Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a day care center. The bill would define a day care center and private school for purposes of these provisions and would prohibit the subsequent establishment of a day care center or private school, including a private school that is a home, from rendering an existing placement noncompliant, as specified.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a day care center. The bill would define a day care center and private school for purposes of these provisions and would prohibit the subsequent establishment of a day care center or private school, including a private school that is a home, from rendering an existing placement noncompliant, as specified.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a day care center. The bill would define private school to mean a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education, as specified, that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by the State Department of Education. a day care center and private school for purposes of these provisions and would prohibit the subsequent establishment of a day care center or private school, including a private school that is a home, from rendering an existing placement noncompliant, as specified.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a child daycare facility. day care center. The bill would define private school to mean a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education, as specified, that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by the State Department of Education.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a child daycare facility, as defined. facility. The bill would define private school to mean a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education and Education, as specified, that provides private school instruction at the elementary or high school level. to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by the State Department of Education.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a child daycare facility, as defined. The bill would define private school to mean a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education and provides private school instruction at the elementary or high school level, including, but not limited to, conventional or traditional private schools and parents who operate a private home school. level.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. Existing law generally requires that a person released on conditional release pursuant to these provisions be placed in the persons county of domicile prior to their incarceration unless extraordinary circumstances exist requiring placement outside the county, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person being released under these provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of any public or private school, as specified, if the person has previously been convicted of specified sexual misconduct of a child or if the court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

This bill would additionally prohibit a person being released under the above-described provisions from being placed within ¹/₄ mile of a child daycare facility, as defined. The bill would define private school to mean a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education and provides private school instruction at the elementary or high school level, including, but not limited to, conventional or traditional private schools and parents who operate a private home school.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 767

Author:(Alanis)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands areas in which a sexually violent predator (SVP), as specified, may not reside to include within one-quarter mile of a day care center and expands the definition of a private school.

Senate Amendments

1. Delete the phrase child daycare facility and adds ″day care center″ instead.
2. Define ″day care center″ as a child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age childcare centers.
3. Clarify that a day care center or private school be considered a day care center or private school for purposes of the residence restriction only if it was operating at the time of the SVP′s placement. The subsequent establishment of a day care center shall not render an existing placement out of compliance. |
4. Clarify that an existing placement includes, but is not limited to, any placement location where a person is placed, or where a person was placed before the revocation of their conditional release and that person is later returned to that placement location.
5. Explain that for proposes of complying with the quarter-mile restriction, ″at the time of the SVP′s placement″ means when the location is recommended or proposed pursuant to existing law related to conditional release or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly

Expanded areas in which a sexually violent predator (SVP), as specified, may not reside to include within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility and expands the definition of a private school.

1. Stated that a SVP may not reside within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if a SVP has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.
2. Defined ″private school″ as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE) that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.
3. Stated a home shall be only considered a private school, as defined, if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP′s placement. The subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, should not render an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

Sexually Violent Predator Act: Enacted in 1996, the SVPA authorizes an involuntary civil commitment of any person ″who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense … and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.″ (Emphasis added.) (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6601, subd. (a).) The SVPA was designed to accomplish the dual goals of protecting the public, by confining violent sexual predators likely to reoffend, and providing treatment to those offenders. ″Those committed pursuant to the SVPA are to be treated not as criminals, but as sick persons. They are to receive treatment for their disorders and must be released when they no longer constitute a threat to society.″ (Emphasis added.) (People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774, 783, citing Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6250.)

A conditionally released SVP is deemed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and the courts to no longer pose a danger to the community and may be treated in the community rather than confinement in the state hospital. However, a conditionally released SVP is tightly monitored and supervised in the community. A person released as an SVP may not be released to any residence that is within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, inclusive, if the person has been previously convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child or the court finds the person has a history of improperly sexual conduct with children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6608.5, subd. (f)(1-2).) Additionally, a conditionally released SVP must be monitored by a global positioning system (″GPS″) until they are unconditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6608.1.) State Audit Reports: In both 2019 and 2024, the California State Auditor′s Office (CSA)reported on the rates of success in the conditional release program for SVPs. Since the beginning of the SVPA in 2003, only 56 people have been released into the community on supervised release. Since 2003, only two people have committed any new offenses, and both those individuals committed new offenses while on release – one for possession of child pornography for which he was returned to custody and one failed to timely register as a sex offender. However, individuals unconditionally released, meaning they were deemed by the courts not to have a diagnosed mental disorder re-offend at a higher rate. Those individuals are not supervised in the community because they have long since ended their period of imprisonment and parole.

According to the Author

AB 767 aims to ensure that families have peace of mind by strengthening protections for all children, regardless of where they learn. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand how SVP placement laws have caused fear and anxiety in my district. Children are among our most vulnerable populations, and their safety must always be the top priority. Students who learn at home deserve the same level of protection as those in public schools. California families should feel secure in their own homes—not simply hope that the law will keep them safe. AB 767 is a critical step toward providing the certainty and protection our communities need.

Arguments in Support

According to the Los Angeles County Board of Education: Keeping individuals convicted of sexual misconduct away from schools and childcare facilities is critical to protecting children and reducing the risk of victimization. Sexual assault can have devastating and long-term effects, leading to emotional trauma and disrupting a child′s development. By expanding existing safety measures, this bill reinforces California′s commitment to preventing sexual predators from accessing vulnerable populations and strengthens policies that prioritize child safety. The safety of all learners is paramount, and LACOE commends the Legislature′s ongoing efforts to ensure that early learning is included as part of the broader educational continuum. Steps like these not only safeguard students but also provide peace of mind to parents, educators, and the broader community. Additionally, implementing this measure would align with California′s broader efforts to promote child welfare and ensure that public policy reflects the evolving understanding of child safety. Strengthening safeguards around educational and childcare environments acknowledges the importance of comprehensive, proactive measures that mitigate risks before they become incidents. This bill is a logical and necessary extension of existing protections and underscores the Legislature′s commitment to fostering a secure learning environment for all children.

Arguments in Opposition

According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: We know that many people who return home from incarceration face extreme barriers to reintegrating into society as they work to find stable jobs and housing. Finding placement in any community for a formerly incarcerated person who is conditionally released and labeled as an ″SVP″ patient is particularly challenging, no matter what county the person is returning to. As context to these housing barriers that conditionally released patients already experience, in most cases, the residence must comply with Jessica′s Law (residency must be more than 2,000 feet from a school), and there must be a landlord willing to rent to them. Many counties struggle to find housing that is compliant with Jessica′s Law, given the number of schools and parks in many of our California cities already.

When compliant housing is located, public pressure is often placed on landlords willing to rent to conditionally released patients, often through public shaming and harassment. Public hearings bring negative media attention, which ignites and fosters collective efforts to block a patient′s release back into the community. The negative media attention, coupled with the public shaming and harassment, leads many landlords to back out of rental contracts. When this happens, individuals must start their housing search over again. This can go on in perpetuity; all the while, conditionally released patients must remain confined at Coalinga State Hospital, even though they have been deemed safe to return to the community under treatment and supervision. AB 767 (Alanis) seeks to make the process of releasing an individual who has already been found to be safe under supervision even more difficult by expanding the restrictions on where they could be released to not within a quarter mile of child daycare facilities or private home schools.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, ″Major annual costs, likely in the $2 million range to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and for increased placement-related litigation, including the Department of Justice. Further restricting CONREP-SVP potential housing placements will lengthen the placement process with associated costs though more certainty from defining day care centers and private schools may reduce some placement related costs. Significant ongoing workload to search and assess prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings (General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant annual costs to house CONREP-SVPs in state facilities due to fewer prospective properties.

Unknown, potentially significant annual sunk costs when a potential housing placement becomes unavailable due to a later licensing of a day care center or private school (General Fund).″

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Stefani, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Bauer-Kahan, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Papan, Celeste Rodriguez, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004241

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 767

Author: Alanis (R)

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 1/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Sexually violent predators: schools

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a sexually violent predator (SVP) from residing within one-quarter mile of a day care center and provides that home schools are included within the definition of a private school for purposes of SVP residency restrictions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of a prison inmate found to be an SVP after the person has served their prison commitment. This is known as the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”). (Welfare & Institutions (Welf. & Inst.) Code, § 6600, et seq.)
2. Defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against at least one victim, and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
3. Permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1.)
4. Establishes a process whereby a person committed as an SVP can petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). Provides that a hearing upon the petition cannot be held until the person who is committed has been under commitment for one year from the date of the order for commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (a) & (f).)
5. Requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the person would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (g).)
6. Provides that before placing a person on conditional release, the community program director designated by DSH must submit a written recommendation to the court stating which forensic conditional release program is most appropriate for supervising and treating the person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (h).)
7. Requires, after a judicial determination that a person should be conditionally released, the person to be placed in the county of domicile of the person prior to the person’s incarceration, unless both of the following conditions are satisfied: the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile and the designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a).)
8. Defines “county of domicile” as “the county where the person has their true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person has manifested the intention of returning whenever the person is absent.” Specifies the information the court must consider when determining the county of domicile. Provides that if no information can be identified or verified, the county of domicile of the individual is considered to be the county in which the person was arrested for the crime for which the person was last incarcerated in the state prison or from which the person was last returned from parole. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b).)
9. Defines “extraordinary circumstances” to mean “circumstances that would inordinately limit the department’s ability to effect conditional release of the person in the county of domicile.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (c).)
10. Requires specified government officials from the county of domicile to provide assistance and consultation in the process of locating and securing housing within the county for persons committed as SVPs who are about to be conditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (d).)
11. Requires DSH or its designee to consider the following in recommending a specific placement for community outpatient treatment: the concerns and proximity of the victim or the victim’s next of kin and the age and profile of the victim or victims in the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. Provides that the “profile” of a victim includes, but is not limited to, gender, physical appearance, economic background, profession, and other social or personal characteristics. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (e).)
12. Prohibits a conditionally-released person from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).)
13. Requires the court, if the committed person is ordered to be conditionally released in a county other than the county of commitment due to extraordinary circumstances, to order that jurisdiction of the person and all records related to the case be transferred to the court of the county of placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (g).)

This bill:

1. Prohibits an SVP from residing within one-quarter mile of a day care center if the person has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child. Prohibits the subsequent establishment of a day care center from rendering an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant. Specifies that an existing placement includes, but is not limited to, any placement location where a person is placed, or where a person was placed before the revocation of their conditional release and that person is later returned to that placement location.

Defines at the time of placement to mean when the location was recommended or proposed, as specified, or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.

1. Defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE), that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.
2. Provides that a home school is only considered a private school, as defined, if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement. Prohibits the subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, from rendering an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant. Specifies that an existing placement includes, but is not limited to, any placement location where a person is placed, or where a person was placed before the revocation of their conditional release and that person is later returned to that placement location. Defines at the time of placement to mean when the location was recommended or proposed, as specified, or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.

