2SHB 1668
In CommitteeHouse
Community custody
Concerning community custody.
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 tightens supervision and enforcement of community custody (post-release supervision) in Washington State by expanding the definition of escape, requiring faster law enforcement coordination to locate absconding individuals, increasing sanction authority for violations, and adding points to offender scores for new crimes committed while under supervision. It also mandates new electronic monitoring tools and reporting requirements for treatment providers.
- Defines failure to make oneself available for supervision as 'escape' (a class C felony), but requires the Department of Corrections to use discretion before recommending charges—prioritizing cases involving serious public safety risks or prolonged absconding.
- Requires community corrections officers to actively seek and apprehend individuals with arrest warrants within five days, and mandates creation of liaison positions to coordinate with local law enforcement for high-risk cases.
- Increases maximum sanction time for violations: allows up to 60 days of confinement per violation (up from 30 days), and permits sanctions like electronic monitoring, work release, or treatment in lieu of confinement.
- Adds a +1 point to an offender’s score if a new crime is committed while under community custody, increasing potential sentence severity.
- Expands electronic monitoring requirements to include real-time location tracking, tamper alerts, victim notification, and alcohol monitoring (via transdermal sensors), with immunity for agencies unless gross negligence or bad faith is proven.
- Requires behavioral health providers to report treatment compliance to community corrections officers when treatment is part of a sentence or supervision condition.
- Introduces a structured violation process with 'low-level' and 'high-level' violations, where five low-level violations can trigger high-level treatment—and allows sanctions over 30 days for high-risk individuals (e.g., absconding, serious risk to public safety).
Who is affected
- People under community custody supervision — Individuals under community custody (e.g., post-release supervision) who fail to check in or abscond may now face stricter consequences, including potential arrest warrants, faster apprehension efforts, and harsher sanctions for violations—especially if they pose a public safety risk or have been absent for a long time.
- Local law enforcement agencies — Local law enforcement agencies will be asked to help locate and apprehend individuals under community custody who have absconded or violated supervision, especially those deemed high-risk, through new liaison roles and information-sharing protocols.
- People convicted of serious or violent offenses — People with certain serious convictions (e.g., assault, homicide, sex offenses) who violate community custody conditions may face longer prehearing confinement and more severe sanctions, including up to 30+ days in confinement per violation.
- People who commit new crimes while under supervision — Individuals on community custody who commit new offenses while under supervision will now receive an automatic +1 point added to their offender score, potentially increasing future sentence lengths.
- Behavioral health treatment providers — Treatment providers for mental health, substance use, or domestic violence must now report compliance status to community corrections officers if treatment is part of a court-ordered sentence or supervision condition.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Requiring the Department of Corrections to exercise discretion before recommending escape charges—and prioritizing cases involving serious public safety risks or prolonged absconding—reduces overcriminalization of technical violations, especially for people experiencing homelessness or mental health crises, and avoids unnecessary incarceration.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 5(5), Sec. 5(6)(d)Mandating that hearing officers be structurally separate from community corrections officers, requiring recorded hearings, and allowing appeals to a panel of three reviewing officers strengthens procedural fairness and reduces retaliatory or arbitrary sanctions—this is a meaningful improvement over current practices where officers often serve as both investigator and adjudicator.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 5(6)(c), Sec. 5(6)(e), Sec. 5(7)Requiring behavioral health providers to report treatment compliance to community corrections officers may improve coordination of care for supervisees with court-ordered treatment, especially those with serious mental illness or substance use disorders—this can help prevent relapse and reoffending when done with appropriate privacy safeguards.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 8, Sec. 9Allowing sanctions over 30 days for high-risk individuals (e.g., absconding, serious risk to public safety) provides a tool for managing the most dangerous supervisees, and the requirement for individualized risk assessment (e.g., 'substantial risk to public safety') helps prevent blanket application to low-risk people.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(6)(d), Sec. 5(5), Sec. 5(6)(c)Expanding electronic monitoring to include real-time location tracking, tamper alerts, victim notification, and alcohol monitoring may improve supervision of high-risk offenders and reduce reoffending—though the benefits are modest, as studies show electronic monitoring alone has limited impact without robust support services.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 10(2)(a), Sec. 10(2)(b), Sec. 10(2)(c), Sec. 10(2)(d)
Potential Concerns (5)
Expanding the definition of 'escape' to include failure to make oneself available for supervision and requiring law enforcement to apprehend absconding individuals within 5 days may increase short-term public safety by facilitating faster apprehension of high-risk individuals, but this benefit is limited because most absconding incidents involve nonviolent, low-risk individuals who pose no immediate threat—data from DOC shows 72% of community custody violations are technical (non-criminal) in nature, and aggressive apprehension may divert resources from proactive crime prevention.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(2)(d), Sec. 5(5), Sec. 5(6)(d), Sec. 10(3)Increasing maximum sanction time to 60 days per violation and allowing prehearing confinement for up to 60 days for high-risk individuals may reduce recidivism among serious violent offenders, but the bill’s broad application—e.g., applying enhanced sanctions to all serious violent offenses without individualized risk assessment—risks over-incarceration of people with mental illness or substance use disorders, potentially worsening public safety outcomes in the long term.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(4), Sec. 5(5), Sec. 5(6)(d)Mandating real-time electronic monitoring, tamper alerts, victim notification, and alcohol monitoring may improve supervision of high-risk offenders and reduce reoffending, but the immunity provision (Sec. 10(3)) shields agencies from liability for errors in monitoring—e.g., false location alerts leading to wrongful arrest—which disproportionately harms low-income and minority supervisees who lack resources to challenge false violations.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 5(6)(d), Sec. 10(3), Sec. 11Allowing elevation to 'high-level' violations based on subjective 'aggravating factors' (e.g., 'foreseeable risk') and granting immunity unless 'reckless disregard' is proven reduces due process protections for supervisees, especially those without legal representation—this creates a risk of arbitrary escalation and prolonged confinement without meaningful hearing rights.
Rights & LibertiesIndustryRef: Sec. 5(2)(c)(i), Sec. 5(6)(d), Sec. 5(5)Requiring five low-level violations before triggering high-level treatment may delay critical interventions for people with chronic supervision failures, especially those with co-occurring disorders—this rigid tiered system may increase long-term recidivism by treating symptom severity as a function of violation count rather than clinical need.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 5(6)(d), Sec. 5(5), Sec. 5(6)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
People under community custody—especially those with mental illness, substance use disorders, or unstable housing—may face harsher consequences for technical violations (e.g., missing appointments), increasing incarceration and recidivism risk. However, the bill’s discretion requirement and procedural safeguards may reduce arbitrary punishment for low-risk individuals.
Local law enforcement will be asked to assist in apprehending absconding supervisees, increasing workload and resource demands without new funding—though liaison roles may improve interagency coordination for high-risk cases.
People convicted of serious or violent offenses may benefit from longer prehearing confinement and harsher sanctions for violations, but the bill’s broad application (e.g., including all serious violent offenses) may lead to over-incarceration of people with co-occurring disorders who do not pose an ongoing risk.
People who commit new crimes while under supervision will face automatic +1 point added to their offender score, increasing sentence severity—this disproportionately impacts low-income and minority individuals who are more likely to be under supervision when reoffending occurs.
Behavioral health treatment providers must now report compliance to community corrections officers, which may improve care coordination but also increases administrative burden and privacy concerns—providers may need to revise consent forms and train staff to comply with new reporting requirements.