SHB 1248
In CommitteeHouse
Juvenile justice programs
Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs by providing ongoing evaluations and clarifying juvenile diversion practices.
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
This bill improves juvenile justice programs by requiring regular evaluations of evidence-based programs and updating rules for juvenile diversion — including extending eligibility to age 21, expanding service options like counseling, and strengthening youth rights and due process. It also mandates ongoing assessments of program effectiveness and cost-benefit outcomes.
- Requires the Washington state institute for public policy (WSIPP) to conduct biennial outcome evaluations of juvenile justice programs identified as evidence-based, with priority given to programs that haven’t been evaluated recently or serve many youth.
- Evaluations must focus on recidivism and include a benefit-cost analysis.
- Expands diversion agreements to include youth up to age 21, not just under 18, and allows agreements to extend up to the youth’s 21st birthday (with possible 6-month extension).
- Increases allowable diversion conditions: up to 30 hours of counseling (instead of 10) if mental health or chemical dependency needs are identified, and up to 20 hours of positive youth development or educational sessions.
- Strengthens due process protections for youth in diversion, including the right to counsel at intake, written agreements in plain language, and hearings before termination.
- Clarifies that restitution obligations can be converted to community restitution (e.g., 1 hour per minimum wage hour) if the youth cannot pay, and allows restitution collection up to 20 years after age 18.
- Requires state agencies to prioritize assessment of promising practices to become evidence-based, and to consult with tribal governments and diverse communities when selecting programs.
Who is affected
- Youth in the juvenile justice system — Youth aged 12–20 who are referred to diversion programs after being accused of an offense; they may now enter agreements up to age 21 and receive expanded services like up to 30 hours of counseling if mental health or substance use needs are identified.
- Diversion unit staff and local courts — Local diversion units (often run by counties or courts) that manage diversion agreements — they must now follow updated rules on agreements, due process, interpreters, and supervision up to age 21.
- Victims of juvenile offenses — Victims of juvenile offenses, who gain clearer rights to be informed about the diversion process, submit impact letters, and receive restitution — including extended collection periods up to 20 years in some cases.
- State agencies and research partners — State agencies (DSHS and DCYF) and researchers (WSIPP and UW EBPI), who must conduct ongoing evaluations of juvenile justice programs and update inventories of evidence-based practices.
- Tribal governments and culturally diverse community organizations — Tribal governments and culturally diverse communities, who are specifically included in recommendations for culturally responsive programming and program evaluations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Extending diversion eligibility to age 21 and allowing agreements up to the 21st birthday aligns with adolescent brain development research, giving older youth a chance to avoid formal adjudication and its long-term collateral consequences—such as reduced employment and housing opportunities—while still being held accountable through evidence-based interventions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)-(b)Increasing allowable counseling hours from 10 to 30 for youth with identified mental health or chemical dependency needs directly addresses unmet behavioral health needs—potentially reducing recidivism and improving long-term health outcomes—especially for youth who would otherwise fall through gaps in the system.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)Strengthening due process protections—including written agreements in plain language, hearings before termination, and the right to counsel at intake—reduces the risk of coerced or uninformed participation and ensures youth have meaningful opportunities to contest violations, promoting fairness and reducing wrongful penalties.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)(a)-(e)Mandating biennial outcome evaluations focused on recidivism and benefit-cost analysis will improve transparency and accountability in juvenile justice spending, helping policymakers allocate resources to programs with proven effectiveness—potentially improving long-term educational and economic outcomes for participating youth.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)Requiring consultation with tribal governments and culturally diverse communities in program selection promotes culturally responsive, trauma-informed services—increasing program relevance and engagement for historically overrepresented and underserved youth in the system.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)
Potential Concerns (5)
Extending restitution collection up to 20 years after age 18 may create long-term financial instability for youth who leave the system with limited earnings capacity, potentially leading to wage garnishment, liens, or inability to secure housing or credit—especially for those without stable employment or support networks.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c)Expanding allowable diversion conditions to include up to 30 hours of counseling may strain county-level diversion units and community providers with limited capacity or funding, potentially leading to inconsistent access to services across jurisdictions—especially in rural or under-resourced areas—despite the intent to improve outcomes.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)Allowing restitution to be converted to community restitution at minimum wage rates may disproportionately burden low-income youth who cannot afford to pay, forcing them into unpaid labor obligations that could conflict with school or work schedules—effectively penalizing poverty.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c)Mandating that juveniles sign an acknowledgment of advisement of rights at intake—while strengthening due process on paper—may create procedural barriers for youth with cognitive or language barriers, or those without access to legal counsel before signing, potentially undermining the intent of informed consent.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(11)Requiring biennial outcome evaluations by WSIPP may increase administrative burden on local diversion units required to submit data and participate in evaluations—without guaranteed state funding to support compliance—potentially diverting local resources from direct service delivery.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Youth aged 18–20 who would now be eligible for diversion (previously capped at age 18) gain access to individualized, rehabilitative services instead of formal adjudication—reducing long-term collateral consequences like barriers to employment, housing, and education. However, those unable to complete requirements face extended supervision and potential civil restitution orders up to age 38.
Local diversion units gain flexibility to tailor services to youth needs, but face increased administrative and staffing demands—especially in counties without robust community-based providers. Rural counties may struggle to meet counseling and restorative justice requirements without additional state funding.
Victims gain clearer rights to restitution, impact statements, and extended collection periods (up to 20 years), supporting long-term accountability. However, restitution collection may be ineffective if youth lack stable employment or assets—potentially leading to uncollectible judgments and unmet expectations.
State agencies (DSHS, DCYF) and research partners (WSIPP, UW EBPI) gain clearer mandates for program evaluation and evidence-building, but may face resource constraints in conducting rigorous biennial evaluations—especially if local data reporting is inconsistent.
Tribal governments and culturally diverse organizations gain formal inclusion in program design and evaluation, supporting self-determination and culturally grounded interventions. However, without dedicated funding or staffing support, participation may remain symbolic rather than substantive.