Background

The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) established an extended civil commitment scheme for sex offenders who are about to be released from prison but are referred to DSH for treatment in a state hospital because they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to be a danger to the safety of others. The initial screening is conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (b).) If a determination is made that the person is likely a sexually violent predator, CDCR is required to refer to the person to DSH for a full evaluation. (Ibid.)

Under existing law, a person may be deemed an SVP if: the person has been convicted of specified sex offenses against one or more victims; the person has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior; and, two licensed psychiatrists or psychologists concur in the diagnosis. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600, subd. (a), 6601, subd. (d).) If DSH finds that the person meets the criteria to be considered an SVP, the case is referred to the county’s designated counsel who may file a petition for civil commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (i).)

Once a petition has been filed, a judge holds a probable cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602.) If probable cause is found, the case proceeds to a trial at which the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person meets the statutory criteria to be considered an SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.) If the prosecutor meets this burden, the person can be civilly committed to a DSH facility for treatment.

DSH must conduct an examination of an SVP’s mental condition at least annually and submit an annual report to the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (a).) This annual review is prepared by a professionally qualified person. (Ibid.) In addition, DSH has an obligation to seek judicial review any time it believes a person committed as an SVP no longer meets the criteria. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6607.)

Release. Two types of release exist for SVPs—unconditional discharge and conditional release. Both types of release require a petition for release. The petition can be filed with or without the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, and the Director’s concurrence or lack thereof determines which is process used.

An SVP can, with the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, petition for unconditional discharge if the patient “no longer meets the definition of a sexually violent predator,” or for conditional release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (d).) When the petition is filed for unconditional discharge (i.e., with the concurrence of the DSH), the court must order a show cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (f).) If the court at the show cause hearing determines that probable cause exists to believe that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that he or she is not a danger to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged, then the court must hold a hearing on the issue. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(2).) At the hearing, the committed person has a right to a jury trial and is entitled to relief unless the prosecuting attorney proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder remains such that he or she is a danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to engage in sexually violent behavior if discharged.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(3).)

A person committed as an SVP may also petition the court for conditional release, with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) A hearing on the petition cannot be held until the SVP has been under commitment for at least one year. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (f).) Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the Director, the court is required whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, to deny the petition without a hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) If the petition is not found to be frivolous, the court is required to hold a hearing. (People v. Smith (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 947.)

Once the court sets the hearing on the petition, the petitioner is entitled to both the assistance of counsel and the appointment of experts. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (c), (g); People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1193.) At the hearing, the court must determine whether the petitioner would be a danger to the health and safety of others which is defined to mean “that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (h).) At the hearing, the person petitioning for release has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (i); People v. Rasmuson (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1503.) If the petition is denied, the SVP may not file a subsequent petition until one year from the date of the denial. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (j).)

If a person is approved for conditional release, DSH is required to find a suitable housing placement for the person in the community. Existing law requires that the person be placed in the county of domicile prior to the person’s incarceration unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile and the designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of

the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a).) For purposes of determining the county of domicile, the court may consider information found on a California’s driver’s license, California identification card, recent rent or utilities receipt, printed personalized checks or other recent banking documents, or any arrest record. If no information can be verified, the county of domicile is considered to be the county in which the person was arrested and convicted or last returned on parole. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b)(1).) If that county is not suitable, the court, DSH, and CDCR may choose an alternative county for placement.

DSH must consider a number of factors when locating housing. Specifically, a conditionally-released person is prohibited from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).) DSH must additionally consider the concerns and proximity to the victim or victim’s next of kin, and the age and profile of the victim or victims of the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subds. (e) & (f).)

A court may approve, modify, or reject the recommended or proposed specific address within a community. The city and the address must be approved by the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)(A).) Welfare and Institutions Code section 6609.1 requires that a community be given 30 days’ notice if an SVP is pending conditional release in that community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(4).) Agencies receiving notice of an SVP’s placement in a specific county may comment on the placement or location of release and may suggest alternative locations for placement within a community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)(A), (b).) Notably, if no housing placement has been found and the court has ordered the person to conditional release, the person can be released as a transient. (Karsai, supra, at p. 788-89.)

Residency restrictions. Existing law prohibits a conditionally-released person from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).) A private school includes a home school. (People v. Superior Court (Cheek), 87 Cal. App. 5th 373, 380-381.) A school need not be planned or in existence prior to an SVP’s placement or notice of an SVP’s placement is given to the community. (Id. at p. 379.)

Under current law, any person who wants to establish a private school, either in their home or elsewhere, must file an affidavit annually with the Superintendent of Public Instruction stating the business name, the business address, the address of the custodian of records, the name of the directors and officers of the business, the school enrollment, number of teachers, and whether it is co-educational and if not, whether it is for boys or girls, that records are properly maintained, and that all required criminal background checks have been completed. (Ed. Code, § 33190.)

This bill adds day care centers to the existing residency restriction. “Day care center” is defined as “a child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and schoolage child care centers.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1596.76.) This bill defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the CDE, that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE. However, this bill provides that a home school is only considered a private school if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement.

This bill prohibits the subsequent establishment of a day care center or a private school, including a private school in a home, from rendering an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant. This bill specifies that an existing placement includes, but is not limited to, any placement location where a person is placed, or where a person was placed before the revocation of their conditional release and that person is later returned to that placement location. This bill defines “at the time of placement” to mean when the location was recommended or proposed, as specified, or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Major annual costs, likely in the $2 million range to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and for increased placement-related litigation, including the Department of Justice. Further restricting CONREP-SVP potential housing placements will lengthen the placement process with associated costs though more certainty from defining day care centers and private schools may reduce some placement related costs. Significant ongoing workload to search and assess prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings (General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant annual costs to house CONREP-SVPs in state facilities due to fewer prospective properties.

Unknown, potentially significant annual sunk costs when a potential housing placement becomes unavailable due to a later licensing of a day care center or private school (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

Arcadia Police Officers’ Association

Brea Police Association

Burbank Police Officers’ Association

California Association of School Police Chiefs

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California Narcotic Officers’ Association

California Police Chiefs Association

California Reserve Peace Officers Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers’ Association

Fullerton Police Officers’ Association

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Los Angeles School Police Management Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Murrieta Police Officers’ Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Pomona Police Officers’ Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

ACLU California Action

California Public Defenders Association

California Sex Offender Management Board

Initiate Justice

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

Smart Justice California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 1/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Papan, Celeste Rodriguez, Ta

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

8/17/26 10:37:57

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 767 (Alanis) - Sexually violent predators: schools

Bill Summary:

AB 767 would expand the areas in which sexually violent predators may not reside as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

Major annual costs, likely in the $2 million range to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and for increased placement-related litigation, including the Department of Justice. Further restricting CONREP-SVP potential housing placements will lengthen the placement process with associated costs though more certainty from defining day care centers and private schools may reduce some placement related costs. Significant ongoing workload to search and assess prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings (General Fund).

Unknown, potentially significant annual costs to house CONREP-SVPs in state facilities due to fewer prospective properties.

Unknown, potentially significant annual sunk costs when a potential housing placement becomes unavailable due to a later licensing of a day care center or private school (General Fund).

Committee Amendments:

Conform the day care provisions to the private school provisions.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 767 (Alanis) - Sexually violent predators: schools

Bill Summary:

AB 767 would expand the areas in which sexually violent predators may not reside to include day care centers and would define private schools, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

Major annual costs, likely in the $2 million range to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and for increased placement-related litigation, including the Department of Justice. Further restricting CONREP-SVP potential housing placements will lengthen the placement process with associated costs though more certainty from defining day care centers and private schools may reduce some placement related costs. Significant ongoing workload to search and assess prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings (General Fund).

• Unknown, potentially significant annual costs to house CONREP-SVPs in state facilities due to fewer prospective properties.
• Unknown, potentially significant annual sunk costs when a potential housing placement becomes unavailable due to a later licensing of a day care center or private school (General Fund).

Background:

Welfare and Institutions Code 6608.5 (f) states:

(f) Notwithstanding any other law, a person released under this section shall not be placed within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, if either of the following conditions exist:

(1) The person has previously been convicted of a violation of Section 288.5 of, or subdivision (a) or (b), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 288 of, the Penal Code.

(2) The court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children.

According the California Department of Education, during the 2024-25 school year there were over 545,000 K-12 students enrolled in over 33,000 private schools. According to KidsData, in 2023 there are over 10,000 child care centers and over 25,000 family child care homes in California.

Proposed Law: This bill defines d

ay care center to mean the same as Health and Safey Code 1596.76, which is a child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers, and includes child care centers licensed pursuant to Section 1596.951 (which establishes licensure requirements).

Private school means a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education in accordance with Section 33190 of the Education Code, that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by the State Department of Education.

Education Code 33190 states:

Every person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation offering or conducting private school instruction on the elementary or high school level shall between the first and 15th day of October of each year, commencing on October 1, 1967, file with the Superintendent of Public Instruction an affidavit or statement, under penalty of perjury, by the owner or other head setting forth the following information for the current year:

(a) All names, whether real or fictitious, of the person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation under which it has done and is doing business.

(b) The address, including city and street, of every place of doing business of the person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation within the State of California.

(c) The address, including city and street, of the location of the records of the person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation, and the name and address, including city and street, of the custodian of such records.

(d) The names and addresses, including city and street, of the directors, if any, and principal officers of the person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation.

(e) The school enrollment, by grades, number of teachers, coeducational or enrollment limited to boys or girls and boarding facilities.

(f) That the following records are maintained at the address stated, and are true and accurate:

(1) The records required to be kept by Section 48222.

(2) The courses of study offered by the institution.

(3) The names and addresses, including city and street, of its faculty, together with a record of the educational qualifications of each.

(g) Criminal record summary information has been obtained pursuant to Section 44237.

Whenever two or more private schools are under the effective control or supervision of a single administrative unit, such administrative unit may comply with the provisions of this section on behalf of each of the schools under its control or supervision by submitting one report.

Filing pursuant to this section shall not be interpreted to mean, and it shall be unlawful for any school to expressly or impliedly represent by any means whatsoever, that the State of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education, or any division or bureau of the department, or any accrediting agency has made any evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of the school or course unless this is an actual fact.

The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare and publish a list of private elementary and high schools to include the name and address of the school and the name of the school owner or administrator.

The affidavit is a self reporting mechanism and not a licensure or permitting process. There does not appear to be requirements in the Education Code that a school physically open, enroll students or operate for an academic period. A school may be “virtual” with one or more students learning remotely from another location.

