduct to Pierce County. He was in and out of the Pierce County Jail
eight times and served a total of 138 days in that facility for various
matters at a cost of $8,832.00 to Pierce County taxpayers. In May 2004,
he pled guilty to theft in the second degree in Pierce County Superior
court. Thereafter, he was again placed at Progress House Work Release
and became part of the February 2005 sample. On the list provided to the
public as part of its lobbying efforts regarding work release in 2005, DOC
listed EDC offender as a Pierce County offender without regard to his
extensive Grays Harbor felony history.
EDC was released from his second stint at Progress House on June 13,
2005. Less than a year later, EDC, with his son, attempted to steal a
woman’s purse. He pled guilty of theft in the first degree and was again
sentenced to prison. This one offender has cost Pierce County in excess of
$13,000 associated with costs of housing him in Pierce County.
EDC’s story also indicates that there are other costs associated with
offenders being dumped in Pierce County. EDC eventually integrated so
well into Pierce County that he brought his family here as well. His son
pled guilty as an accomplice to his father’s crime. The son spent 139 days
in the Pierce County jail and is currently a resident therein. His jail
costs? $8,896.00. His original suspended sentence was revoked because

50

he committed a drug offenses during the time that he was to be engaged
only in law-abiding behavior. 50
DOC’s dumping of out-of-county offenders is documented by other analyses. This
office used the raw data obtained from The News Tribune and gathered information
regarding those in RAP House and Lincoln Park Work Release for two periods, all of
1997 and the first half of 2005. The data demonstrated that out-of-county imports
overwhelmingly populated the facilities during both periods. In 1997, less than 25% of
the residents of RAP House Work Release were from Pierce County. During 1997, only
33% of the inmates at Lincoln Park Work Release were Pierce County offenders.
To determine the percentage of out-of-county offenders during a more recent
period, the author looked at admissions for the first six months of 2005 at both RAP House
and Lincoln Park work releases. Again, the percentages were heavily weighted toward
out-of-county offenders. Only 28% of the inmates of RAP House Work Release during
this period in 2005 were Pierce County offenders. During the first six months of 2005,
27% of the offenders at Lincoln Park Work Release were Pierce County offenders.
The greatest disparity between Pierce County and out-of-county offenders was
found at Tacoma Pre Release in 1997. Only 14% the inmates at this facility were from
Pierce County. Chart #13 illustrates the county of first conviction for Tacoma Pre
Release based on a sample of the first month in 1997.

50

Information regarding these offenders was taken from Pierce County Superior Court files, FORS system
data and documents produced pursuant to public disclosure requests.

51

Chart #13
1997 Tacoma Pre Release
County of First Conviction

14%

Pierce
Others

86%

Conclusion Finding #4
DOC has placed a grossly disproportionate number of out-of-county offenders
in Pierce County early release facilities. All four facilities housed a significant
number of out-of-county offenders. Tacoma Pre Release, RAP House Work Release
and Lincoln Park Work Release offenders overwhelmingly were out-of-county
imports.

Finding #5: In 1997, neither King nor Snohomish County had facilities that
housed significant numbers of Pierce County offenders. 51
DOC may respond that during this same time it was sending offenders from Pierce
County to facilities in other counties. To test this anticipated defense, the author looked at

51

This study does not address what occurred in Spokane County. As documented in the study done by The
News Tribune, DOC has also dumped in Spokane County. It is possible that a number of Pierce County
offenders have been dumped there. It is no defense to the dumping issue to say, however, that DOC chose
another vulnerable county in which to dump Pierce County’s offenders.

52

samples from the two largest work release facilities in King County, Bishop Lewis Work
Release and Reynolds Work Release. 52
During January 1997, DOC sent 52 offenders to Reynolds Work Release. Of these
52, 69% (36) were from King County. Most telling of all—not a single Pierce County
offender who had their first conviction in Pierce County appeared in this sample. Chart
#14 illustrates that Reynolds Work Release, at least in 1997, was not used to house
offenders from Pierce County and only housed a small percentage of offenders from
counties other than King. DOC placed primarily King County offenders in this facility.

Chart #14
1997 Reynolds WR
County of First Conviction

31%
King
Others
69%

Research showed that the same situation existed at this time at the other large King
County work release, Bishop Lewis Work Release. Review of their admissions did
52

Bishop Lewis Work Release is a sixty-nine bed male facility that houses state offenders, county
offenders, community corrections violators, and other offenders sanctioned by Department of Corrections
hearing officers. Reynolds Work Release is a 99 bed male facility located in Seattle. Because of the size of
these programs, this author looked at a portion of the admissions in 1997, two months for the facility with
fewer admissions and one month for the one with more. The criteria for determining how long a period to
study was strictly the number of admissions. This author did not examine any records of offenders from any
other period in 1997. Therefore, no “cherry picking” of databases was done.

53

produce the fact that Bishop Lewis Work Release housed some Pierce County offenders.
This author was able to identify four Pierce County offenders whose first county of
conviction was from Pierce County. Of these four, only two had Pierce County as their
current county of conviction.
The more important number is the number of offenders who were from King
County. Of the 47 offenders who went through Bishop Lewis work release in January and
February 1997, 60% (28) were King county offenders. Chart #15 illustrates that for
Bishop Lewis Work Release, the ratio of out-of-county to in county offenders was—again-heavily weighted in favor of King County offenders.
Chart #15
1997 Bishop Lewis WR
County of First Conviction

40%

King
Others

60%

54

Conclusion Finding #5
While DOC was dumping in Pierce County by placing an inordinately
high number of out-of-county offenders in our facilities, it was not using King county
facilities in the same way. King County work release facilities handled a much
higher percentage of their own offenders than Pierce County early release facilities.
In contrast, the combined data for the four facilities studied based on the 1997
samples revealed that in 1997 Pierce County early release facilities were receiving
approximately one Pierce County offender for every three out-of-county offenders.

Finding #6: Pierce County has a disproportionate share of sex offenders
caused, in part, by DOC placement of sex offenders from other counties in
Pierce County early release facilities and transitional housing located here.
Review of the daily paper reveals an inordinate number of sex offender
announcements that refer to out-of-county offenders. It appears that Pierce County is a
favored relocation area for sex offenders. This office set out to determine if what
appeared to be true was actually true. Did Pierce County have a disproportionate number
of registered sex offenders? As indicated in the analysis below, this author, as well as
others studying the question, have concluded that Pierce County has a disproportionate
number of sex offenders.
On August 1, 2006, King County had 4,037 registered sex offenders. Although
only a little more than 40% the size of King County, Pierce County had 68% of the

55

number of sex offenders that King County had. Chart #16 illustrates the number of sex
offenders as of August 1, 2006 in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties 53 .

Chart #16
Number of Sex Offenders
King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties
Sex Offenders 2006

5,000

4,037
2,749

4,000
Number

1,446

3,000

King

2,000

Pierce

1,000

Snohomish

0
King

Pierce

Snohomish

County

Population comparisons are subject to the criticism that Pierce County may simply
have more sex crimes committed here than other counties. This author wanted to test that
theory by seeing if a relationship existed between the number of sex crimes committed in a
county and the number of sex offenders registered there. For purposes of this analysis, the
author tallied the number of reported rapes over eight years (1998 to 2005) as reported by
King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to WASPC. The eight-year period was chosen to
reflect the fact that sex crimes generally result in longer prison terms and to mitigate the
impact of year-to-year fluctuations in the numbers for each county. Chart #17 illustrates
the cumulative total of the rapes reported from each of the three counties.

53

This data is taken from The News Tribune’s October 22, 2006 article detailing its investigations. The
data is similar to data this office tracked in 2005. The actual number of sex offenders will fluctuate on a day
to day basis as individual offenders move in and out of the counties.

56

Chart #17
King, Pierce and Snohomish
Number of Reported Rapes in three Counties

6000
5000
4000
Number 3000
2000
1000
0

5277
2821

2712
King
Pierce
Snohomish

King

Snohomish
County

The above chart demonstrates that Snohomish County had almost the same number
of reported rapes during these eight years as did Pierce County.
The next step was to translate each county’s number of rapes into a percentage to
determine an individual county’s share of the total number of rapes for the eight year
period. 54 The result of that analysis is contained in Chart #18.

54

The author realizes that there may be objections to this approach. Not all reported crimes result in a
conviction. Some of the individuals required to register may actually have been convicted of some other
crime such as kidnapping, assault or burglary with a sexual intent. It is not possible to identify these
individuals from the raw data available to this author. The above comparison, while not perfect, gives the
reader a general idea of the relative share each county should have. It is not likely that any of these
explanations would account for the dramatic difference in total share of sex offenders

57

Chart #18
Proportionate Share
Total Rapes 1998-2005
Percent of Reported Rapes

25%
49%

King
Pierce
Snohomish

26%

The data revealed that Snohomish and Pierce County had about the same number
of rapes over this eight-year period. King County had nearly twice as many rapes.
The author then compared the percentage of reported rapes to each county’s share
of the total sex offenders present in the three-county- area. The difference between the
share of reported rapes and the share of registered sex offenders was very revealing.
Pierce County’s share of registered sex offenders is seven percentage points above its
share of reported rapes (26% versus 33%). Snohomish County’s share of sex offenders is
less than its share of reported rapes by the same 7%. Snohomish County had 25% of the
rapes but only 18% of the sex offenders. King County’s share remained relatively the
same for both analyses. In other words, as would be expected, its share of rapes was
essentially the same as its share of sex offenders. Chart #19 illustrates Pierce County’s
increased share.

58

Chart #19
Relative Share of Sex Offenders

18%
49%

King
Pierce
Snohomish

33%

This exercise illustrates that Snohomish County, which had only 1% fewer rapes
than Pierce County, is the location of 15% fewer sex offenders. The sex offenders who
committed those rapes in Snohomish had to have gone somewhere. Too frequently, they
and other out-of-county offenders are directed to Pierce County.
Some may challenge this analysis with the objection that not all the sex crimes are
represented or that other factors account for the disparity. Those objections must address
the simple fact that King County’s share remained stable. Had it deviated substantially,
the criticism might have merit. It did not and the logical conclusion is that the analysis is a
valid method of determining a “fair share” of sex offenders. None of the anticipated
objections would explain the dramatic shift. Some other force acts to move sex offenders
from one county to another.
A more substantive objection would be that the logic of the analysis does not ring
true because if Pierce County had more sex offenders it should have more reported rapes.

59

In fact, the number of sex crimes referred to Pierce County for prosecution each year has
steadily been increasing since 1996. Chart #20 demonstrates this increase.

Chart #20
Referrals to Special Assault Unit
Rapes, Domestic Assaults and Child Abuse
SAU
3500
3000
2500
2000

SAU

1500
1000

20
06

20
04

20
02

20
00

19
98

19
96

500
0

The incredible costs to our community and to the victims of these crimes will be
discussed later in this report. The important point to be made at this juncture is simply
that an increase in the number of sex offenders eventually translates into additional crimes.
The News Tribune also reached the conclusion that Pierce County had too many
sex offenders by looking at other data. This study compared the share of the total number
of sex offenders to the county’s share of the state’s total population. It also looked at data
which indicated whether each county had more or less out-of-county sex offenders
registered to live within the sampled county. The author of that study reached the same
conclusion: Pierce County has too many sex offenders. 55
The question of determining how these sex offenders got to Pierce County
presented the next challenge. Sex offenders may be brought here through early release

60

programs or directed here by DOC to obtain housing and services. Without DOC’s full
cooperation and access to data such as that contained in individual chronological logs kept
by its staff, it is impossible to document the full extent of this problem. It would be
wrong to conclude from this lack of data, that DOC does not dump sex offenders in Pierce
County. Recent public disclosure requests indicate that DOC has an extremely active role
in the placement of sex offenders in this county. For instance, it maintains a list of Pierce
County property owners and facilities willing to take sex offenders and then provides that
information to its community custody officers and to offenders. 56 Fresh Start, Hope
House, the Travel Inn Motel, the Budget Inn in Lakewood and 402 St. Helens are some
of the addresses that appear on this DOC list. The names of Pierce County property
owners such as Paul Post and Sandy Schweger Enterprises appear on this list as well. 57
In addition, based on internal communications recently discovered, it appears there
exists formal and informal referral and financing systems to direct offenders to this county
and certain areas of Tacoma. The documents received pursuant to public disclosures
support several propositions: First, DOC provides transition funds to sex offenders via a
system that sometimes sends the money directly to the provider. Second, DOC considers
Pierce County to be a desirable location for placement of sex offenders 58 Third, some
DOC staff who are making important decisions regarding placement of sex offenders are
hostile to notions of fair share and will not willingly give up Pierce County as a prime
dumping ground for sex offenders unwanted by their home counties.

55

See The News Tribune, October 23, 2006, What’s Fair for Pierce County: More sex felons find their way
here, too by David Wickert.
56
See Appendix #9 for complete list as provided in response to Public Disclosure Request to DOC.
57
See Appendix #9.
58
See Appendix #10 for interagency correspondence revealing the desire to place sex offenders in Pierce
County due to available housing even though offender has no connection with the county.

61

Internal discussions, such as those between DOC employee Robert A. Pearson and
Field Administrator Armando Mendoza, dated May 22, 2006, support the last contention.
Mr. Pearson inquired as to the official position regarding staff’s desire to deny sex
offender releases to Pierce County where there are no convictions, victim concerns or
connections to the community. He noted:
These are not cases where the offender resided her (sic) and went somewhere
else to commit the crime. They are not cases in which the victim is in
imminent threat. This is probably effecting (sic) all of the county units in
one way or another but in the case of Tacoma 1 and 2, Sex Offender- North
and Dosa Units, the frequency is probably greater. There is an abundance
of clean and sober housing in Tacoma’s East South and Hilltop
neighborhoods. 59

(Emphasis added.) This statement needs to be placed in the context of this DOC
employee’s earlier email which clearly illustrates his views of restrictions based on county
of conviction. On May 16, 2006, Mr. Peason writes Mr. Mendoza the following
regarding placement of out-of-county offenders in Pierce County:
I have asserted to the CCO’s and RES in my unit that the best plan is
what we want for the offender, not some sort of arbitrary territorial
limit based on county of conviction. Counselors, Specialists and
offenders in the prison have become aware of several of the housing
providers in Tacoma like the House of Vision, Taylor House, McKinley
House and Fresh Start, etc. The owners or facilitators of those programs
have on occasion participated in RMIT meetings and interacted with
offenders about their program expectations, costs and location. They are
good collaborators and work with us to house and care for some difficult
cases. That too has been clear to prison staff and when faced with difficult
to place offenders who offer little viable help in the development of their
release plans they offer information to those individuals. Sometimes they
have even arrange (sic) for DOC to pay the room and board before the
CRR is even sent. Some referrals to Tacoma/Pierce County have been
derived from the victim issue in another county and it is not clear how
Pierce County was selected over the other 38 options in that
circumstance. 60
59
60

See Appendix #10.
See email at Appendix #10, First emphasis in original. Other emphasis added.

62

(Emphasis added.) The correspondence goes on to describe the community’s position on
out-of-county offenders as an “assault” on DOC:
We have been assaulted by the prosecutor, community members at
neighborhood mitigation meetings and in the media with the “Fair
Share” war cry. 61
(Emphasis added.) The comments about the “assault” are most telling regarding the
hostility this DOC employee feels towards fair share issues. What is most troubling about
this correspondence is Mr. Mendoza’s complete failure to appropriately respond to Mr.
Pearson in writing with the caution that the fair share issue is one that DOC honors.
Without a firm commitment to this principle on the part of DOC administrators, it is clear
that field officers will continue their routine practice of placing imported sex offenders in
Pierce County. If there is a way to send an out-of-county sex offender to Pierce County,
they will do so. In fact, the remainder of the above email refers to the great extent the
author goes to in order to find a reason to place the imported sex offenders in Pierce
County. 62
Also troubling are the inaccurate messages being sent to the community regarding
DOC responsibility for the placement of sex offenders in specific locations. The above
passages document that Mr. Pearson and his colleagues direct sex offenders to Pierce
County. But DOC spokespersons have denied any DOC involvement in the placement of
sex offenders. Less than a year before this exchange DOC spokesperson Christine Boiter
informed The News Tribune that DOC does not place sex offenders anywhere or even
refer them to specific locations where landlords might be inclined to take them in. 63

61
62
63

See Appendix #10.
See Appendix #10.
See The News Tribune, November 19, 2005.

63

Ms. Boiter admitted only that the agency provided resource information and options to
offenders. 64
Actually, DOC provides a lot more—it finances the transition of imported sex
offenders to Pierce County. Other correspondence, direct from Secretary Harold Clarke,
reveals that not only are funds being provided, but the authority to do so has been a
question within the department and from its legal counsel. 65 On October 28, 2005, the
Washington State Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion on the question of whether
there were liability and or legality issues associated with DOC providing such monies.
Someone raised the quite appropriate concern that because the Legislature does not
authorize this activity or provide a line item appropriation for it, the practice might in fact
be illegal. According to Secretary Clarke’s correspondence, the Attorney General’s
opinion recommended that DOC not provide such funding. 66 Secretary Clarke’s response
to this advice was as follows:
In an effort to not have this funding abruptly end, the decision was
made to reduce rather than immediately eliminate the transitional
housing funds. These limited fiscal resources will be reinvested in other
support services for offenders being released from our institutions.
I understand the Department’s obligation to ensure offenders are released
with the best plan. Enhancing approaches to increased public safety has
been, and will continue to be, the priority for this office and the
Department. 67

(Emphasis added.) Even after being told to stop, DOC intends to continue the practice of
financing sex offenders’ transition to the community. With due respect to Secretary
64

Id.
See Appendix #11, letter dated June 27, 2006 from DOC Secretary Harold Clarke to Don Pierce.
66
Arguably, the provision of transition funds to sex offenders is a gift of public funds. The above
correspondence illustrates that DOC is aware of this issue and is currently ignoring the advice of its legal
counsel.
65

64

Clarke, constitutional and statutory prohibitions regarding spending public funds on
private citizens are not optional provisions for the State to pick and choose when to apply.
The above correspondence clearly illustrate the difficulties associated with getting
accurate information regarding what DOC does for sex offenders. It also shows the
difficulties associated with tracking how sex offenders come to Pierce County as well as
DOC’s hostility to any attempt to halt its practice of dumping sex offenders in Pierce
County. DOC is not about to publicly admit its active involvement in placement of sex
offenders. The “official” line is that DOC does not “place” offenders. DOC Director of
Communications, Gary Larson responded to an inquiry from King TV about offenders in
nursing homes and adult homes with a complete denial of any involvement. Mr. Larson
states:
Cheadle wanted to know what DOC’s policy is for “placing” convicted
felons in such facilities. I explained that DOC does not place offenders in
specific living accommodations while under community supervision.
Rather, we review the offender’s proposed release plan to determine if the
residence they plan to move into meets Department requirements. If the
plan is not satisfactory, they remain incarcerated until they can come up
with a satisfactory plan, or they reach their maximum release date. But
we would not automatically accept or reject a residence for an
offender solely on the fact that it is a nursing home or adult family
home. 68
(Emphasis added) Two things should trouble the reader about this email. First, the public
spokesperson is providing misinformation to a representative of the news media. Second,
there are apparently no limits on where DOC will place a sex offender.
This public denial is fruitfully contrasted with the May 16, 2006 correspondence of
DOC employee Pearson. Mr. Pearson advocates that DOC “should be trying to develop
plans to move offenders into such programs if it fits their needs, will to (sic) abide by the
67

See appendix #11.

65

rules and they agree (sic) work on a sustainability plan. Leaving them in prison to MAX
OUT because they are homeless is a huge cost to the agency.” 69 The public position is
inconsistent with what DOC actually does. While not even admitting its involvement,
DOC correspondence establishes that it is an active participant in the process of placing
sex offenders. In the emails appended to this report, DOC is fostering prison meetings
between housing sources and offenders in prison and paying transition funds directly to
the housing provider. 70 Prison staff are urged to actively participate in arranging “SSI,
GAU, GAX, etc. before release so that support will be more readily available after
release.” 71 It is incredibly disingenuous for DOC to take these actions on behalf of
offenders on one hand and on the other deny that it “places” offenders. DOC publicly
announces that it has no role, but finances the transition. What is the public to believe?
The solution may be an extensive audit of DOC’s financial records. Such an audit would
get to the bottom of the issue of just how much public money has been spent for sex
offenders, and to whom those funds have been paid.
The consequences of DOC’s decision to select Pierce County as a favored site to
place sex offenders is seen in the disproportionate number of sex offenders in Pierce
County and in the resulting concentration of sex offenders in joint living arrangements.
For instance, in April 2002, this office investigated the criminal histories of sex offenders
living at the same apartment complexes in Lakewood. Data obtained at the time revealed
a large number of sex offenders at the Westwood Apartments and Norwood Apartments

68
69
70
71

See Appendix #12 Email Correspondence from Gary Larson dated October 2, 2006.
See Appendix #10, Email dated May 16, 2006 from Robert A. Pearson.
Id.
See Appendix #10, Pearson email dated August 23, 2006.

66

both located in Lakewood, Washington. Sixteen of the offenders registered to those two
sites had convictions from some other county.
As this report is being written, out-of-county sex offenders are still coming to
apartments and to halfway houses located in Pierce County. On January 16, 2007, this
office was notified that two Level III offenders were being released to Pierce County. The
first offender, TMD, was convicted in Clark County of rape of a child in the first degree
and child molestation in the first degree. Sentenced to 120 months, TMD has been
released to live in Pierce County at 3597 McKinley Street in Tacoma. This office’s
investigations of that address revealed that in March 2006, 12 sex offenders were
registered as living at this residence. The property appears on Pierce County tax rolls as a
single-family dwelling.
On the same date, DOC announced that it will release another imported Level III
sex offender to Lakewood. This sex offender’s child molestation conviction is from King
County. A search of Pierce County records revealed neither sex offender has had contact
with our criminal justice system. Nonetheless, DOC will release them here to Pierce
County. Clearly, DOC’s policy of dumping sex offenders in Pierce County is a continuing
concern.
While the number of sex offenders brought into Pierce County through direct DOC
placement cannot be determined without access to data DOC has so far withheld, some
additional light can be shed on the problem of disproportionate sex offenders by looking at
the numbers of out-of-county offenders coming through the early release facilities located
in Pierce County. This author examined the issue of whether or not the early release
facilities in Pierce County housed significant numbers of sex offenders, and whether those

67

sex offenders were Pierce County offenders or imported from some other jurisdiction.
Conviction records were examined for sex offenders sent to RAP House, Lincoln Park and
Tacoma Pre Release and Progress House during 1997. Similar data was gathered for
offenders sent to King County facilities. 72 Review of this data demonstrated that Pierce
County received more sex offenders and more out-of-county sex offenders than King
County.
Because of the number of inmates who go through the program, Tacoma Pre
Release was sampled for only one month, January 1997. During this one month, TPR
received six sex offenders. Every one of these offenders obtained their conviction for a
sex offense in some other county.
Lincoln Park Work Release admitted 15 sex offenders during 1997. Of these 15, 13
(80 %) were convicted in some county other than Pierce. Only 2 of the 15 sex offenders
housed at this facility during 1997 were Pierce County sex offenders.
An analysis of RAP House revealed that it too was being used to bring out-ofcounty sex offenders to Pierce County. During 1997, RAP House admitted 14 sex
offenders. Only three of these sex offenders belonged to Pierce County.
Because work release is designed to integrate offenders into the community, the
result of bringing sex offenders from out-of-county to Pierce County facilities is to cause
them to be integrated into our community. This, in turn, ultimately increased Pierce
County’s share of total number of sex offenders in the state.
The number of sex offenders DOC directs to Pierce County cannot be accurately
established without additional data. However, data from 1997 revealed at least 44 sex
72

1997 was chosen for many points of analysis because it predates this office’s efforts to bring public
attention to the work release problem and because a long enough period of time has passed to analyze

68

offenders brought to Pierce County during this one year who did not belong here. The
study of 1997 work release inmates identified sex offenders at Progress House, RAP
House and Lincoln Park work releases. These three facilities admitted 52 sex offenders
during 1997. Tacoma Pre Release admitted 6 sex offenders in just one month. 73
This office was thus able to establish that DOC placed at least 58 sex offenders
(52 +6) in early release programs in Pierce County during 1997. This author researched
the county of conviction for all 58 offenders. For this analysis, the author focused on the
county in which the offender first committed a sex crime that required registration. Less
than one out of every four sex offenders was a Pierce County offender using this standard.
Overwhelmingly, these offenders were convicted of their sex crimes in other counties. Of
the 58 sex offenders studied, only 14 were convicted of sex crimes in Pierce County.
Forty-four of fifty-eight of the sex offenders committed the crime that required them to
register as a sex offender in some other county. Chart #21 illustrates the disparate
number of out-of-county sex offenders from 1997.

recidivism trends from the out-of-county offenders.
73
If this rate remained constant throughout 1997, the number of sex offenders for 1997 would be more than
double the 58 known offenders. [6 x 11 remaining months + 58 = 124] Assuming the proportion of Pierce
County to out-of-county offenders remains the same, DOC introduced 100 out-of-county sex offenders into
Pierce County in just 1997. While some of these offenders returned home following their stay in Pierce
County facilities, many of them chose to make Pierce County their home.

69

Chart #21
County of Conviction for Sex Crime
Pierce County Early Release Facilities 1997

24%
Pierce
Other
76%

If the 1997 data is representative of what occurred in the other years DOC directed
offenders to Pierce County, these numbers paint a staggering picture of the number of sex
offenders DOC directed to this county to the benefit of other counties. The inevitable
result of DOC’s stated desire to disregard the home county standards for sex offenses is
that Pierce County has received an extraordinarily high number of sex offenders which
have become integrated into our community.
The News Tribune also documented that Pierce County received too many
offenders, and that fewer of Pierce County’s offenders resided in other counties than did
those from counties to the north. This discrepancy was particularly evident between King
and Pierce. Chart #22 illustrates the discrepancy discovered by The News Tribune.

70

Chart #22
Percentage of Out-of-County Registered
Sex Offenders Based on Each
County’s Total Number of Sex Offenders
% of Out of County Sex Offenders
22.77%
25.00%
20.00%

16.92%

% of Total SO 15.00%
in County 10.00%
5.00%

.

Pierce
King

0.00%
Pierce

King
County

These figures demonstrate that sex offenders brought here by DOC remain here.
Unfortunately, they often remain to commit new crimes. The example of John Eggers
illustrates the dangers of violent sex offenders.

Case Study# 5
A Douglas County Sex Offender
Becomes a Killer in Tacoma

The tragic story of Meeka Willingham’s murder is relatively well known.
Briefly, this bright, promising young woman was murdered by John
Eggers after Eggers formed a friendship with her family. Unknown to
Meeka’s mother, John Eggers had a history of violence against women
well-documented in his extensive DOC file.

71

John Eggers began his criminal career in Douglas County with several
property crimes. 74 He violated his parole and was convicted of assault in
the third degree in 1973. This incident involved Eggers hitting a woman
with a beer bottle after she refused him sex. Eggers went to work release,
apparently in King County, in December 1974. In 1976, Eggers violated
his parole by raping a girl in Wenatchee. Incarcerated for a short while,
Eggers was once again on parole by the end of 1976. Within a month of
his release, he was arrested for attempted rape and assault. This incident
generated a second degree assault conviction in King County.
In March 1978, Eggers was arrested in King County for Assault in the
First Degree and Rape in the First Degree. The police report documents
that this was an extremely violent incident and that Eggers choked his exgirlfriend until she passed out and then raped her. Eggers was sent to
Western State Hospital’s sexual psychopathy program, which he failed.
The report from Western State Hospital indicated that Eggers was not safe
to be at large and “presented too great of a security risk to even been
considered for treatment” at Western State. 75 In 1990, John Eggers was
paroled to Lincoln Park Work Release.
Eggers parole to Tacoma brought him in contact with Sylvia McFarland,
Meeka Willingham’s mother. Sylvia met Eggers while taking classes at
Tacoma Community House. No one informed her that Eggers was a
dangerous sexual predator. Eggers himself only indicated that he had
done time for some property offenses. Eggers ingratiated himself with Ms.
McFarland and became part of the family. Four years later, while
McFarland was out of state, John Eggers brutally murdered Meeka,
stabbing her 56 times. Prior to his release to Tacoma through Lincoln
House, Eggers had absolutely no connection with Pierce County.
This one incident illustrates the tremendous potential costs of even one violent sex
offender. The damage to the family cannot even be imagined. For the tax payers of Pierce
County, it had to house this killer in the Pierce County Jail for 314 days pending trial at a
cost of well over $35,000. In addition, Pierce County taxpayers paid for the defense, law

74

The Eggers example also illustrates the dangers of relying solely on DOC records while doing research on
recidivism or sex offenders. According to the FORS report pulled for John Eggers, his only criminal
convictions were for the Willingham murder, and one assault in 1981 from King County. The Presentence
Report prepared by DOC, on the other hand, lists a 1970 Douglas County conviction, (vacated) multiple
parole violations, a 1976 Second Degree Assault, a 1978 First Degree Assault and First Degree Rape. The
FORS report omitted the 1978 violent sex crime. The report also does not list Mr. Eggers as a sex
offender.
75
February 23, 1981, Report of Western State Hospital to Honorable Carolyn Dimmick.

