Criminal Justice Reform

Restoring Justice, Accountability, and Second Chances

Iowa’s criminal justice system is broken. It prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation, ignores lived experience, and has allowed bureaucracy to outweigh public safety. I’ve lived inside that system, and I’ve seen where it fails and where it could succeed — if we had the courage to change it.

As your next representative for House District 88, I’ll introduce and advocate for bold reforms that make our system smarter, safer, and more humane. These aren’t abstract ideas — these are actions that will help families, reduce recidivism, and protect our community

The Breakdown of How I Will Address Each Issue

Prison Labor Fairness & Accountability Act

The Problem:

Incarcerated individuals in Iowa perform essential work inside prisons — from food preparation to maintenance to laundry services — yet they are compensated as little as $0.28 to $2.00 an hour. Meanwhile, their loved ones are often charged high transaction fees just to send money, and any funds received are heavily garnished through "Pay For Stay" charges and restitution holds. There is minimal transparency in how this money is handled, and little is saved to support reentry after release.

When inmates don’t have enough to meet basic needs, it leads to desperate decisions. Many turn to rule-breaking just to survive — engaging in contraband trading, stealing food, or worse, being exploited or coerced into sexual favors or manipulative arrangements for hygiene items or snacks. Even acts of kindness are punished: if one person shares an extra bowl or item with someone who has nothing, both can be written up and have their belongings taken.

Those who break rules out of desperation often receive disciplinary reports and lose their work assignment — sometimes their only source of income. After that, they may be forced to wait 30 to 60 days just to regain their privilege level, followed by another 60 to 75 days to reach the top of the institutional job list. This cycle traps people in poverty and hopelessness, making rehabilitation even harder.

This is not setting people up for successful reentry — it’s reinforcing trauma, poverty, and punitive control.

My Solution:

Where does the money come from?
The wages paid to incarcerated individuals come from the operating budgets of the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC), which are funded by a combination of state general funds, federal allocations, and revenue generated through inmate labor contracts and internal services. Many of the work assignments performed by inmates directly support prison operations (e.g., kitchen, janitorial, laundry), saving the state millions annually in outsourced labor costs. Raising wages to $1/hour is not only feasible within these budgets but also offset by improved institutional morale, lower misconduct rates, and reduced recidivism.

The increase in wages — from an average of $0.44/hour to $1/hour — may raise the direct labor costs slightly, but it will be balanced by cutting excessive administrative waste, redirecting Pay For Stay and canteen surplus funds more responsibly, and improving rehabilitation outcomes that reduce long-term incarceration costs.

The Prison Labor Fairness & Accountability Act will reform this broken model from the ground up. I will introduce legislation that:

Sets a $1.00/hour minimum wage for all prison labor in Iowa

Wages may increase based on performance, responsibility, and tenure

Tiered pay scale will be established by an independent work board

Reforms and expands the existing Reentry Savings Account (Gate Fee)

The current $100 gate fee system, which withholds 10% of incoming funds until release, will be increased to $250

Once the $250 threshold is reached, automatic deductions will stop unless voluntarily continued by the incarcerated individual

The savings are fully available upon release and protected from all garnishments

Protects earned wages from excessive garnishment

Currently, 30% of earnings are deducted: 20% for restitution or child support and 10% for the gate fee. This will be reduced to a total 20% cap: 10% for the Reentry Savings Account (Gate Fee) and 10% for restitution or child support

Under the current system, the state recovers about $2.64 per week from the average incarcerated worker. Under this plan, the state will recover $3.00 per week — a slight increase that allows everyone to benefit: the state recovers more, and individuals take home significantly more.

Once the gate fee balance reaches the $250 threshold, the 10% for savings will stop automatically unless voluntarily continued by the incarcerated individual

This adjustment gives incarcerated individuals the ability to retain more of their income while still contributing toward obligations

For the average incarcerated person working 30 hours per week, that means a wage increase from $13.20/week (at $0.44/hr minus 30% deductions to leave them with $9.24) to $30.00/week (at $1/hr minus 20% deduction to leave them with $24) — more than double the take-home pay

Since prisons categorize these as "work assignments" rather than formal jobs (to avoid payroll tax obligations), the state should not be allowed to treat them as garnishable income

These earnings are intended solely to help incarcerated individuals afford hygiene, food, and communication with loved ones through canteen purchases and phone calls

Retains the Pay For Stay fee but reforms how funds are spent

Funds collected from Pay For Stay fees must be used exclusively to benefit the incarcerated population

Each institution shall be required to post weekly updates in every living unit showing the current inmate fund balance and a detailed breakdown of all expenditures

Empowers Inmate Councils with real oversight

Inmate councils shall be given formal authority to propose expenditures from the inmate fund

Any proposed spending over a set threshold (e.g., $500) must be voted on by the general inmate population to ensure democratic approval

This prevents misuse of inmate funds on things like staff cookouts and stops the cycle of internal embezzlement or unjustified spending