Staff Comments:

This bill adds day care centers to the list of locations under the quarter-mile placement restriction for CONREP-SVPs. The bill clarifies that a new private school established after SVP placement does not invalidate the placement but if a private school is established during the pendency of a proposed placement, the proposed SVP placement is no longer valid, pursuant to the following:

Welfare and Institutions Code 6608.5 (f) (2) (B) (ii) is amended to read:

(ii) A home shall be considered a private school only if it was operating as such at the time of a person’s placement under this section. The subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, shall not render an existing placement under this section noncompliant. As used in this clause, “at the time of a person’s placement” means both the person’s pending placement, following the notice required to be given pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 6609.1, and the person’s actual placement.

The CONREP-SVP search and assessment process is further compounded by an increasing backlog of SVP patients that will be awaiting placement to CONREP. As of January 8, 2026, there are 23 SVP patients approved for CONREP and 18 pending approval of court petitions for placement, with current wait times for CONREP placement averaging more than two years.

Staff Notes that if no housing placement has been found and the court has ordered the person to conditional release, the person can be released as a transient. This is most costly outcome as such a release still requires monitoring and oversight of the person, often at double the cost of a CONREP-SVP released to a fixed residence.

Recommended Amendments:

Staff Recommends the following clarifications for W&I Code 6608.5 (f) (1):

1. A day care center, for the purposes of this subdivision, shall be considered a day care center only if it was operating as such at the time of the person’s placement. The subsequent establishment of a day care center shall not render a location noncompliant, including but not limited to, the return to the placement location of a person after revocation or utilization of the placement location for a different person placed pursuant to section 6608. As used in this clause, “at the time of a person’s placement” means when the location was recommended or proposed pursuant to section 6609.1 or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.
2. Private school means a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education that provides in-person private instruction.
3. A facility or home shall be considered a private school only if it was operating as such at the time of a person’s placement under this section. The subsequent establishment of a private school including a private school that is a home, shall not render a location proposed under this section noncompliant, including but not limited to, the return to the placement location of a person after revocation or utilization of the placement location for a different person. As used in this clause, “at the time of placement” means when the location was recommended or proposed, or was identified and is being considered, whichever comes first.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 767 Hearing Date: June 9, 2026

Subject: Sexually violent predators: schools

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 380 (Jones), Ch. 581, Stats. of 2025

SB 379 (Jones), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2025

AB 1954 (Alanis), Ch. 816, Stats. of 2024

AB 763 (Davies), not heard in Assembly Public Safety, 2023

SB 832 (Jones), failed passage in Senate Public Safety, 2023

SB 1034 (Atkins), Ch. 880, Stats. of 2022

SB 841 (Jones), failed passage in Senate Public Safety, 2022

SB 248 (Bates), Ch. 383, Stats. of 2021

AB 303 (Cervantes), Ch. 606, Stats. of 2019

AB 2661 (Arambula), Ch. 821, Stats. of 2018

SB 507 (Pavley), Ch. 576, Stats. of 2015

AB 1607 (Fox), Ch. 877, Stats. of 2014

SB 295 (Emmerson), Ch. 182, Stats. of 2013

SB 760 (Alquist), Ch. 790, Stats. of 2012

Proposition 83, as approved by the voters on November 7, 2006

SB 1128 (Alquist), Ch. 337, Stats. of 2006

AB 893 (Horton), Ch. 162, Stats. of 2005

AB 2450 (Canciamilla), Ch. 425, Stats. of 2004

AB 493 (Salinas), Ch. 222, Stats. of 2004

SB 659 (Correa), Ch. 248, Stats. of 2001

AB 1142 (Runner), Ch. 323, Stats. of 2001

SB 2018 (Schiff), Ch. 420, Stats. of 2000

SB 451 (Schiff), Ch. 41, Stats. of 2000

AB 2849 (Havice), Ch. 643, Stats. of 2000

SB 746 (Schiff), Ch. 995, Stats. of 1999

SB 11 (Schiff), Ch. 136, Stats. of 1999

SB 1976 (Mountjoy), Ch. 961, Stats. of 1998

AB 888 (Rogan), Ch. 763, Stats. of 1995

SB 1143 (Mountjoy), Ch. 764, Stats. of 1995

AB 888 (Rogan), Ch. 763, Stats. of 1995

SB 1143 (Mountjoy), Ch. 762, Stats. of 1995

Support: Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Brea Police Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California Association of School Police Chiefs; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California Narcotic Officers’ Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Los Angeles County Office of Education; Los Angeles School Police Management Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition: ACLU California Action; California Public Defenders Association; Justice2Jobs Coalition; La Defensa; Smart Justice California

Assembly Floor Vote: 71 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit a sexually violent predator (SVP) from residing within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility and to provide that home schools are included within the definition of a private school for purposes of SVP residency restrictions.

Existing law provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of a prison inmate found to be an SVP after the person has served their prison commitment. This is known as the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.)

Existing law defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against at least one victim, and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1.)

Existing law establishes a process whereby a person committed as an SVP can petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). Provides that a hearing upon the petition cannot be held until the person who is committed has been under commitment for one year from the date of the order for commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (a) & (f).)

Existing law provides that the committed person, with or without the recommendation or concurrence of DSH, may petition the court for unconditional discharge after a minimum of one year on conditional release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (m).)

Existing law provides that if the petition is made without the consent of the director of the treatment facility, no action may be taken on the petition without first obtaining the written recommendation of the director of the treatment facility. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (e).)

Existing law requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the person would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (g).)

Existing law provides that before placing a person on conditional release, the community program director designated by DSH must submit a written recommendation to the court stating which forensic conditional release program is most appropriate for supervising and treating the person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (h).)

Existing law requires, after a judicial determination that a person should be conditionally released, the person to be placed in the county of domicile of the person prior to the person’s incarceration, unless both of the following conditions are satisfied: the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile and the designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a).)

Existing law defines “county of domicile” as “the county where the person has their true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person has manifested the intention of returning whenever the person is absent.” Specifies the information the court must consider when determining the county of domicile. Provides that if no information can be identified or verified, the county of domicile of the individual is considered to be the county in which the person was arrested for the crime for which the person was last incarcerated in the state prison or from which the person was last returned from parole. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b).)

Existing law defines “extraordinary circumstances” to mean “circumstances that would inordinately limit the department’s ability to effect conditional release of the person in the county of domicile.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (c).)

Existing law requires specified government officials from the county of domicile to provide assistance and consultation in the process of locating and securing housing within the county for persons committed as SVPs who are about to be conditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (d).)

Existing law requires DSH or its designee to consider the following in recommending a specific placement for community outpatient treatment: the concerns and proximity of the victim or the victim’s next of kin and the age and profile of the victim or victims in the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. Provides that the “profile” of a victim includes, but is not limited to, gender, physical appearance, economic background, profession, and other social or personal characteristics. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (e).)

Existing law prohibits a conditionally-released person from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).)

Existing law requires the court, if the committed person is ordered to be conditionally released in a county other than the county of commitment due to extraordinary circumstances, to order that jurisdiction of the person and all records related to the case be transferred to the court of the county of placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (g).)

This bill prohibits an SVP from residing within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if the person has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.

This bill defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE), that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.

This bill provides that a home school is only considered a private school, as defined, if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement. Prohibits the subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, from rendering an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

AB 767 aims to ensure that families have peace of mind by strengthening protections for all children, regardless of where they learn. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand how SVP placement laws have caused fear and anxiety in my district. Children are among our most vulnerable populations, and their safety must always be the top priority. Students who learn at home deserve the same level of protection as those in public schools. California families should feel secure in their own homes, not simply hope that the law will keep them safe. AB 767 is a critical step toward providing the certainty and protection our communities need.

1. SVP Background

The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) established an extended civil commitment scheme for sex offenders who are about to be released from prison but are referred to DSH for treatment in a state hospital because they have suffered from a mental illness which causes them to be a danger to the safety of others. The initial screening is conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (b).) If a determination is made that the person is likely a sexually violent predator, CDCR is required to refer to the person to DSH for a full evaluation. (Ibid.)

Under existing law, a person may be deemed an SVP if: the person has been convicted of specified sex offenses against one or more victims; the person has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior; and, two licensed psychiatrists or psychologists concur in the diagnosis. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600, subd. (a), 6601, subd. (d).) If DSH finds that the person meets the criteria to be considered an SVP, the case is referred to the county’s designated counsel who may file a petition for civil commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (i).)

Once a petition has been filed, a judge holds a probable cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602.) If probable cause is found, the case proceeds to a trial at which the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person meets the statutory criteria to be considered an SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.) If the prosecutor meets this burden, the person can be civilly committed to a DSH facility for treatment.

DSH must conduct an examination of an SVP’s mental condition at least annually and submit an annual report to the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (a).) This annual review is prepared by a professionally qualified person. (Ibid.) In addition, DSH has an obligation to seek judicial review any time it believes a person committed as an SVP no longer meets the criteria. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6607.)

The SVPA was substantially amended by Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which became operative on November 7, 2006. An SVP commitment, as originally enacted, was for two years and subject to possible extension. Under Jessica’s Law, a person committed as an SVP may be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment or until it is shown that the defendant no longer poses a danger to others. (See People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1185-87.) Jessica’s Law also amended the SVPA to make it more difficult for SVPs to petition for less restrictive alternatives to commitment. These changes have survived due process, ex post facto, and equal protection challenges. (See Id. at p. 1193 (finding no due process violation because the SVPA has appropriate constitutional protections in place and the committed person “may not be held in civil commitment when he or she no longer meets the requisites of such commitment” (i.e., the person has the opportunity for release); People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325; People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774.) Due to the significant deprivation of a person’s liberty while SVP proceedings are conducted, and potentially indefinitely after being committed as an SVP, the California Supreme Court recently held that all trial courts in the state are required to advise criminal defendants prior to pleading guilty or nolo contendere to an offense enumerated in the SVPA, or in cases where the court is aware that the defendant has a prior conviction for such an offense, of potential repercussions related to the SVPA. (In re Tellez (2024) 17 Cal.5th 77, 92.)

1. Release of SVPs

Two types of release exist for SVPs—unconditional discharge and conditional release. Both types of release require a petition for release. The petition can be filed with or without the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, and the Director’s concurrence or lack thereof determines which is process used.

An SVP can, with the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, petition for unconditional discharge if the patient “no longer meets the definition of a sexually violent predator,” or for conditional release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (d).) When the petition is filed for unconditional discharge (i.e., with the concurrence of the DSH), the court must order a show cause hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.9, subd. (f).) If the court at the show cause hearing determines that probable cause exists to believe that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that he or she is not a danger to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged, then the court must hold a hearing on the issue. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(2).) At the hearing, the committed person has a right to a jury trial and is entitled to relief unless the prosecuting attorney proves “beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person’s diagnosed mental disorder remains such that he or she is a danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to engage in sexually violent behavior if discharged.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6605, subd. (a)(3).)