72

enforcement investigation, and the prosecution. 76 Meeka Willingham is not the only
victim of a DOC imported sex offender. As detailed at the beginning of this report, in
early 2006, another young female became a victim of a violent sex offender DOC
imported to Pierce County. Other imported sex offenders commit other crimes. Each
additional sex offender places the public at risk. Pierce County’s leaders must act
aggressively to shut off the flow of imported sex offenders to Pierce County.

Conclusion Finding #6
Pierce County has a disproportionate number of sex offenders. DOC is in
part responsible for this situation. DOC policies include direct placement of
offenders in Pierce County early release facilities, which then results in integration of
the sex offender into Pierce County. DOC also places sex offenders through less
obvious methods. Internal agency correspondence establishes that DOC directs
offenders to Pierce County through a variety of means. These methods include
fostering pairings of service and or support groups with offenders in need of
residential housing, financing transitional costs and staff within DOC who are
resistant to change and hostile to the concept of fair share.

76

Sylvia McFarland and her family held DOC responsible for Meeka’s death. The State of Washington
ultimately paid $6.3 million to settle the action. Meanwhile, work release programs continued doing
business in Pierce County without substantial change and continued to introduce sex offenders into our area.

73

IV.

FINDINGS 7-11--THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WORK RELEASE AND
EARLY RELEASE PROGRAMS
Findings contained in this section pertain to the issue of whether or not work

release and other early release programs are effective in reducing crime or costs. Finding
#7 summarizes articles and prior research in this area. Findings 8-10 discuss original
research on recidivism rates of various early release facilities. Finding #11 discusses the
impact of DOC’s insistence that RAP House and Lincoln Park work release facilities
operate without restrictions regarding county of origin.

Finding #7: No current evidence supports the conclusion that work release
will reduce crime or the costs of incarceration.

A.

Existing Research Regarding Effectiveness of Work Release Does Not
Support Expansion.
1.

Essential Public Facility: Justifications for the Programs

The Washington State Department of Corrections states that its mission is to
“contribute to staff and community safety and hold offenders accountable through
administration of criminal sanctions and effective re-entry programs.” 77 Recent news
releases from DOC indicate that it will seek to expand work release within the coming
years. On August 2, 2006, DOC Secretary Harold Clarke announced that the Department
would begin a search for new state work release facilities. Secretary Clarke has asserted
that “work release programs enhance public safety by providing a means to closely
supervise eligible offenders while they adjust to freedom after serving prison time.”

77
78

DOC Website, http://www.doc.wa.gov/
DOC News Release, August 2, 2006.

74

78

Secretary Clarke’s optimistic and enthusiastic support of work release as a positive
force in offender rehabilitation was echoed by the regional director of DOC, Anne Fiala,
in her opinion letter published in the News Tribune on September 24, 2006. Ms. Fiala
stated clearly that the DOC wanted to reduce the 33% recidivism rate associated with
release from prison “in order to make communities safer and ease pressures to build
expensive prison space.” 79 The Department, according to Ms. Fiala, believes “one of the
most effective ways to accomplish these goals is by expanding state work-release
programs.”
Ms. Fiala asserted that work release gives offenders the opportunity to “perform
community services”, to begin supporting themselves, and to meet other financial
obligations, including victim restitution and child support, by working at paying jobs in
the community. 80 Ms. Fiala contends the success of the program is demonstrated by the
fact that work release offenders have a higher one-year employment rate.
Neither Ms. Fiala nor Sec. Clarke mention statistical evidence regarding the
recidivism rates of work release offenders. Moreover, the Department’s optimism
regarding work release as an effective tool for rehabilitation does not rest upon established
research. Nonetheless, the Department is going forward with its plans.
DOC has recently issued a white paper entitled “The DOC Re-entry Initiative
“Smart on Crime.” 81 In this document, DOC acknowledges that “protecting the public
from crime is one of government’s most important responsibilities.” The paper goes on to
cite a recent study that indicates that recidivism programs work and then launches into a

79

Opinion, The News Tribune September 24, 2006.
Id.
81
See DOC website for complete paper at http://www.doc.wa.gov/general/P325reentrywhitepaper.pdf
80

75

discussion of its plans for offender re-entry. 82 Prominent among these plans is the
department’s commitment to expand work release. DOC’s paper states:
DOC plans to expand work release to provide offenders with a controlled
return to freedom as they continue to participate in programming, work on
building positive relationships, and establish means to legally support
themselves. 83
The most recent report by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
concludes there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that work release
reduces crime and/or is cost effective. In an incredibly disingenuous move, DOC does
not tell the public that the report it cites in the white paper concludes that there is
insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that work release either reduces costs or
reduces crime. 84 As established in the next section of this report, there are many reasons
to believe work release is ultimately more costly and much less effective than simple
incarceration.
Even DOC admits, however, that reduction of crime is the single measure most
critical to evaluation of the success of a program. 85 The public should be cautious of any
attempt to move the discussion away from this central issue. Repeat offenders cost their
communities millions in increased law and justice programs, inflict pain, injury and
emotional distress on their victims and result in costly re-incarceration. Increasingly, that
cost has been shifted from the state to local levels. As demonstrated by the discussion
below, the extraordinarily poor performance of work release programs in general, and
those located in Pierce County most particularly, negate any real or perceived benefits
touted by the Department.
82

http://www.doc.wa.gov/general/P325reentrywhitepaper.pdf
Id. See page 9 for plans to expand work release.
84
Id. Compare page 4 with pages 8-9.
83

76

2.

Existing Data Regarding Recidivism and Work Release

Few studies accurately document the effects of work release on recidivism rates
and the cost of incarceration. The most complete study “Work Release: Recidivism and
Corrections Costs in Washington State” 86 was published in 1996 by the U.S. Department
of Justice. (hereafter “Turner Study”) Supporters of work release sometimes refer to this
article as establishing that the programs are effective. In fact, the article essentially
establishes that work release neither reduces the cost of incarceration nor improves
recidivism rates.
The study is presented in a misleading manner. It starts with statements hailing the
fact that “nearly a quarter of all prisoners released in Washington under current statutes
made a successful transition to the community through work release.” 87 A 25% success
rate is not something to celebrate. A 25% success rate means simply that three out of
every four participants fail.
While the logic of celebrating a 25% success rate is highly questionable, the
conclusion the study draws from the data are the most misleading. The writers’ basic
finding, almost as an after thought—is that “work release programs did not reduce
offender recidivism rates or corrections costs.” 88 (Emphasis added.) The article then
goes on to suggest, however, that few corrections officials believe that what they do
chiefly effects recidivism rates. The authors urge that it is time to look at more “realistic”
benchmarks or definitions of success.

85

Id at p.9.
Department of Justice, “Work Release: Recidivism and Corrections Costs in Washington State”( by Susan
Turner, PhD. and Joan Petersillia, PhD, (hereafter “Turner Study”) (1996).
87
Turner Study at p. 11.
88
Id.
86

77

The study’s attempt to move the debate away from recidivism as a benchmark is
understandable. The actual results of the study demonstrate that work release is more
costly and does not reduce recidivism. The study found that if one combines all rule
infractions and new crimes, 29.5% of the offenders in work release were returned to
prison during the first year. In contrast, only 5.7% of the non work release participants
returned to prison their first year. 89
The study also examined the issue of the length of subsequent prison stays as
between those who participated in work release and those who did not. It concluded that
there was a “marginally significant” difference that suggests that the length of time under
correction supervision “may actually have been longer for those participating in work
release.” 90 (Emphasis added.)
Finally, the study establishes that work release is actually more expensive. The
study claimed there was “basically no difference in costs between work release and
inmates completing their full terms in prison.” 91 The actual data discussed in the study
documented that each work release inmate costs more than prison when all costs were
totaled. The study’s actual finding are as follows:
The analysis (see exhibit 5) shows basically no difference in costs between
work releasees and inmates completing their full terms in prison. If one
considers the costs associated with work release, from the time an inmate
was admitted to prison until his discharge, the estimated cost would
average $25,883 per inmate. This is in contrast to the estimated $25,494 it
would have cost per inmate, on average, to serve out his time in prison. 92
Work release, according to this study, actually costs $389 more per inmate than
an prison. The public is certainly entitled to question the credibility of those who urge that
89
90
91

Turner Study at p 10.
Id.
Turner Study at 11.

78

an increase of $389 is basically “no different” than the less expensive program.
Government holds the public’s money in trust. The $389 originated with taxpayers. It
represents money that taxpayers could have spent on their own needs. To dismiss such
sums is to ignore the cumulative impact of such a number when multiplied by the number
of offenders going through the system. When that is done, the “essentially same” cost
actually is a huge cost differential. For the sake of argument, assume that no more than
10,000 93 offenders went through work release in the last decade. That $389 translates into
$3,890,000 which could have been used to educate children, house the homeless, and
make needed road improvements to strengthen our economic infrastructure, or provide
health care to the needy. Faulty government reasoning like this makes the public
suspicious and hostile toward their leaders. Programs that cost more must—at a
minimum---produce better results than the less costly alternatives.
Unfortunately, the evidence is strong that work release actually has the opposite
effect. This evidence exists on multiple levels. The Turner study is one of the few
documented studies regarding the effectiveness of work release. The Legislature charged
the Washington State Institute for Public Policy with the task of reviewing the available
data and making recommendations regarding evidence based public policy options to
reduce prison construction. Its report was released in October 2006. That report reviewed
the available studies and concluded that there were too few recent studies concerning work
release. 94 As result, the authors placed work release from prison programs in the category
92

Id..
This number is a fraction of the inmates that actually have gone through the program. Data from The
News Tribune revealed total release many times that number. See “Dumping” The News Tribune, October
22, 2006.
94
Aos, Miller & Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction,
Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates, Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy (October
2006) at p. 9.
93

79

of programs needing more research before conclusions could be reached regarding
whether or not the program would effectively reduce the costs of crime and recidivism. 95
Conclusion Finding #7
The State’s own most recent study supports this finding. Data concerning the
cost effectiveness of work and early release programs does not exist. Any expansion
of these programs by the Legislature would simply be based on blind faith that the
desired results would be achieved.

Finding #8: Pierce County’s largest early release programs produced more
offenders who committed new felonies since their release than that which
would be associated with direct release from prison.

This section discusses the performance of Progress House and Tacoma Work
Release for 1997. The data consists of summaries of studies done by the DOC and its
consultants and original data. The data produced by DOC generally groups all Pierce
County early release facilities into one statistic.

A.

DOC Studies
1.

Availability of Data

“Since the development of the Offender Based Tracking System the
Department of Corrections has had the ability to track the number of returns to
prison for offenders released as early as 1985.” 96 This office has obtained a copy of a
“draft” 2003 compilation by DOC of work release success rates. In this draft summary,
the Department compiled numbers regarding the five-year felony recidivism rate for
offenders going through Pierce, Spokane and other work release facilities. This data
95

Id.

80

established that Pierce County’s facilities consistently registered higher recidivism rates
than facilities in other counties.
According to DOC, of the 1989 offenders released from Pierce County facilities,
11% had a new felony conviction the first year, 13% had a new felony the second year
and 6% had a new felony after the third year. Cumulatively, offenders released from
Pierce County pre release/work release facilities had a five-year total of 36%. 97
These numbers are in sharp contrast from those attributable to Spokane County
work release. Spokane County’s work releases had a first year felony re-offense rate of
8%, a second year rate of 10% and a third year rate of 6%. After 5 years, only 28% of
the 1617 offenders going through the Spokane programs had committed new felonies. 98
Facilities in other counties had rates slightly higher than Spokane, but still significantly
lower (33% vs. 36%) than Pierce County’s five-year rate. 99
This same study documented the number of offenders returning to prison within a
five-year period. Like the data documenting new felonies, the data tracking returns to
prison demonstrated that Pierce County’s work release and pre release facilities
consistently returned more offenders to prison than their counterparts located elsewhere in
the state.
2.

The Lachman Study

DOC also commissioned the report from Lachman & Associates mentioned above.
The Lachman Report looked at the issue of how many offenders returned to prison during
a five year period following their release from work release. The complete data regarding

96
97
98
99

Washington State Department of Corrections, Recidivism Briefing Paper No. 20 (April 2002).
See DOC materials appended as Appendix #13.
Id.
Id.

81

Lachman gathered is contained in Table 38 of the report. 100 The authors of that study
looked at recidivism data for the period 1993 through 1997. During this time, 15,708
offenders were released from prison. Over one thousand, (1,045) were released from
Pierce work release. An additional 722 were released from Pierce (sic) Pre Release. 101
The Lachman study established that 48% of the individuals who went through
Pierce County work release in the sample period committed one or more new felonies
within five years of their release. In contrast, only 43% of the individuals who were
released directly from prison committed a new felony within the first five years. 102 The
relative performance of Pierce County work release facilities and prison releases are
compared in contained in Chart #23.

Chart #23
Recidivism Rates for Pierce and Prison Releases
49%
48%

% Recidivism

47%
46%
45%

Pierce WR

44%

Prison

43%
42%
41%
40%
Pierce WR

Prison

Of greater importance is the fact that the work release facilities associated with
Pierce County were the worst performers in the state. Clark County and Spokane County
work releases both achieved 37% recidivism rates as measured by felony convictions

100
101
102

See Appendix #14
Lachman Report at p.48, Table 38, Appendix #14.
Lachman Report at p. 48, Table 38.

82

within five years. Pierce County work releases registered recidivism rates 11 percentage
points higher than these counties, and 5 percentage points higher than that associated
with direct prison release.
Assuming this data is accurate, Pierce County work releases performed so poorly
that 52 offenders who, if they had been released directly from prison, would not have
committed new felonies after their exposure to work release. After DOC’s data revealed
this incredibly poor performance for Pierce County work release, the DOC commissioned
report concluded that it was not appropriate to compare across types of facilities. The
report’s authors suggest that there some “studies” that support the conclusion that
recidivism rates vary by type of offense, risk levels and other prisoner characteristics,
including age of the offender at the time of the release. 103
There are several problems with this comment. First, this comment does not apply
to peer comparisons, that is, comparisons of work release to work release. Pierce County
should be entitled to presume that DOC is treating all counties equally and not directing
more offenders or those most likely to re-offend to Pierce County. Comparisons between
work release facilities, therefore, should result in essentially equal recidivism rates. Here,
Pierce County fared much worse in comparison to programs like those in Clark County.
Second, the factual premise itself rests on shaky logical grounds. Presumably
DOC is selecting the best candidates for work release, those most likely to be amenable to
the benefits of a structured re-entry into society that DOC lauds as the benefit of work
release. These offenders should be less likely to commit new felonies, not more likely.
The Lachman report thus supports the conclusion that work release in its present
form in Pierce County is not effective in achieving its main goal of reducing the number of

83

repeat offenders and the number of additional crimes committed by offenders. That
conclusion is further supported by additional research developed by this office.
B.

Results of Pierce County’s Study Regarding Effectiveness of Work
Release.
1.

Materials Studied

This office began the task of developing its own data for work release facilities to
understand the extent that DOC policies and its placement out-of-county offenders harmed
this county. Identification of offenders to study was dictated by several factors. First, it
was important to obtain an overview at different times to gain some sense of whether the
same Pierce County program performed better or worse during the different periods. 104
Second, sufficient time in the community, or “at risk time” needed to pass in order for an
offender to be given an opportunity to re-offend. Existing studies refer to five or eight
years benchmarks. The longer period was chosen so that the most complete information
would be available. Third, discrete units, such as a full year, or full month or a two or six
month period were selected. Where data is reported in less than a year increment, that
choice was dictated by the size of the program. This author did not have the resources to
study all offenders from programs such as Reynolds, Bishop Lewis or Tacoma Pre
Release. Finally, data from which the research could be conducted arrived at different
time during the period this report was being prepared. 105

103

Lachman at 49.
Determining whether King County facilities registered higher recidivism rates at the two different times
is beyond the scope of this report. Pierce County and its leaders are concerned about the effectiveness of
programs located within its boundaries. This author pulled data from King County programs only for
comparison purposes.
105
For purposes of this study, this author did not eliminate those individuals who failed work release and
were sent back to prison. Although this is the approach used in the Lachman study and other DOC
materials, it is not the one endorsed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy when it considers
whether a study is of sufficient quality to be included in its data. See Comparative Costs & Benefits at 37.
104

84

A multi-tiered approached to looking at recidivism was thus employed.
Ultimately, this office was able to track recidivism data for all Progress House Work
Release inmates in 1997 and for those present at the facility on February 9, 2005. Tacoma
Pre Release, RAP House, Lincoln Park Work Release, Bishop Lewis Work Release and
Reynolds Work Release recidivism data was pulled for all or part of 1997 depending on
the size of the program. In order to have sample of roughly an equivalent size to that from
RAP and Lincoln Park, the Reynolds and Bishop Lewis data was pulled from the first
month of 1997 and the first two months of 1997 respectively. All of recidivism data
regarding these offenders was obtained from FORS. Because this office received the
underlying data regarding these facilities only recently, it has not been possible to check
all of Pierce County’s records to determine whether there are additional felonies
committed in Pierce County that have not been recorded by DOC. 106 Tacoma Pre Release
received the most offenders during 1997 of the Pierce County facilities. The sample for
this group was thus confined to one month, January 1997.
2.

1997 Recidivism Data
a.

1997 Progress House Recidivism

Progress House is Pierce County’s largest work release facility. According to data
provided to The News Tribune, from 1993 to October 2005, over four thousand
admissions occurred at this facility during this period of time. 107 Progress House is a

106

As noted previously, experience with the other data bases suggests that the change in the rate of
recidivism which would be associated with more extensive research would not be statistically significant.
107
According to the data provided by DOC, 4,103 admissions took place during this period. Data
developed by this office during the course of this study indicates that 250 to 325 offenders pass through the
facility each year. A substantial number of these offenders fail the program and return to prison. DOC
studies have tended to eliminate “failures” in determining recidivism rates of programs. This approach is
contrary to that recommended by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. See Aos, Phipps,
Barnoski & Lieb, The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, and (May 2001)
Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy at page 37.

85

community residential facility located on Pierce County property at the site of the county’s
juvenile detention facility. 108
Data regarding Progress House recidivism rates was developed by looking at all
admissions for 1997 and a snapshot of 75 offenders residing at Progress House on
February 9, 2005. This office has tracked those offenders since that date using court
records, DOC’s felony offender reporting system (FORS) and other available data. Both
studies indicate a clear pattern of high recidivism that is incompatible with the conclusion
that the program benefits its inmates.
Data obtained from the original list of work release admissions provided by DOC
revealed that 244 offenders went through the program in 1997. As noted §IV,
approximately 36%of these individuals were offenders from other counties.
Of the 244 offenders, 66% (161) offenders committed new felonies. These 161
offenders committed 516 felonies for an average of 3.2 felonies per offender.
Chart #24 illustrates the comparison between 1997 results for Progress House and direct
prison release.

108

The program’s lease terminated on June 30, 2005. Since that date, Progress House has been continued as
a month to month tenant of the County. Progress House has capacity for 69 male offenders and 6 female
offenders. There have been discussions regarding moving the program to the grounds of Western State
Hospital, a move that is being vigorously resisted by city officials in Lakewood.

86

Chart #24
Recidivism Rates for Progress House
1997 Inmates

34%
New Felony
No New Felony
66%

.
If direct release from prison would have produced 122 offenders, the data from
Progress House suggests that going through that program results in an additional 39
individuals who committed new offenses.
The number of additional offenders is not the only problem. This group of
offenders had a high number of new felonies per offender, an average of 3.2. If one
multiplies the excess number of offenders by the average of 3.2 felonies committed by
each offender, a greater understanding of the extent of the problem is gained. This
analysis suggests that approximately 125 excess felonies were committed after
participation in this work release program.
The number of offenders is only part of the problem. Unfortunately, Progress
House offenders from 1997 went on to commit many very serious and violent crimes. In
addition to rapes, robberies and assaults, three offenders went on to commit murder.
While two of these three offenders were Pierce County offenders, the fact remains that

87

their encounter with Progress House had no impact in preventing the loss of life that
occurred after their release.

Case Study #6
Three Murderers—5 Bodies
TRW began his criminal career in Lewis County with a series of
burglaries. In 1993, he was convicted of assault and drug violations in
Stevens County. As result of these convictions, DOC sent TRW to
Progress House Work Release on February 5, 1997. In August 1997,
Pierce County prosecuted TRW for willfully violating his conditions of
community custody. After his release, TRW obtained other convictions
from Grays Harbor County and Kitsap County. On December 17, 2004,
TRW robbed, shot and killed a 44 year-old and his 24-year old wife. He
shot the wife at point blank range. TRW shot each of the victims multiple
times, ransacked the house and stole money and jewelry. Mason County
convicted TRW of two counts of murder in the first degree and robbery.
His current release date is 2321. 109
JC had an attempted arson and assault convictions before he was 18. In
1996 JC stole a firearm from a vehicle in Pierce County. While
incarcerated, he had three major infractions, including one for fighting.
On January 29, 1997, DOC placed him at Progress House Work release.
He remained there for approximately five months. In 2000, Pierce County
convicted him of three more felonies. Shortly thereafter, on January 15,
2001, JC and two friends killed a man. They bound their victim, severely
beat him and injected him with Drano and Pine Sol in an attempt to kill
him. Failing in this effort, the three simply strangled the victim, took him
to the military reservation and dumped him in a pool of water. 110
According to FORS records, LAF is currently incarcerated for murder in
the second degree for an incident in 2000. Like J.C., LAF is a local boy
gone bad. With felony convictions for robbery, unlawful possession of a
firearm and drug violations, LAF came to Progress House on June 18,
1997. Six weeks later, he was returned to prison. By November, he was
back on the streets. In the next three years, he was convicted of 6
misdemeanors, involving weapons, drugs, and driving without a license.
On September 3, 2000, LAF and two friends forced their way into an
apartment in an attempt to obtain drugs and money. They were armed
with tazers and a gun. When the tenants of the apartment defended
themselves, two individuals were killed—one of the perpetrators and a
109

Description taken from Mason County Court records.
Description taken from Criminal History Summary for DOC #748307 produced in response to public
disclosure request on June 18, 2004.

110

88

tenant of the apartment. LAF pleaded guilty of murder in the second
degree and is currently in prison. 111
The case of LAF also exhibits the trouble this office has had in obtaining
information from DOC. LAF was sentenced on July 19, 2002. The events described
above should have been detailed on his current criminal history summary and provided to
this office as part of the initial public disclosure request. Instead of sending the most
current report, on August 12, 2004, DOC sent a report dated October 16, 1995. 112
TRW, JC, and LAF are the most violent graduates of the 1997 Progress House
class. However, they are by no means alone in committing violent offenses. The
seriousness and number of offenses committed by offenders who resided at Progress
House during 1997 suggest significant problems either with the selection process for those
admitted to the facility or the programs in place therein.
Moreover, the programs are not working as well as one could expect if the offender
had been released directly from prison. Comparative data suggests that the public would
have been much better off simply releasing offenders directly from prison.
Using the 50% eight-year recidivism rate as a benchmark, the 1997 Progress House
offenders exceeded the recidivism rate to be expected from prison direct releases by
16%. 113 These numbers represent a substantial number of excess crimes. A 50%
111

Description taken from Pierce County Superior Court file.
This office was able to retrieve its files from archives in order to determine what had occurred. Records
from other counties are not available to determine if DOC provided erroneous or incomplete information in
other instances. By matching FORS reports with CHS, it was possible to determine that at least 12 times of
the 244 offenders in the 1997 cohort, DOC did not provide the most current information as required by the
public disclosure request.
113
The at risk time for this database actually exceeds the eight year period by 12 months. The Washington
Institute for Public Policy suggests that the rates for different periods measured be adjusted. Aos, et al, The
Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Washington Institute for Public Policy,
2001, p. 38. If this approach is applied to the 1997 data, a 6% reduction of the recidivism rate would be
obtained. The propriety of applying the straight line adjustment to the ninth year following incarceration is
questionable. As noted in the discussion of comparing recidivism studies, the straight line method is
extremely conservative in that most recidivism curves are not linear but increase sharply at the front end and
112

89

recidivism rate would have produced recidivism in only 122 of the 244 offenders. 114
Instead, 161 offenders have committed new felonies. To that, sophisticated recidivism
data would also add some factor for the seriousness of the crimes committed. The three
murderers and the multiple robberies and assaults that were committed by offenders from
1997 suggest that an analysis that compares the seriousness of the offenses committed
would reveal that this program also produced offenders whose crimes were excessively
violent felonies.
This data should concern policy makers making decisions regarding the future of
such programs. A 16% excess felony recidivism rate translates into thousands of excess
crimes committed by offenders who have gone through the program over the years of its
existence. While Progress House may not have had such a poor performance every year it
has been in existence, the DOC data previously discussed establishes that Pierce County
work releases have historically demonstrated poorer results than programs located
elsewhere. How many excess crimes are attributable to programs located in Pierce County
that do not produce results comparable to other work releases or to direct prison release?
Clearly, substantial changes to this program must be made. The violence of some
offenders should give pause to any policy maker who agrees to locating the program in
proximity to vulnerable populations.
b.

January 1997 Tacoma Pre Release

DOC brought the largest number of offenders to Pierce County through the
Tacoma Pre Release Program. This program, formerly located on the Western State

then level off. Cost Benefits at 38. As this is not a statistical analysis, simply reporting the numbers for the
longer period of time should inform the reader of the approximate comparison. Even with the linear
adjustments suggested, the 1997 Progress House sample would exceed the prison sample by a full 10%.
114
See explanation at note 44 supra.

90

Hospital grounds, has handled thousands of offenders. As indicated above, data DOC
provided to The News Tribune showed that over ten thousand offenders were admitted to
Tacoma Pre Release in the period 1993 until it closed in April 2005. Up until July 2000,
this program primarily admitted male offenders. In July 2000, DOC changed this program
to include only female offenders.
This author confined her analysis of the 1997 Tacoma Pre Release admittees to
those admitted in January because of the large number of offenders associated with this
program. The January 1997 data base consisted of 72 offenders. Of these 72 offenders,
47 were convicted of committing a new felony through the end of 2006. The percentage
of new felony convictions is illustrated in Chart #25.

Chart #25
Recidivism Data Tacoma Pre Release
January 1997
TPR 97 New Felonies

35%
New Felony
No New Felony
65%

Direct release from prison would account for a 50% or slightly greater recidivism rate.
The 65% rate associated with TPR residents exceeds direct release recidivism rates by
15%, and represents eleven additional offenders in the one month sample. TPR residents
in this sample committed an average of 2.23 new felonies during this time period.

91

As with Progress House, individuals associated with these programs committed a
number of violent crimes. In addition to the numerous rapes, robberies and assaults, one
member of this class went on to commit two counts of first degree murder and two counts
of attempted murder in the first degree.

Case Study #7
The Shipyard Murderer
KC had a history of assaults and auto theft arising from his activities in
King County. 115 In January 1997, DOC brought him to Pierce County
where he resided in Tacoma Pre Release. He escaped from this facility,
was apprehended and prosecuted by Pierce County for escape in
February 1997. After his release from prison, KC apparently obtained a
job at Todd Shipyards in Seattle. Following his termination from that
position, KC entered the Northlake Shipyard office and shot and killed two
employees and injured two others. He is currently at Clallam Bay
Correctional Center with an expected release date of 2413.
The number of repeat offenders and the seriousness of their crimes suggest that
Tacoma Pre Release was not a successful program.
c.

1997 RAP House

During 1997, DOC records indicate at least 38 offenders went through RAP
Houses Work Release. Unlike Progress House and Tacoma Pre Release, in 1997, this
facility registered a lower recidivism rate than that associated with direct release from
prison. Of the 38 individuals in this program in 1997, 37% (14) committed new felonies.
In 1997, this program produced lower recidivism rates than that associated with direct
prison release.

115

KC’s story is compiled from his FORS report and the unpublished decision in the appeal of his murder
convictions. See, State v. Cruz, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 1155, May 23, 2005.

