SHB 1390
SignedHouse
Community protection program
Repealing the community protection program.
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 repeals Washington State’s Community Protection Program, a long-standing initiative that provided supervised residential placements for certain civilly committed individuals. It also amends key definitions and legal standards in the sexually violent predator laws to remove references to the program, ensuring future release decisions no longer consider it as an option.
- Repeals the entire Community Protection Program (previously codified in RCW 71A.12.200 through 71A.12.280), eliminating its legal framework and all associated rules and operations.
- Amends RCW 71.09.020 to remove a provision that previously barred the Community Protection Program from being considered a 'less restrictive alternative' for released individuals.
- Amends RCW 71.09.060 to remove a provision that prohibited courts and juries from considering the Community Protection Program as a possible placement condition when determining if a person remains a sexually violent predator.
- Clarifies that 'less restrictive alternatives' under Chapter 71.09 must now be evaluated without reference to the defunct program, potentially affecting future release planning and court decisions.
Who is affected
- Individuals civilly committed under Chapter 71.09 RCW (sexually violent predators) — Individuals civilly committed as sexually violent predators who are seeking conditional release or less restrictive alternatives; they will no longer be able to be placed in the now-repealed Community Protection Program as part of their release planning.
- County governments and local communities — Counties that previously hosted or considered hosting Community Protection Program sites will no longer be required to provide or evaluate such placements; local governments and residents may no longer participate in or be affected by program-related site reviews or appeals.
- Service providers and staff supporting the Community Protection Program — Staff and contractors who provided services under the Community Protection Program may lose funding or contracts as the program is fully repealed.
- Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) — The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) will no longer administer the Community Protection Program and must reallocate staff and resources previously used for its operation.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (2)
Repealing the program is projected to reduce state expenditures on staffing, facility oversight, and service contracts. While exact savings are unspecified, eliminating a niche program with limited capacity may free up DSHS resources for higher-priority civil commitment services, such as treatment at the Special Commitment Center or community-based alternatives.
FinancialPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact section and Sec. 3 repealing RCW 71A.12.200–280Removing the statutory bar on considering the Community Protection Program allows courts and juries to evaluate *any* less restrictive alternative—including newer, evidence-based community residential models—if they meet legal standards. This could improve release planning by enabling use of more modern, flexible, and clinically appropriate options than the aging program allowed.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7) & Sec. 2 (2023 c 453 s 28), removed clauses limiting less restrictive alternatives
Potential Concerns (4)
Removing the Community Protection Program eliminates a supervised, structured residential option that provided intensive treatment and monitoring for individuals civilly committed as sexually violent predators seeking conditional release. This may reduce the court system’s ability to impose conditions that adequately protect public safety while allowing some individuals to transition to less restrictive settings, potentially increasing risk of reoffending if less adequate alternatives are used.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7) & Sec. 2 (2023 c 453 s 28), removed clause: “A less restrictive alternative may not include placement in the community protection program as pursuant to RCW 71A.12.230.” & “The community protection program under RCW 71A.12.230 may not be considered as a placement condition or treatment option available to the person if unconditionally released from detention on a sexually violent predator petition.”The repeal eliminates funding and contracts for service providers (e.g., residential facilities, clinicians, case managers) who supported the Community Protection Program. This directly harms small-to-mid-sized providers in rural or underserved areas that relied on these contracts, potentially leading to job losses and reduced capacity for sex offender treatment services statewide.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3 repealing RCW 71A.12.200–280Counties that previously participated in site evaluations or hosted Community Protection Program facilities will no longer be involved in those processes, but also lose the ability to use the program as a tool for managing civilly committed individuals in their communities. This removes local input and oversight mechanisms, potentially shifting more burden to DSHS and state-run facilities without clear local alternatives.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3 repealing RCW 71A.12.200–280Individuals civilly committed under Chapter 71.09 may face longer periods of total confinement without access to a previously available, statutorily defined supervised residential option. This reduces opportunities for conditional release and may prolong involuntary confinement beyond what is strictly necessary for public safety, raising due process and liberty concerns.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7) & Sec. 2 (2023 c 453 s 28), removed clauses limiting less restrictive alternatives
Who Is Most Affected
Civilly committed individuals (sexually violent predators) are directly impacted: they lose access to a previously available supervised residential option for conditional release, potentially extending their confinement and reducing opportunities for structured reintegration. This may disproportionately affect those without family support or financial means to access private treatment.
Service providers (e.g., residential treatment facilities, contracted clinicians) lose state contracts and funding. Small and mid-sized providers in rural or low-income areas—often the only ones willing/able to serve this high-need population—are most at risk of closure or downsizing, reducing treatment capacity statewide.
Counties lose a state-managed option for placing civilly committed individuals, potentially increasing local burden if individuals are released into community settings without adequate local infrastructure. However, they also avoid potential local opposition or appeals related to program site approvals.
DSHS avoids ongoing administrative and operational costs of the program, but must now reallocate staff and shift responsibility for all less restrictive alternatives to other programs—potentially straining existing resources without clear reallocation plan or new funding.
Local law enforcement and prosecutors may face increased risk if released individuals lack adequate supervision or treatment, especially if community-based alternatives are under-resourced. Conversely, they may benefit from reduced complexity in release planning if DSHS centralizes oversight.