A person committed as an SVP may also petition the court for conditional release, with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) A hearing on the petition cannot be held until the SVP has been under commitment for at least one year. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (f).) Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the Director, the court is required whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, to deny the petition without a hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (a).) If the petition is not found to be frivolous, the court is required to hold a hearing. (People v. Smith (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 947.)

Once the court sets the hearing on the petition, the petitioner is entitled to both the assistance of counsel and the appointment of experts. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (c), (g); People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1193.) At the hearing, the court must determine whether the petitioner would be a danger to the health and safety of others which is defined to mean “that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (h).) At the hearing, the person petitioning for release has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (i); People v. Rasmuson (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1503.) If the petition is denied, the SVP may not file a subsequent petition until one year from the date of the denial. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (j).)

If a person is approved for conditional release, DSH is required to find a suitable housing placement for the person in the community. Existing law requires that the person be placed in the county of domicile prior to the person’s incarceration unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile and the designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of

the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a).) For purposes of determining the county of domicile, the court may consider information found on a California’s driver’s license, California identification card, recent rent or utilities receipt, printed personalized checks or other recent banking documents, or any arrest record. If no information can be verified, the county of domicile is considered to be the county in which the person was arrested and convicted or last returned on parole. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b)(1).) If that county is not suitable, the court, DSH, and CDCR may choose an alternative county for placement.

DSH is required to convene a housing committee consisting of the committed person’s attorney, the sheriff or the chief of police of the locality for placement, the county counsel, and the district attorney from the county of domicile, and the housing committee is required to provide assistance and consultation in DSH’s process of locating and securing housing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (d)(1).) DSH must consider a number of factors when locating housing. Specifically, a conditionally-released person is prohibited from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).) DSH must additionally consider the concerns and proximity to the victim or victim’s next of kin, and the age and profile of the victim or victims of the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subds. (e) & (f).)

A court may approve, modify, or reject the recommended or proposed specific address within a community. The city and the address must be approved by the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)(A).) Welfare and Institutions Code section 6609.1 requires that a community be given 30 days’ notice if an SVP is pending conditional release in that community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(4).) Agencies receiving notice of an SVP’s placement in a specific county may comment on the placement or location of release and may suggest alternative locations for placement within a community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)(A), (b).)

Notably, if no housing placement has been found and the court has ordered the person to conditional release, the person can be released as a transient. (Karsai, supra, at p. 788-89.)

1. CONREP

In October 2024, the California State Auditor published a report on DSH’s Sexually Violent Predator Conditional Release Program (CONREP). The Auditor examined the administration of the program, obstacles DSH faced in attempting to place program participants in the community, and the department’s oversight of the contractor it uses to provide various services related to the program. (State Auditor, Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators: Program Participants Are Less Likely to Reoffend, While the State Has Difficulty Finding Suitable Housing, Report 2023-130, available at <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-130/> (hereafter Auditor’s Report).) Specific findings of the report are discussed in Section 5 of this analysis.

The Auditor’s Report provided the following information about the goals of CONREP and the components of the program:

According to DSH’s CONREP Operations Manual (operations manual), the primary mission of the program is to protect the public through the reduction or prevention of reoffenses by individuals who have been identified as SVPs. Since the program’s inception, DSH has contracted with Liberty Healthcare, a health care services company, to provide outpatient mental health treatment, supervision, and assessment services to program participants.

…

Once program participants are placed in housing, Liberty Healthcare provides them with treatment and monitoring in their residences or at designated locations. DSH structures community outpatient treatment according to levels of care that reflect program participants’ levels of functioning and specific treatment and supervision needs. … This structure allows Liberty Healthcare to develop an individualized treatment plan for each program participant that reinforces positive behavioral changes directed toward a goal of eventual unconditional release from DSH’s care and that prepares the participant for this release. Ideally, program participants steadily and sequentially progress from one treatment level to the next until the court determines that they can be unconditionally released from DSH oversight. Liberty Healthcare applies treatment goals and outcome standards to program participants according to their assigned level of treatment. (Auditor’s Report, supra, at pp. 5-6.)

Among CONREP’s core clinical treatment services are one-on-one therapy with a clinician, group therapy, home visits by a clinician, substance use screening, an annual case review, dynamic risk and personality testing assessments, polygraphic assessment, and sexual interest screening or sexual arousal assessment. (Auditor’s Report, supra, at pp. 5, 40.)

1. State Auditor’s Report

As mentioned above, the Auditor published a report in 2024 on DSH’s Sexually Violent Predator Conditional Release Program. The Auditor found that individuals who participated in the program were convicted of new offenses less often than SVPs who were unconditionally released and did not participate in the program. (Auditor’s Report, supra, p. 1.) Notably, of the 56 people who been released into the community on supervised release since 2003, only two have committed new offenses—one for possession of child pornography for which he was returned to custody and one failed to timely register as a sex offender. (Id. at p. 9.) The report also highlighted the numerous hurdles that the department has faced when attempting to locate suitable housing for program participants and found that DSH could improve its oversight of its contractor’s administration of the program. (Id. at pp. 1-2.)

Among the challenges faced by DSH with respect to finding housing for program participants, the report noted that there are complex program requirements, few property owners willing to rent for the purpose of housing program participants, and community opposition to placements which resulted in an average of 17 months for Liberty Healthcare to secure housing for program participants. (Auditor’s Report, supra, at pp. 13-17.) The report shared information about one particularly difficult placement. Following the Stanislaus County Superior Court’s order of a person into the program, more than 6,500 housing sites were considered over nearly three years. (Id. at p. 16.) Residential restrictions contribute to the complexity of finding suitable placements. State law prohibits the placement of some conditionally-released individuals within a quarter-mile of any public or private K-12 school. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).) The report noted that “an appellate court ruled that home schools fall within the definition of schools under this law, including home schools that are established after a program participant location was already determined. … [T]he establishment of a home school can necessitate relocating a program participant from existing housing to a state hospital” until a new placement can be secured. (Auditor’s Report, supra, at p. 14.)

1. Private Schools

Under current law, any person who wants to establish a private school, either in their home or elsewhere, must file an affidavit annually with the Superintendent of Public Instruction stating the business name, the business address, the address of the custodian of records, the name of the directors and officers of the business, the school enrollment, number of teachers, and whether it is co-educational and if not, whether it is for boys or girls, that records are properly maintained, and that all required criminal background checks have been completed. (Ed. Code, § 33190.) The private school affidavit can be filed online. According to CDE, there were over 545,000 K-12 students enrolled in over 33,000 private schools statewide during the 2024-2025 schoolyear. (CDE, Private School Counts & Enrollment <https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ps/psastatcountsbyyear.asp>.)

Existing law prohibits a conditionally-released person from being placed within a quarter-mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade if the court finds that the person has “a history of improper sexual conduct with children” or has previously been convicted of specified sex offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f).) A private school includes a home school. (People v. Superior Court (Cheek), 87 Cal. App. 5th 373, 380-381.) A school need not be planned or in existence prior to an SVP’s placement or notice of an SVP’s placement is given to the community. (Id. at p. 379.)

This bill defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the CDE, that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE. However, this bill provides that a home school is only considered a private school if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement and prohibits the subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school in a home, from rendering an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

1. Day Care Facilities

Health and Safety Code section 1596.80 requires that all child day care facilities in the state be licensed. Health and Safety Code section 1596.750 defines a “child day care facility” as “a facility that provides nonmedical care to children under 18 years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis.” The statute specifies that the term “child day care facility” includes day care centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care homes. (Ibid.)

Existing provides additional definitions for the types of child day care facilities. A “day care center” is defined as “a child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and schoolage child care centers.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1596.76.) An “employer-sponsored child care center” means “any child day care facility at the employer’s site of business operated directly or through a provider contract by any person or entity having one or more employees, and available exclusively for the care of children of that employer, and of the officers, managers, and employees of that employer.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1596.771.) Health and Safety Code section 1596.78 provides that a “family daycare home” means a facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away. Family daycare homes are divided into two categories: large and small family daycare homes, with large family daycare homes providing care to seven to 14 children, and small family daycare homes providing care to eight or fewer children. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1596.78, subds. (b) & (c).) Section 1596.78 specifies that a small or large family daycare home is where the daycare provider resides and includes a detached single-family dwelling, a townhouse, a dwelling unit within a dwelling, or a dwelling unit within a covered multifamily dwelling in which the underlying zoning allows for residential uses. The dwelling or a dwelling unit could be rented, leased, or owned. (Ibid.)

According to data published by KidsData, there were over 10,000 child care centers and over 25,000 family child care homes in the state in 2023. (KidsData, Licensed Child Care Facility, by Type <https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/102/child-care-facilities/pie#fmt=260&loc=2&tf=164&ch=222,223,224&pdist=105>.)

This bill prohibits an SVP from residing within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if the person has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.

1. Considerations

This bill raises several questions about its likely impact. As noted earlier in the analysis, DSH currently faces numerous challenges when identifying housing options for conditionally-released SVPs. Any additional residency restrictions on SVP placement options will further impede the ability of DSH to locate a housing placement. The inability of DSH to find a placement does not mean that the individual will continue to be held in a state hospital indefinitely. Rather, the person can be released as a transient.

This bill does not define child daycare facility. However, the existing definition in the Health and Safety Code is quite broad and as noted above, would apply to over 35,000 day care facilities throughout the state. Assuming this definition were to apply, this bill arguably imposes extreme limitations on DSH’s ability to locate suitable housing for SVPs, presumably leading to greater delays which will result in longer periods of confinement in a state hospital following a court finding that an SVP would not be a danger to the health and safety of others (i.e., not likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to their diagnosed mental disorder if supervised and treated in the community).

The addition of the child daycare residency restriction may jeopardize the constitutionality of the current residency restrictions. In People v. Superior Court (Cheek), DSH argued that interpreting “private school” to include home schools “would make placement of sexually violent predators who have a history of sexual conduct with children ‘exceedingly difficult, if not impossible’ ” due to the ubiquity of home schools. (People v. Superior Court (Cheek), supra, p. 382.) The court rejected this argument because DSH had not provided evidence to support that conclusion. The court contrasted the state’s lack of data on the prevalence of home schools in the state with the data presented in In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, which resulted in the California Supreme Court finding that the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions as applied to sex offender parolees in San Diego County violated the Constitution. (Ibid.)^[1]

Given the concerns outlined above, the Committee may wish to consider whether it would be prudent to add child daycare facilities to the residency restriction in Welfare and Institutions section 6608.5 and if so, whether the term “child daycare facility” should be defined or narrowed.