92

Individual offenders, however, were associated with a high rate of new felonies.
Offenders from RAP House during this period had an average of 3.57 new felonies, the
highest registered in facilities.
d. Lincoln Park Work Release
DOC states that Lincoln Park Work Release is designed to assist mentally ill
offenders. Like RAP House, it is the only facility of its kind in the state. Like RAP
House, it serves primarily out-of-county offenders. In 1997, 67% of the offenders
admitted to the facility had obtained their first convictions in some county other than
Pierce.
DOC sent 66 offenders to this program in 1997. Of these 66 offenders 28% (15)
of these offenders were sex offenders. Only one of these 15 sex offenders received his
first conviction from Pierce County. The remaining 14 were out-of-county sex offenders.
Four of these sex offenders were from King County.
Analysis of this data base also revealed an extremely high mortality rate. Of the 58
offenders, 14% (8) are listed as deceased on the felony offender reporting system. This
high number of individuals who met their demise during this nine- year period was not
seen in any other program. Only Progress House, with 4.5% (11) of its 244 offenders had
numbers anywhere close to that of this facility.
Twenty-two offenders, or 38% of the offenders, have committed new felonies
since their release. 116 In 1997, Lincoln Park Work Release registered a lower recidivism
rate than that associated with direct prison release.

116

Arguably, adjustments should be made to eliminate those individuals who are deceased as they obviously
could not be committing new offenses. Only one of the individuals in this group committed new offenses
prior to his demise. The percentages are based on the raw numbers, without adjustments for those whose

93

Conclusion Finding #8
Both Progress House and Tacoma Pre Release have historically registered
recidivism rates in excess of that associated with direct prison release. This fact has
been documented by DOC’s internal studies, the Lachman Report 117 and the
findings of this author. The two smaller Pierce County programs performed better
than the norm during this period.

Finding #9: Based on a 1997 sample, Bishop Lewis Work Release and
Reynolds Work Release programs in King County produced lower recidivism
rates than did Progress House and Tacoma Pre Release located here in Pierce
County.
The poor performance of these two programs suggested a need to look at results
from other work release facilities. Some of this work has already been done by the DOC
and its consultants and discussed above. The data from both DOC and the Lachman study
established that Pierce County work release did not perform as well as Clark County, King
County, the state average and/or direct release from prison. This section of the report
summarizes these studies and offers the original work from this office. This author’s
research confirmed the premise that Progress House and Tacoma Pre Release perform
below state norms. A sample of 1997 inmates from Bishop Lewis and Reynolds work
releases in King County showed substantially better recidivism rates than Progress House
and Tacoma Pre Release in Pierce County.

death took them out of the offender population. If the number were adjusted for the large number of
deceased individuals, this facility would have a 44% recidivism rate.
117
See Lachman Report at p. 48, Table 38.

94

A.

DOC Studies Establish that Pierce County Work Release Facilities
Consistently Register Higher Recidivism Rates Than Work Release in
Other Counties.

Consultants hired by DOC gathered and analyzed recidivism data from programs
in Clark, King, Pierce, and Spokane counties. The results published in the Lachman
Report established that Pierce County had higher recidivism rates than other counties.
The Lachman Report looked at 15,708 offenders coming through these programs
from 1993 to 1997 in order to determine 5 year felony recidivism rates. The Report
concluded that King County had a 42% recidivism rate after five years. Programs in
Clark and Spokane County performed much better. These two programs registered 37%
recidivism rates. 118 The relative performance of these programs is set out in Chart # 26

Chart #26
Comparison of Recidivism Rates
60%
50%
40%

Clark
Spokane

30%

King

20%

Pierce

10%
0%
Clark

Spokane

King

Pierce

At 37%, Spokane and Clark County were registering rates better than those to be expected
from direct prison release and significantly better than those registered in Pierce County.

118

Id.

95

The differences between programs establish that not all work release perform in the same
fashion.
The consultants looked at this results and concluded:
A “somewhat” higher percentage of inmates released from Pierce County
work release and pre-release had a new felony conviction and were
returned to prison than those released from other facilities.
This qualified statement is interesting. Given the size of the study and the marked
difference between Clark, King and Pierce County results, these numbers certainly
are statistically significant, yet the authors, professional consultants hired by DOC,
do not include this information.
The results of the Lachman study were confirmed by other data maintained
by DOC and by this author’s independent study of the issue.
B.

1997 King County Data
1.

Bishop Lewis

To compensate for the small sample size needed to accomplish the task, the author
randomly selected data from the first two months of 1997 to compare recidivism for those
offenders in Bishop Lewis Work Release with offenders in Pierce County programs during
the same time. During the first two months of 1997, 47 offenders were admitted to Bishop
Lewis Work Release. This program is a 69 bed male offender facility run by Pioneer
Industries. As noted previously offenders DOC brings to this program are mostly King
County offenders.

96

Of the 47 offenders who were admitted during this two-month period in 1997, just
21 offenders committed new felonies. This translates into a recidivism rate of 45%.
This data suggests that Bishop Lewis Work Release produced a recidivism rate that
was better than direct prison release by 5%. This program outperformed Progress House
and Tacoma Pre Release by producing a recidivism rate 21 percentage points lower than
Progress House and 20 percentage points lower than Tacoma Pre Release.
2.

1997 Reynolds Work Release

The author pulled data for Reynolds Work Release using inmates during the first
month of January 1997. Fifty-two offenders were admitted to the program. As noted in
§IV, supra, this program primarily served offenders from King County.
Of these 52 offenders, 46% (24) have been convicted of new felonies. Only three
of the offenders Reynolds admitted during this time were sex offenders.
Reynolds Work Release, like Bishop Lewis, had a felony recidivism rate below that
recorded for direct prison release. Its recidivism rate was 20 percentage points below that
being recorded at Progress House.
While the sample sizes are different, the offenders being studied from the facilities
should be roughly comparable. This author’s review of the data established that King
County facilities registered a far better long term recidivism rate than Pierce County’s.
This conclusion is illustrated in Chart #27.

97

Chart # 27
Comparison King County Facilities with Pierce County
1997 Admissions
70%
60%
50%

Reynolds

40%

Bishop Lewis

30%

Progress

20%

TPR

10%
0%
Reynolds

Bishop
Lewis

Progress

TPR

Conclusion Finding #9
A sample of offenders from Bishop Lewis and Reynolds Work Release in King
County produced substantially lower long term recidivism rates than did 1997
samples from Progress House and Tacoma Pre Release. This data, combined with
DOC’s own studies, indicates that Pierce County’s early release facilities consistently
performed below the state norm and below the comparable rates for direct prison
release.

Finding #10: Data from 2005 Indicates that All Three Remaining Pierce
County Work Release Facilities Have Below Standard Performance.
A.

2005 RAP House Work Release

In contrast to the relatively strong performance RAP House demonstrated in 1997,
by 2005 something had changed at RAP House. Recidivism data from offenders housed at

98

the program in early 2005 shows a very high rate that indicates changes either in the
program or the type of offenders DOC sent there.
This author looked at offenders in this program during the first six months of 2005.
Twenty-nine offenders were admitted during the first six months of 2005. Of these 29
offenders, 12 have already been convicted of new felonies. This represents a recidivism
rate of 41% for a period of less than two years. In contrast, two year felony recidivism
data collected by DOC establishes an average two year rate of 20%. In less than twoyears, the RAP House offenders have established a recidivism rate twice that of the
average as illustrated in Chart #28

Chart #28
2005 Comparison Data
State Average and RAP House
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

RAP

20%

Average

15%
10%
5%
0%
RAP

Average

These results tell a significant tale of program failure. This data from RAP House work
release points out the critical need for recidivism studies that analyze the issue by types of
offenders sent, length of stay, and programs at each facility. If all other things had
remained the same, RAP House should have had only a small portion of the recidivism
rate it had rather than a rate in excess of the eight year plus time frame registered in 1997.

99

What is different about the offenders or the program that explains such dramatic shifts?
As demonstrated by the next two comparisons, Lincoln Park also performed better in 1997
than it appears to be performing in 2005.
B.

2005 Lincoln Park Work Release

Data from 2005 was examined to determine where offenders were coming from
and whether or not the recidivism rates are being adversely impacted by changes at the
facilities or DOC policies.
Fifty-six offenders went through Lincoln Park Work Release during the first six
months of 2005. Of these 56 offenders, 21% (12) have committed new felonies eighteen
months following the study period. This eighteen month rate would translate into a 2
years recidivism rate of 28%. The two year recidivism rate for direct prison release is
21%. 119 This rate illustrates that, like RAP House, high recidivism rates are becoming a
problem for this program. This program, like RAP House went from performing better
than direct prison release to performing at a rate substantially below it.
C.

2005 Progress House

This office looked at more recent data to determine if this program registered an y
substantial changes in the number and type of crimes being by inmates. As noted
previously, DOC provided 75 names of individuals who resided at Progress House on
February 9, 2005. This group also registered high recidivism rates.
As of the end of 2006, at least 40 or 53% of those offenders housed in Progress
House on February, 2005 had been rearrested in Pierce County. As of the writing of this
report (January 2007) 29% (22) of the offenders have been convicted of one or more new

119

See DOC materials at Appendix #13.

100

felonies. Three other offenders have had convictions for misdemeanors involving driving
with revoked licenses.
This study revealed a 33% recidivism rate less than two years from February 9,
2005. Twenty-five or a full 1/3 of the offenders have new criminal convictions.
Moreover, Pierce County has filed felony charges which are pending against an additional
four offenders.
Again, these numbers contrast sharply with the success rates of other programs. At
the two-year mark, 120 20% of the offenders studied from 1996 work release /pre release
facilities had committed new felonies. Progress House recidivism rate, less than two years
out is almost 10% higher than the two-year norm.
This class of offenders clearly illustrates the foolishness of repeatedly sending
offenders through the work release system. Of the 75 from 2005 in the DOC sample, 36%
(27) had had prior visits to work release in Washington State. Of these, 29% (22) had had
prior visits to Progress House. By definition, these offenders have returned to their
criminal habits by incurring a subsequent prison term and readmission to work release.
A more startling figure is that 10 offenders had more than one prior visit to
Progress House. For these individuals, their February 2005 visit was at least their third
time through the program. Even more troubling: 3 individuals, EDC, RJ, and JR, had four
or more prior visits to Progress House. For each of these individuals, the February 2005
admission to Progress House represented their fifth admission. Not surprisingly, their
most recent visit to Progress House had no impact on these three men. Less than two

120

Because these offenders were released at different times during following the February 2005 residence at
Progress House, the actual “at risk time” for offenders ranges from 23 months to less than 20 months. At
risk time is the actual time an offenders spends outside of confinement subject to the temptation of
participating in new criminal activity.

101

years after their release, EDC, RJ, and JR have all been convicted of additional felonies.
All three of these individuals currently reside in prison.

Case Study #7
Work Release—Another Revolving Door
JAR has been through Progress House’s program a total of six times:
1993; 1995; 1997; 2000 and 2003. He was also in Progress House on
February 9, 2005 and released on May 16, 2005. Less than a year later,
on January 24, 2006, J.A.R. pled guilt to burglary in the second degree in
Pierce County Superior court.
EDC discussed previously in Case Study #4,, had been through Progress
House five times. He too has new convictions. Obviously, the program
has had no impact upon him or his family.
RJ has been through work release six times, five of those at Progress
House. According to DOC records, RJ was in work release in December
1993, July 1995, September 1997, November 2000, September 2003 and
again in January 2005. He was released from Progress House Work
Release on May 31, 2005. Less than six months following his release from
Progress House for this sixth stay in work release, RJ was apprehended
attempting to falsely return stolen items. At the time of his arrest, he had
drugs and drug paraphernalia sufficient to establish the crime of
possession with intent to deliver. On February 2, 2006, RJ pleaded guilty
to drug charges and was returned to prison to serve 12 months plus
additional time for his DOSA revocation.
Recidivism becomes a more serious issue when the crimes are not just property
crimes or drug offenses. Crimes of violence exact a greater toll on the victims and the
criminal justice system. Unfortunately, some 2005 Progress House offenders have gone
on to commit crimes of violence. Several of the 2005class face charges that include
violence or charges that include the use of firearms. Two individuals have been charged
with assault 2, three are accused of committing robbery and a sixth faces firearm charges.

Conclusion Finding #10

102

For inmates in Pierce County’s work release facilities during early 2005, the
programs are not working. Programs at RAP House and Lincoln Park Work release
that seemed to have been working in 1997, are now on track to produce sub par
results. Whether this is due to a change in the type of offender being sent to the
programs or a change in the program themselves is not known. Further research is
needed to determine this issue. However the 2005 recidivism rates from both RAP
House and Lincoln Park Work Release demonstrate that either a major shift has
been made in the program or DOC is now sending offenders there who are much
more likely to re-offend.
Offenders at Progress House continue to perform far below the norm
associated with direct prison release. A number of offenders at this program have
been through it multiple times and still continue to commit new crimes upon their
release.

Finding#11: Because DOC is unwilling to restrict participation in RAP House
and Lincoln Park Work Releases to Pierce County offenders, these two
programs will continue to funnel dangerous out-of-county offenders to Pierce
County.
The poor performance of RAP House and Lincoln Park Work Releases in 2005
should be of particular concern to Pierce County community leaders because, to date,
DOC refuses to commit to any limitation which would restrict these programs to
Pierce County offenders. Consistently, these programs have housed dangerous offenders
from other counties. Data from 1997 and from 2005 indicates that these programs are
used almost exclusively for out-of-county offenders. The focus of this section is what is
occurring most recently.

103

At RAP House, in 2005, 21 of the 29 offenders received their first conviction from
some county other than Pierce. Nine of the offenders had convictions from King County.
Chart #29 illustrates the ratio of Pierce County to out-of-county offenders housed at RAP
House the first six months of 2005.

Chart #29
2005 RAP House County of First Conviction

28%
Pierce
Other
72%

A higher percentage of offenders have committed new crimes than the percentage
of Pierce County offenders. If the excess out-of-county offenders who commit their
crimes do so in Pierce County, they will contribute to our crime problem.

Case Study # 9
Endangering Our Law Enforcement Officers
DF is an example of offenders endangering the lives of our law
enforcement officers. Prior to coming to RAP House, DF was convicted
of nine felonies. Eight of these felonies were from King County, one from
Spokane County. In 1990 there was a law enforcement contact in Pierce
County for failing to return to a work release facility.
DOC sent DF to RAP House on January 26, 2005. He resided at this
facility until June 20, 2005. After this date he was released, apparently to

104

Pierce County. 121 Like so many others, he became a transient on the
streets. On July 3, 2006, DF was picked up after providing false
information during a routine check. While being transported to jail, DF
threatened to kill the officer. He refused to cooperate in the booking
process and ultimately struck out at the officer, kicking him in the ankle
and spitting in his face. DF spent 148 days in the Pierce County jail and
ultimately pled guilty to assault in the third degree.
Law enforcement is a difficult and hazardous occupation. As this example demonstrates,
their burden has been increased by dealing with the imports from other counties.
Like RAP House, Lincoln Park residents are primarily out-of-county offenders.
Of those studied from 2005, Pierce County accounted for only 27% (15) of the total
offenders admitted during this time. King County, on the other hand, accounted for 43%
(24) of the total. Chart #30 illustrates the percentage of Pierce, King and other counties
at Lincoln Park during the first six months of the year.

121

Information for DF’s history is taken from his FORS report and court files pertaining to his Pierce
County conviction. As DOC has not provided access to their electronic database, it is not possible to
confirm the county to which Doss was released following work release.

105

Chart #30
County of First Conviction
2005 Lincoln Park WR

27%
30%
Pierce
King
Others
43%

The fact that more King County offenders are in this facility than Pierce County offenders
suggests that these facilities are a major benefit to King County offenders. Given King
County’s resources, there is no reason specialized programs such as those at RAP House
and Lincoln Park Work Release could not be moved to the county from which the majority
of the inmates originate.
The large portion of King County offenders combined with a high recidivism rate
would be expected to produce offenders in Pierce County if the primary thesis of this
report, out-of-county imports commit crime here, is true. A close look at the twelve
offenders who have committed new crimes since their release reveals that the primary
thesis is correct. Offenders brought to Pierce County through these programs remain
to commit new crimes in Pierce County.
A review of the individual files of the 12 offenders who have committed new
crimes at Lincoln Park reveals the significant impact of Pierce County hosting a program
which serves more King County offenders than if does offenders from Pierce County.

106

Conclusion Finding #11
DOC’s refusal to commit to limits regarding out-of-county offenders at RAP
House and Lincoln Park will allow DOC to continue funneling dangerous offenders
to Pierce County work release. Unlike their performance in 1997, these programs
have recently posted very poor results. Primarily used for King County and
residents from other counties, these violent offenders integrate into Pierce County
following their release and commit new crimes here.
The combination of increased recidivism and out-of-county imports increases
the likelihood that Pierce County may once again experience a tragedy such as that
which occurred when DOC brought Johnny Eggers to our community through
Lincoln Park Work Release.

V.

FINDINGS REGARDING POST RELEASE PROGRAMS
AND OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY

The community has recently been concerned about the proliferation of halfway
house and other community living arrangements being touted as a solution to the issue of
repeat offenders. This author wanted to test the conclusion that these facilities somehow
improved outcomes. Initial research indicates that they do not. Moreover, the high
recidivism rates of offenders on community custody indicates that it is time to put
effective enforcement mechanism in the supervision structure.

Finding #12: Sending offenders to halfway houses located in Pierce County
did not reduce the rate at which offenders commit new felonies.
The most difficult offenders to track are those that are simply released to the
county from DOC. In an effort to identify where offenders originated and where they

107

were released to, this office tracked release announcements provided to the Law
Enforcement Support Agency (LESA) for an approximately three month period during the
summer of 2005. 122
According to the teletype release data, 50 individuals were identified as releasing
to halfway houses in Tacoma during the summer of 2005. These facilities included Fresh
Start, McKinley House, House of Vision, New Life, and Taylor House. Of the 50
individuals released to identifiable halfway houses, 28% (14) have already been convicted
of new felonies less than 18 months from their release. Chart #31details this data.

Chart #31
Halfway House Releases Summer 2005

28%
Felonies
No New Felonies
72%

This recidivism data listed above does not take include those offenders who are
currently in jail or have been returned to prison, once, twice, three or more times during
the interim.

122

This data was collected by a volunteer intern from the University of Washington School of Law, Laura
Cunningham. This office extends its sincere thanks to Ms. Cunningham for the many hours of research and
data entry she performed on this and other topics related to the current report.

108

Conclusion Finding #12
Halfway houses, touted as a way of giving offenders needed shelter and
support do not appear to change outcomes for the better. Data available from those
admitted during the summer of 2005 reveals an extremely high recidivism rate
incompatible with an effective program. Local opposition to halfway houses may be
justified. Bringing a large number of ex-felons together in a communal living
arrangement does not appear to be conducive to improving their ability to avoid new
crime.

Finding #13: Effective mechanisms are needed to deal with the issue of repeat
offenders who violate the terms and conditions of their release, commit
infractions in work release or commit new crimes while on community
supervision/custody.
DOC contends that there have been no problems associated with work release
inmates. Requests for information regarding crimes committed while on work release
resulted data regarding a handful of convictions. But the conviction data DOC provided
does not tell the whole story if the offender never comes to the attention of the
prosecutor’s office. Because DOC has so far denied access to computer logs which would
allow this office to compare the offenders’ history against their returns to prison, it is
difficult to evaluate how extensive a problem this issue creates. It is, however, one of the
most important public safety issues. The standards that DOC uses for returns to prison,
combined with DOC’s proposals regarding “violation” centers, brings to the forefront the
question of whether DOC has properly been holding offenders accountable for their acts of
misconduct. The conclusion in this section are limited based on the limited data.

109

Currently, offenders who commit offenses while on work release may or may not
come to the attention of the local prosecutor based on the activities of DOC and law
enforcement. The case of CG illustrates how an offender who committed serious felonies
while on work release slipped through the cracks and eventually caused serious harm to
his victim.

Case Study #10
Work Release Offenders Who Commit Crimes
The Unknown Costs of Unsupervised Access to the Community
CG’s criminal history evidenced his total disregard for the legal system.
His adult felony career 123 began in Grant County in 1992. From that
jurisdiction, he obtained a felony drug conviction. In 1994 he committed
the crime of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance while in Pierce
County. Shortly thereafter ,CG first went through a work release
program. In 2002, King County convicted CG of unlawful possession of a
firearm and assault in the third degree. On August 28, 2002, CG was
released to Progress House Work Release where he underwent the
standard orientation. That orientation included information that informed
C.G. that if he deviated from any place or purpose for which he signed out
of work release, he would be considered to be on escape. 124
On October 5, 2002, CG signed out on work release and arrived at the
apartment of his ex-girlfriend. CG became upset and started yelling and
threatening. He spit in his girlfriend’s face and left in her car after loading
personal possessions into it. He returned a short time later and apparently
apologized.
Seven days later, CG again signed himself out of work release and again
went to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment. This time he kicked in her door and
left her a note. He returned to work release that night. The two incidents
were reported and apparently an investigation was begun by law
enforcement.
DOC processed CG, through a violation hearing at McNeil Island
Correction Center. DOC did not inform the prosecutor’s office of the
criminal conduct CG engaged in while he was technically on escape status
because of his unauthorized departures from his work release point-topoint outings. The hearing officer found that the events had occurred and
123

CG’s first conviction was as a juvenile in Pierce County in 1987.
Information concerning the events described herein were obtained from a Work Release Hearing Report
dated October 28, 2002 and produced to this office pursuant to a public disclosure request.

124

110

sanctioned CG to 40 days loss of good time and revoked his authorization
to participate in work release. At the conclusion of his report, the hearing
officer makes the following statement: “This disposition was imposed to
hold Mr. G accountable for his violation behavior and took into
consideration the risk he presented to the community as well as to his exgirlfriend. It was determined that the Department needed to be sensitive
to the domestic violence situation with the ex-girlfriend and the posed
threat.”(Emphasis added.)
CG eventually released to community custody in Pierce County. While on
community custody, he sustained additional violations and had a warrant
out for driving with a revoked license. Shortly after his release, he again
made contact with her ex-girlfriend. This time, he viciously assaulted her,
beating her and throttling her. Photographs of her condition after the
assault document bruises on her neck (from the strangulation attempt) a
black eye and numerous bruises and contusions on the rest of her body. As
a result of this incident, Pierce County convicted CG of attempted assault in
the second degree.
It is unknown how many incidents like the one described above slip below the
radar of the criminal justice system. Had the case been referred to this office, CG would
likely have faced multiple felony charges for the events that occurred while he was on
work release. CG could have been convicted of assault, residential burglary, malicious
mischief and escape. Instead, the Department of Corrections simply revoked 40 days
of good time credit. As a result, this offender went on to commit a serious violent felony
and endangered the life of a young female.
The author’s study of hundreds of offender files during the course of preparing this
report resulted in more questions than answers regarding how and why an offender is
returned to prison. The system currently in place vests authority in DOC for community
custody violations. This system, part of the Offender Accountability Act, was welcomed
by local authorities because it relieved counties of the responsibility to prosecute crimes of
willful violation of community custody release. An unintended consequence of that
change, however, may well have been that serious crimes go undetected as community

111

custody officers fold them into revocation hearings. While local prosecutors do not have
the resources to prosecute all community custody violations, at a minimum, DOC must be
obligated to report all felony conduct that is not simply the use of banned substances to the
local prosecutor’s office.
The second issue raised by CG’s case study is the effectiveness of community
custody and the ability of community custody officers to enforce terms and conditions of
release. Without sufficient sanctions, repeat offenders have no incentive to comply with
either treatment programs and restrictions regarding no contact orders or other conditions.
The current system views crimes committed while on community custody no different
than any other crime, except that the offender’s “score” is increased by one point.
This situation has resulted in a revolving door for prison and work release. No
case illustrates that fact better than the story of GB described below:

Case Study 11
102 Convictions—One Offender
GB began his criminal career in King County in 1982. King County
convicted him of 15 felonies from 1982 to 200 and 63 misdemeanors
during this same time. Before 2001, GB had no criminal convictions in
Pierce County and only misdemeanors in Spokane County following his
1997 stint at Brownstone Work Release.
In 2001, things changed dramatically. This year, GB suddenly became
Pierce County’s problem. After committing several felonies in Pierce
County, DOC placed GB at Progress House. Since his release, less than
two years ago, GB has been convicted of more felonies and additional
misdemeanors. Total criminal convictions: 102. This one offender has
been convicted of 27 felonies and 75 misdemeanors. Included in these
crimes are domestic assaults, thefts, burglary, violation of protective
orders, five reckless and negligent driving charges, two hit and run
accidents and 29 incidents of driving with a suspended license.
Even though GB committed the majority of his criminal conduct in King
County, (78 of 102), he has never served time in King County work
release. Instead DOC placed him first in Spokane and then in Pierce

112

County. After both work release encounters, he committed offenses in the
counties where DOC placed him.

Reasonable people look at GB’s story and wonder why the system continues to process,
and reprocess the same offender so many times. The answer is that for some offenders,
the system simply does not have an adequate deterrent effect.
Our criminal justice system needs accountability. Those on community custody
need serious sanctions imposed when they commit crimes. The current system is little
more than a slap on the wrist for repeat criminals. A change in the offender scoring
system is needed. Currently, offenders who commit a new felony while on community
custody have little punishment associated with the event. At best, an offender may incur
an additional point on his offender score. For offenders whose have nine or more offender
points, this threat holds little weight.
A better proposal would be to require that time served for a felony committed
while on community custody be flat time, not subject to good time reductions. Multiple
felonies committed while on community custody should result in the offender serving
consecutive, not concurrent sentences.
This proposal would strengthen community custody officers’ ability to enforce the
conditions of release. Every parent knows that unless accountability is imposed for
misconduct, a child will not take seriously the family’s rules and regulations. Society
should have no different response to offenders. While being supportive of their needs and
problems, society should nonetheless draw firm lines on acceptable conduct. Violation of
conditions of community custody that consist of felony offenses must be severely
punished in order to rebuild respect for the system and impose accountability on offenders.

113

Conclusion Finding #13
The present revocation system can result in a lack of accountability for
serious felony level misconduct. Serious violations that may actually involve felony
level conduct may slip below the radar of local prosecutors. Community supervision
lacks effective enforcement mechanisms for felony level conduct that occurs while on
supervision.

VI.

THE COST OF DOC’S ACTIVITIES TO PIERCE COUNTY

This section discusses the financial and other costs associated with Pierce County’s
status as the most violent county in the state.

Finding #14: DOC’s placement of a large number of imported offenders in
Pierce County places a heavy burden on its taxpayers by increasing the cost of
the criminal justice system that must exist to service these offenders.
Determining the total cost of out-of-county offenders to Pierce County is beyond
the scope of this report. To accurately and completely determine that cost, it would be
first necessary to identify every out-of-county offender brought here by work release and
other DOC policies and then evaluate the specific costs incurred for each offender. With
the number of offenders DOC dumped in Pierce County, this would be a monumental task.
Readers interested in data regarding the cost of each criminal offense and how to
compute the actual costs of programs that fail, are referred to the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy article The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to

114

Reduce Crime. 125 The authors of that study document the incredible costs of each type of
felony conviction. From murders, with costs in the millions, to misdemeanors which may
be simple to prosecute but conceal deadly drivers or violent offenders, each has their cost,
to the public and to their victims.
The impact of dumping offenders has many different consequences. This office
has an annual budget of close to 23 million dollars. The Department of Assigned Counsel
and law enforcement agencies also have large budgets to handle the large number of
offenders.
While there is evidence that some index crimes are on a downward trend, some of
the most seriously violent ones in Pierce County are not. During the mid nineties, the
homicide rate was at an extremely high level due to gang activity. The homicide unit in
this office faces an ever increasing number of crimes. 126 Chart #32 illustrates the sharp
upward trend in homicides committed in Pierce County over the last few years.

125

Aos, Phillips, Barnski & Lieb, The Comparative Costs & Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime,
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia (May 2001).
126
Pierce County’s homicide rate is returning to the level it was in the mid nineties, when Tacoma was the
scene of substantial gang activity. There are some indicators that gang activity is also responsible for this
increase. Several authors have written generally on the fact that gangs that start in the prisons continue on
into the community. See When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social
Consequences, Sentencing & Corrections, November 2000.

115

Chart #32
Homicide Charges Filed 2002-2006

80
60
40
20
0
Homicide Unit

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

24

30

26

38

59

Homicide Unit

Each murder takes vast resources to prosecute. Data developed by the Washington
Institute for Public Policy places the costs in excess of $100,000 in addition to the costs to
incarcerate offenders and the costs to victims.
The Special Assault Unit of the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorneys Office faces
similar stresses. This unit handles the heartbreaking cases; rape (adult and child), child
molestation, child assaults, elder abuse and/or domestic assaults all come to this team.
Like the homicide unit, the Special Assault Unit suffers the burden of an increasing
caseload. Chart #33 127 illustrates the increased referrals over the last decade.

