Sentencing Alternatives
Whitney Jarvis
HSP 430
Professor Deiro
1
There is no question that in the United States, our use of incarceration without
rehabilitative support is, at best, ineffective. Our culture has instituted criminal laws to regulate
social behavior, and the practice of filling our prisons with hundreds of thousands of non-violent
offenders has created little return on our investment. The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a
Representative in Congress and Chairman, of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security addressed the issue of what he calls "playing the politics of crime" by taking
an "emotional approach" to crime reduction:
Where has this tough-on-crime approach gotten us over the last few years? It has the
United States at the point where we are the number one incarcerator in the
world…Focusing more money on incarceration cannot possibly reduce the crime rate.
What we have to do is invest money where it makes some sense" (United States, 2008).
Washington State currently has several programs in place known as "sentencing
alternatives" that do what Chairman Scott suggests: they invest the money where it makes sense.
These alternatives exist at the state prison level and include participation in specific activities and
meeting additional criteria to serve a shorter amount of time behind prison bars. There are also
several counties throughout the state that have drug courts; we will take a closer look at Kitsap
County's Drug Court. Each of these programs operates a little differently than the others, but all
have the same goal: to reduce recidivism and save money.
Non-Drug Offender Programs:
The Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative: SSOSA
SSOSA is the most controversial sentencing alternative that Washington State currently
offers, because it involves reducing a sex-offender's sentence to a maximum of six months of
2
incarceration in exchange for the offender's participation in outpatient treatment.
The decision to grant a SSOSA is at the sole discretion of the court, and "includes
statutory eligibility criteria, as well as an expert's assessment of the offender's amenability to
treatment, and the offender's ability to pay for the diagnostic and treatment costs" (Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, 2006). Through 2004, the statutory eligibility criteria were
conviction of a crime lesser than Rape 1 or Rape 2, no previous felony sex offense convictions,
and a standard sentencing range that did not exceed eleven years; in 2004, the guidelines were
expanded to include no violent offenses within the previous five years, the absence of
"substantial body harm to the victim" and that the offender have "an established relationship or
connection to the victim" (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006). The legislature
also increased the list of criteria to be considered by the sentencing judge, including the opinion
of the victim.
On their face, the statistics seem to suggest a lower recidivism rate for SSOSA offenders
- although only in the first two years, and not by a margin of more than 5%. The flaw with these
statistics lies in the fact that there isn't a control group to compare them to. SSOSA offenders are
considered to have a lower risk of recidivism to begin with. Additionally, "The treatment
protocol for sex offenders today is a vastly different landscape from that of only ten years ago.
We cannot generalize with a high degree of certainty about the efficacy of any particular
therapeutic intervention precisely because of its rapidly evolving nature" (Meloy, 2006).
So why a SSOSA program to begin with? The legislature was struggling with the task of
balancing the goals of "punishing criminal behavior and preventing reoffense. The basic
dilemma is whether to consider sexual deviance a psychological disorder which requires
treatment, or as an anti-social behavior which deserves punishment" (Sexual Assault Center
3
(Seattle, Wash.), Urban Policy Research (Firm), & Washington (State), 1991). Most sex offenses
that receive media attention involve scenarios of children being taken from their homes by a
stranger and brutalized. This has given way to an emphasis on "stranger danger", when the
majority of sex offenses committed against children are committed by somebody they know.
"The likelihood of a child being sexually assaulted by a stranger is the rarest victim-offender
situation, occurring in only 7 percent of cases", and 97 percent of children under the age of 6
who are sexually victimized are abused by a family member or acquaintance (Snyder, as cited in
Meloy, 2006).
In most cases, molestation exists in a family cycle and is a learned behavior. There are
those who are anti-social and classified as "deviant", but they don't represent the majority. Many
perpetrators began as victims, and the cycle has to be broken somewhere. The unpalatable nature
of crimes against children, especially when they are sexual in nature, leads to legislation aimed at
punishment. "Yet, we know very little about these policies' public safety impact" (Meloy, 2006).
It may very well be that the people paying for the public's opinion of sex offenders is the victims.