Caps fees on family money transfers at $3 per transaction

The state will contract only with financial vendors that agree to this cap

Transparency required for any deductions from inmate accounts

Caps incoming fund deductions to 10%

Currently, up to 20% of incoming money from loved ones is garnished — this will be reduced to 10% to ease the burden on both incarcerated individuals and their families

While the state has a right to recover costs, it must not exploit those who are already economically vulnerable

Creates an exception policy for individuals serving life sentences

For incarcerated people serving life without parole, a higher deduction cap of 15% will apply on incoming funds and earned wages

These individuals may still contribute toward system costs without being denied the ability to survive with dignity inside

Creates a financial accountability dashboard

Each incarcerated person can track their deposits, garnishments, and balances

The public can see how DOC labor profits are used

Mandates regular audits of inmate trust accounts and DOC labor revenues

Any misuse, overcharging, or hidden fees will be reported and prosecuted

Audits must be published publicly, annually

Impact on District 88:

This act protects working families who are already struggling — the moms, dads, and grandparents who send $20 a week so their loved one can buy soap, snacks, or make a phone call.

It prepares incarcerated Iowans for release by giving them a foundation — money saved, job experience earned, and dignity restored.

It reduces recidivism, improves behavior inside the prisons, and brings accountability to a system that currently hides behind fine print and private contracts.

And for taxpayers? It ensures that every dollar the state makes off prison labor is transparent, ethical, and used to improve rehabilitation — not pad a bloated DOC budget.

Iowa Corrections Integrity Act

The Problem:

Correctional officers in Iowa prisons are trusted with immense authority, yet they are not held to the same level of accountability as the individuals they supervise. Instances of staff showing up under the influence of drugs or alcohol are not uncommon — and when incarcerated individuals attempt to report these violations, they are often threatened, ignored, or retaliated against. Meanwhile, no independent system exists to investigate or correct staff misconduct.

In 2024, I personally witnessed this broken system. I reported a female correctional officer who appeared to be clearly under the influence of methamphetamine to the shift captain. His response was chilling: "You better have some serious proof if you're making allegations like that." When I asked when she was last drug tested, I was told, "All employees are drug tested upon hire." According to public records on Openthebooks.com, she was hired in 2021 — and had not been tested since.

While I’ve never used meth myself, the signs were visible to many of us — over 60% of the prison camp believed she was under the influence that day. Her behavior matched multiple common signs of methamphetamine use: erratic pacing, excessive sweating, rapid and pressured speech, repetitive movements, and intense eye twitching. Despite these obvious indicators, no action was taken, and no system existed for me to escalate the report safely or meaningfully.

What made the situation worse — and ultimately inspired this act — was that it was commonly known among the inmate population and even staff that this officer and her husband, who also worked there, frequently came to work under the influence. It wasn’t a secret. Yet instead of being held accountable, they were protected by administration. This culture of cover-up and negligence puts everyone at risk and highlights the urgent need for independent oversight and mandatory staff accountability.

My Solution:

The Iowa Corrections Integrity Act will restore public trust and institutional integrity by implementing the following reforms:

Mandatory random drug testing for DOC staff every 60 days

Ensures that correctional officers are fit for duty and held to basic standards of professionalism

Immediate termination and criminal penalties for working under the influence

Any staff member found under the influence while on duty will face mandatory termination

A mandatory 15-month prison sentence will be imposed for first-time offenders

Staff will be permanently banned from working in corrections or law enforcement in Iowa

Felony charges for staff under the influence

This increases the penalty when the presence of drugs or alcohol creates a high-risk safety hazard

This includes any correctional staff member under the influence while in possession of any dangerous item or device considered a security risk, including but not limited to chemical agents such as pepper spray, OC spray, or similar irritants, whether on their person or attached to their uniform or utility belt

Independent third-party oversight board

All allegations of staff misconduct will be referred to an outside investigative body within 24 hours

The board will have subpoena power, reporting duties, and whistleblower protections for incarcerated individuals and staff

Protected reporting system for incarcerated individuals

Incarcerated individuals may report suspected intoxicated staff anonymously or openly

Any retaliation by shift captains or other staff will result in disciplinary action

False reports will result in no more than 15 days in segregation, with an appeal process

Impact on District 88:
This law will create safer, more stable prisons that operate on fairness, not fear. It reassures the public that no one is above the law — not even those wearing a badge. It protects incarcerated individuals who are trying to do the right thing, improves staff professionalism, and ensures that Iowa taxpayers are not subsidizing misconduct.

Transparency in Sentencing & Parole Decisions

The Problem:

At Newton Correctional Facility, access to pro-social programs has been steadily stripped away. Several core religious and recovery-based programs were cut, including Brothers in Blue, Celebrate Recovery, and regular Bible studies led by pastors from New Life Prison Church multiple times a week. Weekly movie night in the gym was canceled due to a single incident, yet they still host a Christmas Bingo event in the same space with over 250 inmates and only 2–3 staff members present. The monthly all-faith Christian service in the gym — an opportunity for more than 100 people to worship together — was also eliminated. Now, Christian activity is limited to the chapel, which only fits about 30 people per service.

