Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families, clinicians and experts urge review of SPTP's ethics, efficacy and oversight
Summary
Family members, a former SPTP clinician and national experts told the Committee on Social Services Budget that the program may be ethically and clinically unsound, questioned its public-safety benefit relative to cost, and urged a multiyear oversight study and consideration of community-based alternatives.
Family members, clinicians and outside experts used an informational Committee on Social Services Budget hearing to press the Legislature for a deeper examination of the state's violent predator treatment program (SPTP), raising concerns about treatment quality, program structure and the cost-benefit of continued civil commitment.
Eldon Dillingham, a family member, described daily life inside the program and told the committee his son has been in the program about 14 years. "When someone goes to this program, they go there to die," Dillingham said, adding that many residents are treatment refusers and describing long-stay cases including a 91-year-old resident.
Clinician testimony amplified concerns. Tysa Carvalho, a licensed master-level psychologist who previously worked in the program, told the committee the SPTP "does not meet current clinical standards or ethical requirements," saying the civil-commitment structure undermines therapeutic conditions (autonomy and hope) and that treatment is often "one-size-fits-all." She urged the committee to examine ethical constraints created when clinicians are required to serve both treatment and confinement roles.
National expert Eric Janus, a retired law professor who litigated similar laws, described such civil-commitment statutes as "preventive detention," controversial on constitutional grounds and expensive. Janus said comparative research shows limited impact on state violence rates and recommended investing in upstream prevention and community-based alternatives used in many states that do not operate civil-commitment programs.
Advocates also urged legislative oversight rather than immediate policy reversals. Rick Hagen of an advocacy group recommended the Legislature create a multi-year oversight committee to study program cost, population reduction strategies and alternatives; he emphasized that advocates were not calling for immediate mass release but for structured, incremental policy work.
KDADS responded to specific operational claims: a family member's assertion that residents receive only about 2.25 hours of class a week was addressed by KDADS, which said program data show an average of roughly 5–8 hours per week of therapy in 2026, up from lower averages in prior years.
Committee members signaled the hearing was a first step and that more detailed follow-ups and data requests will be necessary to evaluate the program's clinical fidelity, legal framework and fiscal impacts.