Finally, it should be noted that although this bill limits the residency restriction placed on SVPs to home schools operating at the time of an SVP’s placement, the placement process can be drawn out. As drafted, this bill does not appear to apply to pending placements. The Committee may wish to consider specifying that home schools that were in operation “at the time of placement” includes pending placements.

1. Argument in Support

The California Police Chiefs Association writes:

AB 767 strengthens important public safety protections governing the conditional release and placement of sexually violent predators (SVPs) by expanding existing location restrictions to include child daycare facilities and by providing additional clarity regarding qualifying private schools. The bill represents a measured and commonsense enhancement to California's existing statutory framework for protecting children and communities when SVPs are transitioned into community-based placements.

California law appropriately recognizes that certain sexually violent predators may eventually qualify for conditional release after a court determines they no longer present a danger requiring continued confinement. However, the conditional release process must always prioritize community safety and minimize unnecessary risks to vulnerable populations. Existing law already prohibits the placement of qualifying SVPs within one-quarter mile of public and private schools when the individual has a history of sexual misconduct involving children. AB 767 builds upon these protections by extending the same safeguard to child daycare facilities, locations where young children regularly gather and where parents reasonably expect heightened protections.

From a law enforcement perspective, the bill addresses a clear public safety concern. Child daycare facilities serve some of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our communities. These facilities often operate throughout the day, provide services to large numbers of children, and frequently involve outdoor activities, playgrounds, and regular parent drop-off and pick-up activity. Given the Legislature’s existing determination that placement restrictions are appropriate around schools, extending similar protections to licensed daycare facilities is both logical and prudent.

AB 767 also promotes consistency within California's placement framework. The bill does not prohibit the conditional release of qualifying individuals, nor does it alter the legal standards governing release decisions. Instead, it ensures that placement decisions appropriately account for locations where children are regularly present. By creating a more comprehensive set of child-safety buffer zones, the bill helps reduce potential risks while preserving the conditional release process established under existing law.

The measure further enhances public confidence in the sexually violent predator placement process. Community concerns regarding SVP placements are often most acute when proposed housing locations are situated near places where children gather. By providing clearer statutory guidance and strengthening existing placement safeguards, AB 767 helps reassure parents, schools, childcare providers, and local communities that public safety remains the foremost consideration during the placement process.

Importantly, AB 767 represents a balanced approach. It neither changes the criteria for determining whether an individual qualifies for conditional release nor imposes an outright prohibition on release. Rather, it makes a targeted adjustment designed to better protect children while maintaining the integrity of California's existing SVP conditional release system.

Protecting children from sexual predators remains one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. AB 767 advances that objective through reasonable and narrowly tailored enhancement to existing law.

1. Argument in Opposition

The California Public Defenders Association writes:

[AB 767] would make it even more difficult to place individuals who have been found by a court safe to release under supervision to the community.

Our concerns are two-fold:

1. The expansion of the placement prohibition to daycare facilities means that most of these individuals will be banned from any urban or suburban community in California.
2. The amendments are no bar to the intentional manipulation of establishing home schools as obstacles to community placement. Since requiring that a “private school” be registered with the Department of Education pursuant to Education Code section 33190 entails merely filling out an online form anytime during 11 months of the year (available online at https://www3.cde.ca.gov/psa ) and preventing subsequent establishment of a “private school” after placement when much of the effort to bar community placement occurs during the mandatory community notification period, the amendments do little. In other words, it appears that one parent can register one child attending virtual/online classes as a home school and bar the placement of an individual who has been found by a court safe to release under supervision to the community.

Although as amended AB 767 is marginally better, it remains a well-intentioned but misguided legislative effort that would make our children and communities less safe while wasting precious taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on schools, health and mental health care, housing and nutrition. Individuals released on CONREP (conditional release to the community) are closely supervised and continuously monitored by both human and electronic means even though they have already been found by a court to be suitable for such release.

How Placements in the Community Work:

… Conditionally released individuals are closely supervised, continuously monitored, and subject to re-confinement if they fail to comply with the conditions of their release. Potential placements are subjected to lengthy, meticulous assessment processes designed to ensure both the feasibility of monitoring and the safety of the community to ensure that the location complies with existing statutes. The prosecution, defense, the DSH contractor Liberty and law enforcement are all involved in the process. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608.5(d)(1)-(4).) The potential placement community is notified and their objections duly noticed. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6609.1, et seq.) All of this happens before the court approves a placement.

…

School and Daycare Restrictions:

Current law prohibits placement of conditionally released, non-dangerous individuals who have either been convicted of certain offenses against children or have been found to have a history of improper sexual conduct with children “within one-quarter mile of any public or private school[.]” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608.5(f)).

“Private school” has recently been construed by an appellate court to include homeschools operated by parents. (People v. Superior Court (Cheek) (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 373). AB 767 proposes to both codify that construction and designate private school satellite programs, private online or virtual schools, and certified nonpublic nonsectarian schools as private schools and expand the ban to daycare centers, employer-sponsored childcare centers, and family daycare homes of prohibited possible placements for non-dangerous, conditionally released individuals.

AB 767 makes it more likely by banning appropriate placements that courts will be forced to release non-dangerous individuals without placements homeless in the community. …

Daycare facilities do not, however, require protection identical to those in place for schools. Unlike schools, childcare facilities are required to maintain low adult-to-children ratios. A home daycare, for example, can only accommodate six non-school-aged children. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 22, § 102416.5). Children in daycare facilities are unlikely to spend any time outside of an adult’s line of sight. Given the low adult-to-child ratios mandated in daycare settings and the close supervision that those ratios facilitate, the protections that AB 767 seeks to extend to daycares are unnecessary.

AB 767 is unnecessary and counterproductive because although it appears to promote community safety by limiting potential placements for conditionally released individuals, the restrictions it adds can be expected to make suitable housing even more difficult to find. Fewer placement options mean lengthier housing searches. Lengthier housing searches will extend non-dangerous individuals’ terms of confinement. The longer non-dangerous individuals are confined, the more likely courts will order transient release. Although non-dangerous individuals released as transients are subjected to the same intensive monitoring as their peers with fixed addresses, an amendment that works to increase the number of homeless releases can hardly be touted as promoting community safety.

-- END --

1. The California Supreme Court reached the conclusion that blanket enforcement of residency restrictions violated the basic rights and liberty interests that all parolees retain and the constitutional protection enjoyed “against the arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable curtailment of ‘the core values of unqualified liberty,’ ” in part, because the evidence established the restrictions excluded the parolees from 97 percent of rental properties in the county and resulted in 34 percent of affected parolees being unhoused. (In re Taylor, supra, p. 1042 (internal citations omitted).) ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 767

Author:(Alanis)

As Amended Ver:January 5, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands areas in which a sexually violent predator (SVP), as specified, may not reside to include within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility and expands the definition of a private school.

Major Provisions

1. States that a SVP may not reside within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if a SVP has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.
2. Defines ″private school″ as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE) that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.
3. States a home shall be only considered a private school, as defined, if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP′s placement. The subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, shall not render an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

COMMENTS

Sexually Violent Predator Act: Enacted in 1996, the SVPA authorizes an involuntary civil commitment of any person ″who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense … and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.″ (Emphasis added.) (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6601, subd. (a).) The SVPA was designed to accomplish the dual goals of protecting the public, by confining violent sexual predators likely to reoffend, and providing treatment to those offenders. ″Those committed pursuant to the SVPA are to be treated not as criminals, but as sick persons. They are to receive treatment for their disorders and must be released when they no longer constitute a threat to society.″ (Emphasis added.) (People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774, 783, citing Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6250.)

A conditionally released SVP is deemed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and the courts to no longer pose a danger to the community and may be treated in the community rather than confinement in the state hospital. However, a conditionally released SVP is tightly monitored and supervised in the community. A person released as an SVP may not be released to any residence that is within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, inclusive, if the person has been previously convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child or the court finds the person has a history of improperly sexual conduct with children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6608.5, subd. (f)(1-2).) Additionally, a conditionally released SVP must be monitored by a global positioning system (″GPS″) until they are unconditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, Section 6608.1.) State Audit Reports: In both 2019 and 2024, the California State Auditor′s Office (CSA)reported on the rates of success in the conditional release program for SVPs. Since the beginning of the SVPA in 2003, only 56 people have been released into the community on supervised release. Since 2003, only two people have committed any new offenses, and both those individuals committed new offenses while on release – one for possession of child pornography for which he was returned to custody and one failed to timely register as a sex offender. However, individuals unconditionally released, meaning they were deemed by the courts not to have a diagnosed mental disorder re-offend at a higher rate. Those individuals are not supervised in the community because they have long since ended their period of imprisonment and parole.

According to the Author

AB 767 aims to ensure that families have peace of mind by strengthening protections for all children, regardless of where they learn. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand how SVP placement laws have caused fear and anxiety in my district. Children are among our most vulnerable populations, and their safety must always be the top priority. Students who learn at home deserve the same level of protection as those in public schools. California families should feel secure in their own homes—not simply hope that the law will keep them safe. AB 767 is a critical step toward providing the certainty and protection our communities need.

Arguments in Support

According to the Los Angeles County Board of Education: Keeping individuals convicted of sexual misconduct away from schools and childcare facilities is critical to protecting children and reducing the risk of victimization. Sexual assault can have devastating and long-term effects, leading to emotional trauma and disrupting a child′s development. By expanding existing safety measures, this bill reinforces California′s commitment to preventing sexual predators from accessing vulnerable populations and strengthens policies that prioritize child safety. The safety of all learners is paramount, and LACOE commends the Legislature′s ongoing efforts to ensure that early learning is included as part of the broader educational continuum. Steps like these not only safeguard students but also provide peace of mind to parents, educators, and the broader community. Additionally, implementing this measure would align with California′s broader efforts to promote child welfare and ensure that public policy reflects the evolving understanding of child safety. Strengthening safeguards around educational and childcare environments acknowledges the importance of comprehensive, proactive measures that mitigate risks before they become incidents. This bill is a logical and necessary extension of existing protections and underscores the Legislature′s commitment to fostering a secure learning environment for all children.

Arguments in Opposition

According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: We know that many people who return home from incarceration face extreme barriers to reintegrating into society as they work to find stable jobs and housing. Finding placement in any community for a formerly incarcerated person who is conditionally released and labeled as an ″SVP″ patient is particularly challenging, no matter what county the person is returning to. As context to these housing barriers that conditionally released patients already experience, in most cases, the residence must comply with Jessica′s Law (residency must be more than 2,000 feet from a school), and there must be a landlord willing to rent to them. Many counties struggle to find housing that is compliant with Jessica′s Law, given the number of schools and parks in many of our California cities already.

