Apps like Citizen and others are revealing something that too many families in this district do not realize. A significant number of registered sex offenders live throughout our communities. Many of them in close proximity to schools, parks and places where children gather every day.
Parents deserve straightforward access to accurate information. They deserve public safety policies that genuinely reduce risk . Not policies designed around the comfort of offenders or the avoidance of difficult conversations. This page is about both. What the data shows and what Washington's law currently allows. How we compare to other states and what needs to change.
The Problem: Washington's Protections Expire When the Risk Does Not
Many states restrict high risk sex offenders from residing within a defined distance of schools, parks, daycare centers, playgrounds, bus stops, and other child focused facilities. These buffer zones typically range from 500 to 2,500 feet depending on the state and the risk level of the offender.
Washington does have some residency protections. But they are narrow and critically temporary. Under state law the Department of Corrections. Cannot approve a residence near schools, daycares or playgrounds. For an offender whose victim was a minor (RCW 72.09.340) . And certain supervised offenders are barred from living within 880 feet of schools and childcare centers under Washington's Community Protection Zone law (RCW 9.94A.8554).
Here is the problem. Both of these protections apply only while the offender is under active Department of Corrections supervision. Once that supervision ends the restrictions disappear entirely. An offender the state has classified as high risk to reoffend can. The day their supervision expires. Legally move in next to an elementary school. Washington has no general statewide residency restriction for offenders who have completed supervision. They may live wherever they choose.
So the state's own protections run out at exactly the moment. Community notification tells parents the person remains dangerous. We keep telling neighborhoods a Level 3 offender is high risk while simultaneously removing every legal barrier to where that person can live. That is the gap.
Some individual cities and counties have enacted their own local restrictions. But there is no uniform statewide standard. Meaning the level of protection a child receives depends entirely on which city or county they happen to live in.
Even a single high risk offender living near a school is one too many. The question is not whether this is convenient to fix. The question is whether we are willing to protect children or not.
How Washington Compares to Other States
Washington is an outlier. A majority of U.S. states have enacted some form of residency restriction for sex offenders whether statewide. At the local level or for specific categories of offender. Here is how several states approach this.
Florida -- Prohibits certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare center, park, playground or bus stop. Some counties extend this to 2,500 feet.
Georgia -- Maintains a 1,000 foot buffer zone from schools, childcare facilities, churches and other locations where children gather. Violations are a felony offense.
Texas -- Certain offenders on supervision are prohibited from living within 500 to 1,000 feet of locations where children gather. Such as schools, daycares and playgrounds. Many Texas cities have enacted their own broader ordinances.
California -- California's Jessica's Law once imposed a blanket 2,000 foot residency restriction. But the California Supreme Court struck down that blanket application in 2015 as unconstitutional. Today the restriction is applied case by case as a condition of parole. Based on an individual offender's record rather than as a statewide blanket rule.
Washington State -- Limited restrictions that apply only during active Department of Corrections supervision. And only for specific categories of offender. No general statewide restriction once supervision ends. Individual cities and counties may adopt local rules. But there is no uniform standard protecting children across the state.
This is not a red state versus blue state issue. States across the political spectrum have concluded that children deserve stronger protection. Washington's protections by contrast expire when an offender's supervision ends. That needs to change.
Washington's Three Tier Classification System
Washington uses a three tier risk classification system for registered sex offenders:
Level 1 (Low Risk): Assessed as posing a low risk of reoffense. Community notification is limited.
Level 2 (Moderate Risk): Assessed as posing a moderate risk of reoffense. Law enforcement may notify schools and neighborhood groups.
Level 3 (High Risk): Assessed as posing a high risk of reoffense and a threat to public safety. Active community notification is required including flyers and public postings.
The problem is clear. Washington classifies offenders by risk level. And notifies the community about the most dangerous ones but once their supervision ends. It does not restrict where Level 2 and Level 3 offenders can live. We identify who poses the greatest threat to children. We warn the neighborhood about them. And then we allow them to live next to a school anyway. That is a policy failure not an oversight.
