HB 2457
In CommitteeHouse
Crime victim penalty assess.
Ensuring access to victim services through the crime victim penalty assessment.
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 the crime victim penalty assessment from $250–$500 to $1,000–$2,000 per case, with a possible $50,000 surcharge for wealthy defendants, to fund victim services. It tightens rules for waiving payments for low-income individuals and ensures funds go only to approved, comprehensive victim support programs.
- Raises the crime victim penalty assessment to $2,000 per case for convictions involving felonies or gross misdemeanors, and $1,000 per case for convictions involving only misdemeanors (up from $500 and $250, respectively).
- Exempts most motor vehicle crimes (e.g., traffic infractions) but includes serious offenses like driving under the influence (DUI), vehicular homicide, and hit-and-run.
- Allows courts to impose an additional surcharge up to $50,000 if the defendant has 'substantial financial resources' (household income over 200% of area median income), based on offense severity and harm to victims.
- Requires courts to waive the assessment for individuals found indigent at sentencing, and allows retroactive waiver for those who were juveniles when assessed or who currently lack ability to pay.
- Mandates that all collected funds be used exclusively for 'comprehensive' victim service programs—approved by the state—focusing on serious crimes against persons and property, with services available to victims of all crime types.
- Prohibits waiving or converting the crime victim penalty assessment to community service hours, except under specific conditions in the law (e.g., retroactive waiver for juveniles or indigency).
Who is affected
- People convicted of crimes — Individuals convicted of felonies or gross misdemeanors will now owe a $2,000 crime victim penalty assessment per case, up from $500; those convicted only of misdemeanors will owe $1,000 per case, up from $250. The assessment is mandatory unless the person is found indigent at sentencing.
- People who post bail but fail to appear — Defendants who post bail and have it forfeited may be assessed the same penalty amount that would apply if they had been convicted, unless they prove indigency at sentencing.
- County governments and prosecuting attorneys — Counties must collect and forward funds to support victim services; those without approved comprehensive victim service programs risk losing collected funds to the state general fund.
- Crime victims and witnesses — Victims of crimes benefit from increased and more stable funding for services like counseling, advocacy, restitution assistance, and emergency response costs, especially in cases involving serious violent or property crimes.
- Low-income individuals and people experiencing homelessness — People who are indigent (e.g., receiving public assistance, homeless, or with income at or below 125% of the federal poverty level) are protected from paying the assessment unless they have substantial financial resources (household income over 200% of area median income).
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandates that all collected funds be used exclusively for 'comprehensive' victim service programs—approved by the state—that must serve victims of all crime types (not just narrow categories), with emphasis on serious violent and property crimes, thereby expanding stable, dedicated funding for trauma-informed support, advocacy, and emergency response.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 7.68.035(6), (7); Sec. 1(6), (7)Allows retroactive waiver of previously imposed assessments for juveniles and for individuals who currently lack ability to pay—protecting people who were assessed as minors or who later fell into poverty, homelessness, or disability from lifelong debt traps and associated collateral consequences (e.g., wage garnishment, license suspension).
FinancialPeopleRef: RCW 7.68.035(5), (4)(a); Sec. 1(5), (4)(a)Expands the definition of 'indigent' to include people receiving public assistance, involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and those earning ≤125% of the federal poverty level—even if ineligible for benefits due to immigration status—ensuring broader protection against financial liability for the most vulnerable.
FinancialPeopleRef: RCW 7.68.035(4)(a), (11); Sec. 1(4)(a), (11)Requires victim service programs to be 'comprehensive' (i.e., not limited to specific crime types) and to assist victims in restitution and adjudication processes—promoting equitable access to services regardless of crime type or victim background, and strengthening coordination between prosecutors, courts, and service providers.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 7.68.035(6); Sec. 1(6)Clarifies that failure to pay legal financial obligations—including the crime victim penalty assessment—is not willful if the person is homeless or mentally ill, and establishes a presumption of inability to pay for indigent defendants—reducing the risk of incarceration for poverty-related noncompliance.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(c), (d); RCW 9.94B.040(4)(c), (d); RCW 10.01.180(3)(b), (c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases the crime victim penalty assessment from $250–$500 to $1,000–$2,000 per case, with a possible $50,000 surcharge for defendants with household income over 200% of area median income, significantly raising financial liability for many convicted individuals—especially those with moderate incomes (e.g., $70K–$120K in Seattle metro) who are not indigent but also not wealthy.
FinancialIndustryRef: RCW 7.68.035(1), (3), (4)(a)The surcharge provision ($50K max) targets defendants with 'substantial financial resources' (household income >200% AMI), which in most Washington counties means incomes above $100K–$130K—placing the burden disproportionately on middle- to upper-middle-income individuals rather than the truly wealthy (e.g., >$250K), and lacks clear income/asset thresholds for the base assessment, creating arbitrary financial exposure for working-class defendants.
FinancialIndustryRef: RCW 7.68.035(4)(a), (11)While indigent individuals are protected from paying the assessment, the law creates a narrow and administratively burdensome path for retroactive waivers—requiring motion, proof of indigency, and court approval—potentially trapping low-income people in debt collection, wage garnishment, or even jail for nonpayment if they fail to navigate the process correctly.
Rights & LibertiesLean industryRef: RCW 7.68.035(4)(a), (5); RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(c), (5); RCW 9.94B.040(4)(c), (f)Counties without approved comprehensive victim service plans within one year of submitting a letter of intent lose all collected funds to the state general fund—creating fiscal pressure on smaller or under-resourced counties to rapidly develop or contract for services, potentially diverting funds from other local priorities or leading to rushed, underfunded programs.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: RCW 7.68.035(6), (7); Sec. 1(6), (7)Excluding most motor vehicle infractions but including serious offenses like DUI and vehicular homicide creates a fragmented penalty structure that may reduce perceived fairness—especially for victims of non-DUI traffic fatalities (e.g., hit-and-run without injury, reckless driving), who may receive no direct financial recognition under the assessment framework.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: RCW 7.68.035(1), (2); Sec. 1(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income individuals and people experiencing homelessness benefit from expanded indigency protections and retroactive waivers, but remain at risk if they fall just above the 125% FPL threshold or fail to navigate procedural requirements—especially those with disabilities or immigration barriers.
Victims of serious violent and property crimes benefit from increased and more stable funding for trauma-informed services, advocacy, and restitution assistance; however, victims of minor or non-violent crimes may see less direct benefit if counties prioritize high-impact cases.
People convicted of felonies or gross misdemeanors face significantly higher financial liability ($2,000 vs. $500), and those earning >200% AMI may face a $50K surcharge—creating debt burdens that persist for years, especially for those without assets or stable employment.
Counties face pressure to develop or contract for comprehensive victim services within one year—or risk losing all collected funds to the state—potentially straining small or rural counties with limited infrastructure, while wealthier counties may benefit from increased program capacity.
Middle- to upper-middle-income defendants (household income >200% AMI, e.g., >$110K in King County) face new financial exposure through the $50K surcharge, but this group is not uniformly wealthy—many are professionals or small business owners with modest net worth, making the surcharge regressive relative to their overall economic position.