127

This is a duplicate of Chart #20. It is reproduced a second time because of its relevance to both
topics and to make it easier for the reader to follow the discussion.

116

Chart #33
Referrals to Special Assault Unit
Rapes, Domestic Assaults and Child Abuse
SAU
3500
3000
2500
2000

SAU

1500
1000

20
06

20
04

20
02

20
00

19
98

19
96

500
0

The victims of these crimes are particularly vulnerable and frequently need
rehabilitative services. The Pierce County Sexual Assault Center requires enormous
resources to handle issues arising from crimes against adults. Mary Bridge Children’s
Hospital maintains multiple intervention programs for children who have been sexually
and physically abused, or exposed to the hazards of methamphetamine labs. In 2005, the
Hospital’s Child Abuse Intervention Department conducted 486 sexual assault
evaluations, 44 physical assault evaluations and 14 methamphetamine exposure
evaluations.
Our two major hospitals have emergency rooms that over flow with those requiring
medical care. It is well-established that offenders have significantly greater health needs
than the general population because they often live as transients, with poor health care and
drug and substance abuse problems. Our community must maintain the vast social
network and fund programs at current levels, in part, because of its excess offender

117

problem. The resources needed to handle the offenders, their families and their victims
are significant.
The high crime rate is reflected in many diverse ways. In 2005, Pierce County had
7,410 motor vehicle thefts, an increase of 1,025 over 2004. Increased car thefts raise the
insurance rates for all drivers.
While other property crimes are down, sophisticated identity theft and bank scams
abound in Pierce County. The Fraud and Arson unit is prosecuting fewer cases, but an
increased number of complex identity theft cases, complex ATM and banking fraud cases
and more complex cases with multiple counts. This unit currently has multiple cases
which contain allegations that the defendants were leading three or more people in
criminal conduct. Many cases await additional follow-up from banks and law
enforcement. Law enforcement must adapt to new and creative methods of investigating
thefts. Prosecution of these cases often involve expensive forensic experts and other
resources to trace mass produced false identifications and fraudulent credit cards created
with the aid of computers, scanners and color printers.
Pierce County frequently tops the list with the highest number of
methamphetamine lab related cases. This is no accident. The Office of National Drug
Control Policy estimates that 70 to 85% of state prison inmates need treatment, but only
13% receive treatment while incarcerated. 128 Drug and alcohol problems in turn lead to
increased crime, increased need for services and increase costs for care.
Pierce County’s crime is on an upward trend in several critical areas of
prosecutions. The ever-increasing loads in the homicide, special assault unit and the
complexity of cases being referred to the fraud unit are particularly significant because

118

these cases frequently must be tried rather than settled resulting in increased costs for
prosecutors, defense counsel, the courts and the correctional facility. Pierce County must
and can, unite to take any and all action to stop any DOC activity that contributes to these
trends.
DOC currently maintains a revolving door with offenders being dumped back on
the streets. Cases studies 12, 13 and 14 illustrate that it is time for a change.

Case Study # 12
A Danger to Our Officers and to the Driving Public
PC began his criminal career in 1990 in King County. While a King
County resident, he was convicted of six felonies, including attempting to
elude, drug violations and, in 1996, a felony hit and run. The felony hit
and run involved PC striking an occupied police car. The police officer
was knocked unconscious and required hospitalization as a result of this
incident.
Although PC had already been through a work release program for a
previous offense, DOC chose to send him to work release at Progress
House on August 5, 1997. Prior to this date, P.C. had no convictions in
Pierce County. PC’s first documented appearance in Pierce County was
on November 29, 1998. He then apparently returned to King County
where he had another conviction for eluding a police officer. Two months
after his sentencing, DOC again sent PC to Progress House. He began
his third stint with work release and his second stint at Progress House on
July 14, 1999. While on supervision for this crime, PC had multiple
infractions including failing to report, failing to abide by UA/BA
monitoring, use of controlled substances, unapproved
employment/residence change, failure to pay legal financial obligations
and non participation in treatment and counseling. None of this was
apparently enough to cause DOC to take definitive action.
On August 18, 2001, PC assaulted a local police officer by backing into
his vehicle. During the course of the police chase, P.C. fled through
residential neighborhoods, ran multiple stop lights and stop signs and
drove directly at several police vehicles which had to take evasive action
to avoid being hit. For this conduct, PC was convicted of Assault and was
sentenced to 43 months in prison. Less than two years later, PC was
again released to a work release facility.
128

See sources cited in Petersilia article.

119

As the narrative above illustrates, only by sheer luck did Pierce County avoid
being the scene of another fatality accident such as the ones which have recently caused
the death of King County law enforcement officers.
Criminal offenses are not the only drain on Pierce County resources. The felony
convictions are just the tip of the iceberg. Such offenders frequently drive without
licenses and without insurance. They are responsible for injury accidents and property
loss. They draw down the available funds for drug and alcohol treatment and social
services. Ironically, a good example of this phenomenon appears in The News Tribune
article on sheltering homeless people during the January 2007 cold snap.

Case Study #13
Sheltering King County’s Offenders
On January 14, 2007, The News Tribune carried an article on the warm
welcome that area shelters gave people on the streets. Accompanying that
article were the pictures of R.B. and J. S. R.B. is a recent work release
import. RB has no convictions in Pierce County prior to coming to Lincoln
Park Work Release in 2002 following convictions for drug violations in
King County. After his release, R.B. apparently made the streets of Tacoma
his home. In and out of prison and work release, RB was convicted of
unlawful delivery of a controlled substance in September 2005 and
sentenced to a year in prison. He was released in April of 2006.
This author does not want to imply that offenders are less deserving of shelter and
basic necessities than other people. That is not the point. Pierce County has a serious
problem taking care of its own homeless. According to data released by the Public
Education Committee for the Road Home, Pierce County’s chronic homeless are twice
those of the national average. The overwhelming majority of the chronic homeless are
men, and many of these are offenders. Release of out-of-county offenders to our streets

120

exacerbates a problem our community already struggles to address. Other communities
can and must take care of their fair share of offenders.
Finally, a last word about sex offenders. Nearly on a daily basis, one can read the
latest announcement of the latest out-of-county release to Pierce County. Not all of them
are murderers. Those that reoffend may commit property, drug crimes or just fail to
register as a sex offender. Each offense costs Pierce County funds.
Conclusion Finding #14
Excess offenders consume scarce public resources. Pierce County currently
spends significant sums processing felons through the court system. The five year
trend in important areas such as sexual assault and homicide is upward. The
increase in crime will result in increased need for lawyers, judges, courtrooms, law
enforcement and correctional facilities to handle the offenders.

Finding #15: DOC’s placement of imported offenders in Pierce County
jeopardizes the safety of Pierce County’s citizens and reduces the ability of
Pierce County to reach its full potential for economic growth while allowing
counties to the north to grow without this impediment.
The City of Tacoma recently invested $58,654.00 to study the attitude of its
citizens. 129 While various individuals have commented on this survey, most comments
understate the reality of how poorly Tacoma faired in public opinions regarding issues
relating to their personal safety. The information contained on pages 37-39 of the survey
is of particular importance because it puts the results of the survey in perspective with
results from other communities.

129

See report at http://www.cityoftacoma.org/

121

Only 1% of Tacoma citizens feel very safe in the neighborhood parks after dark.
Only 3% of its citizens feel very safe in Tacoma’s downtown area after dark. If one
includes the number of people who feel “somewhat safe” Tacoma has only 10% of its
population who feels safe after dark in its parks. It has only 17% of its citizens who feel
safe in the downtown area after dark. 130
Data from 114 jurisdictions indicated that Tacoma came in last for feelings of
safety in its parks after dark. Tacoma faired very little better on the question concerning
safety in the downtown area after dark. The 17% rating for feelings of safety downtown
after dark ranked Tacoma 130/131 of cities studied.
While other safety ratings were not as dramatic, Tacoma consistently ranked below
the norm on every safety indicator. The highest ranking it achieved was an 8% safety
rating for safety in the neighborhood during the day. Even this “better” rating put Tacoma
at 130/140 cities studied.
These numbers are not just bad, they are dismal. Tacoma, home of new and
cutting edge museums, great new restaurants, the Theater on the Square, the Downtown
Farmers Market, the revitalized Pantages and Rialto, a beautiful Federal Court House, a
new four-year public university, and new urban dwellings on every corner cannot survive
if its citizens do not feel safe walking its streets.
Why do Tacoma’s residents feel unsafe? Perhaps the stories contained in Case
Study #14 can illustrate the reasons.

130

Tacoma Citizen Satisfaction Survey, at p. 37.

122

Case Study #14
Three More King County Reasons for Tourists
Not to Come to Tacoma & Lakewood
DOC placed NWW at Lincoln Park Work Release on March 30, 2005. He
came to Pierce County with two felonies and one misdemeanor conviction
from King County. NWW resided at Lincoln Park until June 24, 2005
when he was released. On August 22, 2005, NWW was apprehended
while he was shooting up heroin in the 1300 block of Fawcett in
downtown Tacoma. He pled guilty to drug charges and has spent 76 days
in the Pierce County jail. There is no record of Pierce County contacts
prior to this conviction.
FR, Jr. came to Lincoln Park on May 4, 2005. Like NWW, he too had
King County convictions, but none in Pierce. His record includes 5 King
County felonies for assault, theft, and drug violations, as well as three
misdemeanor drug charges. Released on June 20, 2005, FR, Jr. robbed
and assaulted a man in downtown Tacoma. Like NWW, FR, Jr. committed
his crime at the 1300 block of Fawcett in downtown Tacoma. When his
victim disappeared, FR, Jr. ultimately pled guilty to theft. He has spent
100 days in the Pierce County jail.
GL came to Lincoln Park on February 15, 2005. Like his fellow inmates
at Lincoln Park, he came to Pierce County from King County. Like his
fellow inmates, he had multiple felonies from that jurisdiction. Less than
three months after his release, GL assaulted a female deputy sheriff who
was working off duty security for Pierce Transit. GL told the deputy “I will
fucking kill you bitch” as he swung his closed fists at her. The deputy
avoided the punches, tried handcuffing GL, but he ended up kicking her
while he thrashed about and uttered other obscenities.
Each offender DOC imports into Pierce County creates the potential for a new
crime, a new and possibly dangerous encounter with law enforcement or a new
opportunity for a Pierce County resident to become another crime statistic. RAP House
and Lincoln Park are devoted to some of the most difficult offenders, those with mental, or
substance abuse issues. A significant number of the offenders DOC sends to these
facilities are King County’s offenders. It is time to move these programs north.

123

Conclusion Finding #15
Pierce County will never reach its full economic potential so long as DOC’s
activities continue unabated. DOC imports offenders whose activities in downtown
Tacoma and elsewhere contribute significantly to the negative perception of Pierce
County. Pierce County leaders must unite to abate DOC’s dumping of imported
offenders and force appropriate remedial measures.

124

VII.

LESSONS LEARNED & ACTIONS NEEDED

This section contains the recommendations of the author. Many of the suggestions
have been adopted in other jurisdictions. To implement these changes will require the
united will of our county’s political and community leaders.

Recommendation #1
The State should impose a moratorium on new work release facilities
until needed research can be done to identify what does and does not
work. Under no circumstances should DOC be allowed to expand work
release programs in Pierce County.
Proponents of work release hope to reduce the need for future prisons by investing
in new work release facilities. Insufficient research exists to justify an increase in
facilities that are unproven or, proven to perform poorly. The Legislature’s own research
group, WSIPP, as well as DOC’s own documentation establish that inmates of work
release have higher recidivism rates than direct prison release. Pierce County’s experience
confirms pre-existing studies and weighs against expansion of work release.
While proponents of the system assert that it is an effective method of reducing
crime and integrating an offender back into his or her community, both the factual and
logical bases of those assertions should be closely examined. Other authors have
recognized the inherent dangers of work release on the rehabilitative process:
Commenting on the system in general, the authors of this Prison Journal article write:
Although graduated release of this sort carries the potential for easing an
inmate’s process of community reintegration, there is a negative side,
especially for those whose drug involvement served as their entry key to
the penitentiary gate in the first place. This initial freedom exposes
inmates to old groups and behaviors that can easily lead them back to
substance abuse, criminal activities, and re-incarceration. Even those
receiving intensive TC treatment while in the institution face the prospect
of their recovery breaking down. Work release environments often do

125

little to stem the process of relapse. Because work releasees mirror the
institutional populations from which they came, they often continue the
negative values of the prison culture. Added to the continuing inmate
culture is the new(albeit limited) freedoms of being able to go out and
work in the community without continual supervision. In a correctional
setting where street drugs and street norms tend to abound, it is not
surprising that many relapse or recidivate. 131
(Emphasis added.) The findings contained in this report document that at least some work
releases have these negative effects as evidenced by their high recidivism rates.
Pierce County has suffered because of its tolerance of these programs. Violent
offenders, sex offenders and offenders with chronic substance abuse issues have been
integrated into our community as a result of early release programs that are frequently less
successful than would be expected from direct prison release. Should the State decide to
continue down a path leading to increased work release, Pierce County should make it
very clear that it will not tolerate any further development of programs in our community.

Recommendation #2
As mitigation for past activities which have injured Pierce County, DOC
and Pierce County should enter into a binding contract that provides for
a Community Advisory Board to review the type of offender allowed to
be released to any Pierce County early release facility.
Other counties have effectively controlled the type and number of work release
inmates allowed to participate in programs in their county. DOC has agreed to restrict

131

Steven S. Martin, Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, James A. Inciardi
Three-Year Outcomes Of Therapeutic Community Treatment For Drug-Involved Offenders In Delaware:
From Prison To Work Release To Aftercare, THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 79 No. 3, September 1999
294-320, p. 298.

126

programs in Spokane, Kitasp and Clark County and published their intent to be bound by
those agreements on their website.

132

Clark County has the most elaborate, and effective agreement. The full provisions
of that agreement are set out in Appendix #15. The key elements of that agreement
provide for a community advisory board comprised of representatives from the
prosecutor’s office, local law enforcement, DOC’s regional administrators, members of
the community at large, representatives from the court system and the facility manager 133
The community advisory board is a “fundamental structure for screening and referral
of offenders into the program, and for advice in policy development, operations and
community relations.” 134 This board’s “acceptance of any Department referrals shall be
deemed to be conclusive” with limited ability for the Department to override the Board’s
decision. 135
This recommendation contemplates a similar program for Pierce County. Because
of the extent that Pierce County has been impacted by past DOC practices, effective
mitigation requirements need to have stronger provisions than those DOC currently has in
place in other counties.

132

See descriptions of Brownstone, Peninsula and Clark County work releases provided by DOC at their
website. http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/facilitydescriptions.htm#east
133
Clark County Contract, Appendix #15, p. 4.
134
Id.
135
Id.

127

Recommendation #3
Restrictions regarding admission to the existing work release facilities in
Pierce County need to be limited. To do so, the County should enter into
an agreement that makes the following restrictions:
Admission to RAP House and Lincoln Park Work Release
and Progress House must be restricted to Pierce County
offenders.
a.

No offender from another county shall be admitted to
the program without the approval of the Community
Advisory Board. The Board, rather than DOC, will
determine each offender's county of origin.

b.

The Community Advisory Board shall have authority
to screen all offenders entering the program to
maximize community safety and to obtain inmates
most motivated to change patterns of criminal
behavior.

Pierce County is entitled to remediation for the impact of DOC’s practices over the
last decades. The first step in remediation is to immediately end importation of out-ofcounty offenders. This will not occur so long as RAP House and Lincoln Park Work
Release continue to bring dangerous offenders into our community. DOC’s justification
for refusing to restrict RAP House and Lincoln Park Work Release is unpersuasive and
inequitable to the citizens of Pierce County. No justification exists for restricting
programs to benefit the mentally ill or developmentally disabled to locations in Pierce
County. Pierce County has borne the burden of these programs long enough. It is time to
shift that burden to those jurisdictions that have benefited by the concentration of services
and facilities in Pierce County.

128

Recommendation #4
DOC and DSHS should be required to identify facilities and service
providers located in Pierce County who provide services to offenders.
DOC must reveal any formal or informal referral systems, and should
initiate steps to move facilities and providers to other jurisdictions so
that out-of-county offenders may receive these services in their home
counties.
DOC often justifies placement of an offender in Pierce County because it is the
location of needed services. A heavy saturation of this type of service industry is
incompatible with Tacoma and Pierce County’s economic growth. Once identified,
community leaders should work to move a large portion of these facilities to other
counties so that offenders who need these services can be served in their home county.

Recommendation #5
Zoning and licensing provisions need to be developed by all
municipalities and the County to regulate the proliferation of halfway
houses and group homes masquerading as single family homes.
These facilities have not been shown to improve offender outcomes. Housing
multiple offenders in a single family unit is inconsistent with general zoning requirements
and creates stressors on law enforcement and the neighborhood. These facilities should be
regulated and located only at approved sites compatible with their use. The concentration
of offenders in residential neighborhoods essentially creates a public nuisance that can and
should be abated by effective regulation and licensing requirements.

129

Recommendation #6
The Pierce County Council should fund and appoint a staff position for a
person to monitor DOC activities within the county and identify issues of
non compliance with any mitigation measures adopted to remedy the
past injuries DOC has inflicted upon Pierce County.
DOC’s activities within Pierce County are complex and vast. To ensure
compliance with the other recommendations contained in this report, a staff position is
needed to monitor DOC’s daily activities, ensure openness in discussions regarding the
relocation of Progress House and compliance with restrictions on out-of-county offenders.

Recommendation #7
DOC, the Prosecutor’s Office and local law enforcement officials should
enter into an agreement to have mutual access to computerized data
bases and to provide for sharing of other information.
Effective monitoring of offenders, criminal investigations, charging decisions and
recommendations regarding disposition of cases all require current information regarding
the offender. This recommendation tracks what is occurring elsewhere in the country.
Computers are a part of every day life and links between law enforcement agencies must
be explored fully. Pierce County has done its part by providing LINX access. DOC must
return this courtesy and make its system available to this office and to other law
enforcement agencies. 136

136

Research Report: M. Griffin, J. Hepburn, V. Webb, Combining Police and Probation Information
Resources to Reduce Crime: Testing a Crime Analysis Problem-Solving Approach (April 2004). The

130

Recommendation #8
Improvements in offender accountability are needed to combat the
revolving door of prison, work release, and ineffective community
supervision.
Many have focused on the need for services, housing and health care for offenders
coming out of prison. Providing these resources is only one half of the equation. To
effectively combat crime, strong measures are needed to discourage repeat offenders or
offenders who violate the terms and conditions of their community custody. The current
system has no teeth. An offender who commits a felony while on community custody
simply gets another point. For the offender with 10, 15, 20, 25 or more points, this
sanction is meaningless. Changing this aspect of the sentencing guidelines would give
community custody officers the tools needed to combine services with deterrents. Flat
time for the first new crime committed on community custody and consecutive sentences
for those who commit more than one felony will provide motivation to offenders to
comply with the terms of their release.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Downtown development, new museums, restaurants and activities have
dramatically changed our community. But the City of Tacoma Citizen Survey of January
2007 reveals that citizens are primarily concerned about drugs, crime, vandalism,
homelessness and unsupervised youth. Our citizens simply do not feel safe.
Pierce County and Tacoma need time to heal. It is time for the leaders of our
community to unite to work together to ensure that change takes place.

authors of this study did not reach conclusions as to the benefits of this program, but identified the technical
and political issues associated with a test program in Phoenix, Arizona.

131

At the state level, serious research is needed before any work release expansion is
allowed. A critical need exists to document what works and what does not. Blind faith in
the subjective benefits of work release is misplaced. The high rates of recidivism come at
too great a cost to the safety of the public.
For Pierce County citizens the most important question now is not just how many
work release offenders DOC dumps in Pierce County but also what type of offenders
comes as well. Two programs are currently devoted to out-of-county offenders. These
programs have historically served an unstable, potentially violent population. Pierce
County must become an active participant in decisions regarding offenders in the
programs located here. Pierce County’s leaders should not tolerate any importation of outof-county offenders. The costs of inaction are too high.
Any agreement to mitigate the damage done to Pierce County through the presence
of these programs must be structured in such as way as to ensure that Pierce County will
have enforceable agreements to restrict out-of-county offenders, especially sex offenders
and that County officials will receive sufficient information to monitor whom DOC brings
to Pierce County.
Finally, it is time to bring accountability to offenders on community custody.
Those who commit new felonies while on community custody should face stiff penalties.
The overriding purpose of the criminal justice system is protection of the public.
Measures to reduce crime must include acknowledgement that prison serves an important
deterrent effect and that a felon in prison is not on the street committing new crimes.

132

Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the efforts of many
individual members of the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office. The members
of the investigative team identified in the report each had an important role
in bringing to light DOC’s activities in Pierce County. Some attended
important community meetings, others did public disclosure requests and
still other investigated specific allegations. This report was the product of a
team working effectively and passionately. All were brought together in this
effort by the commitment and passion of the team’s leader, Gerald A. Horne.
Without his leadership, Pierce County would remain in the dark regarding
these important issues.
Many others assisted in the accumulation of data and the production of the
final versions of this report. Special thanks go to Laura Cunningham who
did much of the background research during her internship with this office
in the summer of 2005. Special thanks also go to Christina Smith who
assisted in the data management and in proofreading this document.
Additional editing and suggestions for improvement of the final product
came from all the members of the team and from two members of my felony
team. My team leader and a colleague assisted me in handling my felony
caseload and provided important editorial suggestions throughout this
process. While they wish to remain unnamed, their help cannot remain
unacknowledged.
Finally, as previously acknowledged, the work of this office was greatly
assisted by members of the community who took up Gerry Horne’s challenge
to unite to make Pierce County a safer place to live.

About the Author
Bertha B. Fitzer is a 1978 cum laude graduate of the University of
Washington. Ms. Fitzer, a graduate of the Honors program in Philosophy &
English, is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. At the University of Washington
School of Law, she served as a managing editor of the Washington Law
Review and received her law degree in 1981.
From 1981 to 1984, Ms. Fitzer served as a law clerk at the Washington State
Supreme Court for Chief Justice Robert Brachtenbach and then Justice
Hugh Rosellini. In 1985, Ms. Fitzer earned a Masters of Law from Harvard
Law School.
Ms. Fitzer had an active solo practice with emphasis in appeals and
personnel maters from 1985 to 2000 before accepting a position as a deputy
prosecuting attorney in the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's Civil
Division in January 2001. In January 2006, Ms. Fitzer moved to the felony
division of the office where she is part of the Fraud & Arson Team.
Active in the legal profession, she is a Master of the Bench in the Hon.
Robert J. Bryan American Inn of Court and a past president of that
organization. She is a member of the Washington Pattern Jury Instruction
Committee and serves as a Hearing Officer for disciplinary matters for the
Washington State Bar Association.
Ms. Fitzer and her family are ardent supporters of the right of children to
have appropriate medical care. She serves on the Board of Directors of the
Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital Foundation, raises funds for the Child
Abuse Intervention Department through the Courage Classic annual bike
ride, and designs trees for the Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital annual
Festival of Trees.

Appendix #1

PCPA ADMIN

02/14

1 1 / 1 4 / 0 6 13.03.05

Dl37 4 953322 0101% 0 2 1 6 0 6
b53 ~0~0037

PAGE

OFFENDER UIRONO

NAME: KA~;(IER~K~\z, JOHN EDVA

REPORT

PAGE

1

OFFXCE:
OFFICER: ,
..

61/11/96 CM 01 CHECKED,THE AREA AROUND 12TH AND ADAUS AGAIN TODAY. NO LUCK.
..
WHEN 1 GOT BACK 1 STAFFED THE CASE WITH ccs ANDERSON. ONE IDEA
I HAD WAS TO GO DO
RECENTLY SAID THAT
-T-..
ON ..-,,-.,-.--,
>THAT AREA AND SEE WHAT CLASS O F NOTXFlCArION P I S AND I F TPD f S
W I L L I N G TO DO A DOOR TO POOR'. 01/11/96 A SCHALL
01/12/% Cfl 04 APPREHENDED 01/12/96 PlERCE CO JAIL,
WARRANT CLEARED 01/12/96.
0 1 / 1 2 / 9 6 K GARLAND
01/12/96 C11 08 IGOT A CALL PROW ANOTHER M F E N D E h &EI TMKSwA#.DOC #2697S9,
THAT P H4D COME BY I j I S HOUSE LAST NIGHT. P WAS DRINKING AND
.
. PRDBABLY USING DRUGS. HE GAVE P As CONTACT PHONE NUMBER Of
759-8682. ICALLED CCO ElCDOUNGH WHO HAS DAILY CONTACT WITH TPD
AND.TRACED THE NUMBER TO 1239 SO. ADANS. THIS COINCIDES WITH
PREVlOUS INFORHATION ABOUT UHERE P HAS BEEN STAYING. I DROVE
THROUGH THE AREA ,TOGET AN IDEA ABOUT LAYOUT. I M E N ARRAHGED A
,
MEET W I T 1 1 TPD.'AT F I R S T ONLY ONE TWO MAN UNIT WAS SENT. AFTER
REVIEWING THE F I L E A .SECOND UNIT' WAS CALLED I N . THE HWSE HAS A
GOOD V l E U OF THE STREET SO WE HAD TO PARK SOME DISTANCE AWAY.
(CONTINUED) 01/16/96 A'ScHALL
0 1 / l t / 9 6 CM li! TWO OPFICERS~ANO
I WENT TO THE FRONT DOOR. IWAS TYXRD PERSON
I N . A WOMAN RESPONDED TO THE kNOCK AND UAS ASKED I F JWN WAS
THERE SEVERAL 'TIMES AND SHE DDI
NOT RESPOND. THE ~FFICERS
ENTERED THE APARmENT AND STARTEb A SEARCH ISTAYED WITH
J'AME~TE #LAST NAME UNKNOWN) 1 N THE L I V I N O ROOM: P WAS FOUND I N
A BEDROOM AND PLACED i~
C U S T ~ ~ YTPD
.
TRANSPORTED HIM TO THE
JAIL AND BOOKED HIN ON THE WARRANT. AN NI
INCIDENT
REPORT UAS
COMPLETED B Y TPD (96 012 0559). 01/16/96 A SCHALI.
.01/25/96 CH 04 P'S HEARlNG WAS YESTERDAY. HE GOT AN EXCEPTIONAL SANCTION THE
PARTICULARS WILL BE CHRONO'D BY THE HEARING OFFICER. THERE WERE
SEVERAL PERTINENT
E-MAILS WICW X COPIED AND PUT I N THE FILE. I
AM TRANSFERRING l H I S TO A FIELD, CASELOAP EVEN THOUGH P GOT 8
MONTHS BECAUSE H I S T14E I N +ROGRESS HOUS$ WILL REQUIRE 'THAT A
F l E L D OFFICER WONITOR THE CASE. ANY CCI VIOLATIONS U I L L ' B E THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIELD OFFICER. 01/25/96 A SCHALL
01/26/% CPl 04 CCI DISC HRG CONDUCTED ON 7/25/96 AND RECONVENED ON 1/26/96, AT
UCC. FOUND P GUILTY OF ESCAPE, BEING TERHINATED FROM SEXUAL
DLVIANCY TX, AND CHANGXNORESXDENCE'W/O PERN. I, IUPOSED AN
EXCEPTIONAL SANCTION U I T H PRIOR APPROVAL OF DESXGNEE W b Y u
M h b d , OF 240 DAYS AS FOLLOWS: 90 D4YS IN PRE-RELEASE WITH,
MANDATED CLASSES AND SUCCESSFULR COMPLETION I.E. VOTE, VICTEM
AWARENESS, AND CORRECTIONS CLEARING HOUSE. THE REMAINING 150
DAYS ARE TO BE N
I ? J R M ~ ~ ~ ~ . " F I O RELEIISEO
O S ~ R U P~ HA^ ALREADY
BEEN SCREENED AND APPROVED FOR 'PHU~,WITN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
P W l L L COMPLY V I n THE WORK RELEASE POLICES AND XNSTRUCTlONS OF
~

0 1 / 2 6 / 9 6 CN

.

j

.

,

.