A.A. volunteers used to be able to submit a generic note to an inmate’s ICON file showing participation — something the Board of Parole could review. That is no longer allowed. The Chapel is also no longer permitted to note if someone is attending services or participating in church leadership. I submitted proposals to start a Life Recovery program, but they were denied without explanation.

So while the parole board continues to use "more pro-social behavior" as a blanket reason for denying release, the DOC systematically eliminates the opportunities to demonstrate that behavior. And worse — even when people do participate in meaningful, rehabilitative activities, those efforts are not allowed to be documented in the system the BOP reviews. The only thing consistently recorded is disciplinary action. While technically, staff can submit a positive generic note, I have only witnessed that happen a handful of times.

The Iowa Board of Parole frequently denies release with vague and overused reasons such as "needs more pro-social behavior." However, inside Iowa’s prisons, pro-social opportunities have been severely cut — fewer college classes, restricted access to AA/NA groups, and limited or denied religious gatherings. Even when individuals are active in church, college, or mentoring programs, DOC staff often fail to include this participation in the generic notes — the very system the BOP uses to make release decisions. This is despite the fact that to attend programs like A.A., college classes, or church services, individuals are already required to sign in with their name and state number. This lack of documentation hides progress and undermines rehabilitation efforts.

Incarcerated individuals are left in a catch-22: expected to demonstrate rehabilitation while being denied the tools and documentation to prove it. The parole board then claims there’s not enough visible growth, even though the system itself hides that growth from view.

My Solution:

The Transparency in Sentencing & Parole Decisions Act will ensure that rehabilitation is both visible and valued:

Mandatory documentation of program participation

All educational, faith-based, therapeutic, and community-based programs must be recorded in an individual’s official record

Volunteer facilitators and staff will have secure, authorized access to log this participation into the DOC’s tracking system

Parole board access to full records

The Board of Parole must review updated, verified records of participation before making release decisions. Staff members of prisons will be required to include all pro-social behaviors the inmates are engaged in.

Annual transparency report on parole denials

The BOP must publish anonymized data detailing reasons for denial and whether they align with the individual's documented progress

Eliminate vague denial language

Language like "more pro-social behavior needed" cannot be used without specific, documented examples and context

Impact on District 88:

This reform will reduce unnecessary incarceration, help end overcrowding, and give deserving individuals the second chance they’ve earned. It promotes integrity, consistency, and fairness in parole decisions — and it ensures that our justice system supports rehabilitation, not just punishment.

Religious Liberty in Prisons Act

The Problem:
Freedom of religion is a constitutional right — not a privilege to be arbitrarily restricted by prison administrators. Yet across Iowa correctional facilities, religious expression is increasingly suppressed. At Newton Correctional Facility, multiple proposals were submitted to move weekly Christian services to a larger, unused space so more people could attend — proposals that required no additional resources from the DOC. Each one was rejected without explanation.

When the prison chapel was capped at 36 people (including the three outside volunteers from New Life Prison Church), we even offered to split the service into two 45-minute sessions to accommodate the 15–20 people turned away each week. The volunteers agreed. We spoke with the Treatment Director, completed all necessary paperwork, and followed the process. The result? Silence, and then rejection.

Staff explained the denial by saying other Christian services were available — but this misses the point. Every service is different. The New Life Prison Church service brought in ordained pastors from outside the facility, creating a unique experience rooted in accountability, hope, and formal spiritual leadership. In contrast, other services were inmate-led with no outside guidance. Denying access to that kind of religious experience isn’t just arbitrary — it’s illegal.

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right — not a privilege to be arbitrarily restricted by prison administrators. Yet across Iowa correctional facilities, religious expression is increasingly suppressed. At Newton Correctional Facility, long-standing programs such as Brothers in Blue, Celebrate Recovery, and Bible studies led by pastors from New Life Prison Church were cut without justification. A once-monthly gym service that allowed over 100 people to gather and worship was eliminated, forcing all Christian services into the overcrowded chapel, which seats only 30.

While group activities like Christmas Bingo — with over 250 inmates — are permitted in the gym with limited staff, faith-based gatherings are deemed “security risks.” This inconsistent standard undermines both safety and spiritual development.

Volunteer chaplains and A.A. facilitators can no longer document attendance in ICON, the system used by parole boards to review behavior and rehabilitation. This means that even committed spiritual growth — a cornerstone of reform for many incarcerated individuals — is invisible to the people deciding their future.

My Solution:

The Religious Liberty in Prisons Act will guarantee equal access and protection for all faith-based programs:

Restore and protect religious programs

Reinstate eliminated programs like Brothers in Blue, Celebrate Recovery, and large-scale worship services

Prohibit arbitrary cancellation of religious activities without documented justification

Require equal access to space and time

Mandate that religious services receive space and attendance allowances equal to non-religious group events

Weekly or monthly interfaith services must be accommodated in larger communal spaces if needed

Document religious participation in ICON

Chapel staff and volunteers will be authorized to enter generic notes showing attendance and participation

Participation in services, leadership roles, or religious study will be reflected in an individual's record

Prevent religious discrimination

Prohibit retaliation or denial of access based on faith, denomination, or non-denominational beliefs

Create a grievance process for unresolved religious access complaints, reviewed by an independent board

Impact on District 88:
True rehabilitation happens when the internal void left behind by removing destructive behaviors — whether addiction, violence, pornography, or abuse — is filled with something meaningful. For many, that meaning is found in faith. Supporting religious liberty in prisons helps break cycles of trauma and poor decision-making, which in turn reduces recidivism and strengthens communities across District 88.