When compliant housing is located, public pressure is often placed on landlords willing to rent to conditionally released patients, often through public shaming and harassment. Public hearings bring negative media attention, which ignites and fosters collective efforts to block a patient′s release back into the community. The negative media attention, coupled with the public shaming and harassment, leads many landlords to back out of rental contracts. When this happens, individuals must start their housing search over again. This can go on in perpetuity; all the while, conditionally released patients must remain confined at Coalinga State Hospital, even though they have been deemed safe to return to the community under treatment and supervision. AB 767 (Alanis) seeks to make the process of releasing an individual who has already been found to be safe under supervision even more difficult by expanding the restrictions on where they could be released to not within a quarter mile of child daycare facilities or private home schools.

FISCAL COMMENTS

Estimated ongoing General Fund costs of $2.4 million. Department of State Hospitals (DSH) notes that it this bill would significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and will likely result in increased placement-related litigation. This bill adds ″child daycare facilities,″ without definition, to the list of placement locations under quarter-mile placement restriction for CONREP-SVP. The bill clarifies that a new home school after placement does not invalidate the placement. But if a private school (including home school) is established during the pendency of a proposed placement, the proposed placement is no longer valid. These changes further restrict CONREP-SVP potential housing placements and lengthen the placement process. DSH anticipates significant additional ongoing workload in form of searching and assessing prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings. This is further compounded by an increasing backlog of SVP patients that will be awaiting placement to CONREP. As of January 8, 2026, there are 23 SVP patients approved for CONREP and 18 pending approval of court petitions for placement, with current wait times for CONREP placement averaging more than two years.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp‑Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Stefani, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Bauer‑Kahan, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: January 5, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002234

Date of Hearing: January 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 767

Author:(Alanis) – As Amended Ver:January 5, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill expands areas in which a sexually violent predator (SVP) may not reside to within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility and expands the definition of a private school.

Specifically, this bill:

1. States that an SVP may not reside within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if the SVP has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.
2. Defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE) that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.
3. States a home shall be considered a private school, as defined, only if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement.
4. Provides that the subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, shall not render an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Estimated ongoing General Fund costs of $2.4 million. Department of State Hospitals (DSH) notes that it this bill would significantly increase workload to operate the DSH Conditional Release Program for Sexually Violent Predators (CONREP-SVP) and will likely result in increased placement-related litigation. This bill adds “child daycare facilities,” without definition, to the list of placement locations under quarter-mile placement restriction for CONREP-SVP. The bill clarifies that a new home school after placement does not invalidate the placement. But if a private school (including home school) is established during the pendency of a proposed placement, the proposed placement is no longer valid. These changes further restrict CONREP-SVP potential housing placements and lengthen the placement process. DSH anticipates significant additional ongoing workload in form of searching and assessing prospective properties in coordination with county stakeholders via housing committee meetings. This is further compounded by an increasing backlog of SVP patients that will be awaiting placement to CONREP. As of January 8, 2026, there are 23 SVP patients approved for CONREP and 18 pending approval of court petitions for placement, with current wait times for CONREP placement averaging more than two years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 767 aims to ensure that families have peace of mind by strengthening protections for all children, regardless of where they learn. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand how SVP placement laws have caused fear and anxiety in my district. Children are among our most vulnerable populations, and their safety must always be the top priority. Students who learn at home deserve the same level of protection as those in public schools. California families should feel secure in their own homes—not simply hope that the law will keep them safe. AB 767 is a critical step toward providing the certainty and protection our communities need.

1. Background. An SVP is a person who, after incarceration in state prison, must serve a civil commitment in DSH because a court has determined the person is likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior upon their release. Generally, once a person is deemed an SVP, they must remain in a state hospital for treatment and confinement until they can show that their condition has changed sufficiently that they no longer pose a significant risk to society. After a judicial review process, if a court determines that an SVP would not be a danger to the health and safety of others, they will be placed in their pre-incarceration county of domicile, unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county domicile. “Extraordinary circumstances” is defined as any circumstances that would inordinately limit the DSH’s ability to effect SVP’s conditional release in their county of domicile.

Under existing law, a person released as an SVP may not be released to any residence that is within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, inclusive, if the person has been previously convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child or the court finds the person has a history of improperly sexual conduct with children. Additionally, a conditionally released SVP must be monitored by a global positioning system until they are unconditionally released.

This bill expands the prohibition on placement to within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility, which is undefined, and a private school, including home school, publicly listed on the directory maintained by the CDE. People may file a private school affidavit (PSA) online with the CDE by attesting under penalty of perjury the specifics of the school.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: January 13, 2026

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:January 5, 2026

SUMMARY:

Expands areas in which a sexually violent predator (SVP), as specified, may not reside to include within one-quarter mile of a child daycare facility and expands the definition of a private school. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that a SVP may not reside within one-quarter mile of a child day care facility if a SVP has been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child.
   
2. Defines “private school” as a facility or home that has filed a private school affidavit with the State Department of Education (CDE) that provides private school instruction to any student between 6 to 18 years of age, inclusive, and is publicly listed on the directory maintained by CDE.
   
3. States a home shall be only considered a private school, as defined, if it was operating as a home school at the time of the SVP’s placement. The subsequent establishment of a private school, including a private school that is a home, shall not render an existing placement of an SVP noncompliant.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides for the civil commitment for psychiatric and psychological treatment of a prison inmate found to be an SVP after the person has served their prison commitment. This is known as the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.)
2. Defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against at least one victim, and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)
3. Permits a person committed as an SVP to be held for an indeterminate term upon commitment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604 & 6604.1.)
   
4. Establishes a process whereby a person committed as an SVP can petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge any time after one year of commitment, notwithstanding the lack of recommendation or concurrence by the Director of DSH. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subds. (a), (f) & (m).)
5. Provides that if the petition is made without the consent of the director of the treatment facility, no action may be taken on the petition without first obtaining the written recommendation of the director of the treatment facility. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (e).)
   
6. Provides that before actually placing a person on conditional release, the community program director designated by the DSH must recommend the program most appropriate for supervising and treating the person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (h).)
7. Provides that a person who is conditionally released shall be placed in the county of domicile of the person prior to the person’s incarceration, unless both of the following conditions are satisfied:
   1. The court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile; and
      
   2. The designated county of placement was given prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed placement of the committed person in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6608.5, subd. (a).)
8. States the county of domicile shall designate a county agency or program to provide assistance and consultation in the process of locating and securing housing within the county for persons committed as SVPs who are about to be conditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (d).)
9. Specifies that in recommending a specific placement for community outpatient treatment, the DSH or its designee shall consider all of the following:
   1. The concerns and proximity of the victim or the victim’s next of kin; and
      
   2. The age and profile of the victim or victims in the sexually violent offenses committed by the person subject to placement. The “profile” of a victim includes, but is not limited to, gender, physical appearance, economic background, profession, and other social or personal characteristics. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (e)(1)-(2).)
      
10. Prohibits a conditionally released SVP from being placed within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, if either of the following conditions exist:
    
    1. The person has previously been convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child, or
       
    2. The court finds that the person has a history of improper sexual conduct with children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f)(1-2).)
11. States that if the court determines that placement of a person in the county of their domicile is not appropriate, the court shall consider the following circumstances in designating his or her placement in a county for conditional release:
    
    
    1. If and how long the person has previously resided or been employed in the county; and,
       
    2. If the person has next of kin in the county. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (g)(1)- (2).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 767 aims to ensure that families have peace of mind by strengthening protections for all children, regardless of where they learn. Over the past year, I have witnessed firsthand how SVP placement laws have caused fear and anxiety in my district. Children are among our most vulnerable populations, and their safety must always be the top priority. Students who learn at home deserve the same level of protection as those in public schools. California families should feel secure in their own homes—not simply hope that the law will keep them safe. AB 767 is a critical step toward providing the certainty and protection our communities need.”
   
2. Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA): Enacted in 1996, the SVPA authorizes an involuntary civil commitment of any person “who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense … and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” (Emphasis added.) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (a).) The SVPA was designed to accomplish the dual goals of protecting the public, by confining violent sexual predators likely to reoffend, and providing treatment to those offenders. “Those committed pursuant to the SVPA are to be treated not as criminals, but as sick persons. They are to receive treatment for their disorders and must be released when they no longer constitute a threat to society.” (Emphasis added.) (People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774, 783, citing Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6250.)
   
   Civil commitment is not a prison sentence. Once a person has been deemed no longer a threat to public safety, they must, as a matter of law, be released from custody. Involuntary commitment under the SVPA only begins after a person has completed their prison sentence. Originally, the SVP laws provided for an initial commitment of two years and then a review every two years thereafter. However, effective September 20, 2006, the law now provides for indeterminate commitments for persons found to be sexually violent predators. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604.) A SVP is a person convicted of specified sex offenses against at least one person and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. (Welf. & Instit. Code, § 6600, subd. (a)(1).)^[1]

Process of SVP designation:

When the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) determines that an inmate “may be a sexually violent predator,” the CDCR Secretary refers the inmate to the DSH for a thorough evaluation. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1145; Welf. & Inst., § 6601, subd. (b).) A “diagnosed mental disorder” for purposes of determining whether someone is a SVP means a “congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting the person a menace to the health and safety of others.” (Welf. & Instit. Code, § 6600, subd. (c).)

An evaluation “must be conducted by at least two practicing psychiatrists or psychologists in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol[.]” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (c)-(d).) If the two evaluators agree the inmate is likely to reoffend without treatment or custody due to their mental disorder, the Director of DSH must request a petition for commitment pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code section 6602 to the county in which the inmate was last convicted. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subd. (d).) Thereafter, the county district attorney will file a petition for civil commitment. Due process requires any deprivation of liberty by the state requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Accordingly, a court then reviews the petition and determines whether there is probable cause to believe the inmate “is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon their release. If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person [is] committed for an indeterminate term” to a state mental hospital “for appropriate treatment and confinement.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.)

The burden then shifts to the “offender seeking his or her release from an SVPA commitment” to prove he or she is no longer a significant risk to society. (Ashley Felando (2012) California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act and the Dangerous Patient Exception, 40 W. St. U.L. Rev. 73, 76; Note (2014) Examining the Conditions of Confinement for Civil Detainees under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act, 68 Hastings L.J. 1441, 1444-1446.)

If the Director of DSH determines that the inmate’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that the inmate is not likely to commit acts of predatory sexual violence while under supervision and treatment in the community, the Director will forward a report and recommendation for conditional release. If the court at the hearing determines that the SVP would not be a danger to others due to his or her diagnosed mental disorder while under supervision and treatment in the community, the court will order the person placed with an appropriate forensic conditional release program operated by the state for one year, a substantial portion of which is required to include outpatient supervision and treatment. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608, subd. (f).)