With evolving criteria and a downward trending of SSOSA sentences, it is difficult at this point
to determine the effectiveness of SSOSA, but we have to start somewhere.
The Family & Offender Sentencing Alternative: FOSA
FOSA is Washington State's newest sentencing alternative, but the concept of including
parenting in criminal sanctions is not a new one. In 2009, Mark Osler published a
recommendation that the Federal District Court consider intensive probation for active parents
and banishment in the case of an offender whose presence would be detrimental to their child.
"In short, we should guarantee that the good parents are active in that role, banish the bad
4
parents, and ensure that judges have the knowledge, tools, and wisdom to know the difference"
(Osler, 2009). Possibly in the interest of not leaving it to a judge to guarantee that "good" parents
be an active force in their children's lives, the Family & Offender Sentencing Alternative uses
slightly different criteria:
Offender must have physical custody of minor child(ren) or be a legal guardian of a
minor child with physical custody at the time of the offense; the high end of the
offender’s sentence is more than one year; offender may not have current or prior
convictions for a felony sex and/or violent offense; offender may not be subject to a
deportation order; and offender must sign a release of information waiver regarding
current and/or prior child welfare cases to include tribal involvement (Corrections,
Department of - 130-19539, 2011).
FOSA allows non-violent offenders to serve up to the last 12 months of their sentence on home
monitoring, with an ankle bracelet that is fitted with a gps locator. This program has the
distinction of not being at the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. Although a judge can
implement a FOSA sentence and waive a prison sentence altogether, the Department of
Corrections can also create a Community Parenting Plan after the offender begins serving a
prison sentence. This distinguishes the FOSA program from all other prison sentencing
alternatives, which must be handed down by the sentencing judge.
The CPA program generally mandates that the offender not be employed, as they are
expected to be spending their time with their children. They are bound to their residences for a
minimum of 12 hours a day, and report to a community custody officer regularly. There are also
frequent home visits and classes, such as chemical dependency treatment or parenting classes,
are often mandated as well. Although criteria requires FOSA offenders to have custody of a
5
minor child, there is some latitude on that point. According to an offender who was released on
FOSA without custody of her child, "You just have to have proof that you have an on-going
relationship. I don't have custody of my daughter but my parents who do just wrote a letter
stating our history" (S. Opulencia, personal communication, February13, 2013). This has been
the case in six of the eight FOSA offenders I've interviewed. Because this program is new, there
aren't any published reports available on community impact or recidivism rates. Every offender
and family member I've spoken with who has been released on this program has reported a
positive outcome, and noted remarkable differences in the behavior of the offender's children,
regardless of the living and/or custody situation. "I was on the program for 7 months and it was
the best 'time' I have ever done. I was able to get reintroduced to my daughter and daily life at a
slow pace and my re-entry process was at the perfect pace. My family was completely involved
with all that I did and I think they were able to grow as well" (N. Anderson, personal
communication, February 7, 2013).
Drug-Offender Programs:
Kitsap County Adult Drug Court: KCDC
Kitsap County's Drug Court program offers participants the opportunity to participate in a 4stage program that results in dismissal of their felony charges upon graduation. The criteria for
KCDC mandates that offenders have no history of violent or sex offenses, no use of a firearm in
the offense for which they are being admitted to drug court, and that the current offense be
related to drug use. Although the crime doesn't have to involve a charge for possession or use of
an illegal substance, the crime has to have been committed in pursuit of drugs or under the
influence of drugs. KCDC also considers "suitability", which is described as willingness to
6
participate in treatment programs, as well as "Chemical Dependency Evaluation completed by
the Drug Court Treatment Counselor to determine the level of substance dependency and
likelihood of successful completion of the Drug Court Program" (Kitsap County Drug Court,
n.d.). Once accepted, participants receive chemical dependency treatment, both inpatient and
outpatient, attend regular counseling sessions, and make weekly court appearances where they
discuss their progress and demonstrate compliance with other program requirements, such as
attending 12-step meetings and submitting to random drug testing. Offenders who fail to meet
any program requirements are subject to sanctions, which include jail time and community
service. The program includes 4 phases:

Phase 1 - Initiation and Stabilization: "The participant is expected to cease using drugs,
stabilize physical health and cease criminal activity. Treatment focuses on compliance
and accountability, addiction recovery, and recognition of the seriousness of the offense"
(Kitsap County Drug Court, n.d.). During this time, participants are expected to treat drug
court as a full time job.