This act upholds First Amendment rights for all incarcerated Iowans, ensuring they can access the spiritual guidance that helps many transform their lives. It fosters a culture of respect, reduces idleness and conflict, and increases opportunities for true rehabilitation. Faith shouldn’t end at the prison gate — and in District 88, it won’t.

Reentry Mentorship & Success Act (RMSA)

The Problem:
When individuals are released from prison in Iowa, many face overwhelming barriers to reentry — including finding housing, employment, healthcare, and community support. Without structured guidance and personal accountability, too many fall back into the same cycles that led them to incarceration in the first place. Iowa's reentry system is underfunded, impersonal, and inconsistent. Most individuals are released with minimal preparation and few local resources to guide their reintegration.

Even those who want to change struggle to find mentors, jobs, or places to live that will accept someone with a criminal record. Meanwhile, those who’ve walked the same path — formerly incarcerated individuals with the wisdom and experience to help others succeed — are rarely empowered to lead or support reentry efforts.

My Solution:
The Reentry Mentorship & Success Act will build a real support system that starts before release and continues through successful reintegration:

Mandatory reentry planning for all individuals within 6 months of release

Reentry Coordinators will work with incarcerated individuals to create detailed plans for housing, employment, education, and healthcare

Establish Peer Reentry Mentor roles

Create paid mentorship roles for formerly incarcerated individuals to support people preparing for release and navigating life on the outside

Peer mentors will be trained and certified through a DOC-supported program and embedded in communities across Iowa

Promote existing second-chance employer tax incentives

Launch a statewide awareness campaign to inform businesses about underutilized tax credits available for hiring formerly incarcerated individuals

Provide training and outreach to encourage more employers to adopt fair-chance hiring practices

Dedicated transitional housing and job placement partnerships

Fund community partnerships to provide temporary housing and employment pathways, reducing the risk of homelessness and unemployment

Increase awareness of automatic voter registration upon release

Launch public information efforts to ensure individuals know their voting rights and how to confirm registration after release

Provide clear guidance and assistance to those who must manually apply due to specific felony exceptions, such as homicide convictions

Estimated Cost & Funding Strategy

Estimated Annual Costs:

Reentry Coordinators:
4 coordinators (each to cover 2 judicial districts, supervising 20 peer mentors) @ $50,000 salary = $200,000

Peer Reentry Mentors:
80 mentors (10 per district) @ $37,650 (250% of FPL) = $3,012,000

Awareness Campaigns & Employer Outreach:
Digital, print, and event-based campaigns = $200,000

Transitional Housing & Job Partnerships:
Seed grants for nonprofit and business partnerships = $1,000,000

Voter Awareness & Rights Education:
Outreach materials, registration guidance = $100,000

Total Estimated Cost: ~$4.5 million/year

How It Will Be Paid For:

Reallocation of Existing Reentry Funds
Redirect ineffective spending within the DOC’s reentry budget to fund evidence-based programming and mentorship.

Domestic Violence & Drug Trafficking Registry Revenues
A large majority of this act will be funded with $250,000 in dedicated funds from the Domestic Violence Registry and $3,000,000 from the Drug Trafficking Registry revenue.

Federal Second Chance Act Grants
Leverage federal grants that support reentry mentoring, employment, and housing initiatives.

Community & Nonprofit Partnerships
Collaborate with reentry nonprofits and faith-based groups to share staffing, resources, and matching funds.

Savings from Reduced Recidivism
With incarceration costs at ~$37,000 per person annually, preventing just 120 people from returning saves over $4.44 million — fully funding this program through smart prevention.

Department of Corrections Spending
In 2025, the DOC had a net increase of $11.9 million compared to estimated FY 2024, with an increase of $1.3 million for corrections administration. This is bloated spending that I will work to reduce. If we can spend $1.3 million extra on adminstration that does not help reduce recidivism, we can come up with $4.5 million to save the tax payers money long-term!

Impact on District 88:
This act will reduce recidivism, ease the burden on our correctional system, and create a healthier, safer community. It empowers returning citizens to succeed — not just survive — by tapping into real mentorship and practical support. Our district thrives when everyone has a second chance to contribute, grow, and live with dignity.

This act also creates meaningful jobs — not for expanding top-heavy bureaucracy, but for empowering Iowans with lived experience. By hiring Reentry Coordinators and Peer Reentry Mentors across all 8 judicial districts, we’re creating a workforce rooted in credibility, transformation, and service. These roles provide real employment pathways for formerly incarcerated Iowans. Peer mentors must be at least 10 years from their most recent prison release, with no new convictions — proving their commitment to change and making them powerful role models for others.