After a judicial determination that a person would not be a danger to the health and safety of others (i.e., in that it is not likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the person’s diagnosed mental disorder while under supervision and treatment in the community), they will be placed in their pre-incarceration county of domicile, unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county domicile. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608.5, subd. (a); see Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608.5, subd. (b).)

Restrictions on Conditionally Released SVPs

A conditionally released SVP is deemed by DSH and the courts to no longer pose a danger to the community and may be treated in the community rather than confinement in the state hospital. However, a conditionally released SVP is tightly monitored and supervised in the community. A person released as an SVP may not be released to any residence that is within one-quarter mile of any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, inclusive, if the person has been previously convicted of child molestation or continuous sexual abuse of a child or the court finds the person has a history of improperly sexual conduct with children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (f)(1-2).) Additionally, a conditionally released SVP must be monitored by a global positioning system (“GPS”) until they are unconditionally released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.1.)

1. DSH SVP Conditional Release Program (CONREP): The DSH CONREP is described by DSH as follows:

CONREP is DSH’s statewide system of community-based services for court-ordered individuals. Mandated as a state responsibility, CONREP began on January 1, 1986. The SVP Act governs all SVP commitments and releases. Releases from the hospital to the community are either unconditional (direct community discharge) or conditional through CONREP and are court-ordered. CONREP is an intensive community-based treatment, and 24 hours per day monitoring program with gradual steps toward increased community re-entry depending on treatment progress. DSH contracts with Liberty Healthcare to provide SVP CONREP services across the state. SVP CONREP is designed in accordance with best practice standards, called the Risk, Needs, and Responsivity Principles. Research shows that interventions with sex offenders that follow these principles have the greatest reduction in re-offense rates.

Use of a Community Safety Team (CST), a standard practice for providing community supervision and treatment, is the method by which the principles of Risks, Needs, and Responsivity and the Collaboration Model are applied for each patient. Members of the CST include the following: (a) CONREP Regional Coordinator; (b) CONREP Clinical Program Director; (c) Treatment Providers; (d) Victim Advocate; (e) Polygraph Provider; (f) Local law enforcement; (g) Defense attorney; (h) District Attorney; and (i) Others as needed for support, accountability, and/or clinical needs.

The SVP CONREP program utilizes the following supervision and monitoring tools that are carried out by the CST: (a) unannounced and scheduled in person visits onsite and offsite from the residence; (b) collateral contacts and chaperone training with significant people in the patient’s life; (c) covert surveillance; (d) 24-hour GPS monitoring; (e) monitoring of approved electronics (i.e. phone, computer); (f) random urine screens for illicit substances; (g) unannounced residence, vehicle, and personal property searches; (h) Banking and expense reviews; and (i) approval of schedules, locations of outings, and routes of travel for all time outside of residence. This is verified daily by review of GPS tracking. The GPS system also provides “real time” tracking with instant notification of any violations of the inclusion/exclusion zones developed for the patient. Life skills training, residential placement, and other services needed to support safe and successful community reintegration.

Conditional release of an SVP is complex and time consuming and often engenders strong reactions from those in the community where the SVP will be placed. This complex process has been mired in delays for many years. While tight restrictions on conditionally released SVPs is critical, the number of laws that restrict housing has created an untenable reality where a court can no longer deprive someone of their constitutional liberty, but there is nowhere for an SVP t reside outside the facility.

1. “County of Domicile”: An SVP conditionally released for outpatient supervision and treatment must be placed in the county of domicile prior to the person’s incarceration, unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances require placement outside the county of domicile. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (a)(1).) The county of domicile is the county where the person has their true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which they have manifested the intention of returning whenever they are absent. (Id.)
   

For purposes of determining the county of domicile, the court may consider information found on a California’s driver’s license, California identification card, recent rent or utilities receipt, printed personalized checks or other recent banking documents, or any arrest record. If no information can be verified, the county of domicile shall be considered the county in which the person was arrested and convicted or last returned on parole. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.5, subd. (b)(1).) If that county is not suitable, the court, DSH, and CDCR may choose alternative county for placement.

Based on input from local law enforcement, a court may approve, modify, or reject the recommended or proposed specific address within that community or proposed specific address within that community. A court could approve a specific city but reject a specific address in that city. Therefore, simply having a verified address is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of a conditional release. The city and the address must be approved by the court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)A).) Furthermore, agencies receiving notice of an SVP’s placement in a specific county may comment on the placement or location of release and may suggest alternative locations for placement within a community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(5)(A) and (b).)

Based on the all the evidence, the court determines whether approve, reject, or modify the terms of conditional release. Welfare and Institutions Code section 6609.1 requires a community be given 30 days’ notice if an SVP is pending conditional release in that community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6609.1, subd. (a)(4).) Notice includes the name and proposed placement address before an SVP is released into the community.

Identifying the county of domicile for an SVP is challenging because in many cases, these individuals have been incarcerated for years – first in state prison and then on civil commitment. There may be no evidence of county of domicile. The SVPA was enacted in 1996 – and used very heavily in the last 15 or 20 years. If an SVP was originally from Hancock Park in Los Angeles in the 1990s – returning to Los Angeles may not be an option because a SVP cannot live near a school or park, or be anywhere children regularly congregate. There may also be additional stay away orders in place that prevent placement in certain areas.

A finding that a person is eligible for conditional release really eliminates the legal grounds for holding the person in custody. Again, civil commitment is not a prison sentence wherein a grant of parole may be determined by examining the offender and the nature of the offense. It is a mental health diagnosis wherein the goal of commitment is to treat the mental illness so the person may ultimately be released into the community. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 [“Here, for instance, the Legislature disavowed any ‘punitive purpose [],’ and declared its intent to establish ‘civil commitment’ proceedings in order to provide ‘treatment’ to mentally disordered individuals who cannot control sexually violent criminal behavior. The Legislature also made clear that, despite their criminal record, those eligible for commitment and treatment as SVP's are to be viewed ‘not as criminals, but as sick persons.’ Consistent with these remarks, the SVPA was placed in the Welfare and Institutions Code, surrounded on each side by other schemes concerned with the care and treatment of various mentally ill and disabled groups.”].)

Also, conditional release requires weekly individual contact with the SVP, group treatment, and weekly drug screening. It may also include polygraph examinations, anti-androgen therapy, GPS tracking, increased supervision through random visits, and community notification.

1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB): On September 20, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1015 (Chu), which created the CASOMB. The author of that bill proposed the CASOMB because after several years of contentious changes to the sex offender and SVP laws, California was left with a patchwork of standards that seemed to ignore best practices in offender management and ultimately, make communities less, not more, safe. The author of AB 1015 stated:

“Sex offenders in California are currently managed through a complex system involving multiple state and local departments. Yet, there is no centralized infrastructure that coordinates communication, research or decision-making amongst the various agencies. … Almost all convicted sex offenders will eventually return to the community, with a short period of time under direct supervision, either on parole, probation or conditional release. It is integral that during this period of time when sex offenders are under direct supervision, there is a comprehensive and cohesive network of interventions available to control the behavior of sex offenders and prevent recidivism. This bill will bring the major participants in the management of sex offenders together to assess current practices in managing adult sex offenders under supervision, identify best practices and make recommendations on how to implement these changes. Efforts such as the one proposed in this bill has been met with much success in other states and within California counties, including San Diego County, Orange County, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.”^[2]

The CASOMB website summarizes its mission of addressing issues, concerns and problems related to community management of adult sex offenders by identifying and developing recommendations to improve policies and practices. CASOMB also notes that most of the time, the dangers of child sexual abuse is often living in their own homes or are part of their community.

While it is commonly believed that most sexual assaults are committed by strangers, the research suggests that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders victimize people known to them; approximately 90 percent of child victims know their offenders, as do 80 percent of adult victims.^[3] The CASOMB issues annual reports to the Legislature on national best practices in the management of sex offenders in the community, including SVPs, and makes recommendations. As explained below, it has repeatedly warned against expanding residence restrictions.

1. Issues Facing the SVPA: This bill proposes to expand the existing residence restrictions for conditionally released SVPs to within one-quarter mile of a daycare and expands the definition of private school. As explained above, conditionally released SVPs are closely monitored in the community and may be returned to in-patient status for any violation of the conditions of release. Also explained above, existing law states an SVP may be placed on conditional release if the court determines a person would not present a danger to others due to their diagnosed mental disorder while under supervision and treatment in the community. Supervised community release is for an initial period of one year.

Quite simply, once a person is deemed no longer a threat to public safety, constitutional due process largely demands that the person be released into the community. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd. (d); People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 209.) Once the court determines an SVP should be placed in a conditional release program, the community program director must make the necessary placement arrangements, and within 30 days after receiving notice of the court's finding, the person shall be placed in the community in accordance with the treatment and supervision plan unless good cause for not doing so is presented to the court.

The CASOMB pointed out that the inability to find suitable housing for conditionally released SVPs in their county of domicile only increases the chances that SVPs will be placed in other communities that may be more rural. Rural communities may present challenges in the effective monitoring of SVPs.^[4]

In response to AB 201 (Brough), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, which proposed to let local agencies adopt their own residence restrictions, the CASOMB submitted a letter in opposition wherein it stated “Based upon knowledge of the research and scientific evidence related to policies such the ones proposed by AB 201, CASOMB has previously concluded that policies creating these types of restrictions are not effective and, in fact, actually increase the risk of sexual recidivism.” CASOMB submitted a white paper outlining the research supporting their position.

In support of the statement that residence restrictions actually make communities less safe because they increase the risk of sexual recidivism, some yet-unpublished research recently conducted as part of a 2016 California study provides data showing that about 18% of sexual re-offenses in the probation group of registered sex offenders were committed by individuals who were registered as transients at the time of arrest on the new sex offense. Even more striking is the finding that 29% of sexual re-offenses in the parolee sex offender group were committed by individuals who were registered as transients at the time of re-arrest.

Since transient sex offenders make up only about 8% of the overall population of sex offenders living in California communities, it is obvious that the rate of reoffending among those who are transient seems disproportionately high. A substantial body of criminal justice research supports the fact that “lifestyle stability” is a “protective factor” and that anything which undermines such stability amplifies the risk of reoffending.^[5]

As previously stated, once a court rules a person is no longer a danger to the community, they must be placed on conditional release even if the DSH has not been successful in finding appropriate housing. This catch-22 was demonstrated by People v. Superior Court (Karsai) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 774, 784. In Karsai, the defendant was designated an SVP in 1998 and scheduled for conditional release in 2012 in County of Santa Barbara. However, Santa Barbara County was unable to find any suitable housing for Karsai and argued that he either could not be conditionally released or should be released to another county. The court found Santa Barbara was Karsai’s county of domicile. Santa Barbara objected and argued San Luis Obispo was Karsai’s county of domicile and he should be released there. Santa Barbara also argued because it had no place to house Mr. Karsai, the SVPA prevented the court from releasing him as a transient.