Phase 2 - Consolidation: This phase focuses on staying clean and out of trouble, and
developing social, life, and job skills. "Treatment focuses on relapse prevention,
exploration of strengths and weaknesses, and lifestyle changes and accountability"
(Kitsap County Drug Court, n.d.).

Phase 3 - Reintegration: In addition to maintaining the progress from earlier phases, this
phase includes employment or job training and encourages fiscal responsibility.
"Treatment focuses on maintenance of a personal recovery plan, vocational training or
education, and accountability" (Kitsap County Drug Court, n.d.). At this phase,
participants are required to be employed or enrolled in school.
7

Phase 4 - Aftercare: This is basically the maintenance stage of the program. Participants
are still mandated to participate in "individual counseling, random drug testing, 12-step
meetings, community service work, employment, or education, court appearances, and
monthly alumni group meetings" (Kitsap County Drug Court, n.d.).
This program and its progression are based on information provided by a treatment team, but are
ultimately up to the sole discretion of Judge J. Roof, often referred to as "Papa Roof" by program
participants. Unlike sentencing alternatives regulated by Washington State, the number and
severity of violations that lead to termination vary greatly. Based on information provided by
both program participants and treatment providers, KCDC terminations are just as often for
failing to follow program rules as they are for drug use. State regulated sentencing alternatives
tend to follow more uniform guidelines.
Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative(s): DOSA
The Washington State Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) is a prison based
program that provided some drug offenders the opportunity to serve half of their sentence
incarcerated in prison and the other half in community custody (probation) in exchange for
successful completion of chemical dependency treatment and adherence to strict community
custody guidelines. "DOSA is a sentencing alternative designed to provide chemical dependency
treatment and supervision for addicted offenders who committed a drug crime or another crime
that is related to an addiction. Only offenders without violent or sex offenses are eligible"
(Corrections, Department of - 130-10720, 2008).
While the time they spend incarcerated is substantially reduced, the time that DOSA
offenders do spend behind prison gates is quite different from other offenders. Inmates in the
general population may hold jobs or go to school, depending on what programs are available, but
8
have few mandated daily activities. They are regularly free to watch television, play cards, go to
the gym, read books, etc. Their day starts when they decide to get out of bed and ends with the
nightly recall to cells/dorms for a final head count around 9 p.m. Most prisons with DOSA
populations also offer the Therapeutic Community program, in which DOSA offenders are
compelled to participate. The Therapeutic Community program is an intensive residential
treatment program that takes place within the prison and work release settings. The Washington
State Department of Corrections Therapeutic Community Handbook (2006) describes the
Therapeutic Community:
(TC's are)…" residential settings that use a hierarchical model with treatment stages that
reflect increased levels of personal and social responsibility. Peer influence, mediated
through a variety of group processes, is used to help individuals learn and assimilate
social norms and develop more effective social skills. The TC is like a small
society…(that)… contains many of the elements of the larger society - a daily schedule of
work and education, social relationships, and especially an occupational structure" (p. 6).
I recently met with an inmate at Mission Creek Correctional Center, Kathryn Klepper, who is
currently serving her third prison sentence (but her first DOSA sentence) in a Therapeutic
Community program. She explained how the Therapeutic Community is structured at MCCCW.
The Therapeutic Community houses participants in separate housing from the general
population, with whom they are to have no contact. They participate in classes, jobs, and other
scheduled activities from 6:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at the earliest, and are not allowed to lie down
at any time during the day. They are not allowed personal televisions, often live in dormitories
(as opposed to two-man rooms), and live in a highly structured environment that includes the
offenders holding each other accountable. Offenders move through four phases, beginning with
9
phase one, and can lose their higher phase status as a disciplinary sanction. "This is the shortest
sentence I've served as far as the length of time, but it's the hardest time I've ever done, and I've
learned more this time around than the other two combined. For the first time I feel like I'm
releasing with some hope." (K. Klepper, personal communication, February 2, 2013).