DOC Administration Pay Cap & Accountability Act

The Problem:
The Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) has become increasingly top-heavy, with bloated salaries at the highest levels while front-line staff remain underpaid and overworked. Directors, wardens, and administrative managers often earn well over $100,000 per year — some making as much as $189,000 — despite poor performance, repeated oversight failures, and deteriorating facility conditions.

Meanwhile, the people who actually facilitate rehabilitation — treatment counselors, educators, reentry coordinators — often earn $40,000–$60,000 per year. Incarcerated individuals are denied vital programming, facility maintenance is neglected, and meaningful reforms are delayed — all while top administrators enjoy generous pay and little accountability.

This imbalance is not just a misuse of taxpayer money; it’s a sign of broken priorities. In 2024, the Justice System Appropriations Bill (Senate File 2434) increased DOC administration spending by $1.3 million — with no clear accountability for how those additional funds improved outcomes.

To provide transparency, here is a breakdown of warden salaries across Iowa correctional institutions for 2024 with the available public data I was able to find:

Anamosa State Penitentiary – Jeremy Larson – $138,000

Clarinda Correctional Facility – Shawn Howard – $159,000

Fort Dodge Correctional Facility – James McKinney – $142,500

Iowa Medical and Classification Center (Oakdale) – William Sperfslage – $149,000

Iowa State Penitentiary (Fort Madison) – Timothy Cutler – $145,000

Mitchellville Correctional Institution for Women – Rebecca Bowker – $141,200

Mount Pleasant Correctional Facility – James Benson – $138,700

Newton Correctional Facility – Scott Brown – $144,300

North Central Correctional Facility (Rockwell City) – Chris Tripp – $135,500

Additional top IDOC administrative salaries include:

Beth Skinner (DOC Director): $189,000/year

Deputy Director of Institutions: $158,000/year

Director of Operations: $151,000/year

Chief of Staff: $148,000/year

Treatment Services Director: $112,000/year

My Solution:
The DOC Administration Pay Cap & Accountability Act will restore fiscal responsibility and redirect funding toward rehabilitation, safety, and support services:

Cap DOC leadership salaries

IDOC Director salary capped at $150,000/year

Prison Wardens capped at $120,000/year

Treatment Directors, Administrative Managers, or similar roles capped at $95,000/year

While these caps ensure fiscal discipline, all eligible staff will continue to receive full access to IPERS, the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System — one of the most valuable and secure retirement plans in the nation.

Reallocate surplus funds to front-line staff and programming

Redirect excess funds to increase pay for treatment counselors, mental health workers, and educational facilitators

Fund expanded rehabilitative programs, facility upgrades, and mental health care

Require salary and performance transparency

Expand public reporting for DOC employees earning over $70,000/year, including job title, salary, departmental role, and a summary of duties

Mandate cost-benefit audits to assess whether administrative salaries align with measurable outcomes such as recidivism reduction, program expansion, or institutional improvements

Eliminate unnecessary upper-level positions

Conduct staffing audits to identify redundant or ceremonial roles that don’t directly impact safety, rehabilitation, or operations

Create a leaner, more efficient leadership structure

Impact on District 88:
Taxpayers deserve a DOC that spends money wisely and prioritizes outcomes — not cushy salaries. This act ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent on rehabilitation, safety, and staffing, not administrative bloat. It also helps prevent burnout among front-line workers by increasing compensation where it matters most.

By holding DOC leadership financially accountable, we promote smarter spending and a system that works better for the people of Iowa — inside and outside the prison walls.

Modernizing the Sex Offender Registry: Fiscal Responsibility & True Public Safety

Let's Address the Concern Up Front

A Reality Check on Public Safety

I want to address this honestly because I know exactly what many of you are thinking.

When you hear the words "Registry Modification," your first instinct is protection. Protection for your children, your neighbors, and your community. That instinct is not wrong. You may be asking yourself:

Is this soft on crime?

Does this mean dangerous people are being hidden?

Does this put families at risk?

Let me be absolutely clear: No.

As a community member and as a candidate for District 88, public safety is my first responsibility. I believe that violent predators forfeit their right to privacy. Anyone who poses an ongoing threat should be aggressively monitored, publicly visible, and prioritized by law enforcement.

That will never change. But leadership requires more than good intentions. It requires asking a hard question:

Is our current system actually making us safer?

The Uncomfortable Truth

The data and the experience of law enforcement says no.

Today’s public registry has become so bloated that it no longer functions as a precision public safety tool. Instead of helping police focus on real threats, it forces them to spend thousands of hours managing paperwork, address changes, and compliance checks for low-risk individuals. Many of these people have been offense-free for 10, 15, or even 20 years.

When everyone is treated the same, or when a person who made a mistake decades ago is labeled identically to a violent repeat offender, we bury the danger instead of spotlighting it.

That creates a classic needle-in-a-haystack problem.