UORK RELEASE STAFF. N
I 01/26/96 J BREC~~~E*
I IND~CATED M A T BEFORE P CAN BE RELEASED FRO)(

dS CONY. ADDITION

OOf ON CCI STANS'HE MUST FIRST HAVE A NRI APPRWD M U N I M
PMCMENTI'PUN. I MADE If VERY CLEAR TO P THAT Wf EXPECTATION
1s THAT HE W l L L PROGWIH. f n R U PRERELEASE AND UR INCLUDING
PARTIcIf'ATXON I N ~ E X U A L D I V I A R W COUNSeLtlG. 01/26/96
J BRECHEEN

0 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 7 MON 10:34 [ T X / R X

NO 8 5 4 8 1 @I002

1 1 / 1 4 / 0 6 13.03.05
PAGE
2

NAME: KAZMXERCKAZ, JOHN EDNA

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

0 1 / 2 6 / 9 6 CM .12 I T SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IGAVE P A CUSTODY OF H I P . AT THE TIME
HA.$ COClPlETED PRE-RELEASE I T . M I L L BE NECES9ARY FOR HIS
CUSTODY TO BE CHANGED TO M I l . STAATUS .BY STAFF. 01/26/98

.

.

.-

0 2 ..
1 2 0 1 9 6 OP 04 I ~ T E R V I E W E DP LAST WEEK: HE HAS SIGNED UP FOR ALL C U S S E S AS
MANDATED
HEARING OFFICER.' IWlU D'O THE NEV ESR TODAY
sU6HIT TO HEADQUARTERS..' 0 2 / 2 0 / 9 6 K MCKIDDY

5

02/89/96 13408 C C i D I S C HRG APT D m 1/30/% SENT TO CARRIE-FLEBIN6 TODAY FOR
.DISlRI0WTION. 02/20/96 J BRECHEEN
05/02/96 CM 04 +IS COMPLETED VLCT, AWARENESS P U N . 05/02/96 K nC.KLDDY '
05/07/96 o P 04 P SENT To =?DUE
To OUTSTANDING FELONY WARRANT.FOR FALI,N
IG
TO
eonPLy W/COMMUNL~( CUSTUDY. CONDITIONS.
1 PRE~UME.THIS'TO
BE DUE
tO ESCAPE FROH COMNUNXTY CUSTODY. P IS NO LONGER ELIO. TO BE AT
-DUE
TO THE WARRANT. 05/08/96 K MCKIDDY
05/20/96 JX 04 RECEIVED COPY OF C P I F R RECORDS.
~
P I S TO $ H ! ~ t l E V F : ~ - $
.
.
1239 S. ADAMS, TACOMA, UA. 98605, PHONE #(2&)759-8682 . PLAN MAS
3 b n 1 m o BY K v R r ncrcIoov (TACOMA PRE-RELEASE). 05 /20/96
E VERNELL
05/22/96 f P 04 P WAS I N COURT TODAY I N PIERCE CO.HE WAS O F F I C I A L CHARGED
W ~ E S C A P.TODAY.BAIL
E
SET AT 15,000,#06t
PT SlNCE HE I S S T I L L I N
THE CUSTODY OF DOC/DOP UNTIL AT LEAST 9-8-96.
05/22/96
P SEABERG
.
05/24/96 3X 04 W I T TEAM HELD ON P. RECOftHENDATIONS ARE
MAINTAIN MEDIUM
CUSTODY, DUE TO HARD FELONY DETAINER.
NOT TARGETED' FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT. THE 10 DAY EARLY RELEASE I S BErNG ADDRLS~ED. P D I D
NOT ATTEND CLASSIFXCATIOk. HE I S OUT TO COURT. 05/24/96
E VERNELL ~ S Y S M X T T E D
PAPERWORK FOR A 10 DAY EARLY RELEASE
TO CPllr WITH RECOHMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL. P 1 S h CCI. OFFENDER
~V
*NIG
A SANCTION. .THEREFORE HE 'IS NOT ELIGIBLE PER POLICY.
OFFE~SESOF RAPE 1 ALSO EXCLUDES 10 DAY EARLY RELEASE. 05/24/96
E VERNELL

I

,

ldcc-

'

,

co

C&

&

(.s/ar.h)
.

.

.

.

..

05/28/%.~~
0 4 SUBMITTED A LETTER OF INTENT FOR PART T I U E SCHOOL. OS/?8/96
E VERNELL
.

.

01/22/2007

MON 1 0 : 3 4 [ T X / R X

NO 8 5 4 8 1 @
00I3

,

PCPA ADMIN

I

.

04/14

.

1 1 / 1 0 / ~ 6 13.03.05
PAGE 3

DT37 4 953322 01M96 021606
DS3 DOROO37
- OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT

NAUE: KAZMIERCKAZ, JOHN EDWA

PAGE

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

'm

06/24/96 JX 04 RECElVED A CALL FROM A FEMALE STATING THAT SHE W A S - r n
IWERRP~ST & THAT SHE WAS T A W - w WITH
HIM OFTEN. SHE STATED
THAT SHE HAD DOCIJMENTATION STATING THAT P SHOULD DO SO, MANY
..
DAYS I N .PRER€tEaW AND SO MANY DAYS I N WORK~RELW@ AND STATED
THAT P ~S.:CURRENTLY.DOING DIGID TIME AT'SHELTON. I SNFORNED HER
THAT BEFORE X COULD DlSCUSS PI.$ F I L E WITH HER IWOULD NEED P TO
COMPLETE A FORM G I V I N G flE PERNLSSION TO DO SO DUE TO INNATE
CONFIDENTALITY. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE HER 'sUPV. CALL
. AND OET THE INFORMATION
FROM MY SUPV. 04/24/96 E VERNEU
07/29/96 OP 06 H E ' S BACK AT TPfiAND W I L L BE RELEASED ON, H I S
DATE OF a/s/s6. HSI
RE[IASE..PLAR HAS 'BEEN APPROVED e~ PAT
SEABERG. HE CONPLETED ALL REWLRED PROGRANMING PRIOR TO H I S ,
RECLASS BACK TO PRISON. HE DZD CORRECTIONS CLEARINGHOUSE, VICT.
AUARENESS, AND THE VOTE P U N . HE U l L L ALSO BECOME REINVOLVED I N
THE PHASE I11 PORTION OF SEX OFFENDER TREATHEMT HERE AT ?hi'. .
THIS WILL CONTXNU.E ONCE HEIS RELEASED. 07/29/94 K MCKIDDY
,m/o5/% OP 04 P REPORTED I N TO CCO JUST BEFORE GRPSTARTED FOR TODAY.'UAS
RELEASED T H I S A l l FROH WCC.PRX0R TO.HIS RELEASE AND A L L DAY LONG
THERE HAS BEEN NEUS RELEASES FROH TPD ON KXRO'RADIO STATIMJ.THE
'RELEASED INFOR~ATZON,SOME OF TI WAS NI ERROR.ALSO,HIS
ADDRESS
.
RELEASED DURING THESE NEWSCASTER.HIS C C O ~ SNAME WAS ALSO
RIXEASED.P AND H I S 6. F. ARE ESPECIALLY ANGERY OVER THEIR
ADDRESS BEING RELEASED AND WRONG 'INFO STAT'ED.DISCUSSED HSI
C~ND~T~ONS.REPORTS
THAT HE WANTS TO REMAIN I N COWLIANCE.
09/06/96 P SEABERG
'.

.

09/05/96 T L 12 TIME UAS TOLLED FROM 6/11/96 U N T I L 9/5/96 WHILE P WA9 XN J A I L
04/25/97 K BEEM
09/05/96 TL 16 ORIG J A I L TOtLED, CAUSE .C, SCRVSD I N PRISON, RE SCHULTZ DEC..
0 1 / 2 1 /00 J CHRISTOFFERSON
09/10/96 QP 9 4 P REPORTED FOR SEPT.WAS REEALSED ON 9-5-96. TERM DATE IS 2r15-97.
NO NEG FALL OUT
HIS RELEASE OR HIS ADPRBSS.GAVE P LETTER .FOP
SO HE CAN OBTAIN- SOME ID. RELATk~ THAT H I S XD AND 95 CARD .
ARE S T I L L AT RJCC.LOOK1NG FOR WORK TODAY.RELATI6NSHIP W/G.P. XS.

dN

DO^

09/16/96 TP 04 P CALLED

m

UPDATS. ME REGAROXNG HxS

N~EBHBOR,FLYERI

ARE

BEING

HANDED OUT TO PEOPLE OH H I S BLOCK BY 2 OR 3 PEOPLE UWo ARE
NlEGBORS.ALS0 TALK ABOUT PICKING H I S HOUS€.NO THREATS OF
VIOLANCE YET.'HE DOES ~ O m
T u , HOW THE FLYERS MERE OBTAINED BY
THE PUBLIC. 09/16/96 P SWERG

,

.

01/22/2007 M O N 10:34 [ T X / R X

N O 85481 a 0 0 4

01/22/2007

11: 28

PCPA ADMIN

2537982968

D l 3 7 953322 010196 021606
U S 3 DOROWf,
OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT.
. ~ A M E : KAZHIERCKAZ, JOHN

EDuA.

PAGE

05/14

11/1L/O6 13.03.05
PAGE' 4
'

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

cfi

HP
ABOUT H2M.H.E AND G. F. ARE DEALING U/SXTUTION.ND VANDALISN SO
FAR. JOB HUNTING STILL GOING ON.SEEING' C. SIMS ' A S REQUIRED. ,

01/22/2007

MON 1 0 : 3 4 [ T X / R X

NO 85481 @I005

--

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN

.

.

.

,..

.

DT37 4 953322 010196 021606
DS3 D O R W ?
OFFENDER
CHRONO REPORT
..

11/74/M 13.03.05.
PAGE

'

.

NAME: KAZMIERCKAZ, JOHN EDWA'

. .

06/14

5

.

OFFICE:
OFFXCER:

'

FEELING,RU'T H~LPFuL.THINGS I N H I S NIEGHBORHOOD'STABLLZED,NO

MORE ACTIVITY REGARDING P QIND H I S HISTORY. WORKXNG F.T. BUT NO.
ADVANCEMENT Y/HIS CURRENT 'JOII.WILL START LOOKING FOR SOMETHSNG

11/20/96 C

SIMS

OP 04 P REPORTED F0~VEC.RELATIONSHZP IS GOING UELL.OCCASTONAL DRINKS
BUT NOT t o EXCESS.W~RK1s GOING WELL INTENDS t t o STAY THERE
THUR OUT THE WTNTER.TAKXNG HOME 800 A MONTH.rmjIS S T I L L
KEEPIMQ .AN EYE ON HIM. 12/05/96 P SEABERG
r z / r a p 6 CH or P A n w o r n JOXNT R
. OUP~S
I OO
I N~
.12/04/%

12/78/96 OP 04 P

REPORTED.

FOR DEC.PASSED HIS POLYGRAPH LAST NLGHT.ST1LL SEEING
t . S I f l S . O N REGULAR BAS~S.UORKING
FULL TIME FOR TEMP SERVICE.
HOPES SOMETHING MORE STABLE W/A FUTURE WILL WORK OUf.NO
PROBLEMS. 12/19/96 P SEAQERG .
',

GRP-TPD I S STILL STOPPING'BY ONE I N AWHILE.LOOOK1NG FORWARD TO
THE HOLIDAYS FOR THE FlRSS TIME IN A WHILE. 12/23/96 P SEABERG
61/02/97 CH 04
FROn GROUP DUE TO RELAWONSHIP CRXSIS 01/08/97 C SIMS
oifazj97 TP 04 EXCUSED PROM GROUP ,DUE TO RELATIONSHIP
CRS
IS
I.
01 /08/97
SINS
01/08/97 OP 04 P REPORTED-FOR J/u! WHILE I WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE. 01/10/97

EXCUSED

C'

. P

SEABERG

MON 10: 34 [ T X / R X

N O 85481 @I006
-

-

-

-

-

11: 28

01/22/2007

2537982968

D T 3 7 4 95'3322 010196 021606
093 DOROO37
OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT

PCPA ADMIN

PAGE

07/14

1 1 / 1 4 / 0 6 13.03.05
PAGE

6

ISSUES-NOT REALLY SUCCESSFUL. PL~MTYOF GROUP
FEEDBACK. 01/27/97 C S I M S
.
.
(n/17/97 NC 04' DRWE.BY P.'S H S E . ~ T HOME. 0 1 / 1 7 / 9 7 P. SEABERG
01/22/97 NC 04 DROVE, BY P I S 'HSE,NOT .AT HONE. 0 7 / 2 2 / 9 7 P SEABERG
0 1 / 2 2 / 9 7 OP 06 P REPORTED FOR LATE JAH.HIS JOE IS NOU PERflINANT.EARNING 700 A
HR.TALKED ABOUT L W E L 5 AND H I S OBLIGATIONS ONCE SUPERVXSION
.HAS TERBINATED.UXLL BE CAUGHT UP U / P A ~ E N T SI N APRIL.FOLLOUtNG
.
CONDSTZONS.SEEING SIMS.NO PROBLENS TO REPORT. OI/Z~/V
OUT THEIR

.

'

,

01/22/2007

MON 10:34 [ T X / R X

NO 85481 @I007

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN

08/14

i

'

.

01-374 953322

!

'

11/14/06 lf.03'.05'

010196 021666

PAGE

OFFENDER CYRONO REPORT
..
.

DS3 DOR0037

.
NAtlE: KAZHIERCKAZ,

JOHN EDVA

.

,

or~rce:

I

OFFICER: .

,-

,,

7

.

- .

03/w/n rc 04 P REPORTED FOR THE N ~ N T H , D I ~ C ~ ' ~ SHIS
E D LACK OF PAYPIENTI
ON ALL
3 CAUSE NUIBERS.THIS 35 DUE TO B E ~ N GON ESCAPE STATUS PNb LACK.
OF
NOST R E ~ JOB
~ T WILL
BE KEEPING HIfl ENPLOY&D. HAS
. . Jon. THIS
.
-.
STARTED ~AKINC PAG&S.DISCUSSED"THAT
A V R NEEDS TO JE

1

-~

.

-

~

04/10/97
04/16/97

REPORT,LATER' I N THE MONTH TO COMPLETE THE TRANSFER PROCESS.WXLL
BE ATTENDING .TMT.OH OCCASIONS ONCE HE I S OFF SUPERVTSION.ND
PROBLEHS TO .#€PORT. TALKED ABOUT VR TO. CRT dE6ARDING PAYNEHTS. '
HAS M D E ANOTHER ONE TO CRT. 0 4 / 1 6 / 9 7 P SEABERG
C M 04 P ATTENDED @~OUI- TONIGHT WAS PS LAST GROUP.
(0)04/21/97 C SIMS
I
OP 04 P REPOR ED FOR HIS LAST ?IME.HE TERMINATES FROd SUPERVISION
TODAY,APRIL'?~,~~~?.UMT
OVER H I S LFO REQUIREVENTS.ATTENDE0
' . PHASE 3 QRP LAST N ~ ~ T . HHAS
E EEEN TOLD HE CAN COME BACK.TO GRP.
'
I F HE MAN13 TO. 66/17/97 P SEABERG
NC 04 DROVE TO P'3 HSE.HE HAS NOT HOHE, 0 4 / 7 7 / 9 7 P SEABERG .
~ ~ '60MONTH
4
LPO LETTER SENT FOR FOLLOWING CAUSES:'
COUNTY--CAUSE NBR-'-PAYPIENT
SCHEDULE-CURRENTLY
DUEL&*
891000068
$50.00
PER MO
$285.00
:$j&ycbh -2
891006572
' 5 1 0 . 0 0 PER MO
$5.00
~n-l%E'
"'.
961008062
$20.00 PER HO
$40.00
12/07/97 SYSTEM

-

'

04/17/97

. 12/0?fW

'*

01/22/2007

M O N 1 0 : 3 4 [TX/RX NO 8 5 4 8 1 @I008

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN
.

.

D l 3 7 6 953322 01019 6 0 2 3 6 W
D S3 l D 0 ~ 0 0 3 7
OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT

.

09/14

,'

os/lo/ye

05/28/98

06/07/90

06/07/98

06/19/98

'07/13/98
07/22/98

-.

NAME: KAZMIERCKA~, JOHN EDUA

11/16/06

13:03.M

8

PAGE

OFFICE:

OFFICER:

.

.

LG 0 4 11 NTH LFO LETTER SENT. FOR FOLLOWING CAUSES:.
COUNTY--CAUSE NBR--PAYNENT
SCHEDULE-CURRENTLY
DUE'UHATCOM '
891000868
550.DO PER NO
$380.11
UHATCOM
891005572
$10.00 PER NO'
$45.00
PIERCE
%loo8062
.
s,zo.oa PER NO.
.
s66:81
OS/lOf98 SYSTEM
DAYS/
T p 04 p CALLED RE: LFO LETTER. CANNOT CATCH UP ON OVERDUE I N
CAN I N 60 DAYS. HE'S TO PAY 112 OVERDUE BY END JwE, O m E R
112 By END JULY, THEN PAY MONTHLY AS SCHEDULED. 05/28P8
A, PIERCE
04 LFO PAYMENT RESCHEDULED LETTER SENT FOR FOLLOUlNG CAUSES:
COUNTY---CAUSE NBR--RESCHEDULED
PAYMENT--CURRENTLY
Pu*
UHATCOM
. 891006572
5115.00 PER MO
~55.00
06/07/98 SYSTEM
LG 05 LFO PAWENT NOT RESCHEDULED FOR F O L L O U I M CAUSES:
COUNTY-----CAUSE
NBR-PAYMENT
SCHEDULE---CURRENTLY
DUE-PIERCE
961008062
'$20.00 PER NO
567.16 '
06/07/98 SYSTEtl
. .
TP 04 P CALLED
SENDLNG $20 TO PIERCE COUNTY TODAY, uIL$ B S X N
$SO]VEEK PAYMENTS ON ~ I A T C
COUNTY
OM
6/26/98. HOPES TO PAY OFF
PIERCE NI PULL U/I A HONTH ALSO. 06/19/98 A PEIRCE
CM 04 P HAS P.AID AS PROHSXED
OK FOR NOW. 07/13/98 A PIERCE
TP 0 4 P CALLED-REC'D mONMLY BILLING & "B" CAUSE I S SUDDENLY UP' TO
. S115/NONTH, WHICH WE CAN'T AFFORD. WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED

-

-

BALANCE WING & TlhE REMAINING & P I S AWARE OF SITUATIDN.
CHANGED "8" PAYrlENT SCHEDULE TO SZO/MONM FOR NOW, HE 15
WORKING ON PAYING OFF A & C CAUSES (BAKING NEARLY WEEKLY
PAYMENTS), AND WHEN THOSE ARE DONE, HE'LL INCREASE.
PAYHENTS ON
B. 0 7 / 2 2 / 9 8 A P.IERCE
.
.
12/73/98 LG 04 6 NONTH LFO LEITER SENT FOR FOLLOUN
IG
CAUSES:
.
COUNTY--CAUSE
NBR--PAWENT
SCHEDULE---CURRENTLY
DUE. WHATCC+l
891000B68
$50. W . PER NO
SI 35.00
UHATCOM
691006572
$20.06 PER NO
2205.00
PIERCE
%'I006062
$20.00
PER NO
. $48-03
12/13/98 SYSTEM
07/06/99

05/03/93

-

TP 04 P CALLED RE: LFO LETTER
JOB AT FRED PYER FINALLY WENT,FULL
.
SO HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET PAID UP TO DATE BY
'
, NIB-FEBRUARY,
OR AT LEAST CATCH UP BY A LOT: HE'S S T I L L HOLDING
OFF ON PAYING PIERCE SO HIS.FXLE CAN STAY AT LKUD OMMU.

TINE,

07/06/99 A PIERCE
TP 04 P ' C ~ L L E D - WAS FXRED FRON.'FRED NYER ON 4/30)99

-

SAYS HE WAS

FIRED BECAUSE "SOMEONE!' PRESENTED A F,LIER TO THE STORE MANAGER
RE: P n4~1ffiBEEN,CONVICTED OF RAPE (ONE 6 F H I S "89 UHATCOfl CO
HOWwER, THE.APPLICATION YE FILLED DUT BEFORE BEING
HIRED ASKEO I F HE HAD BEEN CONVIC~D of A FELONY N
I THE PAST 7
YEARS, AN0 HE DIDN'T CHECK "YES1'. P SAYS H E I S 1) GOING TO
UNaPLOrflENT OFFICE TODAY, 2) HAS ALREADY CONTACTED UNION & NAY
HAVE CI-!ANCE AT GETTING 'RE-HIRED;
3) 'IS TALKING TO A m ABOUT

IN
flAnER, 6 ) XS PREPARING JOB ApPS FDR OTHER
'ORoCERY STORES (P HAS BEEN WORKZNG'IN PRODUCE AT f l ~ ~ $ ) .
05/03/99 A PlERCE

,

01/22/2007

MON 1 0 : 3 4 [ T X / R X
-

-

-

-

NO 8 5 4 8 1 @I009
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN

I

11/14/06

D T 3 7 4 953322 010196 021606
DS3 DOROO37
OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT
NAME: KAZMIERCKAZ,

JOHN EDWA

13.03.05
PAGE
9

10114

.

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

0 5 / 0 9 / 9 9 LG OL, 11 MONTH LFO LETTER SENT FOR FOLLOWING CAUSES:
COUNTY---

..

.

.

07/07/99

cn

11/15/99

CM

12/12/59 LG

CAUSE NBR---PAYHENT
SCHEDULE---CURRENTLY
DUE8910OU868
$50.00 PER P o
6155.11
WHATCOM
891006572
$20..00 PER NO
$265.00
PIERCE
961008062
.
920.00 PER MO
$38 -34
0 5 / 0 9 / 9 9 SYSTEM
04 RECEIVED CALL. FROM MR. KAZMXERCZAK STATING 'THAT HE DOES NOT
HAVE A JOB YET, I S STXl.4 P U l l l N Q .APPLIC
' ATION~
I N . SAID HE W I L L
CALL AS SOON AS H E DOES'. 07/07/99 J 'DUNCAN
w RECEIVED V~ICE MESSAGE FROM MR. KAZNXERCZAK STATING THAT HE I S
NOU WORUNG AT TACOMA RECMLING AND I S SENDING IN A PAYMENT ON
FRIDAY AND MILL SEND PAYMENTS EVERY TWO h'EmS T o CATCH UP.
11/I5199 J DUNCAN
!X 6 MONTH ,LFO LFlTER SENT FOR FOLLOULNG CAUSES:
COUNTY-------CAUSE
SCHEDULE--CURRENTLY
DUE-WHATCOM
891000868
$50.00 PER tdo
1145.11 UHATCON
891006572
S20.W PER WO
.
S l l O . 0 0 PIERCE
961008062
520.00 PER Mo
12/12/99 SYSTEM
04 D I D SAPPENFIELD REPORT TO THE COURT, RE CAUSE "A." CLOSED CAUSE
OUT WITH I34 C ~ D ET H I S DATE. LETTER TO OFFENDfR, ADVISING OF
A W V E A C T I N . '01/24/00 T PAULSON
0 6 CAUSE B CLOSED T H I S DUE TO SAPPENFIELD. SPECIAL TO COURT THIS
ASWELL AS LETTER TO OFFENDER. 03/07/00 R STRAYER
64 REC'D ORDER OF DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE 196-1-00866-2,
FORWARD TO
360B. 06/12/00 A GILDERSLEEVE
04 THE LSI-R ASSESSNENT COWPLETEO; TOTAL LSI-R SCDRE! 25, LSI
LEVEL: M O ' D ~ T E ,x m UEOFFEND: 4 ~ ~ ,RATER
1 ,
box: 20, FIELD
CLASSIFLCATION; NED 0 8 / 2 8 / 0 1 h BONE1
01 THE. RISK MANAGEMENT IDENTIFICATION
HAS BEEN
C0MPLETED:CFLCULATED CLASSIFICATION I S : RkC, OVERRJDE
C L A S S I F I E A T l W IS: RRA 0 8 / 2 8 / 0 1 A B~NET .
06 D I D MOST OF THE INTAKE AS 1 DON'T HAVE THE F I L E YET; TOLD HlN
TO REP NEXT WEEK. THE R ~ I PD
I
NOT ALLOW HE TO NARK,YES AT THE
LEVEL 3 'SEX OFF, WHICH P IS, SO 1 HAD TO OVERRIDE TO RMA. P HAS
. . .WHAT$OM

NBR- PAY MEN^
I

01'/24/W CM

03/07/00

Cn

0 6 / 7 2 / 0 0 Cfl
0 8 / 2 8 / 0 1 RA

oa/za/m

R1<

08/28/~FP

"

VERY VIOLENT H I S T AND H I S SEX OFF WAS A VERY VIOLENT R4PE I N
.
RETALIATION FOR THE V l C T l N TESTIFYING AGAINST 'HIM. HE'S WORKING
A T THE ~wMB~R'SRFEWX? AND H I S DISCLOSURE TO WE STORE
SHOULO'BE CHECKED. HE LIVES UITH HIS ~IRLFRIEND
AND SAYS HE HAS
A GOOD R E ~ T I ~ S H I P WTIH
HER. ADNITS TO
WT
TO USING DRUGS. HSI
ATTITUDE S
I HARD TO READ, AS n i GIVES THE
R I e w r ANSUERS TO ALL QUESTIONS.
08/28/01 A BONET
RA 08 THE LSI-R REASSESSMENT COIIPLETED; TOTAL LSI-R SCORE: 21, 'LSI

B E I N R U T

08/28/01

'

08/28/01

LEVEL: LOV/MODERATE, X TO REOPFEND: 31 .I,RATER BOX: 20,
CLASsIFICATIoN: RHA 03/12/02 P SUEBERG

FIELD

RK 08 THE R I S K MANAGEMENT IDENTXFICATIoN IiAS BEEN CO~~LETEQ:
RECALCULATED CUSSIFICATION
I S : RMD 03/12/02 P SEABERG

0 8 / 2 8 / q RA 1 2 THE. LS1-R REASSESBMENT COflPLFTED; TOTAL LSI-R
SCORE: 27,
~ s l
LEVEL:
x TO REOFFEND: ji
RATER ~ O K :a, F I E L b
C M S S I F I C A T I O N : RND 03/12/02 P SEABERG
w/28/m '12
R I S K *WAGEHENT X D E H T I l l U T I O N WAS BEM C I J ~ P ~ ~ ~ ;
~ R E ~ U I . J I T E -c%t
C l%%
IS: mm09j2~0pp
.& ,

-MJ~/PR)DERATE,

.I,

mm

01/22/2007

MON 10;34 [ T X / R X
-

NO 85481 @I010
-

-

-

- - - - - -

'

1~/14]06

D l 3 7 4 953322 0101%. 0 2 1 6 0 6
D s ~DOROO37
OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT
NAME: KAZMIERCKAZ,

. JOHN EDUA

'

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

PAGE

ADMIN

PCPA

11/14

13.03.05
PAGE 10

*

68/28/07 o p 7 6 KIOSK k E p o ~ ~SESSION
lw
ST14TUS: SUCCESSFUL, DATE TIME: '
2001-0a-2&69.44.02;
164000,
LOCATION:
TACOMA UNLT 1 OFFICE
KIOSK b8/28/01 SYSTEM
,o9/05/01 Op 04 REP TODAY AND S T l U NO FILE. 0 9 / 0 5 / 0 1 A BONET
.
0 9 / 0 5 / 0 1 o p 98 ~ O S K
REPORTING SESSO
IN
STATUS: SUCCESSFUL, DATE TIME: .
2ool-o+05-08.0?.
59.653000, LOCATION:
TACOMA U N I T 1 OFFICE

J -

.

K103K 09/05/01 SYSTW
w/10/01 T p 04 p C A L L E b . m CHANGE H I S APT TO 9-12-1 Af 8, ALSO I CALLED THE
P A C l F I C AVE OFF TO TRY AND EXPEDITE THE F I L E TO ME; I S T I L L

DONT

H ~ V EIT

KNOW.

AND HAS TOLD MEY.WWLD

TRACK

i~
DOWN.AND LET HE .

