San Diego County holds half the state’s violent sex offenders. Is there a better way to house them?

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Boulevard, California is a rural community of about 750 people set in brushy desert mountains an hour east of downtown San Diego.

It may soon be home to two sexually violent predators: a state category used to describe sex offenders with a high risk of reoffending.

Reynaldo Delrosario, 71, was sentenced to 12 years in state prison for “lewd and lascivious acts” with a child under age 10. Michael Poulsom, 67, committed lewd acts with victims under age 14 in Georgia and San Diego, and was sentenced to 15 years in California state prison. 

Both were diagnosed with pedophilia disorder and committed to the state hospital for treatment after serving their sentences. On Thursday a San Diego judge will weigh whether to grant conditional release, and place them in state-funded homes in the tiny community.

If their requests are granted, they would join seven other violent sex offenders in residential neighborhoods of backcountry San Diego, leaving the county with more than half of all such placements in California.

San Diego County Supervisor Joel Anderson, a Republican who represents the southeast region of the county, has another idea.

He wants the county to adopt a model used in Washington State, which houses sexually violent predators in group homes with round-the-clock supervision. Placing them together in more secluded areas would provide better monitoring and services, and reduce the risk to surrounding neighborhoods, he said.

On Thursday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Theodore Weathers will decide whether to grant conditional release to Poulsom and Delrosario. Anderson hopes to persuade the court to pilot the group housing model.

“The security is much greater,” Anderson said. “But there’s more freedom for the SVPs because they’re living in an area that no one’s upset that they’re there.”

Sexually violent predators clustered in San Diego 

The term sexually violent predator describes a person convicted of sexually violent offenses such as rape or sexual assault of a child, who has a diagnosed mental illness that makes them likely to commit new crimes.

In California sexually violent criminals, referred to by the acronym SVP, serve terms in prison, and then are often consigned to the state hospital for further mental health treatment after completing their sentence.

If that goes smoothly, they can petition for conditional release. The state’s contractor, Liberty Healthcare, scouts housing in either the county the offender came from, or the place they committed their crimes, and then rents a home for them.

The sheriff and district attorney’s office weigh in on the release site, and the D.A. seeks comment from community members.  A judge considers the proposed placement and reviews security measures such as GPS monitoring, unannounced searches, polygraph and drug tests, and then decides whether to grant conditional release.

This process has become routine in San Diego County, which houses half of the state’s sexually violent predators.

Six already live in the San Diego backcountry, in the desert communities of Borrego Springs, a community of about 2,700 surrounded by Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, and Jacumba, with 740 residents, according to a list maintained by the San Diego District Attorney. A seventh offender is also cleared for placement in Borrego Springs.

Another, Merle Wakefield, removed his ankle monitor while working at an Amazon warehouse in Rancho Bernardo and escaped on Sept. 25. He was found dead in a San Diego riverbed weeks later, the San Diego Sheriff announced on Oct. 20.

There are currently a total of 14 sexually violent predators on conditional release in counties throughout California, the Department of State Hospitals stated in an email to CalMatters. If the court approves conditional release for Poulsom and Delrosario, San Diego would house nine of them. 

The San Diego Public Defender will represent the men at their court hearings this month, said Alexandra Knudson, the civil commitment supervisor for the public defender’s office. The public defender did not comment on the placements, but Knudson said they will review Anderson’s proposal.

Fights over placements

Neighbors and local leaders have raised red flags over the release of sexually violent predators. Residents in the small, low-income communities often object to sharing their neighborhood with a high-risk sex offender, but feel they have little say in the matter.

“These are rural communities,” Anderson said. “They don’t have the means to push back or fight back.”

In 2021, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to oppose any plans to release sexually violent predators into San Diego communities unless the county had a say in how and where they were released. But that vote didn’t change state policy on sex offender placements.

State Sen. Brian Jones, who terms out of office this year, spent years trying to tighten the process. Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom signed one of Jones’ bills requiring the State Department of State Hospitals to analyze options for transitional housing facilities for sexually violent predators freed on conditional release.

However, his other bill to force accountability for sex offender releases stalled in the California Assembly, after passing the state Senate.

It would have required the director of state hospitals to sign off on rental leases for the offenders, in order to avoid placements in inappropriate or dangerous locations. It would also have made public safety a top priority in placement of sexually violent predators. The American Civil Liberties Union and California Public Defenders Association opposed the bill, arguing that it would effectively ban the offenders from gaining release after serving sentences.

That’s where Anderson believes the Washington state model for housing sexually violent predators could be useful.    

In Washington, violent sex offenders who serve out their criminal sentences are sent to civil commitment at a secure facility on McNeil Island. They undergo intensive treatment aimed at preventing new sex offenses, and get a yearly evaluation to see if they qualify for placement in a “less restrictive alternative.”

There are two state-owned secure community transition facilities with 24-hour staffing that can house 12 to 24 offenders. Washington also operates community homes run by private businesses, which often accommodate several offenders and may include round-the-clock supervision and staff who escort residents off premises. 

Anderson believes that would offer a more structured and secure housing option for sexually violent predators, and deter them from re-offending.

“You have that constant reassurance in positive encouragement for them to stay on the straight and narrow, protecting the community,” he said. 

In Washington, as in San Diego, community placements have sparked controversy. One plan to house up to five sex offenders in a large farmhouse in the Washington city of Tenino was cancelled because of cost increases and community backlash.

Cynthia Shipley, a media manager for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, said the department works with community members, city officials, law enforcement and private providers to address their concerns. Anderson is aware of the controversies with the Washington model and will address them in his plan, his communications chief Matthew Phy said.

But he’s optimistic there’s a way to house sexually violent predators that could yield better outcomes for the offenders with greater safety for surrounding communities. There are various large private resorts and ranches in his district that could potentially house the released offenders in remote areas away from residential neighborhoods. He also thinks it could save money.

A 2024 report by the California State Auditor found that California spent $93 million over two decades to release 56 high-risk sex offenders. Costs ballooned from $5.3 million in 2018-19 to $9.4 million in 2022-23, as housing prices rose, along with payments to Liberty Healthcare.

Housing them together could trim those expenses, while offering better services and supervision, Anderson said. He plans to propose his plan in Superior Court Thursday, and bring it to the board of supervisors next month.

“The community benefits,” he said. “The cost of it decreases. And the quality of care for the SVPs increases. Statistically, the Washington model has been far more successful. There’s no downside across the board.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.