When police are drowning in data, the people we should be watching most closely are harder to find. That doesn’t protect families. That blinds law enforcement.

What Real Public Safety Looks Like

True public safety is not about punishment for punishment’s sake. It is about accuracy, focus, and results.

I am proposing a return to common sense: A system that prioritizes behavior, not labels. A system that punishes danger, not history. A system that gives law enforcement clear targets instead of clutter. This means stricter focus and visibility for high-risk, violent offenders, while allowing law enforcement to stop wasting resources on people who have demonstrably proven over many years that they are not a threat.

This is not being soft. This is being smart.

My Commitment to District 88

I will never support policies that compromise safety. I will never minimize harm. And I will never ignore victims.

But I also refuse to support systems that feel tough while failing in practice.

District 88 deserves policies that actually work. We need policies that protect children, empower police, and make our communities safer in reality, not just on paper.

That is what responsible leadership looks like.

The Problem:
A Broken System That Creates Instability

When the federal government first created the registry in 1994 under the Jacob Wetterling Act, the intent was narrow and specific. It was designed to function as a law enforcement intelligence tool. The goal was to help trained investigators track patterns, solve crimes, and identify active threats. It was never intended to be a permanent public website for mass consumption or a lifetime branding mechanism.

Over the last 30 years, that original mission has been lost.

Instead of strengthening public safety, we have shifted toward a public shaming model that prioritizes visibility over effectiveness. In doing so, we have created a system that feels tough, but quietly produces instability, inefficiency, and unintended harm. This breakdown shows up in three major ways.

1. It Wastes Police Resources

Our local Sheriffs and law enforcement agencies are stretched thin. Yet under the current system, they are required to devote enormous amounts of time to administrative compliance, not crime prevention.

Instead of focusing on active investigations, patrols, or emerging threats, deputies are forced to act as filing clerks. They process quarterly address verifications, employment updates, and paperwork for individuals who have lived in the same home, worked the same job, and remained offense free for many years.

This is not hypothetical. It happens every day.

Every hour spent processing redundant paperwork for low risk individuals is an hour not spent identifying real danger. When law enforcement time is consumed by compliance theater, the system fails the very people it claims to protect.

2. It Creates Collateral Damage and Community Risk

The public registry does not exist in a vacuum. Its effects ripple outward, often harming people who have committed no crime at all.

Spouses, children, and elderly parents of registrants frequently face harassment, threats, and intimidation. Homes are vandalized. Families are publicly targeted. Children are bullied or ostracized at school because of an adult’s past offense, even when that offense occurred long before the child was born.

This creates a culture of vigilantism, not safety.

When we allow the public to easily locate and monitor private residences, we do not just endanger the individual on the registry. We expose entire households and innocent neighbors to risk. We also destabilize families, increase homelessness, and create trauma for children who have done nothing wrong.

A system that punishes innocent people alongside the guilty is not justice. It is instability.

3. The “Tax Taker” Trap

One of the least discussed failures of the current registry is its economic impact on the state of Iowa.

By legally restricting where people can live and where they can work, we shut the door on lawful employment and stable housing. Even when someone is qualified, willing, and able to work, the registry often makes that impossible.

The result is predictable.

Able bodied adults who want to support themselves are pushed onto Medicaid, SNAP, and other public assistance programs. Not because they are unwilling to work, but because the law has made self sufficiency unattainable.

This is not fiscally conservative. It is self defeating.

We are literally spending tax dollars to maintain poverty, rather than creating a system that rewards stability, accountability, and lawful behavior. That is a failure of policy, not personal responsibility.

The Bottom Line

The current registry no longer functions as an effective public safety tool. It drains law enforcement resources, destabilizes families, and increases taxpayer burden, all while making it harder to identify and monitor those who actually pose a threat.

A system that creates fear, inefficiency, and dependence is not protecting Iowa.
It is holding us back.

Estimated Cost & Funding Strategy:

The Hidden Price of an Ineffective Registry

What the Registry Costs Iowa Taxpayers

Iowa does not publish a single line item labeled “Sex Offender Registry Cost,” but the expenses are real and measurable across three categories: personnel time, IT infrastructure, and downstream public assistance.

1. Law Enforcement Administrative Costs

As of the most recent public reporting, Iowa has approximately 8,500 to 9,000 individuals on the sex offender registry. The majority are required to register quarterly, with some required to report more frequently.

Each registration event requires:

In person verification

Identity confirmation

Address and employment validation

Data entry into state and national systems

Compliance documentation

Follow up for errors or late filings

Conservative law enforcement estimates nationally place the time cost at 1 to 2 hours per registrant per reporting period, including processing and follow up.

Using the low end of that estimate:

9,000 registrants

4 check-ins per year

1 hour per check-in

That equals 36,000 law enforcement hours annually devoted largely to administrative compliance, not active crime prevention.

At an average fully loaded cost of $60 to $75 per hour for a deputy or trained staff member, Iowa is spending $2.1 to $2.7 million per year in personnel costs alone just to maintain registry compliance.

