SHB 1996
In CommitteeHouse
Behavioral health diversion
Authorizing a qualified county to impose a tax for the funding of behavioral health diversion from the criminal justice system.
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 allows counties that have an approved behavioral health diversion plan to collect a small sales and use tax (up to 0.1%) to fund programs that keep people with mental health or substance use conditions out of the criminal justice system. It ties the tax authority to the prior enactment of another bill (HB 1218) and requires DSHS approval of county plans before the tax can be imposed.
- Authorizes counties with an approved behavioral health diversion plan to impose a sales and use tax of up to 0.1% to fund behavioral health diversion programs.
- Requires that the tax revenue be used specifically for programs that prevent people with behavioral health needs from entering the criminal justice system or divert them away from it after arrest or incarceration.
- Limits the combined tax rate to 0.1% if the county also imposes the tax under House Bill 1805 (another related tax for behavioral health services).
- Mandates that counties develop and submit a behavioral health diversion plan for approval by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) before implementing the tax.
- Specifies eligible uses of funds, including reducing incarceration for people with class C or lower felonies, improving diversion from competency proceedings, preventing repeated competency evaluations, reducing recidivism, and building services across the full 'sequential intercept model' of care.
Who is affected
- Counties with approved behavioral health diversion plans — Counties that choose to adopt the tax must first develop and get approval for a behavioral health diversion plan; they gain authority to collect a small sales/use tax to fund related services.
- Residents of participating counties — Residents in participating counties may pay a small additional sales or use tax (up to 0.1%) that funds behavioral health diversion programs instead of incarceration.
- Individuals with behavioral health needs — People with mental health or substance use conditions who are at risk of entering or already in the criminal justice system benefit from expanded diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration.
- Behavioral health service providers and local government agencies — Local governments and service providers receive new funding to implement prevention and diversion programs, including case management, crisis response, and community-based treatment.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Diverting individuals with behavioral health needs—especially those with class C or lower felonies—out of the criminal justice system reduces incarceration, avoids competency restoration cycles, and prevents repeated court involvement, directly improving outcomes for vulnerable people and reducing strain on courts and jails.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)-(d)Mandating services across the full sequential intercept model supports a continuum of care from crisis response through community reintegration, improving access to treatment and reducing relapse—particularly for people experiencing homelessness or frequent crisis episodes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(e)Targeting individuals with multiple prior findings of nonrestorability prevents repeated competency evaluations and unnecessary incarceration, saving counties money and sparing individuals from prolonged legal limbo and institutional harm.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(c)Authorizing counties to raise up to 0.1% in local sales tax provides dedicated, flexible funding for behavioral health diversion—reducing reliance on state appropriations and enabling responsive, locally tailored responses to community needs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2)Proactive recidivism reduction strategies for high-risk individuals with behavioral health needs—such as those with prior psychiatric hospitalizations or homelessness—can break cycles of reoffending and incarceration, improving public safety and individual well-being.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(d)
Potential Concerns (5)
A 0.1% sales tax increase, while small, is regressive and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income households who spend a larger share of income on taxable goods; this reduces disposable income for everyday consumers without offsetting income-based relief.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(2)The requirement that counties first obtain DSHS approval of a behavioral health diversion plan (per HB 1218) creates administrative burden and potential delays, especially for smaller or resource-constrained counties lacking dedicated behavioral health planning staff.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3) & Summary (contingent effective date)The 0.1% combined cap with HB 1805 limits total local revenue available for behavioral health services, potentially constraining program scale and sustainability—especially in counties where both taxes are adopted—despite high need.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(2) (combined cap with HB 1805)By focusing diversion on individuals with class C or lower felonies, the bill excludes those with more serious charges—many of whom also have severe behavioral health needs—limiting the program’s reach and potentially increasing incarceration for higher-charge populations despite systemic need.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)-(e)While the bill mandates programming across the sequential intercept model, it does not require funding for long-term housing, supported employment, or integrated physical/mental health care—key determinants of stability—limiting the effectiveness of diversion outcomes without broader service infrastructure.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(e) (sequential intercept model)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income residents and people experiencing homelessness in participating counties benefit significantly: they face reduced risk of incarceration for low-level offenses tied to untreated behavioral health conditions, and gain access to community-based alternatives to jail. However, they bear the burden of a small regressive sales tax increase.
People with serious mental illness or substance use disorders who come into contact with law enforcement benefit from expanded diversion and treatment options, reducing jail time and legal entanglement. However, those with charges above class C felony may be excluded, limiting access for some high-need individuals.
Local governments and behavioral health providers gain new funding streams to implement evidence-based diversion programs, but must navigate DSHS approval processes and may face capacity constraints in scaling services—especially in rural or under-resourced counties.
State government avoids long-term costs associated with incarceration and competency restoration cycles, and reduces liability risks from unconstitutional conditions in jails. However, DSHS gains new administrative responsibilities for reviewing and approving county plans.
Businesses in participating counties may see modest impacts from the 0.1% sales tax, but since it applies broadly to retail purchases, the burden is largely passed to consumers rather than borne by businesses as a cost of operation.