,09/10/M A BDNET

LP 0 4 O O ~ ~ ~ ~ W I L ~
TITLE:'MENTAL
TTER
HEALTH NOTICE 09/18/01 R COWER
OP O+ FINALLY GOT H I S F I L E . P REP TODAY AND I INSTRUCTED H ~ TO
N REP
'ON 9-24-1 AT 9 AND SEE CCO PAT SEAEERC WHO U I L L BE HXS CCO.
TOOK F I L E TO SUPPORT FOR XFER. 0 9 / 3 9 / 0 1 A BONET
W/I?/a
08 REPORTED BY~R$$!'- OFFENDER ARRESTED ON - 0 7 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 1 FOR sOR
VIOLATION
FAIL TO REGISTER CLASS UNK~OWNBY P~EIV.ZORJRF~~
SEWFi.~'lRFl
k 09/19/01 SYSTEM
W/20/07 CK 04 L ~ o j c o sB I L L I N G STATEMENT RETURNED. 0 9 / 2 0 / 0 1 J RJC~ARDSQN
69/24/01 OP 04 P REPOORTED, AS INSTRUCTED FROM THE INTAKE UNIT-HE IS
A-WRpFoR .
THE NEXT YR. ME ENTIRE INCIDENT STARTED W/AN ARGUMENT Y/GF.HE
MOVED OUT OF THEIR HOME AND D
D
I
NOT REG M
IMEDAITELY
UPON
GETTX'NGA MOTEL ROOM.GF CALLED COPS AND P WAS ARRESTED.BY FXFET.
t?U&ACK V/HIS
GF.LlV1NG ON A D A M I N TACOMA.WORKXNG AS A PRODUCE
'
CLERK 'FORc.SAFEUAY.CURRENTLY WORKING AT THE SOUTH HZLL STORE BUT
N THE 610 HARHOR STORE. 09/25/01 P SEABERG
HOPES TO R ~ R TO
~o/os/g
.NC 04 DROVE.WT TO P I S HSE.NOO ONE WAS H O M ~IO/IO/OI
P SEABERG
lo/l8/b'l OP 04 P REPORTED ?OR THE UONTH. 10/22/01 P SEARERG . '
11/07/01 OP b4 P REPORTED FOR THE MONTH.1 UAS OUT XN THE FIELD. 1 1 ~ 0 9 / 0 1 .
P SEABERO .
11/27/01 OP 0%' P REPORIED. IMAS OUT OF THE
11/29/01 P SEABERG
1 1 / 2 9 / M HP 04 FOUND P ' A T HOFIE.IT WAS H I S DAY 0FF.WAUCED THUR H I S HORE.APPEARS
70 BE GETTING ALONG UG
/ FG
. QN
IG
THUR REGULAR INTERVIEWS
W/THE
SAFEWAY. coup FOR' KER' POSTXONS.HE BELIEVES THAT HE DOES VERY
. WELL I N THESE INTERVIEWS AND 17 I S ONLY A BATTER OF TIME BEFORE
HE IS HIRED AS A MGER. '11/30joi P SEABERG
1 2 / 0 5 / 0 1 OP 04 P R ~ O R T E DFOR M E MONM.UORKING AT THE STORE I N PUYALLUP.
SH~ULDBE AT THIS LOCATION FOR THE NM SEVERAL MONTHS.STILL
INTENDS TO MOVE up TO M N T 12{07/01 P SEABERG
' T 2 / 1 9 / ~ OP 04 P REPaRTeD FOR THE I A S T PART OGF THE MONTH,I HAD HIM JUST LEAVE
A: REPORT. 12/19/01. P SEABERG
O~/OZ/OZ OP. 04 P REPORTED FOR THE KONTH.I WAS. OUT i~ THE FIELD.
ol/oa/oi
.09/18/0l
09/19/01

AR

-

'

.

.

OFFICE.

P SEABERG
OP 04 P REPORTED FOR THE MONTH U H I L E ' I WAS ON SCIK
LEAVE. 01/50/0t
P SEABERG .
'
op 04 P REPORTED. IUAS ON AL.. 0 8 / 2 7 / 0 2 P SEAQERO
OP b4 P REPORTEDFOR THE HIS JOB 1s GOING UELL.HE BELIWES
THAT

01/1e/02
02/73/02
M/73/02

HE 1s BEING GRWHED FOR A PRORAT%~N m RAN ON
. 03/21/02

(26
'

.

03/27/02 CM 04

EOF.THE

D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E N T S . R E PHEO SUPERVISORS
RT~
L I K E H l s WORK AND CAN COUNT
ON H~.RELATI~NSHIP
IS GOIN6 WELL. 0 3 / 1 5 / 0 2 p SEABERG
F O U N ~P AT
U/HIS
OF-NOTHING NEW m REPORT.JCJB
.
WELL. 03/25/02

P SEABERG
REPORTED ZNTO W E TACMA OFFICE AND FILLED
03/27/02 J RICHARDSON
'

REPORT FORM.

,

01/22/2007

MON 1 0 : 3 4 [ T X / R X

NO 8 5 4 8 1 @I011

PAGE 12/14

PCPA ADMIN

D l 3 7 4 953322 010196 021606 '
0 5 3 DOROO37
,
OFFENDER CHRWO REPORT
. ..
N A ~ E : KAZMIERCKAZ,

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

.

JOHN EDUA

I

03/2i/oz

11/14/06 13.03.05
PAGE 11

Op 08 p REPORTED FOR ME 01-MONTHREPORT REQUIRMEMT.

03/28/02

I

P SEABERG
~ / 1 0 / 0 2 o p 04 p REPORTED INTO THE TACOllA OFFICE AND FILLED OUT A REpoRT
o l l ? o / o r 'T n o w .
04/26/02 OP 04 p REPORTED INTO THE TACOMA OFFICE AND FILLED OUT A REPORT
. 04/24/02 J RICHARDSON
REPORTED FOR
MONTH.1 UAS OUT OF THE OFFICE I N M E
04/24/02
08
0 5 / 0 6 / 0 2 P SEABERG

,

.dP

os/os/oz OP

'

mE,

04 P REPORTED TO TACOMA OFFICE ,AND TURNED NI
UNAVAILABLE. 05/08/02 .R'RECTOR

REPORT. cco WAS

05/08/02 OP 08 P REPORTRED FOR THE NONTH.I HAD H I M JUST LEAVE HIS REPORT.
05/09/02 P SEABERG
05/22/02 CM Oh OFFENDER CAME I N AUD COMPLETED MONTHLY REPORT FORM. CCO SEABERG
u n a v n r a e u . 05/22/02 c JONES
0 5 / 3 9 / 0 2 OP 01 P REPORTED FOR THE U S T PART OF THE MONTH. 95/31/02 !' SEABERG
06/05/02 OP 01 P REPORTED TO TACOMA OFFLCE (354) AND SUBMITTED REPORT.
06/05/02 R RECTOR
06/05./02 CM 08 CLOSED F I L E SENT TO 35418634 TO BE CO~~EINED~WITH NEU OPEN CAUSE
D, FILE FOUND DURING BANK AUDIT, CLOSED ON 0 5 / 2 ~ / 0 0 . 06/05/02
H SANDERS
1
06/04/02 OP 04 P REPOYTEP FOR THE MoNlH.1 HAD HIH JUST LERVE H I S REPORT.
0 6 / G / 0 2 .P SEABERG
06/11/02 NC Oh DROVE OUT 10 P ' S HSE.HO ONE MAS HOME. 06/72/02 P SEABERG
06/21/02 OP 0 4 P REPORTED INTO THE TACOMA OFFICE AND FILLED OUT A REPORT FORM,
06121J02.J RICHARDSON
07/18/02 OP 04 P REPORTED FOR THE MONTH.HE MAX'S OUT NEXT MONTH;STILL HAS
APPROX 5WlU PAY TOWARDS LFO'S.WILL BE PAID, I N FULL BY F4AX DATE.
NEW 5TORE.UERE HE 1S.THE A&KST MGER I S GOINGWELL. 07/18/02
P SEABERG
.
l'l/30/02
FP 04 P CONTACTED E Y ' ~ ~ ~ % A N D HE APPEARS TO BE DRUNK AND HAS
FOLLOWED A'POLICE DETECTlVES UIPE HOME FROH WOPK AND WAS AT HER
UINDWTAPPING. A REVIEW OF THE COMPUTER SHOWS THAT P SHOULD
.HAVE ROLLED TO NON ON 08/68/02'. AS HE HAS NOT REPORTED SINCE
AUGUST AND THE W L f C E COMPUTER SHOWS HIM AS ACTIVE T H M ARE
REQUESTING P BE ARRESTED. ICONTACTED THE STATE OD AND MAY
GAVE nE' MUK~ u e(HOME
i ~ .TELEPHONE NUPBER. ICALL HIM AND HE
DIRECTED ME fO ARREST P FORFAILURE TO PAY LEGAL FXNANCIAL
OBLIW~T~ONS SINCE 11/14/01.P
SELF REPORED THAT HE I S
UNEMPLOYED FOR MANY MONTHS AND THAT HE HAD DRUNK YEOW Wu

'bh'

,

.

.

CASES" OF BEER TONIGHT. 11/30/02 A YERTH .
11/30/= FP 08 CON13 HE ALSO REPORTED WAT HE WAS HOMELESS. THAT HE HAD LIVED
WITH THE DETECTIVES WlFE FOR SEVEN YEAR$ AND WE HAD NO R I a T , '
KICK HIM OUT. THE UIFE I S 'THE ONE THAT .CALLED 911, BECAUSE
SOMEONE WAS AT HER VINDON KNOCKING, SHE REPORTS SHE hEW
HM
I
FRw SHOPPLNG'AT A 7/17 STORE ONLY. P WAS TAKEN fO THE PIERCE
coUNTY JAIL AND BOOKED FOR FTP LFO'S. CCO AND S
HI
SUPER WILL,BE
€-BAILED. 'I
1/30/02 A ' WERTH
12/03f02 FP O4
SEEN ON 017038071 AND HE AGREED TO 40 DAYS N
I JAIL WTH
CREDIT FOR 4 DAYS I N J A I L
HE 1s TO REPORT TO PATRICK SEABURG
RELEASE- I TALKED TO bECT CAROL KRANICH AND LET HER KNOW
WHAT 3 GAVE P . 12/03/02 A ROBINSON
12/26/02 CM 0 4 t <WAS RELEASED FROM WE PIERCE co JALL mia Ap, q z / 2 6 / o z
P SEABERG

.

01/22/2007

MON 10:34

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN

,

1 1 / 1 4 / 0 6 13.03.05

DT37 4 953322 0 1 M 9 6 021606
DS3 DORO037
OFFENDER CHRONU REPORT

.

.

NAHE: KAZMIERCKAZ,

JOHN EDUA'

.

I

.

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

13/14

PAGE 1 2
,

0 4 , ' ~ u NoFPTcER: P. REPORTED, ,ASSIGNED CCO IN FIELD
DO OFFIER HAVE p SIGN OMHU/ORB INAATKE. p D I D so* FILE,PLACED
I N CCO D I S T R I B U T ~ ~ N12/27/02
.
V smL
o,'/t)7/03
LC 04 LFO RETURNED'UNDELIVERABE 01/07/03 J HITCHCOCK
LEE
01/76/03 CN 0 4 FIELD F I L E TRANSFERRED TO 360/2091 CASEWAD- Q1/14/03
01/21/03 OM 04 F I L E SCREENED/NOT ACCEPTED. INVALID, ADDRESS, LFO COHPUANT, coS" '
OWING.
f ~ L HAS
E WRONG ONE CONDITIONS I N 'FILE. F I L E HEEDS Ofla
c ~ N D l T I o r s sULm A REVSSXON DATE OF 7 / 3 / 0 2 . P 1s ENROLLED IN
.
KIOSK. ONCE P HAS A VALID
ADDRESS AND, THE CORRECT ORB
CONDLTIONS ARE IN ME F X L E ~FILE
IIAY BE RETURNED TO OMMU.
01/21/03 T GREAVES
'
02/04/03 TP 04 P CALLED TODAY I N RESPONSE TO MY PHONE CALLS.HE MILL STOP INTO
THE OFFICE ON ~EDNESDAYTO SIGN THE. NEU AND IMPROVED OHMU FORMS.
HE I SNG
VIIL,
AT THE BUDGET I N ON SOUTH MC PAY-HE 1s REG u/THE
SHERSFFS OFFICE AT THIS ADDRESS. 02/04/03 P SEABERG
w
02/65/03 OP 04 P REPORTED AND SIGNED OMNU CONDITIONS ;AND WAS GIVEN COPY OF J&S
* O y o 5 / 0 3 J HITCHCOCK'
~oz/os/03 OP OR P REPORED TO MEOFFCI E
As INSTRUCTSD.HE SIGNED HIS NEU
CONDITIONS.AND
WAS BXVEN A COPY.WXLL'BE SHIPPING
FILE
BACK TO
'
ONMU. 02/05/03 P SEABERG
0?/05/03 Cfl 12' FIELD FILL TRANSFERRED TO 354/8634 CASELOAD. 02/05/03 J LEE
03/05/03 CM a4 FILE SCRCLNED/ACCEPTEQ.. VALID ADDRESS, COS OUING. NOV DATED
1/1O/O3 'ADDRESSING NON C6MPLIANCE I N FILE. F I L E TO BANK
03/05/03 C KRAUSE
03/27/03 cn 0 4 JULIE
JACKSON FRO" THE PAIS OFFICE CALLED, WANTED A COPY OF PSI
UNDER CAUSE "El' FAXED.TO HER. THERE WAS NO P S I DONE ON "8."
. C>LLED & 1NFORHED.HER OF THIS. SHE THEN ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE
P S I DONE ON CtUSE "A" WHIW"I
FAXED TO HER. THE VICTIM I N W.TH
CAUSES I S ? i % 2 s i f l ~ i ' : ~A~ ~
RoEERRY/THEFT' ON "A" P'KEPT VZCTIfilS
DRIVER'S LICENSE AND WHEN HE WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY,
HARRASSED HER & EVENTUALLY ATTEHPTED TO RAPE HER. FAXED TO
(253) 796-6594 03/27/03 T PAULSON
07/13/03 LG 04'9 HONTH LFO LETTER SENT FOR FOLLOVING CAUSES:
COUNTY-CAUSE
NBR-PA'~ENT
SCHEDULE--CURRENT&
DUEPIERCE
011038071
$25.00
PER 4 0
,
S90,bo
07113/03 SYSTEM
07/25/03 LC5 06, 9 MONTH LFO LETTER SENT FOR FOLLOUXNG CAUSES:
12[27/02'op

'

,

COUN~---CAUSE
NBR-PAWENT
PIERCE
01I038071

SCHEDULE---CURRENTLY
325.00 PER NO

DUE-

$90.00

07/25/03 SYSTEY
08/14/m CM 04 a 0 2 T r 4 6 4 9 8 ~ ~FOLLOWING
E
MESSAGE WAS S M T FOR DELIVERY AT W E
OFFENDERS N ~ X TKIOSK SESSION ON OR AFTER 8/14/03: 5 9 9 0 L E ~ C R
NAILED:To, P'S ADDRESS AND SPECIAL HAS B E M S U B M I T T E D ~ ~COURT
08/14/03 A REGIS
W/19/03 cfl 0 4 REC'D STATEMENT BACK FROM USPS ON THIS DAY AS INVALID
ADPRESS,
FROWARDED ,to APP. OFFICER 09/79/03 fi HANSON .
10/01/03
01; ' ? @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S L E TITLE:
T T E R 5990 LETTER.1 0 / 0 ~ / 0 3 ' A R E ~ Z ~ '
93/25/04 AR b4 REPORTED BY WSP OFFENDER ARRESTED'ON 03/24/2006 FOR SOR
VIoLAfLoN
FKZL .TO REGZS?ER C
~ UNKNOWN
S
BY PIERCE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE 03/25/W S Y S T ~
. .

.

-

.

-

01/22/2007

MON 1 0 : 3 4 [TX/RX
-

-

-

-

-

-

NO 8 5 4 8 1 a 0 1 3
-

-

-

-

-

PAGE

PCPA ADMIN

11/14/06 13.03.05

DT37 4 953322 -010196 621606
~ $ '3
~0~0037
'.

OFFENDER CHRONO REPORT

.
,

14/14

NAME: MZMIERCKAZ, JOHN EDWA

07/79/04 CR 04 RCVD PCD31046786,

nrsbf

.

,

PAGE 13

'

OFFICE:
OFFICER:

'&%PTFD;F~TWRE~~~ REQLStFR' A T 'R.8d1

..NO SUPERVISION/PROBATION

UNDER

HE

.

.

JURISDICTION

OF THE DEPARTMENT ORDERED, THEREFORE CAUSE NOT GAINED. P
O'RDERED TO BE UNDER THC SUPERV~SION OF THE
(BENCH

COURT

PROBATION). 07/79/01 M COUAN
02/16/06 CM .04 P WAS ARRESTED 0Y ~ K L ~ ; U P ~ ; P E T H DATE
I S 'FOR ROB1,ERY.l CASE
1106401488. P FOLLOWED FEMALE V I C T I M AND TOOK H5R CAR KEYS,
. .
DmANDED. HER CELL PHONE 'MEN THREW HER TO THE GROUND UHEN .SHE
REFUSED TO TURN .OVER, CELL,PHONE.
WAS FOLLOWEDBY WITNESSES
AND DETAI'NED. 02/17/63 P SCHUIDT

HE

'

01/22/2007 MON 10:34 [ T X / R X NO 85481 @I014
p

p

p

p

p

-

Appendix #2

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
OFFICE OF CORRECTIONAL OPERATIONS
P.O.Box 41 118 Olympia, Washington 98504-1 118 (360) 753-1573
FAX (360) 586-6582

December 23,2002

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Pierce County Prosecutor's Office
Civil Division
955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301
Tacoma, Washington 98402

DEC 2 6 2W2

Dear Mr. Vanscoy:

I have not heard back from you in response to my letter of November 22,2002, related to your
public records request. As I stated in prior correspondence, due to the breadth and complexity of
your request, it has been extremely difficult to determine the particular documents that may be
responsive to your request. I have, therefore, asked that you narrow your request to specific
identifiable records and that you meet with me to discuss the way our records are kept and to
clarify the actual documents you are seeking.
In my letter of November 22,2002, I provided information related to particular documents that
staff deemed responsive to your request. I asked for clarification from you that these records
would satisfy your request. You have not responded. Ln addition, in that letter I indicated that
some documents were available immediately to you electronically or upon payment of copy fees.
You have only responded by requesting the two items which were available electronically.
Once again, if your request remains broad as currently written, it will take years for staff to handsearch all the files, copy, and redact as appropriate. I have outlined those potential timeframes
related to each request item below. However, in light of Washington's budget crisis and future
reductions in state staffing, please consider the Governor's Directive No. 02-04 which
encourages the use of "common sense, good judgment and creativity to provide the best possible
service to our residents at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers."
1.

Please produce in existing d i ~ i t aformat
l
a11 "writings" in your possession or control
concerning o r referencing each offender placed o r who resided on or after January
15,1997 to participate in a work release, worwtraining release, community
residential o r pre-release facility sited in Pierce County.

Staff provided an EXCEL file electronically on November 26, 2002 with a listing o f the names
and DOC numbers of 5,421 offenders applicable to this item.
"Working Together for SAFE Communities"

c9

r:c)d~Z1?apL.:

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 2
In my letter of November 22,2002, I indicated a timeline to produce documents would be
provided in 45 business days; i.e., January 31,2003. Since that time staff have confirmed that
these documents are not available in digital format. Therefore, I assume that your request
related to this item now bumps down to item 2 instead. Please provide confirmation or
clarification if this is not so.
In my November 22,2002 letter I also provided information related to the Offender Based
Tracking System (OBTS). I indicated these screens would not be available in digital format and
would have to be provided in hard copy form if you wanted them. I am enclosing a copy of the
OBTS reference booklet which indicates the types of offender data tracked in this system. I ask
that you review this document to see whether, in fact, the data elements in OBTS are responsive
to your request. I await your clarification before producing the entire tracking system for each
offender, which would be extremely time-consuming and costly in terms of number of pages
copied.
Further, there may be specific information related to offender accountability plans in the
Department's new information system, OMNI. This information system, which is still under
development, will eventually replace OBTS. Please provide confirmation whether you also wish
the data elements in this system printed out and provided to you.
2.

If not existing in digital format for production pursuant to the foregoing request,
please produce a paper copy of the community release plan packet checklist (form
DOC 20-47) [or comparable form] and all attachments thereto concerning each
offender approved on or after January 15,1997 to participate in a work release,
worWtraining release, community residential or pre-release facility sited in Pierce
County.

Please be advised that of the $42 1 offenders staff have identified as responsive to this request,
currently 1,185 are active in the prison system, 3,323 are active in the field (community
supervision), and 913 are inactive. Researching these file is extremely difficult given the
transitional nature of offender's movement within the system; i.e., an offender could move from
prison to the field; from the field back to prison; from inactive to active; etc. Staff effort to
locate and produce offender records that could move at any time will add an unknown amount of
time to respond (depending on how many offenders move during the time we are researching
these files).
Also, the inactive files are stored at the State Records Center in the Office of Secretary of State.
DOC staff will be dependent upon the availability of State Records Center staff to pull the
archived files and send them to us which involves another amount of time impossible for us to
estimate.

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 3
A DOC staff person will begin working 011 this request immediately. Please note that documents
related to this request consist of between 30-50 pages per offender; and after they are located, it
takes one hour of staff time to copy applicable documents. Therefore, given 5,42 1 files, a rough
estimate of time just to copy these documents is 5,421 hours or 678 days of work (31.5 months or
2.6 years). The document copies must then be redacted as appropriate and copied again before
they are released.
I have asked records staff to assign one person responsibility to work 25 percent of hisher time
on your request. Therefore, an estit~intedtimeline to produce these documents is July 1,2013.
Please be advised that, given all the variables which could add unknown time to research these
records, this timeline is only an estimate and could be completed earlier or later. I again extend. .
an invitation to sit down and discuss your request with the intent to provide documents in the
most efficient and timely manner possible.
3.

I

As for all "writings" not produced pursuant to the foregoing request Nos. 1 and 2,
please produce for inspection all remaining "writings" in your possession or control
concerning or referencing each offender approved on o r after January 15,1997 to
participate in a work release, worldtraining release, community residential o r prerelease facility sited in Pierce County.

In m y letter of November 22,2002, I again requested you meet with DOC staff to discuss
specific documents that would be responsive to this request item. An average offender file is 2112 to 3 inches thick, containing approximately 200 pages per inch. In order to produce these
"writings" for inspection, staff would have to locate the file (with the same difficulties of
offender movement as in item 2); copy the file, redact as appropriate, and copy again to make
available the file for inspection. This would be a huge workload for staff as nrell as extremely
costly.
However, given your request as currently written, Department records staff have estimated that it
will take 15.25 hoursperfile (multiplied by 5,421 files) to prepare the doc~unentsfor inspection.
This con~putesto 82,670 hours or 10,334 days of work (48 1 months or 40 years) for one staff
person dedicated wholly to this workload. Again, by assigning one person responsibility to work
25 percent o f hislher time on your request I have estitnnted that it will take 160 years to produce
these documents.
4.

Please provide a copv of all "writings" in your possession or control concerning any
person or entity currently employing participants in a n y work release,
worldtraining release, community residential o r pre-release facility sited in Pierce
County.

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 4
Staff have identified 196 pages responsive to this request item. Upon payment of $39.20 in copy
fees, and postage if mailed, the documents will be provided to you.

5.

Please provide a copy of any agreement o r understanding in effect on o r after
January 15,1997 between the State of Washington and the operator of any work
release, worWtraining release, community residential o r pre-release facility in the
State of Washington.

As I indicated in my November 22,2002 letter, the documents (1,363 pages) have been copied
and are available to you upon payment of copy fees ($272.60) and postage if mailed.
6.

1

Please provide a copy of any agreement o r understanding in effect on o r after
January 15,1997 between the State of Washington and any persons o r entities
employing participants in work release, worWtraining release, community
residential o r pre-release facility sited in Pierce County.

You did not respond to my November 22,2002 letter to confirm whether the provision of one
copy of an agreement (when the agreement utilized is simply a form letter wherein the only
change is the recipient) would meet your request. However, based on that assumption, staff have
identified 36 pages responsive to this request item. Upon payment of $7.20 in copy fees, and
postage if mailed, the documents will be provided to you.

7.

Please provide in existing digital format all "writings" in your possession or control
which were generated by each Siting Manager, Search Committee and Site Advisory
Committee concerning worWtraining and pre-release siting processes in the State of
Washington on o r after January 15,1997 (reference: Division Directive DIR 117-

w.

8.

If not existing in digital format for production pursuant to the foregoing request No.
7, please produce for inspection all remaining "writings" in your possession o r
control which were generated by each Siting Manager, Search Committee and Site
Advisory Committee concerning worldtraining and pre-release siting processes in
the State of Washington on or after January 15,1997 (reference: Division Directive
DIR 117-W).

Related to Items 7 and 8, staff have located one disk containing documents responsive to this
request. The disk is available to you upon payment of $1.00 to cover the cost of the disk, plus
postage if mailed.

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 5
Staff have also identified numerous paper documents responsive to this request item. The paper
copies will be available for your inspection after January 31,2003, when staff will have
completed copying the pages and reviewing the documents for possible exemptions. Please
contact Terry Blanset, Public Disclosure Coordinator, at (360) 753-2769 so that appropriate
arrangements can be made to inspect these documents after that date.
9.

'

-.,

Pierce County requests a copv of all the described writings in effect on o r after
January 15,1997. Further, Pierce County requests only writings such as policies,
agreements, o r protocols which set out the standards o r bases for deciding to which
particular work release o r workltraining release facility an offender will be
,.
assigned; Pierce County is not by this request seeking writings which merely
reference sucli standards or bases, nor policies, directives and checklists concerning
classification.

In my November 22,2002 letter I indicated staff had identified DOC policies and classification
training materials responsive to this item. I indicated those documents were available upon
payment of copy fees. I also indicated other materials were being collected and would be located
by December 24,2002. Staff have identified 41 additional pages responsive to this request item.
These documents consist of selection criteria and other procedures developed at the specific
work release or pre-release facilities. Upon payment of $8.20 in copy fees, and postage if
mailed, the additional documents will be provided to you.
10.

Please provide in existing digital format all "writings" in your possession or control
which reference the date each work release, workltraining release, community
residential or pre-release facility in the State of Washington opened. In lieu of this,
Pierce County would accept a list indicating the requested date for each such
facility.

As noted in my letter of November 22,2002, this document (paper copy) is available to you
upon payment of copy fees ($0.20), plus postage if mailed. As you indicated in your letter of
November 14,2002 that you would accept a list identifying the date each facility opened, I
assume that this request item is complete. I again ask you to please clarify if this is not so.

11.

Please provide in existing digital format all "writings" in your possession or control
which reference the design occupancy of each work release, worWtraining release,
community residential or pre-release facility in the State of Washington. In lieu of
this, Pierce County would accept a list indicating the design occupancy of each such
facility. If the design occupancy has changed for a facility, please provide the
date(s) and design change(s).

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 6

Staff provided an EXCEL worksheet electronically on November 26,2002 that listed the
capacity of each work releaselpre-release. Again, I ask for confirmation that the list provided
satisfies the response for this item.
In addition, as requested, staff have identified an EXCEL worksheet that lists the changes in
capacity for Peninsula Work Release, Longview Work Release, Tri-Cities Work Release and
Eleanor Chase Work Release. This document is available electronically. Please contact DOC
Public Disclosure Coordinator Terry Blanset at (360) 753-2769 to make appropriate
arrangements to receive this worksheet electronically.
12.

Please provide in existin? d i ~ i t a format
l
all "writings" in your possession or control
which reference the actual occupancy (by month and/or other recorded period) of
each work release, worWtraining release, community residential or pre-release
facility in the State of Washington after January 15,1997. In lieu of this, Pierce
County would accept a list indicating the actual occupancy of each such facility
monthly since January 15,1997.

As indicated in my November 22,2002 letter, the documents responsive to this item are not
available electronically. They have been copied (216 pages) and are available to you upon
payment of copy fees ($43.20), plus postage if mailed.
13.

Please produce in existing digital format all "writings" in your possession or control
pertaining to each offender concerning whom the Washington Department of
Corrections received information about alleged violation of any condition of
community corrections supervision (other than legal financial obligations) occurring
in Pierce County on or after January 15,1997.

14.

If not existing in digital format for production pursuant to the foregoing request No.
13, please produce for inspection all "writings" in your possession or control
pertaining to each offender concerning whom the Washington Department of
Corrections received information about alleged violation of any condition of
community corrections supervision (other than legal financial obligations) occurring
in Pierce County on or after January 15,1997.

In my November 22,2002 letter I indicated that the Department cannot provide docun~entsto
respond to this request as currently written. I provided information on how we manage
violations and indicated they are not tracked by location of violation occurrence.

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 7
I indicated staff could produce copies of approximately 2,300 hearings for the time period July
2000 to the present by December 24,2002. However, staff were not directed to begin producing
these documents because I did not heard back from you as to whether these copies would meet
your request.
Since I still have not received confirmation or clarification from you, I am now directing
Department staff to begin pulling files to copy records of work release,.pre-release and
community custody hearings heard by Department Hearing Officers for the period July 2000 to
the present. Staff have estimated that the process will be completed by January 3 1,2003. Please
contact Terry Blanset, Public Disclosure Coordinator, at (360) 753-2769 so that appropriate
arrangements can be made to inspect these documents after that date.
..
Beyond what is available for the time period July 2000 to the present, staff would have to handsearch all offender files maintained by DOC (over 16,000 files statewide plus applicable
archived files). I again reiterate the need to meet with you to define what further violation
records would meet your request.
15.