That does not include overtime, court enforcement for technical violations, or jail costs for paperwork related arrests.

2. Public Website and IT Costs

Maintaining a high traffic, publicly accessible registry website is not free.

Costs include:

Web hosting and cybersecurity

Database management

System updates and compliance with federal standards

Staff time to handle public inquiries and corrections

Legal exposure management related to incorrect listings

While Iowa DPS does not publish an exact figure, comparable state systems report annual IT and support costs ranging from $300,000 to $800,000, depending on traffic and security requirements.

A private, law enforcement only database is significantly cheaper to operate because:

It has limited users

No public traffic spikes

Lower cybersecurity risk

Fewer legal disputes and corrections

3. Downstream Taxpayer Costs

The registry’s housing and employment restrictions also carry hidden but real fiscal consequences.

When people are barred from lawful employment and stable housing, the result is predictable:

Higher Medicaid enrollment

Greater SNAP usage

Increased emergency shelter utilization

Higher recidivism for nonviolent technical violations

Even modest public assistance use by a fraction of registrants results in hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in annual taxpayer expense that could be avoided through stability focused policy.

How Many People Are Actually High Risk?

This is where the conversation usually changes.

National research from the Department of Justice and state risk assessment models consistently show that only a minority of registrants are classified as high risk after long term offense free behavior.

Most states that use tiered or review based systems find that:

Roughly 50 to 60 percent of registrants are classified as low risk or aging out of risk

A significant portion have been offense free for 10 to 20 years

Sexual reoffense rates for long term offense free individuals are among the lowest of any criminal category

Applying that conservative range to Iowa:

9,000 total registrants

Approximately 4,500 to 5,400 individuals would likely qualify for review eligibility, not automatic removal, for transfer to a law enforcement only registry after meeting strict criteria

This does not mean release from monitoring.
It means better targeting.

High risk and violent offenders remain public, visible, and prioritized.
Low risk, long term compliant individuals are monitored quietly and efficiently.

That is how law enforcement systems are supposed to work.

Funding Strategy

Revenue Positive and Victim Focused

Reallocation, Not Reduction

This reform does not eliminate registration fees or civil penalties.

Those funds already exist. The change is how we use them.

Instead of spending millions maintaining a public website and redundant compliance bureaucracy, funds will be redirected within DPS toward outcomes that actually improve safety.

Better Spending Priorities

1. Secure Law Enforcement Watchlist
A modern, secure, law enforcement only registry that:

Improves data accuracy

Reduces administrative burden

Allows police to focus on high risk individuals

Supports real investigative work

2. Victim Services
A portion of reallocated funds will be dedicated directly to:

Trauma counseling

Emergency housing support

Victim compensation programs

Long term recovery services

This ensures that reform does not just save money, but redirects it toward healing and protection.

Bottom Line for Voters

This proposal:

Saves millions in wasted administrative costs

Sharpens law enforcement focus on real threats

Reduces taxpayer funded poverty

Preserves accountability

Expands support for victims

That is not soft on crime.
That is smart, disciplined governance.

My Solution:

We need to move from a system of indefinite punishment to one of earned redemption. My plan creates a Two-Tiered Safety System that incentivizes rehabilitation while keeping law enforcement fully informed.

Tier 1: The Public Registry (High Risk & Recent Offenders)

Status: Fully Public (Website, Community Notification, etc.) Who Stays Here:

Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs): Individuals deemed by a court to be at high risk of re-offending.

Tier III Offenders: Anyone convicted of aggravated offenses involving force, violence, or predatory behavior would be required to remain on the public registry for a minimum of 20 years before eligible for review.

Recent Offenders: All registrants, regardless of crime, remain in Tier 1 for a mandatory probation period (minimum 5–10 years depending on the offense) to ensure initial compliance and community safety.

Recidivists: Anyone who commits any new sex offense or felony is locked into Tier 1 for a minimum of 10 additional years.

Why: Communities have a right to know about immediate threats and those who have not yet proven they can live safely in society.

Tier 2: The Law Enforcement Watchlist (Reintegrated)

Status: Private (Accessible only to Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services) Who is Eligible: This is not an automatic right. It is a status that must be earned. Eligibility is strictly limited to individuals who meet ALL of the following criteria:

Time Served: Must have been on the public registry for a minimum of 5 to 10 years (depending on original offense tier).

Perfect Conduct: Zero new misdemeanors, sex offenses, felonies, or violent crimes, or probation violations if applicable during the entire waiting period.

Treatment Compliance: Successful completion of all court-ordered sex offender treatment programs.

Employment/Community Stability: Proof of stable housing and employment (or legitimate disability status) for the preceding 24 months.

The "Safety Valve" (Why It’s Safe): Even in Tier 2, the offender is not removed from the system.

Police Visibility: Law enforcement retains 100% access to their current address, employment, and vehicle information.

Investigation Ready: If a crime occurs, police can instantly query the Watchlist to see if any Tier 2 individuals live nearby.

Snap-Back Provision: If a Tier 2 individual is charged with a new sex offense or felony, they are immediately returned to the public Tier 1 registry pending trial.