DOSA is also cost effective. According to a report published by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy (2005), the financial benefit-to-cost ratio for drug offenders who
received DOSA sentences is $9.91 saved for every $1.00 spent. It's important to note that this
savings was specific to DOSA offenders who were sentenced for drug crimes; the same data on
DOSA offenders sentenced for property crimes was statistically insignificant. This is partially
attributed to the recidivism rates of property offenders and the higher cost associated with the
crimes they commit. Personally, I find it interesting that there is a disparity between the cost
effectiveness of DOSA sentences for drug offenders and property offenders, because in my
experience, most people who are charged with drug possession are also committing property
crimes and/or have prior convictions for property crimes. Given the fact that "50% of dosa
offenders reported Methamphetamine to be their primary substance used" (Corrections,
Department of - 130-10720, 2008), and that users of methamphetamine are attributed with "70
percent of the city's burglaries, 80 percent of vehicle thefts and 95 percent of credit card fraud in
Spokane, virtually all property crimes, crimes of violence and burglaries were attributed to drugs,
specifically methamphetamine in Kitsap County in 2004", and that "Nationally, police believe 75
to 80 percent of all property crimes are committed by people addicted to methamphetamine, or
who profit from addicts" (Washington State Office of the Attorney General, 2008), it seems to
me that reducing recidivism of drug offenders would affect every statistic significantly. It's likely
that the only variable between a drug charge and a property crime charge is the point at which
10
the offender was arrested: stealing to support their habit, an offender would be charged with a
property crime; already having stolen and traded their goods for drugs, the same offender would
be charged with a drug crime.
What about the people who don't successfully complete their DOSA sentence? They get
"revoked", which means they return to prison to serve the remainder of their original sentence.
Typically, revocation is the result of receiving a new charge while serving a DOSA sentence or
multiple charges of non-compliance with community custody rules, such as regular reporting and
abstinence from all drugs. "From 1999-2008, 9,621 offenders received 10,818 prison DOSA
sentences; of those 9,621 offenders, 3,632 have had their DOSA sentences revoked and served
the remainder of their sentences in prison" (Corrections, Department of - 130-10720, 2008).
Prison based DOSA was implemented in 1995 as a sentencing alternative for first time
drug offenders. A subsequent report conducted in 1997 reported that DOSA was being
underutilized because there were other first time offender options available, so in 1999 DOSA
received an overhaul that included the criteria followed today (Aos & Washington State Institute
for Public Policy, 2005). In response to a rise in non-violent crimes perpetrated by drug users and
the cost-effectiveness of the current DOSA program, a variation - community based DOSA became available in late 2005. This sentencing alternative is known as "Residential DOSA".
"Community Residential DOSA provides residential chemical-dependency treatment for a
minimum of 90 days to be completed at a DOC-funded community treatment site. This element
also requires outpatient treatment to be completed when released from the residential program"
(Corrections, Department of - 130-10720, 2008). This residential treatment is in lieu of any
prison time. The only time that Residential DOSA offenders spend incarcerated is prior to
sentencing, if they don't post bail. Intensive inpatient treatment lasts anywhere from three to six
11
months and is completed at facilities that contract only to the Department of Corrections. Upon
successful completion of treatment, offenders are released into the community where they serve
two years of community custody. Some of the community custody requirements include
successful completion of intensive outpatient followed by outpatient therapy, submitting to
regular drug tests, living at an approved address, attending self-help meeting as mandated, and
following any additional instructions given by the designated community custody officer.
Based on a follow-up report published by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(2012), drug treatment delivered in the community has a benefit to cost ratio of $5.46, with a
return on the state's investment of 47%. And while the program is most often utilized for early to
middle stage addicts with little to no criminal history, that isn't always the case.
