SHB 1396
In CommitteeHouse
Office of corrections ombuds
Increasing transparency and accountability of the office of corrections ombuds.
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 creates an Ombuds Advisory Council to ensure that people with lived experience—including currently and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families—help guide the work of Washington’s Office of the Corrections Ombuds. It expands the ombuds’s responsibilities to incorporate council input on priorities and investigations, and clarifies how the office engages with stakeholders and reports publicly.
- Establishes an Ombuds Advisory Council with 11 members, including currently and formerly incarcerated people, family members, and community experts, to advise the Office of the Corrections Ombuds on priorities and policies.
- Requires the governor to appoint council members by December 1, 2025, with input from the ombuds and the State Office of Equity, and to ensure the council reflects the state’s incarcerated population demographics.
- Grants the council authority to issue annual public reports, solicit feedback directly from incarcerated individuals, and receive briefings on deidentified data and trends—but prohibits access to confidential investigation records.
- Amends the ombuds’s duties to require consultation with the advisory council when setting annual priorities and to expand stakeholder engagement, including quarterly public meetings.
- Allows council members—including currently incarcerated people—to receive stipends, and requires the Department of Corrections and the ombuds to develop a payment process for incarcerated members.
- Mandates council training on using an antiracist lens and requires the council to meet at least quarterly, be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, and use staggered two-year terms (max two consecutive).
Who is affected
- Currently incarcerated individuals — Currently incarcerated individuals in medium or close custody in men’s and women’s divisions, as well as those serving life sentences, will serve on the advisory council and help shape oversight priorities and feedback on the ombuds office.
- Formerly incarcerated individuals — People who were formerly incarcerated in medium or close custody will serve on the advisory council and help advise on ombuds policies and investigations.
- Family members of incarcerated individuals — Family members of currently or formerly incarcerated individuals will serve on the advisory council and provide lived-experience perspectives on conditions and concerns within correctional facilities.
- Community advocates and subject-matter experts — Community members with expertise in racial/ethnic/religious diversity, disability accommodation, and gender-responsive practices will advise the ombuds on systemic issues and equity concerns.
- Health care providers — Licensed health care providers—especially those with behavioral health experience—will help ensure mental and physical health concerns are addressed in ombuds oversight.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Empowering currently and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families to directly solicit feedback and advise on oversight priorities significantly improves the accuracy and relevance of the ombuds’s work, potentially reducing abuse, neglect, and systemic failures in correctional facilities. This lived-experience integration is strongly associated with improved accountability and trust in oversight bodies in other states and federal systems.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(ii); Sec. 3(1)(d); Sec. 3(1)(c)By mandating that council members reflect the racial/ethnic composition of the incarcerated population and include currently incarcerated people—including those serving life sentences—the bill advances equitable representation and counters historical exclusion of marginalized voices from oversight processes. This directly supports constitutional fairness and due process concerns raised in decades of corrections oversight reports.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)-(ix); Sec. 2(2)(b); Sec. 2(4)Granting the council authority to issue independent public reports and requiring the ombuds to incorporate council input into annual priorities and stakeholder engagement creates a built-in feedback loop that can expose systemic issues earlier and more accurately than internal reviews alone. This increases transparency and may reduce litigation exposure for DOC over time.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(i); Sec. 3(1)(k)(v); Sec. 2(1)(a)Including currently incarcerated individuals—including those with life sentences—and licensed health care providers on the council ensures that mental and physical health concerns are prioritized in oversight, especially for high-need populations like those with chronic illness or behavioral health conditions. This aligns with best practices in correctional health equity and could reduce preventable deaths and crises.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)-(iii)Subjecting the council to the Open Public Meetings Act and requiring quarterly meetings (with staggered terms and cochairs who include formerly/incarcerated members) strengthens democratic accountability and institutional continuity, reducing the risk of political interference or mission drift in the ombuds office.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7); Sec. 2(4); Sec. 2(6)
Potential Concerns (5)
Allowing currently incarcerated individuals—including those sentenced to life imprisonment—to serve on an advisory council and receive stipends may create security and operational risks for correctional facilities, particularly if stipend payment logistics require increased staff interaction, movement, or financial tracking within secure environments. While the bill prohibits council members from accessing confidential investigation records, logistical challenges around secure stipend disbursement could strain DOC resources and increase opportunities for coercion or manipulation of processes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)-(iii)The requirement for the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Corrections Ombuds to develop a payment process for incarcerated council members introduces administrative complexity and potential liability, especially if stipends are treated as wages or trigger labor law considerations. This could divert limited state resources toward compliance infrastructure rather than core oversight functions.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)-(iii)Mandating antiracist training for council members and requiring quarterly public meetings may strain the capacity of the Office of the Corrections Ombuds, especially if staff resources are not increased proportionally. This could delay or dilute the ombuds’s core investigative and monitoring functions if the office lacks dedicated support staff to coordinate training, meetings, and stakeholder outreach.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(8); Sec. 2(2)(a)(vi)-(ix)The bill does not allocate specific funding for stipends or operational costs, requiring “appropriation for this specific purpose” — meaning implementation is contingent on future legislative action. This creates uncertainty for DOC and the ombuds office, potentially delaying council formation and undermining the bill’s goals of timely, inclusive oversight.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)-(iii); Sec. 2(2)(b)Requiring the ombuds to consult with the advisory council on annual priorities may slow response times to urgent systemic issues if consensus-building or logistical coordination with council members (especially currently incarcerated members) introduces delays in decision-making or resource allocation.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a); Sec. 3(1)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Currently incarcerated individuals—especially those in medium/close custody and those serving life sentences—gain formal, paid advisory roles in oversight, directly shaping priorities and feedback mechanisms. This increases their agency and may improve conditions through more responsive oversight, though logistical and security constraints may limit full participation.
Formerly incarcerated individuals gain paid advisory authority and a platform to influence systemic reforms. This elevates their civic role and may improve reentry outcomes by ensuring oversight reflects lived experience, though stipend amounts and access to meetings remain uncertain without explicit funding.
Family members gain formal advisory seats and authority to solicit feedback on behalf of incarcerated loved ones. This strengthens their role in advocacy and may improve communication between families and oversight bodies, though time commitments and travel requirements could limit participation for low-income families.
Community advocates and health care providers gain formal influence over oversight priorities, especially around equity and health. This enhances the ombuds’s capacity to address systemic bias and health disparities, though their impact depends on whether council recommendations are implemented in practice.
The Department of Corrections faces increased oversight burden and potential reputational risk if council reports highlight systemic failures. While this may improve long-term accountability, short-term costs include administrative strain and possible political pressure to act on council recommendations.