The court further held in Karsai that the SVPA does not prevent release of an SVP even as a transient particularly where the court ruled Santa Barbara was the county of domicile. The court reasoned that portions of the SVPA may prevent transients from being released into a county other than the county of domicile, but not if a person is released into their own county. (Karsai, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at 788.) Santa Barbara brought a writ of mandate arguing that the SVPA prohibited Karsai’s release as a transient. First, the court held that an SVP may only be placed on conditional release if a court determines they will pose no danger to others if ordered into an outpatient supervision program and will no longer be an SVP with supervision and treatment.

A finding that a person is eligible for conditional release really eliminates the legal grounds for holding the person in custody. Again, civil commitment is not a prison sentence wherein a grant of parole may be determined by examining the offender and the nature of the offense. It is a mental health diagnosis wherein the goal of commitment is to treat the mental illness so the person may ultimately be released into the community.

Here, for instance, the Legislature disavowed any ‘punitive purpose [],’ and declared its intent to establish ‘civil commitment’ proceedings in order to provide ‘treatment’ to mentally disordered individuals who cannot control sexually violent criminal behavior. The Legislature also made clear that, despite their criminal record, people eligible for commitment and treatment as SVP's are to be viewed ‘not as criminals, but as sick persons.’ Consistent with these remarks, the SVPA was placed in the Welfare and Institutions Code, surrounded on each side by other schemes concerned with the care and treatment of various mentally ill and disabled groups.” (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171.)

Since this bill proposes even more residence restrictions than the status quo, including expanding the definition of private schools, there is more of a chance that the SVP will be released as a transient - making our communities less safe.

7) State Audit Report: In both 2019 and 2024, the California State Auditor’s Office (CSA)

reported on the rates of success in the conditional release program for SVPs. Since the beginning of the SVPA in 2003, only 56 people have been released into the community on supervised release. Since 2003, only two people have committed any new offenses, and both those individuals committed new offenses while on release – one for possession of child pornography for which he was returned to custody and one failed to timely register as a sex offender.^[6] However, individuals unconditionally released, meaning they were deemed by the courts not to have a diagnosed mental disorder re-offend at a higher rate. Those individuals are not supervised in the community because they have long since ended their period of imprisonment and parole. ^[7]

The evidence amassed by the CSA clearly indicates that public safety is greater served through a process of conditional release. However, because SVP status is a civil commitment based on a diagnosed mental condition, once a person is determined not to have a mental condition, they must be released from custody. That is the only way the SVPA is constitutional. (Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 358 [“A finding of dangerousness, standing alone, is ordinarily not a sufficient ground upon which to justify indefinite involuntary commitment. We have sustained civil commitment statutes when they have coupled proof of dangerousness with the proof of some additional factor, such as a "mental illness" or "mental abnormality.”].) The harder the Legislature makes it to allow for conditional release, the more likely it is people will be released by the courts unconditionally and the SVPA deemed unconstitutional.

The CSA also noted that, although DSH is required to place someone on conditional release within 30 days of a court order for supervised community release, it often takes 17 months to secure housing for the person on release.^[8] Courts have consistently held that SVPs deemed eligible for conditional release, cannot be detained for months at a time without violating due process. (See Karsai, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at 788.) CSA recommended transitional housing supervised by DSH that allows SVPs on conditional release to begin living in a less restrictive housing while DSH and its private contractor Liberty Healthcare, to locate permanent housing.

1. Private Schools: Any person who desires to establish a private school, either in their home or somewhere else, must file an affidavit annually stating the business name, the address, the address of the custodian of records, the school enrollment, number of teachers, and whether it is co-educational and if not, whether it is for boys or girls, that records are properly maintained, and that all required criminal background checks have been completed. (Ed. Code, § 33190, subd. (a-f).)

Private school teachers are not required to obtain a state teaching credentialing but are required to undergo a background check. Private facilities are also not subject to mandatory attendance laws.^[9] People may file a private school affidavit (PSA) online with the California Department of Education (CDE) and is easy to do. CDE makes clear that it does not endorse or authorize any private school and certifies only that it complies with the PSA requirements.^[10]

All that is required for a PSA is a statement under penalty of perjury of the specifics of the school even if it only being established for purposes of preventing SVP placement. According to CDE, there are approximately 500,000 students enrolled in a total of 3134 private schools statewide. However, CDE only compiles information on private schools with six or more students. This bill has recently been amended to state that the definition of private school includes any school that has six or more students and has an address publicly available on the CDE website.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County Board of Education: Keeping individuals convicted of sexual misconduct away from schools and childcare facilities is critical to protecting children and reducing the risk of victimization. Sexual assault can have devastating and long-term effects, leading to emotional trauma and disrupting a child’s development. By expanding existing safety measures, this bill reinforces California’s commitment to preventing sexual predators from accessing vulnerable populations and strengthens policies that prioritize child safety.

The safety of all learners is paramount, and LACOE commends the Legislature’s ongoing efforts to ensure that early learning is included as part of the broader educational continuum. Steps like these not only safeguard students but also provide peace of mind to parents, educators, and the broader community. Additionally, implementing this measure would align with California’s broader efforts to promote child welfare and ensure that public policy reflects the evolving understanding of child safety. Strengthening safeguards around educational and childcare environments acknowledges the importance of comprehensive, proactive measures that mitigate risks before they become incidents. This bill is a logical and necessary extension of existing protections and underscores the Legislature’s commitment to fostering a secure learning environment for all children.

1. Argument in Opposition: According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: We know that many people who return home from incarceration face extreme barriers to reintegrating into society as they work to find stable jobs and housing. Finding placement in any community for a formerly incarcerated person who is conditionally released and labeled as an “SVP” patient is particularly challenging, no matter what county the person is returning to. As context to these housing barriers that conditionally released patients already experience, in most cases, the residence must comply with Jessica’s Law (residency must be more than 2,000 feet from a school), and there must be a landlord willing to rent to them. Many counties struggle to find housing that is compliant with Jessica’s Law, given the number of schools and parks in many of our California cities already.

When compliant housing is located, public pressure is often placed on landlords willing to rent to conditionally released patients, often through public shaming and harassment. Public hearings bring negative media attention, which ignites and fosters collective efforts to block a patient’s release back into the community. The negative media attention, coupled with the public shaming and harassment, leads many landlords to back out of rental contracts. When this happens, individuals must start their housing search over again. This can go on in perpetuity; all the while, conditionally released patients must remain confined at Coalinga State Hospital, even though they have been deemed safe to return to the community under treatment and supervision. AB 767 (Alanis) seeks to make the process of releasing an individual who has already been found to be safe under supervision even more difficult by expanding the restrictions on where they could be released to not within a quarter mile of child daycare facilities or private home schools.

The Ella Baker Center respectfully asserts that furthering the punishment and barriers to

reentry housing for any formerly incarcerated person is not in the interest of community safety, healing, or justice for survivors. Increasing barriers to stable housing and reentry for people who have already been found suitable for release will only increase the hurdles to freedom and successful reentry. We do not need increased punishment; instead, we need greater investment in schools, jobs, mental health, and other services that can prevent acts of

violence. This bill will further exacerbate inequities and destabilize community members who are attempting to find stable housing, as a necessary step toward successfully reentering

society.

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 22 (DeMaio) requires, among other things, DSH to approve a potential placement before a department employee or vendor proposes a potential placement to a court, including signing a lease or rental agreement regarding the placement of a SVP who is scheduled to be conditionally released into the community. AB 22 was referred to, but never heard in, this committee.
      
   2. SB 379 (Jones) states that the DSH is responsible for ensuring that department vendors consider public safety in the placement of a conditionally released SVPs. SB 379 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
      
   3. SB 380 (Jones), Chapter 581, Statutes of 2025 requires the DSH to conduct an analysis of the benefits and feasibility of establishing transitional housing facilities for the CONREP for SVPs.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 763 (Davies) of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have prohibited placing an SCP released on conditional release within 1/4 mile of a home school. AB 763 was referred to this committee but never heard.
      
   2. AB 2035 (Patterson), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have prohibited the DSH from placing a conditionally released SVP into the community if the person does not have housing in a qualified dwelling, which is defined as a structure intended for human habitation by one person or a single family and that is not within 10 feet of another dwelling. AB 2035 failed passage in this committee.
      
   3. SB 841 (Jones), of the 2021-22 Legislative Session, would have enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Accountability, Fairness, and Enforcement Act, would have required the DSH to take specified actions regarding the placement of SVPs in communities, including notifying the county’s executive officer of the placement location, as specified. SB 841 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Brea Police Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Association of School Police Chiefs

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California Narcotic Officers' Association

California Reserve Peace Officers Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Los Angeles School Police Management Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Murrieta Police Officers' Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside County Sheriff's Office

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Opposition

ACLU California Action

California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Felony Murder Elimination Project

Initiate Justice

Justice2jobs Coalition

LA Defensa

Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Sexually violent offenses include: rape, rape with a foreign object, aggravated sexual assault of a child, sodomy, forcible oral copulation, child molestation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual penetration, kidnapping with the intent to commit a listed sex offense, and assault with intent to commit a listed sex offense. (Welf. & Instit. Code, § 6600, subd. (b).) ↑

2. Assm. Com. on Public Safety, on AB 1015 (2006 Reg. Sess.), January 10, 2006, located at https://lis.calegis.net/LISWeb/faces/bills/billanalysis.xhtml;jsessionid=OMiBPf4b0n6klGVGgtZ6WdS4edZw7UvERft9bnurJBhA5f_7jQLf!93566180!33372586 ↑

3. Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour, A.K. (1992) Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center. ↑

4. See CASOMB Year-End Report 2023 “Sexually Violent Predator Project: Conditional Release Program Housing and Community Placement Barriers,” located at https://casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=1214 ↑

5. CASOMB Letter Regarding Residence Restrictions, February 2015, located at https://casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=1214 ↑

6. California State Audit Report No. 2023-130, p. 9 located at https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-130/ ↑

7. See Ibid. ↑

8. Id., at 13-14. ↑

9. See generally, https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/affidavit.asp ↑

10. The CDE website states: “Filing the PSA shall not be interpreted to mean, and it shall be unlawful for any school to expressly or impliedly represent by any means whatsoever, that the State of California, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, the CDE, or any division or bureau of the Department, or any accrediting agency has made any evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of the school or course unless this is an actual fact. Filing the PSA does not mean that the State of California or any accrediting agency has granted a license or authorization to operate a school. ↑