SHB 1137
In CommitteeHouse
DOC discipline
Establishing uniform policies and procedures within department of corrections facilities relating to disciplinary proceedings and administrative segregation.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
HB 1137 creates new rules for administrative segregation in Washington’s prisons—limiting how long someone can be held in isolation and requiring strict oversight and due process. It also strengthens fairness in disciplinary proceedings by requiring clear evidence standards and documentation.
- Establishes specific circumstances that justify placing an incarcerated person in administrative segregation, such as escape attempts, arson, serious assault, major disturbances, or protective custody needs.
- Limits administrative segregation to 15 days maximum without approval; extensions beyond 30 days require approval by the deputy secretary, and beyond 45 days requires approval by the secretary of corrections.
- Requires the Department of Corrections to notify the Office of the Corrections Ombuds in writing whenever someone remains in administrative segregation for more than 45 consecutive days.
- Prohibits removing an incarcerated person from housing, education, work, or programming assignments *solely* because they are in administrative segregation—unless documented institutional needs require it.
- Establishes due process protections for disciplinary hearings, including a presumption of innocence, requirement that the facility prove violations by a preponderance of evidence, and mandates that hearing officers document the evidence supporting their decisions.
Who is affected
- Incarcerated individuals — Incarcerated individuals in Washington state correctional facilities, especially those placed in or at risk of being placed in administrative segregation, are affected by new rules limiting how long they can be held in segregation and requiring due process protections during disciplinary proceedings.
- Department of Corrections staff and facility leadership — Correctional facility staff and administrators must follow new standardized procedures for disciplinary hearings and administrative segregation, including documentation requirements and approval processes for extended segregation stays.
- Office of the Corrections Ombuds — The Office of the Corrections Ombuds receives mandatory written notifications when someone is held in administrative segregation beyond 45 days, expanding its oversight role.
- Families and loved ones of incarcerated individuals — Families and loved ones of incarcerated individuals may benefit indirectly from improved transparency and fairness in discipline and housing decisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Limiting administrative segregation to 15 days (with strict oversight for extensions) significantly reduces the risk of prolonged solitary confinement, which research shows causes severe psychological harm—including increased suicide risk, cognitive decline, and psychosis—especially for people with mental illness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Preserving access to education, work, and programming while in administrative segregation helps maintain rehabilitation pathways and reduces the risk of educational regression or job skill loss, supporting successful reentry and reducing recidivism.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Establishing a presumption of innocence and requiring the facility to prove violations by a preponderance of evidence—along with documented reasoning—strengthens due process rights for incarcerated people, reducing arbitrary or retaliatory disciplinary actions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)–(3)Mandatory written notification to the Office of the Corrections Ombuds for extended segregation stays enhances transparency and external oversight, helping prevent systemic abuse and ensuring accountability for long-term isolation practices.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)Explicitly including protective custody as a valid reason for administrative segregation acknowledges legitimate safety needs—especially for vulnerable populations like LGBTQ+ individuals, sex offense survivors, or informants—while still limiting misuse of isolation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(f)
Potential Concerns (5)
Limiting administrative segregation to 15 days without exception—and requiring high-level approvals for extensions—may reduce the Department of Corrections’ ability to quickly isolate individuals who pose imminent threats to facility safety (e.g., gang violence, active threats of assault), potentially increasing risk to staff and other incarcerated people during that window.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)Prohibiting removal from housing, education, work, or programming *solely* due to administrative segregation may expose staff and other incarcerated individuals to individuals who remain in high-risk status but are still participating in general-facility programming, undermining security protocols and increasing potential for conflict or violence.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Requiring preponderance of evidence and documented reasoning in disciplinary hearings may slow response times to serious infractions and increase administrative burden, potentially delaying disciplinary resolution and allowing repeat offenders to exploit procedural delays—especially in understaffed facilities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)–(2)Mandatory written notifications to the Office of the Corrections Ombuds for stays over 45 days may strain limited state oversight resources, especially if the ombuds office lacks additional staffing or funding to process and act on these notifications in a timely manner.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)The bill’s fiscal impact is described as minimal, but increased documentation, approval workflows, and oversight reporting could impose modest administrative costs on the Department of Corrections—costs likely absorbed through internal reallocation rather than new spending, with no direct cost to taxpayers.
FinancialRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)
Who Is Most Affected
Incarcerated individuals—especially those with mental illness, youth, or those in protective custody—will experience reduced psychological harm from shorter isolation periods and stronger due process, improving well-being and reentry outcomes.
Staff may face increased procedural burdens and documentation requirements, but benefit from clearer standards that reduce arbitrary disciplinary actions and potentially lower rates of inmate-on-staff violence over time.
The Office of the Corrections Ombuds gains expanded oversight authority and data access, strengthening its ability to monitor and report on segregation practices—though this may strain current capacity without additional resources.
Families may benefit from increased transparency and fairness, reducing anxiety around arbitrary or prolonged isolation of loved ones and supporting family reunification post-release.
Advocacy organizations and legal service providers may see reduced demand for litigation over unconstitutional isolation practices, but increased demand for monitoring and compliance support.