Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 19, 2009

The vote was 38 in favor, 8 opposed and 3 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

So, after reading the Engrossed bill the Senate passed, I'm frustrated at the complete turn around this bill took.  What should have been an opportunity for the lowest risk offenders to move forward with their lives even quicker, has become nothing more than a reitteration of the way things have been done for years.  This will not only save the state budget very many dollars and will not allow those who are positively progressing in their rehabilitation to move forward even quicker.  So much for having DOC focus their efforts on those offenders who are the highest risk to re-offend.

 What many people don't understand with this bill, it's that it's statistifcs are flawed.  "Low" offenders are not supervised like moderate or high offenders are.  One Officer supervises 300-400 "lows" - mainly doing address verifications.  Moderate and High offenders are supervised by officers carrying a caseload typically between 30-45 people.  So cutting out the low offenders, does not constitute cutting several officers.  DOC already focuses on high-risk offenders. We are already required to supervise High Violent and High Non violent offenders more than moderate and lows.  We also spend a significant amount of time on Moderates, because even though we are not required too, many of them need it.

I have been a CCO for two years now, and cutting supervision for moderates is a poor decision on the states part.  Many times, even with the lows, because they are not supervised effectively, they are often into criminal activity, using drugs, selling drugs, etc, but not "caught".  Many times, we have contacted low offenders (unplanned) to find out they have been strung out on heroin, meth, and into criminal activity. 

As far as rehabilitation, the Department of Corrections offers a huge amount of programs for offenders.  Including FREE GED education, life skills classes, anger management, parenting classes, free drug treatment, funding for offenders, etc.  It's almost a luxury to be on DOC because we offer so many programs to people. 

What needs to change, is not the supervision of offenders, but the financial assistance that is given to them.  I can not tell you enough how many people abuse the welfare system who are actively using methamphetamine and heroine, while at the same time recieving food stamps, GAU ($339) a month, and numerous other resources recieved from DSHS.   If DSHS were would change their program on who they give funding to (it's handed out like candy now), do one random UA a month, and stop giving funding to people who are not willing to go to treatment or quit using drugs, so much money would be saved. 

Supervision is great, and if/when it gets cut for some of these offenders, it will really hurt the community.  Example, if I do a home visit on one of my High-Violent offenders, and their is a "moderate" offender their -who would be off supervision if this bill passes- and find out the moderate is using heroine, their is NOTHING I can do.  However, if this person was on supervision, I could arrest this offender, and send them to drug treatment, give them UA's, hook them up with aftercare, and much more.  Same situation applies to Lows, which we enounter all the time as it is.  We just arrested a "LOW" yesterday due to using heroine, selling, and failing to change her address.....Now, she will get the help she needs.  However, if this bill passes, their would have been NOTHING we could do for her.  So, in retrospect, we saved her life, at least for a while, because she will not be using heroine, selling it, etc.  She was very glad we arrested her. 

A "low" does not mean they don't need supervision, it means  that they haven't gotten caught for all their crimes. 

In defense of DOC, the SB 5288 is totally off regarding statistics.  DOC runs great as it is right now.  I carry a caseload of HIGH's and about 8-10 moderates, totalling 33 people.  And I am ALWAYS busy.  Their isn't a day go by at DOC (at least my office) where people don't have anything to do. 

 

 

 What worries me about this bill is it will eliminate or reduce to only 6 months, supervision for Felony DUI offenders, DUI Vehicular Homicide/Assault etc.  Most of these people are assessed to be low to moderate risk and supervising them for only 6 months is insane.  Sure supervision for low risk is minimal at best, but who will be watching and checking to make sure they are following treatment, paying restitution to victims, installing interlocks, testing for drug/alcohol use, have no further arrests or moving traffic violations etc.  At least if there is some supervision then supervision can be increased if needed.  If there is no supervision there will be nothing at all to stop them.   

DOC Employee:

 What many people don't understand with this bill, it's that it's statistifcs are flawed.  "Low" offenders are not supervised like moderate or high offenders are.  One Officer supervises 300-400 "lows" - mainly doing address verifications.  Moderate and High offenders are supervised by officers carrying a caseload typically between 30-45 people.  So cutting out the low offenders, does not constitute cutting several officers.  DOC already focuses on high-risk offenders. We are already required to supervise High Violent and High Non violent offenders more than moderate and lows.  We also spend a significant amount of time on Moderates, because even though we are not required too, many of them need it.

I have been a CCO for two years now, and cutting supervision for moderates is a poor decision on the states part.  Many times, even with the lows, because they are not supervised effectively, they are often into criminal activity, using drugs, selling drugs, etc, but not "caught".  Many times, we have contacted low offenders (unplanned) to find out they have been strung out on heroin, meth, and into criminal activity. 

As far as rehabilitation, the Department of Corrections offers a huge amount of programs for offenders.  Including FREE GED education, life skills classes, anger management, parenting classes, free drug treatment, funding for offenders, etc.  It's almost a luxury to be on DOC because we offer so many programs to people. 