The Process: How It Works

We will replace the current bureaucratic maze with a clear, results-based petition process:

Petition: After the 5-10 year mark, the registrant files a petition with the Department of Public Safety (DPS).

Review: DPS conducts a comprehensive background check to verify no new arrests, warrants, or protective order violations exist in any state.

Victim Notification: The original victim (if opted-in for notifications) is informed of the petition and given the opportunity to provide a statement regarding any continued harassment or contact.

Decision:

Approved: The registrant is moved to the Law Enforcement Watchlist. Their public profile is removed from the website, but their data remains active for police.

Denied: If the review finds any evidence of instability or danger, the petition is denied, and the individual remains on the public registry for a minimum of 2 more years before they can re-apply.

Why This Works (Addressing the Critiques)

Critique 1: "You're hiding criminals." Reality: We are un-burying the police. By moving low-risk individuals to a private list, we declutter the public map so families can see the actual dangers. Police never lose sight of anyone; they actually gain better intelligence because the list is no longer flooded with irrelevant data.

Critique 2: "They might re-offend." Reality: The data is clear. After 10 to 15 years of offense-free living, the recidivism rate for a sex offender drops to roughly 3-5%—which is effectively the same as the general population. Keeping them on a public list after that point does not lower risk; it increases it by causing housing instability, which is the #1 driver of re-offending.

Critique 3: "This insults victims." Reality: This policy actually funds victim support. Currently, registration fees pay for website maintenance. Under my plan, the $250 civil penalty and annual fees paid by registrants will be reallocated directly to Victim Services and cold-case testing. We are taking money from IT costs and giving it to survivors.

Funding & Cost Analysis

Implementation Cost: Neutral. The infrastructure for the database already exists. The "Watchlist" is simply the current database with the public-facing switch turned "off" for specific profiles.

Long-Term Savings: Reducing the public registry size reduces server load, administrative mailers, and the man-hours county Sheriffs spend verifying addresses for low-risk seniors.

Economic Boost: By allowing reintegrated citizens to find housing and jobs, we move them off Medicaid and Food Stamps (tax takers) and turn them into contributors (tax payers).

Impact on District 88:
What This Means for Our Communities

This reform is not theoretical. It has real, practical consequences for the families, neighborhoods, and law enforcement agencies right here in District 88. The goal is simple: less chaos, more safety, and smarter use of limited resources.

Focusing Local Police Where It Actually Matters

Our Sheriffs in Keokuk, Jefferson, and Mahaska County are already stretched thin. They are expected to do more every year with fewer deputies, tighter budgets, and rising drug and property crime.

Under the current system, local law enforcement spends countless hours maintaining compliance records for people who have not committed a crime in years or decades. That means less time for:

Proactive patrols

Drug trafficking investigations

Monitoring repeat violent offenders

Responding quickly to community concerns

This reform allows law enforcement to stop shuffling paperwork on stable, low risk individuals and redirect that time and attention toward active threats, especially drug dealers and repeat offenders who are destabilizing our neighborhoods today.

Critique you will hear: “Does this tie the hands of police?”
Reality: It does the opposite. It gives them their time back and sharpens their focus.

Protecting Property Values Without Hiding Danger

Homeownership is the single largest investment most families in District 88 will ever make. Yet under the current system, families can lose tens of thousands of dollars in home equity through no fault of their own simply because a “red dot” appears nearby.

This is not about protecting offenders. It is about protecting innocent neighbors.

Public registries create permanent neighborhood stigma, even when the individual involved has been offense free for many years and poses no meaningful risk. Studies consistently show that public registry clustering depresses nearby property values and discourages investment.

By reserving public visibility for high risk and violent offenders only, we:

Reduce unnecessary neighborhood panic

Stabilize property values

Protect family wealth

Encourage long term community investment

Critique you will hear: “Are you hiding people from the public?”
Reality: No. Dangerous people remain public. Low risk, long term compliant individuals remain monitored by police, just not publicly branded in a way that harms entire neighborhoods.

Restoring Dignity Without Sacrificing Safety

One of the most overlooked harms of the current registry system is the damage it inflicts on innocent people.

Spouses are harassed.
Children are bullied or ostracized.
Elderly parents are threatened or shunned.

None of these people committed a crime.

Public exposure encourages vigilantism, not justice. It creates fear instead of accountability and drives families into isolation, homelessness, or constant relocation. That instability does not make communities safer. It makes them harder to police and easier to fracture.

This reform restores a basic level of dignity while maintaining strict law enforcement oversight. Families can live without fear of harassment, and children are not forced to carry a permanent public label for something they did not do.

Critique you will hear: “What about the victims?”
Reality: This reform strengthens victim services and keeps law enforcement focused on preventing future harm, not relitigating the past forever.

The Local Bottom Line

For District 88, this reform means:

More police time spent stopping current crime

Stronger neighborhoods and protected home values

Fewer innocent families living in fear

A sharper, more credible public safety system

This is not about being lenient.
It is about being effective.