Study cites potential cost of Prop. 83

SACRAMENTO —  A ballot measure aiming to restrict where paroled sex offenders may live could drive thousands of them from their homes and place an enormous burden on government, which may have to pay to house the displaced, a draft report by the state corrections department says.

The report, obtained by The Times, outlines an array of costs and other consequences that the measure, Proposition 83, could bring for parolees and the communities to which they return after leaving prison.

The initiative has a strong lead in the polls, and corrections officials have forecast several scenarios based on the assumption that it will pass. The scenarios could change, officials said, depending on legal interpretations of the measure -- specifically, which sex offenders are covered.

The chief proponent, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), said Thursday that he never intended for the initiative to uproot sex offenders already living in a community. It would apply only, he said, to “those people rolling out of prison in the future.”

But the measure’s language is unclear on that point, and corrections officials, who have been under fire for their management of sex offenders in the past, say they are making preparations based on the most conservative reading.

The initiative would bar registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Maps prepared by the state Senate show that virtually all of San Francisco and much of Los Angeles would be off limits.

Corrections officials say about 5,500 people now on parole, including 2,400 in Los Angeles County, could be covered by the residency restrictions and be forced to move.

That, the report says, could create an upheaval that would cause disturbing ripple effects.

“Most parolees will be unable to secure housing and many will be forced to leave their families and quit their jobs,” the report says. “They will no longer have the ability to be financially responsible for their families and this burden will fall to the local communities.”

Housing the displaced parolees would cost $11 million a month -- a cost that state and county governments might have to bear to prevent large numbers of parolees from becoming transients. Even if such housing aid is offered, the report said, many parolees “will simply choose to abscond supervision, as has happened in states such as Iowa with similar laws. This will place the community at greater risk.”

Proposition 83, called Jessica’s Law by proponents, would impose longer prison and parole terms for many sex crimes. Its most controversial elements are the residency limits and a requirement that sex offenders be monitored for life with electronic tracking devices.

The initiative is backed by numerous statewide law enforcement organizations, most legislators, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Phil Angelides.

Supporters say the residency ban would create buffer zones around areas where children gather, thus protecting them from attack. Runner says children should not have to pass by an ex-offender’s home while walking to school.

But critics say that nine out of 10 sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by an acquaintance -- often a relative -- of the victim, and that residency rules do little to enhance public safety.

The draft report by the Schwarzenegger administration’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation includes that view.

“Restricting where a parolee lives does little to actually protect the community and sends a false sense of security,” the report says. A better approach, it suggests, would be to define zones where offenders are not permitted to loiter, and require notification of parole agents when violations occur.

Most of the report addresses the challenge of finding housing for ex-convicts should the measure pass. Under a current law, which took effect Jan. 1, certain child molesters on parole already are prohibited from living within half a mile of a school.

Parole agents say that in urban areas, housing compliant with that rule is scarce. For more than a month last spring, for example, a group of ex-offenders in Solano County was lodged on cots in a parole office because no rooms could be found.

Under Proposition 83, a far larger -- and ever-growing -- number of offenders ultimately would be covered by housing restrictions; each year, 8,000 people are convicted of a felony sex offense in California.

Though the responsibility for finding a home that complies with the law would legally be that of the ex-convict, parole officials routinely help cover the cost. In Parole Region III, including Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the state now subsidizes housing for about 530 child molesters and other sex offenders on parole, authorities said.

“We clearly have a public safety interest in helping them with housing,” said Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the corrections department. If parolees aren’t in a stable living situation, he noted, they are much harder for parole agents to supervise.

The report says the cost of providing such housing help -- often in motels -- now runs $4,960 a month per offender in San Francisco and Alameda counties. If the department were required to cover housing for the 5,500 parolees now living somewhere that would be declared off limits by Proposition 83, the cost would be $132 million a year, the report said.

Runner acknowledged that the expense “isn’t cheap,” and said the question of who would pay remains unresolved. “My hope,” he said, “is that with good planning, we will keep costs down.”

In September, corrections officials sent all parolees required to register as sex offenders a notice informing them of the ballot initiative and the possibility that they may need to move. Michael McAssey, a graduate student at UC Davis, is off parole but preparing for the worst.

If a court determines that the initiative applies to ex-convicts, McAssey said, he would have to move because his apartment is 1,500 feet from a playground.

“My hope is that a court will find it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it,” said McAssey, convicted in 1992 of lewd and lascivious conduct with two girls.

jenifer.warren@latimes.com