What needs to change, is not the supervision of offenders, but the financial assistance that is given to them.  I can not tell you enough how many people abuse the welfare system who are actively using methamphetamine and heroine, while at the same time recieving food stamps, GAU ($339) a month, and numerous other resources recieved from DSHS.   If DSHS were would change their program on who they give funding to (it's handed out like candy now), do one random UA a month, and stop giving funding to people who are not willing to go to treatment or quit using drugs, so much money would be saved. 

Supervision is great, and if/when it gets cut for some of these offenders, it will really hurt the community.  Example, if I do a home visit on one of my High-Violent offenders, and their is a "moderate" offender their -who would be off supervision if this bill passes- and find out the moderate is using heroine, their is NOTHING I can do.  However, if this person was on supervision, I could arrest this offender, and send them to drug treatment, give them UA's, hook them up with aftercare, and much more.  Same situation applies to Lows, which we enounter all the time as it is.  We just arrested a "LOW" yesterday due to using heroine, selling, and failing to change her address.....Now, she will get the help she needs.  However, if this bill passes, their would have been NOTHING we could do for her.  So, in retrospect, we saved her life, at least for a while, because she will not be using heroine, selling it, etc.  She was very glad we arrested her. 

A "low" does not mean they don't need supervision, it means  that they haven't gotten caught for all their crimes. 

In defense of DOC, the SB 5288 is totally off regarding statistics.  DOC runs great as it is right now.  I carry a caseload of HIGH's and about 8-10 moderates, totalling 33 people.  And I am ALWAYS busy.  Their isn't a day go by at DOC (at least my office) where people don't have anything to do. 

 

 

DOC Employee:

 

 What many people don't understand with this bill, it's that it's statistifcs are flawed.  "Low" offenders are not supervised like moderate or high offenders are.  One Officer supervises 300-400 "lows" - mainly doing address verifications.  Moderate and High offenders are supervised by officers carrying a caseload typically between 30-45 people.  So cutting out the low offenders, does not constitute cutting several officers.  DOC already focuses on high-risk offenders. We are already required to supervise High Violent and High Non violent offenders more than moderate and lows.  We also spend a significant amount of time on Moderates, because even though we are not required too, many of them need it.

I have been a CCO for two years now, and cutting supervision for moderates is a poor decision on the states part.  Many times, even with the lows, because they are not supervised effectively, they are often into criminal activity, using drugs, selling drugs, etc, but not "caught".  Many times, we have contacted low offenders (unplanned) to find out they have been strung out on heroin, meth, and into criminal activity. 

As far as rehabilitation, the Department of Corrections offers a huge amount of programs for offenders.  Including FREE GED education, life skills classes, anger management, parenting classes, free drug treatment, funding for offenders, etc.  It's almost a luxury to be on DOC because we offer so many programs to people. 

What needs to change, is not the supervision of offenders, but the financial assistance that is given to them.  I can not tell you enough how many people abuse the welfare system who are actively using methamphetamine and heroine, while at the same time recieving food stamps, GAU ($339) a month, and numerous other resources recieved from DSHS.   If DSHS were would change their program on who they give funding to (it's handed out like candy now), do one random UA a month, and stop giving funding to people who are not willing to go to treatment or quit using drugs, so much money would be saved. 

Supervision is great, and if/when it gets cut for some of these offenders, it will really hurt the community.  Example, if I do a home visit on one of my High-Violent offenders, and their is a "moderate" offender their -who would be off supervision if this bill passes- and find out the moderate is using heroine, their is NOTHING I can do.  However, if this person was on supervision, I could arrest this offender, and send them to drug treatment, give them UA's, hook them up with aftercare, and much more.  Same situation applies to Lows, which we enounter all the time as it is.  We just arrested a "LOW" yesterday due to using heroine, selling, and failing to change her address.....Now, she will get the help she needs.  However, if this bill passes, their would have been NOTHING we could do for her.  So, in retrospect, we saved her life, at least for a while, because she will not be using heroine, selling it, etc.  She was very glad we arrested her. 

A "low" does not mean they don't need supervision, it means  that they haven't gotten caught for all their crimes. 

In defense of DOC, the SB 5288 is totally off regarding statistics.  DOC runs great as it is right now.  I carry a caseload of HIGH's and about 8-10 moderates, totalling 33 people.  And I am ALWAYS busy.  Their isn't a day go by at DOC (at least my office) where people don't have anything to do. 

 

 

You are wrong on this. Alot of people who are on supervision, custody, ect; have either done thertime are are moving on with their lives or they had to plead to something they didnt do and have to live with that. There are alot of people are are reoffending but, keep your comments to them. Quit trying to scare the public with your semi false wording of everyone thats commited or gotten found guilty of commiting a crime. Millions of dollars a year in tax money is spent on harrassing and locking people up who deserve that second chance. If you are a doc officer, be positive and help others. Stop trying to keep them down as all it does is show that doc officers are failing in there jobs. I know a cc3 that is a fantastic person. He does his job well and stays by the rules but at the same time he is very positive towards people that are working hard and supporting there families. Apply your comments properly and do your job the way you were trained and you will see that all people on doc are not bad.