Federal Law: What Congress Has Already Done and What More Is Needed
Congress has taken meaningful steps on sex offender policy. But significant gaps remain.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 established the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Creating a national framework for sex offender registration and requiring states to maintain registries. SORNA also created the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) . Which allows the public to search registries across all 50 states.
However SORNA does not establish federal residency restrictions. It leaves that decision entirely to states. And states like Washington have chosen to let their limited protections lapse at the end of supervision. Federal law also does not currently require states to adopt residency buffers as a condition of receiving federal funding. Which means there is no financial incentive for reluctant states to reform their laws.
That is one area where Congress can and should do more.
Kincaid's Position and Policy Priorities
Protecting women and children from sex offenders is not a talking point for this campaign. It is a genuine priority one . That connects directly to the broader Women's Safety and Fairness Agenda. The agenda that defines this campaign's approach to public safety.
Sex offender residency reform is primarily a state policy issue. Washington's legislature has the authority to close the supervision expiration gap and has not done so with the urgency this issue demands. As a member of Congress I cannot directly mandate state law. But I can use the tools available at the federal level to push for change and raise the cost of inaction.
If elected to Congress I will pursue the following:
1. Federal Funding Incentives for State Residency Restrictions. Support legislation that ties federal public safety grant funding to the adoption of minimum residency restriction standards for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders that do not expire the moment supervision ends. Particularly restrictions near schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds. States that fail to act should not continue receiving full federal public safety funding without accountability.
2. Strengthening SORNA Compliance and Enforcement. Push for stronger enforcement of existing SORNA requirements. And close loopholes that allow high risk offenders to move between jurisdictions without timely notification to local law enforcement. Currently offenders who move across state lines can fall through the cracks between registry systems.
3. National Attention on Washington State's Failure to Act. Use the platform of a congressional seat to bring direct public and legislative pressure on Washington State. To close the gap and adopt lasting statewide residency restrictions. Elected officials who have the power to protect children and choose not to use it should be held publicly accountable for that choice.
4. Improved Public Transparency and Access to Registry Information. Support improvements to the National Sex Offender Public Website to make registry information more accessible, more accurate and easier for parents to use including. Better integration with local mapping tools so families can understand the real situation in their neighborhoods.
5. Treatment and Supervision Resources to Reduce Recidivism. Support evidence based treatment programs and GPS monitoring for high risk offenders on supervised release. Residency restrictions alone are not sufficient they must be paired with meaningful supervision and treatment to reduce the likelihood of reoffense. Protecting children requires both keeping dangerous offenders away from them and addressing the conditions that drive recidivism.
What Parents in WA-01 Can Do Right Now
While we work to change the law. Parents in Washington's 1st District can take these steps today:
Search the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) to check your neighborhood.
Search the Washington State registered sex offender information site for detailed local information and Level 3 offender notifications in your area.
Download apps like Citizen. Citizen is just one of many apps that will alert you to sex offenders, crime and police activity in your area.
Contact your state legislators and demand that Washington adopt statewide residency restrictions for Level 2 and Level 3 offenders near schools, parks and childcare facilities that remain in force after supervision ends.
Talk to your children's school administration about what notification protocols are in place when a registered sex offender moves into the area.
The Bottom Line
Washington State knows which sex offenders pose the greatest risk to children. It classifies them. It notifies communities about them. It even restricts where some of them can live but only until their supervision ends. Then it allows them to live wherever they choose including next door to a school.
That is not a policy. That is a protection with an expiration date, dressed up in bureaucratic language.
Protecting children from high risk sex offenders is not a politically complicated idea. It is not an ideological question. It is a basic obligation of government one that Washington State has not fully met. And one that far too few elected officials seem to care about.
Protecting women and children will always be a top priority of this campaign. If the people of Washington's 1st District send me to Congress. I will use every tool available to do so.
Kincaid is an official candidate for Congress in Washington's 1st Congressional District. The campaign is focused on practical solutions for public safety, healthcare, economic fairness and the protection of women and children.
Paid for by Kincaid for Congress.
Comments
Post a Comment