HB 1428
In CommitteeHouse
Criminal justice assistance
Concerning the county criminal justice assistance account and municipal criminal justice assistance account.
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 significantly increases state funding for criminal justice assistance to counties and cities, raising annual base funding from $27.8 million to $100 million starting in fiscal year 2026, and requires a 50% increase in those base amounts beginning in 2026. It updates how funds are distributed to ensure more weight is given to crime and court workload, and sets new rules for how cities and counties may use the money—especially for domestic violence services and law enforcement support.
- Creates and increases funding for the county criminal justice assistance account to $50 million annually starting in fiscal year 2026, up from $23.2 million, with 50% increase required in 2026 and inflation adjustments thereafter.
- Creates and increases funding for the municipal criminal justice assistance account to $50 million annually starting in fiscal year 2026, up from $4.6 million, with 50% increase required in 2026 and inflation adjustments thereafter.
- Revises how funds are distributed to counties based on population (20%), crime rate (30%), and superior court criminal cases per 1,000 residents (50%).
- Revises eligibility and distribution formulas for cities, including a requirement that cities have a crime rate over 125% of the state average to qualify, and sets caps on individual city allocations.
- Requires all funds to be used exclusively for criminal justice purposes and prohibits use to replace existing funding; allows funds to support domestic violence services, at-risk youth programs, and law enforcement training.
- Allocates up to 5% of each account for state patrol crime lab enhancements and up to $510,000 biennially for state patrol investigative support to local agencies.
Who is affected
- Counties — Counties receive funding based on population, crime rate, and superior court criminal case volume; funds must be used for criminal justice purposes and cannot replace existing funding.
- Cities and towns — Cities with high crime rates (over 125% of state average) and sufficient local law enforcement funding may qualify for municipal funds; cities with fewer than 10 full-time patrol officers may receive training support.
- Domestic violence service providers and advocates — Domestic violence service providers, legal advocates, and community advocates receive funding through county and municipal accounts for services like shelter, advocacy, and legal support.
- Washington State Patrol — State Patrol receives up to $510,000 biennially for investigative assistance to local agencies and up to 5% of account funds for crime lab enhancements.
- Criminal Justice Training Commission — Criminal Justice Training Commission receives undistributed funds to reimburse small city agencies for temporary officers in basic training.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill mandates that funds be used exclusively for criminal justice purposes—including domestic violence services, at-risk youth programs, and law enforcement training—which directly supports community safety infrastructure and victim services that are chronically underfunded.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(1)(c)The updated funding formula weights crime rate (30%) and court caseload (50%) more heavily than population (20%), better aligning resources with actual burden on local justice systems—especially benefiting high-demand counties like King, Pierce, and Snohomish that absorb disproportionate caseloads.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(1)(a)(ii)The bill includes targeted support for small agencies (≤10 officers) through reimbursement for temporary officers in training, and sets minimum allocations ($1,000) to prevent underfunding of small cities—helping rural and underserved jurisdictions maintain basic law enforcement capacity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)(i), Sec. 3(2)(a)(ii)Explicit inclusion of domestic violence services—including shelter, advocacy, and legal support—provides critical funding to a sector that often falls through service gaps, especially for survivors in non-urban areas who lack access to specialized care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(1)(c)Funds may be used for programs to help at-risk children and child abuse victim response, supporting school-based interventions and trauma-informed care—though implementation depends on local agency coordination and may not reach all students equally.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)(ii)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill requires a 50% increase in base funding for both county and municipal accounts beginning in FY 2026, and ties future increases to the fiscal growth factor (inflation adjustment), which may strain the state budget and crowd out other priorities—especially if inflation adjustments compound over time. While the bill increases funding for criminal justice, it does not specify new revenue sources, implying general fund dollars will be used, potentially reducing flexibility for other public services.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 3(1)(a)The revised funding formulas favor counties and cities with higher crime rates and more court caseloads, which may disincentivize crime reduction and encourage jurisdictions to maintain or even increase enforcement activity to retain funding—potentially undermining long-term public safety goals.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(1)(a)(i)The prohibition on using funds to replace existing funding (i.e., “supplant”) creates administrative complexity and may not fully prevent substitution if counties/cities simply reduce pre-existing criminal justice budgets while claiming the new funds as “additional” support—though the rule is intended to prevent this, enforcement is difficult without rigorous auditing.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(1)(c)The eligibility requirement that cities have a crime rate over 125% of the state average excludes many mid-sized and smaller cities—even those with high absolute crime problems or high victimization rates—potentially leaving vulnerable communities without targeted support.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(1)(a)Up to 5% of funds per account ($2.5M per account annually) are allocated to state patrol crime lab and investigative support, but this may disproportionately benefit state-level capacity while diverting resources from direct local service delivery—especially since many rural and small jurisdictions lack local forensic capabilities and rely on county or state labs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 2(7), Sec. 3(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Counties with high crime and caseloads (e.g., King, Pierce) will receive significantly more funding, improving capacity for courts, prosecution, and victim services—but may face pressure to maintain high enforcement levels to retain funding.
Cities with crime rates >125% of state average (e.g., Tacoma, Spokane) gain access to municipal funds, but smaller cities—even those with serious issues—may be excluded, worsening equity gaps in service delivery.
Domestic violence providers benefit from dedicated funding streams and expanded eligibility for service support, but may face administrative hurdles in accessing funds without county or municipal partnerships.
State Patrol gains lab enhancements and investigative support, strengthening forensic capacity—but this may not translate to faster case processing for local agencies if coordination remains fragmented.
Small city agencies (≤10 officers) gain reimbursement for temporary officers in training, improving staffing stability—but only if they meet reporting deadlines and administrative requirements.