I received this sentencing alternative in lieu of prison time for my eighth felony
conviction, after having already spent multiple years in prison. My experience was very similar
to others with my background: the time was shorter, but much more difficult. There were several
moments during the intensive inpatient portion of my sentence that I seriously considered having
my sentence revoked and serving my time incarcerated, longing for the lazy afternoons of
reading on my bunk or playing cards. Prison, for those of us who are adaptable, is not a hard
existence. Treatment, on the other hand, requires a great deal of participation and discomfort. But
I knew it would eventually pay off, and with other possible charges looming overhead, I pushed
through. I moved into an Oxford house, and after one relapse and a twenty eight day refresher at
the treatment center, I returned to Oxford and got involved. I've been clean for almost three
years, earned a degree and completed all of the required classes to get licensed as a chemical
dependency counselor, and am completing my first paper as a junior at Western Washington
University. I received a drug charge, but was also a "property" offender; had I been convicted of
12
every charge brought against me, I would also be a convicted violent offender. I was everything
that I had aspired not to be, and the havoc I created in my community was vast. My rehabilitation
was worth the cost - a cost not quantifiable in a case study, with a benefit that can't be accurately
measured by any institutes on public policy.
Clearly, I have a personal stake in sentencing alternatives. The Drug Offender Sentencing
Alternative saved my life. The Therapeutic Community program gave my Cousin the skills she
needed to stay clean and finish college when she was released four years ago. The Family
Offender Sentencing Alternative allowed my nephew to spend last year's Tribal Canoe Journey
pulling in a canoe with his father, whose ankle monitor gave him back to his son a year earlier
than his scheduled release. I've seen numerous families reunited through the Kitsap County Drug
Court program. And the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative may be breaking the cycle
of abuse right now for somebody my child, or my grandchildren will one day come into contact
with. But even if I didn't feel the impact, families all over the state would. As parents are
returned to their children, addicts learn the skills to manage their disease, and victims turned
predators learn to heal without hurting others, the impact truly can't be measured. But fiscally, it
has been - and the programs pay for themselves.
13
Works Cited:
Aos, S., & Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2005). Washington’s drug offender
sentencing alternative an evaluation of benefits and costs. Olympia, WA: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/05-011901.pdf
Corrections, Department of - 130-19539. (2011). Washington State Digital Archives. Retrieved
February 15, 2013, from
http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/4B52AC6C1EF8D6F86B3B51573AB8
0D81
Department of Corrections. (2008). Washington State Digital Archives. Retrieved November 2,
2013, from
http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/B87A3A44D268C485DAA4F22C5E4B
B64D
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2012). Chemical dependency treatment for
offenders: A review of the evidence and benefit-cost findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State
Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles%5C12-12-1201.pdf
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2006). Washington’s drug offender sentencing
alternative an update on recidivism findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State
Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-12-
Institute for
1901.pdf
Kitsap County Drug Court (n.d.) A citizen's guide to the Kitsap County adult drug court
[Brochure].
14
Meloy, M. L. (2006). Sex offenses and the men who commit them: an assessment of sex offenders
on probation. Hanover: University Press of New England [for] Northeastern University
Press, Boston.
Osler, M. (2009). Intensive Parenting and Banishment as Sentencing: Alternatives for Defendant
Parents. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(1), 44–47.
Sexual Assault Center (Seattle, Wash.), Urban Policy Research (Firm), & Washington (State).
(1991). The Special sex offender sentencing alternative: a study of decision-making and
recidivism: report to the Legislature. Seattle, Wash: The Center.
United States. (2008). Promoting inmate rehabilitation and successful release planning hearing
before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ofthe Committee
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session,
December 6, 2007. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Retrieved from
http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS107180.
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2006). Therapeutic Community offender
handbook.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2006). Sex offender sentencing in Washington
State: special sex offender sentencing alternative trends. Olympia, WA: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-011205.pdf
Washington State Office of the Attorney General. (2008). Meth Stats. In Washington State
Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved February 7, 2013, from
http://www.atg.wa.gov/alliedagainstmeth/stats.aspx#.UTKRBlfGMa8