Please produce for inspection all writings which included a public record request to
the Washington Department of Corrections (or to the State on Washington
concerning Department of Correction records) o r Department official(s) which were
made on o r after January 15,1997 by any attorney, law firm o r employee or agent
thereof.

In my November 22,2002 letter I indicated that documents responsive to this request are located
statewide and are not logged by status as an attorney or law firm. Further, records responsive to
this request have not been maintained as far back as the January 1997 date you request.
Therefore, staff can only provide records that have been kept by the Department. Headquarters
staff have identified numerous public disclosure requests responsive to this request item. The
paper copies will be available for your inspection after January 3 1; 2003, when staff will have
completed copying the pages and reviewing the documents for possible exemptions. Please
contact Terry Blanset, Public Disclosure Coordinator, at (360) 753-2769 so that appropriate
arrangements can be made to inspect these documents after that date.
Related to public disclosure requests concerning offenders, I further explained that no centralized
system has been utilized by the Department. Public disclosure requests related to offenders are
filed in each offender's central file, which necessitates a hand-search of over 16,000 central files
statewide, plus an unknown number of archived files for offenders with closed cases in the
applicable time period. Since the Department has no way to locate these requests, I have asked staff

Mr. Douglas W. Vanscoy
December 23,2002
Page 8
statewide to provide copies of any public disclosure logs available for the applicable time period.
Staff have indicated these logs will be available for your inspection after January 3 1,2003. You
may review the logs to determine whether any of the entries would be responsive to your request.
I again encourage you to discuss your request with me in order to determine the scope of the
records you are interested in receiving. I invite you to contact me at (360) 753-1502 to set up an
appointment to meet with me and my staff.

Eldon Vail, Deputy Secretary
Office of Correctional Operations

.j

EV:tab.PD87
Enclosure
cc:
Governor Gary Locke
Secretary Joseph D. Lehrnan
Assistant Attorney General Carol Murphy
Public Disclosure Administrator Kay Wilson-Kirby
VIA FAX (253) 798-6713
P.S.

Just prior to mailing this response to your office, I received a copy of your recent
letter dated December 20,2002, and containing a check in the amount of $442.00
for payment of public disclosure fees. The documents that have been paid for will
be forwarded to you by January 13,2003.

I acknowledge that you have modified request items 1,2, and 3 to exclude all
female offenders. Again, I ask you to review this letter and respond with
clarification as requested. Further response to your December 20,2002 letter
will be provided within five business days.

Appendix #3

Lachrnan&Laing. LLC

Releases by county and by facility are summarized in the appendix in Table A-14 and
Table A-15.

First Releases, First Prison Sentences
The following tables show the number and percent of prisoners released from work
release and pre-release facilities in Pierce and King counties that satisfy the conditions of
first release and first prison sentence. That is, because the release date was preceded
by only one prison sentence (sentence of 366 or more days), it was reasonable to
assume that this was the first ever stay in prison in Washington. These data were
analyzed and displayed separately because they are the most unequivocal look at county
of first cause and county of release.
Considering all work and pre-release facilities combined in Pierce County, 16% of
prisoners released to Pierce County in 1993 through 1995 were first sentenced to prison
for a crime committed in another county ("other"). I n the later period (2000 through
2002), 19% of inmates released to Pierce County were convicted in another county.
Offsetting this was the 2% of inmates in each period who were convicted in Pierce
County and released to another county.
These figures vary substantially by type of facility. It is not surprising that Rap and
Lincoln released into Pierce County a greater percentage of prisoners first convicted in
other counties. From 1993 through 1995,42% of those released to Pierce County from
Rap House were convicted in another county. This increased to 44% in the period from
2000 through 2002, although this was offset by the 6% whose first prison sentence was
in Pierce County and who were released to another county.

Table 39
First Release and First Prison Sentence
Pierce County Facilities

Appendix #4

NUMBER

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONS

PRISONIPRE-RELEASE1
WORK RELEASE

b,w

SIGNATURE

POLICY
DIRECTIVE
Offender Manual [7 Spanish

DOC 300.500
DATE

EFFECTIVE DATE

6/28/05
PAGE NUMBER

HAROLD W. CLARKE, SECRETARY

1 of3

TITLE

WORK RELEASE SCREENING
SUPERSESSION:
DOC 300.500 effective 10115/04
REFERENCES:
DOC 100.100 is hereby incorporated into this Policy Directive; RCW 9.94A; RCW 72.65; WAC
137-56; ACA 6A-11; ACA 68-02; DOC 300.380 Classification; DOC 320.165 Community
Custody Violator Sanction to Work Release; DOC 350.300 Mutual Agreement Program; DOC
630.51 0 Mental Health Services
POLICY:

I.

The Department has an established process for all potential candidates for Work
Release to be screened to determine suitability for placement in a Work Release facility.

DlRECTIVE:
I.

Prohibitions [6A-111

A.

Offenders/violators are prohibited from Work Release placement if they:
1.

Have had new felony detainers lodged against them.

2.

Have Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers lodged
against them.

3.

Have an out-of-state release plan.

4.

Have had or currently have an End of Sentence Review recommending
civil commitment.

5.

Do not meet the medical criteria for placement as determined by facility
health care staff.

6.

Have been convicted of First Degree Murder, unless approved as part of
their Mutual Agreement Program (MAP) per DOC 350.300 Mutual
Agreement Program.

7.

Have recent, local, high media profile and the facility Community
Corrections Supervisor (CCS) has documentation to verify this.

NUMBER

TITLE

DOC 300.500

B.

II.

EFFECTIVE DATE

6/28/05

PAGE NUMBER

2 of 3

8.

Have been assessed as Risk Management (RM) A due to imminent threat
and there is a local victim/witness concern that cannot be mitigated by the
Risk Management Intensive Transition (RMIT) Team.

9.

Have been convicted of First Degree Rape and are within their first 3
years of confinement.

10.

Do not meet Department recognized local agreement criteria.

Offenders who have high mental health needs or are developmentally disabled
should be assessed for placement at Rap House/Lincoln Park Work Release per
DOC 630.510 Mental Health Services.

Screening [ 6 ~ - II]
A.

The sending facility will build a Work Release entry on OBTS D173. Following
this, the electronic referral will be sent to the intended Work Release.

B.

If the referral is built for the wrong Work Release, the Facility CCSIdesignee will
redirect the referral to the correct Work Release and email the facility Counselor
who initiated the referral.

C.

Screening and acceptance will be completed within 30 calendar days from the
date of the referral and documented on OBTS D166. Denials only apply to
unique exceptions. [68-021

D.

Ill.

WORK RELEASE SCREENING

1.

The Facility CCS will forward DOC 02-249 Request for Denial of Work
Release Placement to the Headquarters Classification Work Release
Correctional Program Manager (CPM).

2.

Headquarters will schedule a Headquarters Community Screening
Committee (HCSC) review.

3.

HCSC will make a final decision and inform the Work Release, and
document the decision on OBTS DT08 and D166.

4.

HCSC will provide data on trends by facility to the Field Administrators.

Pre-hearing or post-hearing confinement in a Work Release facility for offenders
who have violated conditions of supervision, probation, or parole will be handled
per DOC 320.165 Community Custody Violator Sanction to Work Release.

Call Outs
A.

The Headquarters Classification Work Release CPM will review the case 8
months or less to earned release date (ERD) to see if the offender is still eligible
for Work Release placement. If the offender is still eligible, the Headquarters
CPM will:
1.

Initiate notification procedures,

NUMBER

TITLE

DOC 300.500

2.
3.

WORK RELEASE SCREENING

EFFECTIVE DATE

6/28/05

PAGE NUMBER

3 of 3

Advise the Work Release facility and the sending facility records staff of
the offender's arrival date, and
Schedule the transportation.

DEFINITIONS:

Wordslterms appearing in this policy directive may be defined in the glossary section of the
policy directive manual.
ATTACHMENTS:

None
DOC FORMS (See Appendix):

DOC 02-249 Request for Denial of Work Release Placement

NUMBER

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

WORK RELEASE
SIGNATURE

DATE

POLICY
DIRECTIVE
Offender Manual

Spanish

D o c 300.550
EFFECTIVE DATE

7/26/04
PAGE NUMBER

JOSEPH D. LEHMAN, SECRETARY

1 of 3
TITLE

GRADUATED COMMUNITY ACCESS
SUPERSESSION:

None
REFERENCES:

DOC 100.100 is hereby incorporated into this Policy Directive; ACA 5A-14; DOC 320.165
Community Custody Violator Sanction to Work Release; DOC 320.460 Monitoring Offender
Community Activities; DOC 450.310 Visits and Social Outings for Work Release Offenders
POLICY:
I.

Offenders in Work Release facilities shall be allowed community access based on time
in the facility, progress in meeting plan objectives, personal behavior, and risk to the
public. [5A-141

DIRECTIVE:
I.

II.

General Requirements
A.

Until an offender completes orientation, hislher access to the community is only
under supervision.

B.

An offender's advancement to a higher step can occur automatically when the
expectations are met.

C.

Staff at the facility shall provide input on the offender's compliance to
expectations and accomplishments and the demonstration of positive behavior.
Point-to-point passes shall be used per DOC 320.460 Monitoring Offender
Community Access.

D.

Increased access to the community will be based on a 3 step program. This
program does not affect an offender's access for religious services, medical
treatment, law library, court, or attorney access.

Step1
A.

Upon arrival at a Work Release facility, an offender is placed in Step I upon
completion of orientation.

NUMBER

TITLE

DOC 300.550

B.

Ill.

B.

7/26/04

PAGE NUMBER

2 of 3

Privileges for Step I are:
1.

Point-to-point passes, as needed to conduct essential business.

2.

Approved visitors in compliance with DOC 450.310 Visits and Social
Outings for Work Release Offenders.

To qualify for Step II the offender must, at a minimum:
1.

Be employed for a minimum of 24 hours per week.

2.

Have a Legal Financial Obligations (LFO) schedule established, if
applicable.

3.

Be successfully participating in all facility program requirements, and in
compliance with the Offender Accountability Plan (OAP).

4.

Be major infraction free for the past 30 days, to include violations that
resulted in a stipulated agreement.

Privileges for Step II are:
1.
2.

3.

Point-to-point passes.
Social outing time up to 20 hours a week with a curfew no later than 10:OO
P.M.
Other privileges established by the Facility Supervisor.

Step Ill
A.

To qualify for Step Ill the offender must, at a minimum:
1.
2.

3.
4.
B.

Maintain employment a minimum of 32 hours per week
Current in making payments to Cost of Supervision (COS), LFO, and
Room and Board.
Be major infraction free for the past 60 days, to include violations that
resulted in a stipulated agreement.
Be meeting facility program requirements and compliance with the OAP.

Privileges for Step Ill are:
1.
2.

3.
V.

EFFECTIVE DATE

Step II
A.

IV.

GRADUATED COMMUNITY ACCESS

Point-to-point pass.
Approved social outing time up to 30 hours per week with a curfew no
later than midnight.
Other privileges established by the Facility Supervisor.

Community Custody and Parole Violators

NUMBER

TITLE

DOC 300.550
A.
VI.

GRADUATED COMMUNITY ACCESS

EFFECTIVE DATE

7/26/04

PAGE NUMBER

3 of 3

Work Release offenders who are on violation status will be managed per DOC
320.165 Community Custody Violator Sanction to Work Release.

Major Violation Step Reduction
A.

When an offender is found guilty, or admits guilt, of a major infraction through the
Hearing process or Stipulated Agreement Process, slhe shall be reduced in
phase at least one step as part of the sanction.

B.

When eligible, the offender may move through the step system.

DEFINITIONS:
Wordslterms appearing in the Policy Directive may be defined in the Glossary section of the
Policy Directive Manual.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
DOC FORMS (See Appendix):
None

Appendix #5

Appendix #6

TO:

DEAKINS NANCY
DOC-MB-CP-NDA 19-Mar-99 12:35:00
TEAM PROGRAM PO BOX 41112
417 W 4TH AVE
OLYMPIA
WA 98504-1112

FROM : SNYDER LANNY
HQ - CAP PROGRAMS
417 WEST 4TH
OLYMPIA

DOC-MB-CP-LSB 19-Mar-99 10:02:08
WA 98504-1118

SUBJECT: WORLD TRADE CENTER

DOC-MB-CP-NDA/MA#3868382

To:
SAVAGE DAVID
DOC-CC-HQ-DS1
From: SNYDER LANNY
DOC-MB-CP-LSB
Date: Friday 19-Mar-99 at 10:26am
Subject: WORLD TRADE CENTER
Yesterday Doreen and I and Jim Hoghaug from DGA met with Mr. Riley, one
of the World Trade Center building owners. We were meeting with him to
discuss previously expressed concerns about tenant flight once the
siting process was advertised. He was concerned that for some reason
the Department started the public process and didn't purchase the
building, the owners might be stuck with an empty building. A majority
of the leasees have short term leases. We offered up two mitigating
strategies. 1. Sell us the option now and the advertisements for the
public process would not occur until the legislature passed the budget
bill that gave us the formal purchasing authority for the project to
purchase the building. 2. The Department would backfill up to 12,000
square feet of vacant space that may be empty due to tenant flight with
the regional administrator's office (Carol Porter agreed to this). Mr.
Riley indicated that siting offices can be a time consuming effort and
maybe his partners would consider some type of cash penalty if the state
sis not purchase the building. We indicated that we would consider that
option. He is meeting with his partners today and will call Jim Hoghaug
today.
CC:
PHILLIPS BILL
DOC-MB-CP-BPQ
VONHEEDER MARGARET
DOC-MB-DO-MV2
GEIGER DOREEN
DOC-CC-HQ-DG7
DEAKINS NANCY
DOC-MB-CP-NDA

* * End of Message

* Printed on

19-Mar-99 at 12:35:05 MA# 3868382

Appendix #7

TO:

DEAKINS NANCY
TEAM PROGRAM PO BOX
417 W 4TH AVE
OLYMPIA

FROM: SNYDER LANNY
HQ - CAP PROGRAMS
417 WEST 4TH
OLYMPIA

DOC-MB-CP-NDA 15-Mar-99 09:57:17
4 1112

WA 98504-1112

DOC-MB-CP-LSB11-Mar-99 16:59:37
WA 98504-1118

SUBJECT: TPR

TO:
DEAKINS NANCY
From: SNYDER LANNY
Date: Thursday 11-Mar-99 at 5:08pm
Subject: TPR

DOC-MB-CP-NDA/MA#~~~OO~~

DOC-MB-CP-NDA
DOC-MB-CP-LSB

Doreen, Bill Phillips and I called Mr. Riley today. His partners were
concerned about DOC starting the public process before a determination
that the deal would be closed and how that might affect the nerves of
the building tenants. We decided to meet with him next Thursday. We
told him that between now and next Thursday that DOC would put together
a schedule showing all the mandatory steps ie siting and EIS hearings
etc. including the stuff that could be done without public notice ie
building inspections etc. and the key dates that are landmark mile
stones for being more sure that we will get the authority from the
legislature ie House budget out On 3/22, senate version out, Session
ends and governor signs. The more that the different steps of
commitment of DOC that can pass before any public announcement is made,
the more Riley et a1 will be comfortable. Beava will or has set up a
meeting for you, me, Bill and Doreen to discuss what we will.take to the
Thursday meeting. It would be very helpful if you talked to Bergi and
EIS timing and looked at the statute and set up a draft schedule with
the key dates to review. thanks Lanny
cc:

PHILLIPS BILL
GEIGER DOREEN

* * End of Message * * Printed on

DOC-MB-CP-BPQ
DOC-CC-HQ-DG7

15-Mar-99 at 09:57:23 MA# 3790027

Appendix #8

PIERCE COUNTY JUVENILE COURT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Judge Marywave Van Deren, Chair
Judge Frnnk E. ~uthb&son
Judge Thomas J. Felnagle
Judge Thomas P. Lnrkin
Judge John A. McCanhy
Judge Brian Tollefson
Commissioner James Mlrrshall

Daniel
.~ J. Erker
Administramr, Juvenile Coy1 Services
~

~

5501 Sixth Avenue

Tacoma, WA 98406

(253) 798-7900 Fax (353) 798-7649

December 19,2003
Mr. John Ladenburg
Pierce County Executive
Room 737, County City Building
930 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, WA 98402
Dear Mr. Cadenburg:
The Superior Court requests that the Executive and the Pierce County Council, using any
and all means possible, ensure that the Progress House facility be made available to, and for use
by, the Juvenile Court.
Specifically, the Superior Court is requesting that actions be commenced against the
remaining leasehold interest so that the facility can be returned to Pierce County for public use as
part of an expanded, integrated campus for juvenile services.
The Judges believe that Pierce County needs to reintegrate its juvenile facilities so that all
services may be conducted at the same slte. As you know, Diversion was moved to the 950
building due to space limitations at Remann Hall. An integrated and expanded campus would
allow all services pertaining to the Juvenile Court operations to occur at a centralized facility,
reducing inefficiencies, improving client services and productivity. By converting Progress House
to much needed office space and a. court room operation; we will be .able to appropriately
accommodate attorney client meeting space, provide 'space for case consultation amongst the
parties and better control public access. In addition, and consistent with our reform initiative, the
building could be used as an assessment center to triage children and families in crisis.
Finally, requisition of this property is necessary to protect the physical and emotional health
of the Pierce County children who come to the juvenile facility on a daily basis. Our mission has
shifted since the time the old Remann Hall facility was leased to DOC for use as a work release
facility. At that time, children were referred to our facility by law enforcement and had little, if any,
time outside the buildings. They were referred to Remann Hall and,if not released directly to thelr
parents, remained inside the facility pending disposition of their case. We did not have Day
Reporting programs in place at that time.

Mr. John Ladenburg
December 19,2003
Page Two
With the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI), our services have increased. A
significant number of youth report only for the day. They arrive between 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and
depart between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m., depending on the program in which they are involved.' In
addition, we also plan on implementing a night reporting component late 2004 or early 2005 which
would provide for our youth reporting in from 1:00 p.m. on and staying as late as 8:00 p,m. This is
a much more flexible schedule which increases the probability of contact with Progress House
clientele returning in the early evening. Our youth, many as young as 12, share the same bus
stop, a common driveway and sidewalk as 'the convicted felons who are Progress House's
clientele. They should not ha.ve any contact with this adult population.

We, as Judges, have to advocate for these children who are at increased risk simply
because of their backgrounds and current situations. Placing them in a situation which can further
exacerbate this is unacceptable. We know that you and the Council support us in providing a safe
environment for these kids. With the change in use of the Remann Hall campus, it is our belief that
a work release facility in close proximity is both undesirable and unacceptable. Consequently, we
are requesting that the Council, with Executive support, pass the necessary legislation to terminate
the remaining leasehold interest ih Progress House so that the facility may be returned to a use
compatible with the needs of the children of Pierce County.
Sincerely,

Ja es ~rlando,Presiding Judge
Pierce County Superior court

Appendix #9

Pierce County Sex Offender Housing
Fresh Start House (males only)
Address is about 40Ih and McKinley
Lesta Rodgers (253-3 80-56 18)
Up to Level I1
Jefferson Square
Men or women and scattered locations in Pierce County - Clean and sober housing
Clients must be case managed though DOC of MH agency.
p i c e is 30% of income 253-272-6828
Single room only, may have to share bathrooms and kitchens.
Up to Level LI
3 501 South Monroe
Tacoma, WA 98409
253-222-5707 (Bill Brengman) Up to Level 111
First & Last 400 per month
.

'

Redwood Apts
15107 Boat Rd SW
Lakewood, WA 98498
Lloyd M'ede 360-458-52 18 (HM) 253-29 1-053 1 (Pager)
(level I, no child sex crimes)
Shasta Apts
1 545 Tacoma Ave.
Tacoma 98402
Carol Holder 253-96 1-6878
Up to level I1
Paul Post (has housing all over hilltop)
1203 6Ih.Ave
Tacoma
Paul Post 253-383-21 77
Porter Apts
3502 !h East McKinley Ave.
Tacoma
253-627-6370

Sandy Schweger Enterprises
12510 98h ~ t sw
.
Lakewood, WA 98498
253-535-0800

Hope House
1915 S. Sheridan
Tacoma, WA 98405
(up to Level 11)
Arnie Craig 253 572 3358
Westwood Apts.
5910 881h.St. SW
Lakewood, WA
Don Swaggart
Travel Inn Motel
2512 Pacific Ave.
Tacoma 98402
Manager LaTanya 253-572-4582
Up to Level I11 - $225 per month
Kines1urt3@~ol.com

Owner Linda Evans - Home 7520586
Budget Inn
99 15 SOUTH TACOMA WAY
LAKEWOOD STATE: WA ZIP: 98499
Sandy 253 588 661 5 Level 111
Merkle Apts 241hand Pacific 275 per month + utilities
Pamela 253 627-1095
Level I
McGee Guest Home
21 520 82 Ave.E
Spannaway, WA 98387
Toni 253-847-4312 Up to Level I1
402 St. Helens
Tacoma, WA .
Laurie Randolph
Brenda McDaniel
253-572-3005

Landlord List
This is a complied list of Landlords who are willing to work with clients who have
some are all of the following barriers; evictions, felonies, low-income housing or
need
affordable housing.
Lee

........;..........................................................253 640-1260

Hennessey Apartments ....................................;...... 253 474-757 1
Demetrius Pye .....................................
.'............... 253 279-0546
(evenings only)

Joan Baker .........................................................
Sage Terrace

.......................................................

Sandco Pro.perty ...................................................

Appendix #10

"pearson. Robert A. (DOC\
From:
Sent:
To:
Su,bject:

Pearson, Robert A.
Monday, May 22, 2006 8:37AM
Miller, Kelly L.; Skipworth, Kristine M.
FW: CRR - Plan Development, RMlT and RMTO cases

up ~ ~ a g :
Due By:
Flag Status:

FOIIOW up
.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:OO AM
Flagged

F~IIOW

-----Original Message----From:
Pearson, Robert A.
Sent:
Monday, May 22, 2006 8:37 AM
To:
Mendoza, Armando (DOC)
Subject:
MI: CRR - PlanDevelopment, RMrr and RMTO cases

Are you in support o f the RES and CCO tendency t o d i n y CRR plans from other counties when there appears to
be no local ties, history or victim issues?
This continues to be a problem as Jeff Bailey and CCOs in this office are faced with CRRs from prison where there are no
supportive elements in Pierce County beyond the clean and sober house and the cause that the.persons were convicted of
are from other counties. These are not cases in which the offender resided her and went somewhere else to co'mmit the
crime. They are not casesin which the victim is in imminent threat. This is probably effecting all of the county units in one
way or another but in the case of Tacoma 1 and 2 , Sex Offender - North and the DOSA Units the frequency is probably
greater. There is an abundance of clean and sober housing in Tacoma's East South and Hilltop neighborhoods.

.

There is also a tendency to spend little effort to develop plans for cases that are not RMITs, not wanting to spend transition
funds for.housing on other high risk cases. .That relegates them to confinement until they MAX out which could be costly
for the Department. So far you have been supportive when we have requested transition funds for these RMA and RMB
offenders. 1 have seen some MAX X releases where the person was homeless, prior plans were denied and nothing
developed. It isn't clear from the chronos that the person was disinterested in a clean and sober placement although that
may have been the case but some get out and are asking for that sort of assistance which goes along well with their
treatment for CD issues. Is this being considered at a higher level?
-----Original Message----From:
Pearson, Robert A.
Sent:
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:17 PM
To:
Mendoza, Arrnando (DOC)
Subject:
CRR - Plan Development, RMIT and RMTO cases

I have asserted to Ihe CCOs and RES in my unit that the best plan is what we want for the offender, not some sort of
arbitrary territorial limit base on the county of conviction. Counselors, Specialists and offenders in the prisons have
become aware of several of the housing providers in Tacoma like the House of Vision, Taylor House, McKinley House and
Fresh Start, etc. The owners or facilitators of those programs have on occasion participated in RMlT meetings and
interacted with offenders about their program expectations, costs, and location. They are good collaborators and work
with us to house and care for some difficult cases. Thal too has been clear l o prison staff and when faced with difficult lo
place offenders who offer little viable help in the development of lheir release plans they offer information to those
individuals. Sometimes they have even arrange for DOC to pay the room and board before the CRR is even sent. Some
referrals to TacomalPierce County have been derived from a victim issue in another county and it is not clear how Pierce
was selecled over the other 38 options in that circumstance.
I have also asserted that IF it costs $75.00 per day to house the average offender in prison then the average monlhly cost
to do so is $2281.25. Thal cost is a far cry more than the cost of room and board at a clean and sober house which ranges
from about $380 to 610.00 per month. SO we should be trying to develop plans to move offenders into such programs if it
fits their needs, will to abide by the rules and they agree work on a suslainabilily plan. Leaving them in the prison to MAX
OUT because lhey are homeless is a huge cost to the agency.
We have been assaulted by the prosecutor, community members at neighborhood mitigation meetings and in the media
with the "Fair Share" war cry. Our CCOs and RES are a bit gun shy when faced with a CRR on a case with criminal history
from other counties and little or no support in Pierce County. I compel them to investigate those plans to learn if there are
1

~'724

any supportive reasons outside of Ihe housing program resources. If such resources are discovered I theorize Ihe plan
'may be better lhan if the offender was released homeless into another counly (the county of commitment) and I
recommend approval. Such resources have been:
1.) Immediate family living close by. They may not be able to afford support or trust the offender in their home because of
past acts 'but there is hope thal could develop with compliance and success by the offender.
2.) Job offer, verifiable.
3.) SponsorIPrison Volunteer - Church program.
4.) Former Menlal Health Treatment Provider who expressed intent to resume involvement.
Whal is your position on lhis plan development issue?

Appendix #11

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
P. 0.Box 41 101 Olympia, Washingion 98501-1101 Tel1360) 725-8200
FAX (360)664-4056

June 27,2006
Don Pierce, Executive Director
WASPC
3060 Wjlliarnette Drive NE
Lacey, Washington 985 16
Dear Mr. Pierce:
At the suggestion of Jim LaMunyon, I am writing this letter to share with you the Department of
Corrections' position on providing funds for housing for offenders in the community. I
requested an Attorney General Opinion and have.been advised that statutes do not authorize the
Department to expend funding for housing of offenders in the community; nor does the
Washington State Department of Corrections receive a line item appropriation from the
Legislature to provide housing for offenders.

In the Attorney General Opinion, dated October 28, 2005, Assistant Attorney General John J.
Samson, on behalf of the Attorney General of Washington, responded to questions having to do
with the Department's authority to provide financial assistance to offenders to obtain housing
upon release; would such assistance be an unconstitutional gift of public funds; and could the
Department face liability by providing financial assistance? The Attorney General's advice was
that we not provide such funding.

