By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Report criticizes DSH's role in handling sexually violent predator program
State has spent nearly $1.7 million per SVP
Kevin Gray
SVP Kevin Scott Gray, 72, was set be released just outside the Turlock city limit, after being denied release into rural Merced County last February.

SACRAMENTO — A report released this week by the California State Auditor was critical of the Sexually Violent Predator Conditional Release Program, overseen by the Department of State Hospitals.

The audit highlighted DSH’s failures in managing its state contractor, Liberty Healthcare, despite paying the contractor more than $90 million since the program began.

After numerous complaints over the release of sexually violent predators into communities, Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) called for the audit last year.

“On average, each conditionally released SVP costs taxpayers $1.66 million. With this price tag, the recidivism rate should be zero!” said Jones, referencing a portion of the audit that states only 4 percent of offenders in the program re-offend. “Californians deserve real safety assurances, but the audit exposes alarming gaps in oversight and even re-offenses by released SVPs. It’s clear that this dangerous SVP release program is failing and must be reformed. I look forward to working with the Legislature to fix this program, rein in Liberty Healthcare, and ensure DSH delivers the public safety Californians expect and deserve.”

This statewide issue became a local one this summer when convicted SVP Kevin Scott Gray, 72, was set be released just outside the Turlock city limit, after being denied release into rural Merced County last February.

In both cases, the proposed dwelling site for Gray’s release was too close to a home school, and his scheduled release was put on hold.

At the time, Stanislaus County District Attorney Jeff Laugero admitted that it was akin to kicking a can down the road.

“It’s a can worth kicking,” said Laugero. “And if not us, then who? I’ll keep kicking and kicking and kicking.”

Part of Laugero’s concern was Liberty Healthcare’s role in the overall process.

At a press conference in June, the D.A. mentioned a site-assessment report conducted by Liberty Healthcare, which, according to court documents, advocated for the release of Gray and Timothy Roger Weathers, 61, a convicted SVP who was slated to be released into the same Turlock residence as Gray.

“I asked our bureau of investigations to conduct our own investigation and conduct our own site assessment,” Laugero said at the time. “As a result, several disqualifying factors were quickly identified simply by talking to the neighbors, something Liberty Healthcare apparently did not do.

“Based on these facts, we believe the release of any SVP to this location would violate the law and we have made Liberty Healthcare aware of this disqualifying information.”

Conflicts with Liberty were not limited to Stanislaus and Merced counties, prompting Jones to call for the audit.

“Over the last 20 years of a no-bid contract, DSH has paid Liberty Healthcare nearly $93 million to manage just 56 individuals,’’ said Jones. “This longstanding contract has allowed Liberty Healthcare’s performance to slip, while DSH fails to hold them accountable.”

Harry Goldberg, a consulting psychologist for the state, reported in February of 2020 that Gray was likely to re-engage in sexually violent behavior, court documents show. Also in 2020, Gray was found to be in possession of a flash drive that had approximately 1,000 deleted — and later recovered — images of children posed erotically.

In May of 2022, and again in March of this year, Goldberg reaffirmed his previous diagnosis. Liberty, however, advocated for Gray’s release.

“This is a dangerous situation allowing Liberty Healthcare, for decades now, to make these decisions about sexually violent predator placement,” said Alvarado-Gil. “They made the decision, they selected the location and they entered into a lease agreement, all without having conversations with the neighbors in the community … there’s a moral obligation there.”