In an effort to not have this funding abruptly end, the decision was made to reduce rather than
e
fiscal resources will be
immediately eliminate the transitional housing funds. ~ h i s limited
reinvested in other support services for offenders being released fiom our institutions.
I understand the Depattment's obligation to ensure offenders are released with the best plan.
Enhancing approaches to increased public safety has been, and will continue to be, the priority
t.
you have any questions, please let me know.
for this office and the ~ e ~ a r t m e nShould
Sincerely,

Harold W. Clarke
Secretary

cc:

John Lane, Executive Policy Advisor, Office ofthe Governor
Mary Leftridge Byrd, Community Corrections Deputy Secretary
Melanie Roberts, Administrative Services Deputy Secretary
"Working Together for SAFE Communifies"

Appendix #12

Grisharn, Susah M. (DOC)
From:

Leftridge Byrd, Mary V. (DOC)
Monday, Ootober 02,2006 3:45 PM
Wright, Earl X. (DOC); Cayer, Donna Y. (DOC); Mendoza, Armando (DOC)
Clarke, Harold W. (DOC); Leftridge Byrd, Mary V. (DOC); Fiala, Anne L. (DOC);
Christensen, Mary E (DOC); Aylward, Anmarie (DOC); Ashlock, Dianne K. (DOC); Hull,
Jeanne L. (DOC); Carlton, Sherri K. (DOC); Robertson, Sandra K. 'Sandv (DOC)
FW: Media contact: offenders in nursing homes

Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Please discuss wl FA'S and ascertain our practice..;to the extent we can; the other thing is Arrnando , please let us
know if there are controlling or relevant policies in place. We'll discuss at the weekly RA mtg tomorrow. Thanks.
-----Original Message----

From:
Sent:

Larson, Gary C. (DOC)
Monday, October 02,2006 1:51 PM

To:
Cc:
Subject:

Williams, Steve A.; Armstrong, Holly (GOV)
Medla contact: offenders In nursing homes

Today I spoke with Kellie Cheadle, investigative projects producer at KlNG TV. She was asking about DOC's
involvement when offenders or former offenders turn up in state-licensed nursing homes, adult family homes and
boarding homes. She is interested in all offenders who fit this category but may focus more on sex offenders because
she has harder data on where they live. About a month ago, she asked if DOC could provide her with a comprehensive
list of offenders residing in such facilities, and I told her we could not because our database does not keep track of
offender addresses based on housing type.
Cheadle said KlNG has spoken to a number of nursing home and adult family home operators who have had a variety
of reactions to the news that sex offenders (and in once case, a murdererlarsonist who apparently is no longer under
DOC supervision) were living on their property. She said some already knew, some didn't, some cared and some didn't
care.
Cheadle wanted to know what DOC's policy is for "placing" convicted felons in such facilities. I explained that DOC
does not place offenders in specific living accommodations while under community supervision. Rather, we review the
offender's proposed release plan to determine if the residence they plan to move in to meets Department
requirements. If the plan is not satisfactory, they remain incarcerated until they can come up with a satisfactory plan, or
they reach their maximum release date. But we would not automatically accept or reject a residence for an offender
based solely on the fact that it is a nursing home or adult family home.
As part of its review of proposed release plans, Cheadle asked whether DOC staff specifically inform potential
landlords, nursing home operators, etc., that a convicted felon has proposed to move onto their property. I told her I
was not sure of the answer and would look into it further and let her know. She also asked whether DOC would contact
the nursing home, etc., when a supervised offender who has been released to a different type of housing later needs
care in a nursing home or adult family home.
You can probably guess where this Is heading. KlNG is no doubt working on a future story that will suggest that the
elderly and infirm are being put at risk by the state, which may be allowing or encouraging dangerous offenders to be
placed. in nursing home rooms next to grandma.
Steve, I don't knbw whether they've contacted you yet on this one, but if not they probably will. We should coordinate
on appropriate responses.

Gary Larson
Director of Communications
Washington State Department of Corrections
360-725-8803
gclarson@docl .wa.gov

Appendix #13

PERCENT WITH A NEW FELONY CONVICTION BY FACILITY W P E
1996 to 2000 RELEASES

I1RELEASED

I

NUMBER AND PERCENT RETURNED

FROM

I

# Released

Year 1

Year 2

Year3

Year4

Year 5

8134

743
9%

934
11%

547
7%

294
4%

159
2%

2677
33%

2921
11%

1701
6%

846
3%

453
2%

8573
32%

Prison

WorWPre Release

26789

TOTAL

.

2652
10%

.

1

PERCENT RETURNED TO PRISON BY FACILITY TYPE.

.

1996 to 2000 RELEASES

1

NUMBEEAND PERCENT RETURNED

(RELEASED FROM
Prison

--

WorklPre--Release- .

.

. ..

Department of borrections

.

Planning Research Section

.

.

5r17
6%

270
3%

2869
11%

1602
6%

815
3%

1930
10%

760
9%

2653
10%

-

.
.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

. ..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:

.

TOTAL

255
1%

5708
31%

_ . ...-132..

,

2%

,2618..
.:

387

.I

32%

8326
31%

1%

..
.,.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:

Year 5

.
.

.
.

..

.

.

....

.
.

3120103

.

,93912%

1893
10%

360-753-61 80
,

545
3%

18655

. . . .
. .
..
.
?

1085
6%

Year 2

26789

TOTAL

Year 4

Year 1

81.34 . -

--..

Year 3

# Released

.

.

.

.

.

..

-

.

.

.

. .
.

.

..

.
.

..

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. .
.

.

.

.

.
. .

.

. .

.

. ..

.

PERCENT WITH A NEW FELONY CONVICTION BY WORWPRE RELEASE COUNTY
I 9 9 6 t o 2000 RELEASES

RELEASED FROM

PERCENT RETURNED
Year 3
Year4
Year 5

# Released

Year I

Year 2

TOTAL

Pierce

1989

213
11%

263
13%

129
6%

78
4%

39
2%

722
36%

Spokane

1617

126
8%

159
10%

99
6%

48
3%

28
2%

460
28%

8134

745
9%

934
11%

547
7%

294
4%

159
2%

2679
33%

Other
TOTAL

PERCENT RETURNED TO PRISON BY WORWPRE RELEASE COUNTY
1996 to 2000 RELEASES

I

I

NUMBER AND PERCENT RETURNED

RELEASED FROM

ff Released

Year I

Year 2

Year 3

1989

213
11%
--

248
12%
-

138

760
9%

939
12%

Pierce

.

-

Year4

TOTAL

34

2"/._

702
35%

132
2%

2618
32%

69
3%
. -

7%
-

.

.

Year 5

Spokane
Other
TOTAL

8134

517

270
3%

6%

-

.

~ e g h n e nof
t Corrections

Planning ~esearch'sedion
360-753-6180
3120103
. .

~r

-

,
. .

.
. .

.

.

.
.

.

.

..

.

.

'

,.

:

.

.

.

... .

.

.

.

..
.

. .

. .. .

.

.

'

.

.

.

.

..

.

.
8

.

...

.

.

.
, . .

..

.
.

.
. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

i

./

.
. , i

Appendix #14

National data on recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 from prisons in 15 states found
that within 3 years of their re~ease:~
25% were back in prison for a new crime.
52% were back in prison serving time for a new crime, exclusively a parole violation,
or arrest for a new crime.
67.5% had been rearrested for a new crime.
The State of Washington found that 32% of prisoners released in the years 1985
through 1996 returned to prison for a new offense or parole violation within 5 years of
relea~e.~
The following table shows recidivism for inmates released from facilities in Washington
State in the 5-year period from 1993 through 1997. Two measures of recidivism are
shown. Convictions for new felonies is a measure consistent with recommendations by
the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, although the recommendations do not
require a 5-year review.' The second measure is return to prison.

Table 38
Recidivism at 5 Years from Date of Release
Work Release, Pre-Releaseand Prison
1993 through 1997

Source: Washington State Department of Corrections.

Langan, P. A., and Leven, D.J. (June 2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (NCJ
193427). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4
Washington State Department of Corrections (April 2002). Recidivism: Historical Review of
Returns to Prison (Briefing Paper No. 20). Olympia, WA.
Barnoski, R. (December 1997). Standards for Improving Research Effectiveness in Adult and
Juvenile Justice. Olympia, WA.

Appendix #15

CONTRACTAGREEMENT NO. CDCC4006
THIS CONTRACTAGREEMENT'isentered into as of this 1st day of July.1997, by the
state of Washington, Departmentof Corrections, hereinafter referred to as "Department"
or "DOC", and Clark County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, whose
address is P.O. Box 41 0, Vancouver, Washington 98666, hereinafter referred to as
"Contractor".
IT IS MUTUALLYAGREED:

PART I

DEFINITIONS

1

"Facility" means the building and grounds designated.in.PARTIll, paragraphA1 of
this Contract Agreement in which offenders are housed, pursuant to this Contract
Agreement.

2.

'"Facility Supervisornmeans.theperson appointed by the Director as the
Department's representativefor the Facility.

3.

"Director" means the Director of the Department's Division of Community
Corrections or hislher designee.

4.

"Offendet'means a person committed to or transferred to the Departmenls
custody pursuant to a valid criminal conviction.

5.

"Partial Confinement" means confinement of the offender where the offender is
permitted to be absent from the facility for a limited number of hours each day
without direct Department supervision to engage in work, training, education, job
hunting, etc.

6.

"EX-offender"means a person discharged from the custody of the Department or
who is no longer under active supervision of the Department.

A.

TERM

The initial termof this Contract Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1997, and extend
through June 30, 1999, unless sooner terminated by either party by,the provisions set
forth herein.

6.

TERMINATION

'1. This Contract Agreement may be termhated by either party on sixty (60) calendar
days' written notice to the Secretary. Such notice shall be delivered or mailed to the
Secretary, addressed as follows:

State.ofWashington
Department of Corrections

Page 1 of 12

11/22/02 DOC
Resp. #5 - 155

Joseph Lehman, Secretary
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 41101
Olympia, Washingt~n98504-1101

2. This Contract Agreement may be terminated by the Departmentin accordance with
Exhibit "A"; General Terms and Conditions.
PART Ill
,

A.

FACILITY
The Contractor shall, during the term of this Contract Agreement, provide
housing and the services described herein for up to 37 offenders in the
facility located at Clark County Law Enforcement Center, 707 West 13th
Street, Vancouver, Washington 98666. It is contemplated by the parties
that the general population mix will be 50 percent felony offenders
committed to the facility by the Superior Court and 50 percent Department
referrals. The foregoing is intended as a policy statement to guide the intake
decision and not as an absolute standard.
The Contractor warrants that it is the owner/lesseeof the facility described
above, and that said facility does now, and at all times during the term of
this ContractAgreement will, conform with all existing state laws and
regulationsapplicable to the operation of the facility including, but not
limited to, Chapter 72.65 RCW and Chapter 137-56 WAC, and with all
applicable zoning ordinances, building codes, and fire, health and safety
regulations. In the event there is a discrepancyin requirementsbetween a
local code and a national code, the most stringent requirementwill apply.
For the purpose of this Contract Agreement, the National Fire Protection .
Agency's codes and regulations, the Rules and Regulations of the
Washington State Board of Health for Food Service Sanitation (Chapter
248-84 WAC) and the Labor and IndustriesGeneral Safety and Health
Standards (Chapter 296-24 WAC) shall be considered as state codes and
will apply to this Contract Agreement.
(The Contractor shall comply with all applicable requirementscontained
within the Americans with Disabilities Act, as may be amended, as they
relate to the facility.)

3.

If the facility fails for any reason, at any time during the term of this Contract
Agreement, to conform to any applicable laws and regulations, including
those mentioned above, the Contractorwill, at its sole cost and expense,
make the necessary changes to bring the facility back into compliance
including compliance with all hearing and inspection requirements.

4.

The Contractorshall maintain documentation confirming adherence to
applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations, or shall document such
non-applicability.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 2 of 12

i 1/22/02 DOC
Resp.#S- 156

B.

SERVICES
'

1.

The Contractor shall furnish such supplies, personnel, equipment, and
sewices as are necessary to provide the care and supervision of offenders
placed in the Facility as required by this Contract Agreement and the
Contract Wormraining Release "Program Standards", hereinafter referred
to as the "Standards", and incorporated herein by reference. The County is
exempt from the staffing requirements contained within the Standards.

2.

The Contractor shall provide all services and perform all duties called for by
this Contract Agreement as set forth in this Contract Agreement, the
Contractor's Facility Manual, and the Department's Division of Community
Corrections WorWraining Release Manual, hereinafter collectively referred
to as the "Manual". The Contrad.orls performanceof such duties and
provision of such services shall be in compliance with the Standards. A
waiver of the Standards is granted to allow one staff person per graveyard
shift and to allow only one sink per ten 0ffenders.A waiver is also granted
eliminating the requirement for independentaudits.

PART IV
A. . SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1.

The Contractor shall maintain the Manual up to date, and shall cause it to
be available to, and reviewed by staff, which describes the purpose,
philosophy, programs, services and policy of the Facility for all elements of
the Department's Standards. The Contractor'sWork Training Release and
Partial Confinement Manual shell be approved by the Director. The
Contractorshall, due to changes to the Standards, amend its manual to be
consistentwith the Standards. 'The Department shall use its best efforts to
provide the Contractor the proposed changes to the Standards prior to final
approval by the Department. A copy of the final amendment to the
Standards shall be provided the Contractor, and the Contractor shall be
responsible for compliance therewith. Amendments to the Contractor's
Facility Manual by the Contractor must be approved by the Director prior to
implementation. If such amendment to the Standardswould increase or
decrease the Contractor's cost of performing its obligations and duties
hereunder, the parties will negotiate a new payment amount and amend
this Contract Agreement accordingly.

2.

The Department is responsible for screening, referral, transfer, and
termination of4he offenders hol~sedby the Contractor pursuailt to this
Contract Agreement. The Contractor will provide any input necessary for
the0epartment to screen, refer, transfer, or terminatesuch offenders.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 3 of 12

1 1/22/02 DOC
157

Resp. #5

-

Both the Department and the Contractor referrals.shallbe reviewed, unless
specificallywaived by a Community Advisory Board, with composition
described below, prior to placement. The Board's acceptance or rejection
of any Department referrals shall be deemed conclusive, except that the
Secretary, after advice of the Headquarters Community Screening
Committee (HCSC), reserves the right to order placement of any rejected
candidate in the program.
If placement by the Secretary is orderedafter rejection by ttie Cornmu'nity
Advisory Board, the Board shall be notified in writ.ing of such order and the
reasons therefor, with,opportunityfor the Board to submit written
informationto the Secretary in support of its rejection, and to seek
reconsiderationprior to final placement.
A Co'mmunityAdvisory-Board as described herein and jointly appointed by
the Department and the Clark County Board of Commissionersfollowing
consultationis recognized by the parties as a fundamental structure for
screening and referral of offenders into the program, and for advice in policy
development, operations, and community relations.

The CommunityAdvisory Board shall be comprised of the following
membership:
(I
j Clark County Prosecuting Attorney or designee.

(1) Clark County Sheriff or designee
(1) Vancouver Police Chief or designee
(1') DOC Southwest Region Adrninistratoror designee
(3) Community members at large
,(I)
DepartmentWorkfRelease Supervisor
(1) Facility Manager, County

.

.

Board membership shall be expanded to include a representativeof the
Superior Court for Clark County and a representativeof the Clark County
District Court whenever the Board is meeting on policy, operation, or
community relations matters not involving individual referral decisions.

3.

The Contractor agrees to coopetrate with any and all programs designed by
the Departmentas an integral part of its philosophy or program with respect
to community-basedcorrections.

4.

The Department may make available to the Contractor Criminal History
Record Information(CHRI) as defined in Chapter 10.97 RCW and Chapter
446-20 WAC, including non-conviction data, regarding offenders housed in
the Facility. In accepting this information, the Contractor shall:

a)

Use and maintain the information provided in strict compliance with
all present and future federal and state laws and regulations, and
require any of ttie Contractor's authorized personnel having access
to CHRI to strictly adhere to the same.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 4 of 12
11122102 DOC
Resp. #5 158

-

5.

6.

b)

Obtain the assistance of the Department to familiarize its personnel
with and fully adhere to Section 524(b) of the Crime ControlAct of
1978 (42 USC 3771 (b)), 38 CFR Part 20, RCW 10.97, and WAC
137-08 and WAC 446-20, with respect to all of which as may be.
amended or replaced.

c)

Not disseminate non-convictiondata CHRl-exceptas authorized in
writing by a Department Records Manager.

d)

Fully comply with .all rules and regulations promulgated by the
Washington State Patrol, pursuant to RCW 10.97.090(2) or WAC
365-50, regarding standards for the physical security, protection
against unauthorizedaccess, and personnel procedures and
safeguards.

The Facility Supervisor is designated as the Department's on-site
representativein the performance of this Contract Agreement. In this
capacity, the Facility Supervisor shall:
a)

Make regular inspections and reviews of documents to assess
contract compliance by the Contractor. The Contractor shall
cooperate in providing the Facility Supervisor access to records,
personnel, and locations, as necessary, for monitorirrg.

b)

Note deficiencies in contract compliance and promptly bring them to
the Contractor's attention. Significant deficiencies will be
documented in writing, with copies to the Contractor and the
Director. The Contractor shall respond in writing and shall specify the
appropriate action taken to achieve compliance. Failure by the
Contractor to correct deficiencies in an appropriate and timely
manner may result in withholding or forfeiture of payment.

In procuring goods, services and equipment necessary for the performance
of this Contract Agreement, the Contractor shall:
a)

.Use its best efforts to award subcontracts to andlor purchase
supplies and materials from minority and women owned businesses
to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient performance of this
Contract Agreement and subparagraph (b) of this paragraph.

b)

Purchase products or articles exclusivelyfrom the Department's
Class II Correctionallndustries program where a product or article
required by the Contractor is produced by such program. The
Contractorshall use this source unless the Director, acting upon
written justification from the Contractor, determines that the
Correctionallndustries products or articles do not meet the
reasonable requirements of the Contractor.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

CDCC4006

Page 5 of 12

.

11/22/02 DOC
159

Resu. #5

-

7.

c)

No mixing of fund sources is permitted with,e..ip
em
qu'i;ent
partial
federal funding - partial state. Equipment purchased by the
Contractor under this Coritract is considered state property and title
vests with the state upon delivery to the Facility and acceptance by
the Supervisor and Contractor as conforming to the order.

d)

Facility Supervisor will be the receiving agent for all property1
equipment procured under this Contract. Equipment shall be tagged
with a state property tag and entered into the Department's Property
Management System b y the Facility Supervisor prior to physically
relinquishingcontrol of the equipment to the Contractor. Purchases,
i.e., general supplies, from the Central Stores of the County, andlor
excluded under WAC 326-3-060shall not be subject to the
provisions of paragraph b. above.

The Departmentwill defend, indemnify and' hold Contractor harmless from
any claim, demand, or action against Contractor based solely on the theory
of (a) negligent placement of an offender in Contractor's Facility, andlor (b)
negligentsupervision by Contractor of a resident of Contractor's facility, if
Contractor's supervision complied with all Department requirementswith
respect to Contractor supervision as set forth or referenced in this
Agreement.
The Departmentwill have no obligation to defend, indemnify or hold
Contractor harmless under the provisions of this paragraph, A7, if:
a)

Contractorfaiis or refuses to:
(1)

b) .

,

Notify the Region Administrator and the Department's
Litigation and Risk Management Administratorwithin five (5)
days of any such claim, demand or action; or

(2)

Allow Department to take full.control of the defense or
settlement of any such claim, demand or action; or

(3)

Fully cooperate with the Department in the investigation,
defense or settlement of any such claim, demand, or action.

After an initial investigationof the claim, demand, or action against
the Contractor, the Department determines that Contractor's action
or inaction:
(1)

Is outside the scope of services to be performed pursuant to
this Contract Agreement; or

(2) .

Constitutes gross negligence; or

(3)

Constitutes recklessness.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

11/22/02 DOC

Resp. #5 - 160

Should the Contractor dispute,the determination made by the Department,
the Contractor and the Department shall submit the request for defense and
indemnificationto an arbitrator appointed as set forth in the General Terms
and Conditions attached.hereto.
Nothing in this paragraph, A7, shall be deemed to preclude Contractor from
retaining counsel to represent Contractor in connection with an claim,
demand, or action against the Contractor; provided, however, epartment
shall have no obligation to indemnify or hold harmless from any cost or
expense Contractor may incur in connection with the retaining of such
counsel.

d

8.

In order to promote and encourage offender financial responsibility,
offenders are expected to pay a portion of the costs of their lodging and
subsistence. Offenders shall surrender all monies received to the
Contractor. The Contractor shall submit a daily transmittal of inmate funds
received in the previous 24-hour period per DOC policy.

9,

The resident offender is responsible for all medical costs unless the
offender is financially unable to pay, in which case the Department is
responsiblefor such costs. The Contractor assumes financial'liability for
medical expenses if incurred as a result of the negligence of the Contractor,
its agents or employees. If the offender is removed from the work release
program and placed in the general jail population, medical expenses will be
covered as provided in WAC 13-7-75.

PART V

A.

PAYMENT
The Department shall pay to the Contractor each month during the term of
this Contract Agreement during the period-commencingon July 1, 1997,
and continuing through June 30, 1998, 1112th of the total amount set forth
in paragraph A5 herein for goods and services provided pursuant to this
Contract Agreement. The Depaftrnentshall pay to the Contractor each
month during the period commencing on July 1, 1998, and continuing
through June 30, 1999, 1112thof the total amount set'forth in paragraphA6
herein for goods and services provided pursuant to thisContract
Agreement.

Contractor may use such funds received pursuant to paragraph A1 above
to reimburse actual costs incurred. Payments received in excess of such
costs shall be placed in a non-interest bearing account and may be used by
the Contractor, with the prior written approval of the Director, to provide
additional enhancements to the work release program during the term of
this Agreement. Excess funds received that have not been expended by
the Contractor pursuant to this paragraph shall be remitted to the
Department no later than ten (10) days after written request by the Director,
or contract completion or termination. Determination of excess funds shall
be made as mutually agreed and at the end of each contract term.
State of Washington
Page 7 of 12
Department of Corrections.

-

.

-

11/22/02 DOC
Resp. #S 161
--.-

-

B.

3.

The Contractor shall submit its monthly billing on a state invoice vouchei
form (A19-A). DOC Form No.16-36, Monthly Expenditure Report shalt be
submitted by the Contractor no later than fifteen (15) days following the end
of the month. DOC Form No.16-36 shall be signed by an authorized
representativeof the Contractor.

4.

Costs or liabilities incurred by the Contractor in excess of the actual costs
may not be reimbursedwithout the priorwritten approval of the Region
Administrator; provided, however, that approval of such payment shall not
cause the total amount to be paid the Contractor by the Department for all
costs to exceed the amounts set forth in paragraphsA5 and A6 below.
Reimbursementof sub-object costs in excess of the amount set forth in
Exhibit "B" shall require a correspondingdecrease in other subj-object
costs.

5.

t h e maximum payment to the Contractor for all costs incukred in providing
goods and services under this .ContractAgreement shall not exceed
$524,284 for the.period commencing July 1, 1997, and continuingthrough
June 30,7998.

6.

The maximum payment to the Contractor for all costs incurred in providing
goods and services under this Contract Agreement shall not exceed
$527,181 for the period commencing July 1,1998, and continuing through
June 30,1999.

OFFENDER FUNDSIRNENUE
1

Monies received by the Contracitor on behalf of an,offendeiwill be
transmitted to the Department and mailed to;
~ e ~ a r t m eofn tCorrections.
SWA Business Office
10109 South Tacoma Way C 4
Tacoma, Washington 98499,

2.

All reilenue received by the Contractor from any sourcessuch as vending
machines;coin operated washers and dryers, and telephones shall be
turned'over.to the Department for the direct welfare and benefit of the
offenders.

3.

Revenue collected from the.sale of meals to guests, Contractor employees
and Department staff will be reported on the Monthly Expenditure Report
and shall be treated by the Contractor as a recovery of expenditures. Such
revenue will be shown as an offset against monthly reimbursements.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 8 of 12

i -102102 DOC
Resp. #5 162

-

C.

PROHlBlTiONAGAINST SUPPLANTING FUNDING

1.

Except as provided in paragraph A2 of Part V, the Contractorwarrantsthat
the funds received under this Contract Agreement shall be used exclusively
to provide the goods and services required under this Contract Agreement.
Funds, goods, or services received from federal, state, local, or other
sources shall not be used to supply goods and services provided under this
Contract Agreement without appropriate reduction in Contractor's billing to
the Department. Any funds, goods, or services received by the Contractor
outside this contract which relate to this program andloroffenders must be
used to provide additional offender program services approved by the
Director. For the purpose of this paragraph, revenue received from the sale
of meals to guests and Department staff will not be consideredas other
funds.

2.

1n
. the event the Contractor breaches this warranty, the Contractorshall, at
the option of Department, immediately refund to Department any such
supplanted funds or permit Department to deduct an amount equal to the
supplanted funds from any monies due, or to become due the Contractor
hereunder. In addition, any breach of this warranty by the Contractor shall
render this contract agreement subject to termination under the provisions
set forth herein.

1.

The Contractor will provide the Department with a facsimile of those
authorizing signaturesfor official contract business, such as signature
certifying billings and formal contract amendments. The Contractor shall
retain and have available to provide, at the Department'srequest, at a
minimum, the following documentation:

2.

a)

Original invoices or vendor certified copies if the original invoices
have been lost or destroyed.

b)

Supporting documentation for all invoices.

c)

All credit memoranda, vouchers, or evidence of a reduction in.an
obligation of the Contractorto a vendor.

d)

A list of'the names of vendor's principals and principal partners,.who
are also principals or partners of Contractor, and all other names
under which the Contractoror its officers or priicipalsare doing
business and the relatioriship to the worldtraining release,program
contracted herein. Such list must be provided, in writing, to'the
Supervisor atthe time this contract is signed by the Department and
the Contractor. The list shall be updated as changes occur..

The Contractor's actual costs incurred pursuant to this Contract.Agreement
shall be recorded by object and sub-object cost categories in accordance
with Exhibit "B", Budget Proposal Summary,

Sfate of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 9 of 12

1 1/22/02 DOC
- 163

Reso. #5

3.

Original invoices shall contain the following data:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Signature of receiver;
Date of receipt of goods andfor services;
Date of payment by Contractor and the check number;
Party benefiting from payment; and
Cost reimbursement object code.

4.

All accounting records and other supporting documentationmust be
retained for a period of five years after the end of the contract period during
which the expendituresoccurred. All original invoices must be available at
all reasonabletimes for inspection. The accounting documentationmust be
kept in a rational, organized manner which can be readily inspected.
Supporting documentation, at a minimum, shall be kept by objectlsub-object
and by month in support of each monthly billing.

5.

All amounts received from inmates will be receipted on pre-numbered,
bound receipt forms. The original will be given to the inmate, the copy
retained in a bound receipt book. All cash received must be reconciled
monthly to the increases to Trust Funds. If amounts received are held only
overnight and returned to an inmate departing the Facility, the original
numbered receipt must be returned by the inmate to receive his check. If
the original is lost, the inmate can sign the copy that the return has been
made. This must have a statement by the inmate that the original was lost
and that helshe certifies by signature and date that helshe has received
hislher check. These amounts must be deleted from the cash journal with
reference to the cash receipt number.

6.

Per the Department's procedures on trust funds, cash receipts should be
check, money order, cashiers check,
accepted in non-cash form only;
etc. These instruments are negotiable and must be safeguarded under
locked, secure facilitiesat all times.

7.
.

'

Contractorwill be responsible to ensure that internal controls are
established, Contractor will be responsible to ensure good business
practices through the establishment of internal controls, which shall include
separation of duties. The Contractor shall assign different employees to
open the mail and receive the cash, post cash to accounts, deposit cash,
and reconcile bank statements. Internal controls shall ensure checks and
balances are in place to prevent abuse or misuse of funds.

E. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE REPORT

I.

The Contractor~willsubmit to the'Region Administrator at the end of each
quarter a Contract Compliance Report. The Report will include the
following:
a) A statement of programmaticcompliance with the .contract
requirements.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 10 of 12
11/22/02 DOC

b) A copy of certified payroll. If the Contractor has more than one program
in operation, the payroll hours chargeable to the woddtraining release
program must be separate.
c) .Purchases in compliance with Office of Minority and Women's Business
Enterprises'goals from certified vendors will be reported at the end of
each quarter.
2.

All accounting and time requirementsare on a working day basis except
where specified otherwise.

PART VI
A.

B.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.

The General Terms and Conditions, marked Exhibit "A" and attached
hereto, are made a part of this Contract Agreement.

2.

The Contractor's Budget Proposal Summary, marked Exhibit "B" and
attached hereto, is made a part of this Contract.Agreement.

3.

The Standards are includedand incorporated herein by reference.

4.

Letter dated October 4, 1983, marked Exhibit "C', attached hereto and
made a part of this.Agreement.

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

In the event of an inconsistencyin the Contract, unless otherwise provided herein, the
inconsistencyshall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:
I.
2.
3.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

Applicable federal and state laws and regulations;
The provisions of this Contract;
Letter dated October 4, 1983, marked Exhibit "C", attached hereto and
made,a part of this Agreement.
The Standards which are incorporatedby reference herein;
The General Termsand Conditions, marked Exhibit 'A", attached hereto;
The Department's Division of Community Services Wormraining Release
Manual which is incorporatedby reference herein;
The Contractor's Facility Manualwhich is incorporatedby reference herein;
and
Budget Proposal Summary, marked Exhibit "B", attached hereto.

State of Washington
Department of Corrections

Page 11 of 12

11/22/02 DOC
165

Rcsp. #5

-

C.

ENTIREAGREEMENT

This Contract Agreement represents the entire understandingand agreement of the

. parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no other understandingsor
agreements, oral or otherwise, regardingthe subject matter of the Contract shall be
deemed to exist or to bind either of the parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures in execution thereof.

CONTRACTOR

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

THIS CONTRACTAGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS TO FORM
ONLY BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

State of Washington
.Departmentof Corrections

Page 12 of 12

1112U02 DOC
Resp. #S 166

-