HB 2510
In CommitteeHouse
Community cust. supervision
Concerning the supervision of individuals sentenced to 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 expands the types of people the Washington State Department of Corrections must supervise under community custody, including those convicted of specific sex offenses, repeated domestic violence, and serious violent crimes—even if they are not classified as high-risk. It also clarifies when supervision is required and sets limits on how long supervision can last.
- Expands mandatory supervision by the Washington State Department of Corrections to include individuals convicted of specific sex offenses involving minors (e.g., sexual misconduct with a minor second degree, communication with a minor for immoral purposes) and failure to register.
- Requires supervision of individuals with multiple convictions for domestic violence offenses (after August 1, 2011), especially those with prior repetitive or felony domestic violence convictions.
- Mandates supervision of individuals convicted of serious violent or sex offenses, regardless of risk classification, including those sentenced under specific statutes like vehicular homicide, stalking, or felony DUI.
- Requires the Department of Corrections to conduct risk assessments for all individuals convicted of felonies and sentenced to community custody who may be subject to supervision.
- Clarifies that supervision can be reduced through earned supervision compliance credits under RCW 9.94A.717, and limits supervision periods to those specified in sentencing laws, unless an exceptional term or conditional commutation applies.
- Prohibits the Department of Corrections from supervising individuals unless they fall under one of the specified categories in the law.
Who is affected
- Individuals convicted of certain sex offenses involving minors or failure to register — People convicted of specific sex offenses involving minors (e.g., sexual misconduct with a minor second degree, communication with a minor for immoral purposes) or failing to register as a sex offender will be placed under mandatory supervision.
- Individuals with repetitive or felony domestic violence convictions — People with multiple convictions for domestic violence offenses (after August 1, 2011) will be placed under supervision, especially if the offenses occurred before July 24, 2015.
- Individuals convicted of serious violent or high-risk offenses — People convicted of serious violent or sex offenses who are deemed high-risk or who fall under specific sentencing statutes (e.g., vehicular homicide, stalking, felony DUI) will be supervised regardless of risk classification.
- Individuals released under indeterminate sentences or conditional commutation — People released by the indeterminate sentence review board or granted conditional commutation will be supervised if their release includes community custody.
- Washington State Department of Corrections — The Washington State Department of Corrections will be responsible for supervising these individuals and must conduct risk assessments.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Expanding mandatory supervision to include specific sex offenses involving minors and serious violent offenses (e.g., vehicular homicide, stalking) aims to increase oversight of individuals who pose elevated risks to vulnerable populations — particularly children and intimate partners — thereby potentially reducing recidivism and protecting community safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(i)-(iv), Sec. 1(4)(a), Sec. 1(4)(g)Mandating supervision for individuals with repetitive domestic violence convictions — especially those with prior felony or repetitive offenses — may reduce repeat violence against intimate partners and children, supporting long-term safety for survivors, many of whom are women and low-income individuals.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 1(4)(e)(i)Allowing reduction of supervision periods through earned compliance credits provides an incentive for positive behavior and may reduce unnecessary long-term supervision, promoting rehabilitation and reintegration — especially for individuals who demonstrate consistent compliance.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(10)By explicitly limiting supervision to only those individuals specified in law, the bill prevents arbitrary or overbroad application of community custody supervision, which could reduce unnecessary supervision of low-level offenders and improve resource allocation.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(7)Limiting supervision periods to those specified in sentencing laws (unless an exceptional term or conditional commutation applies) helps prevent indefinite or de facto life supervision, supporting fairness and predictability in post-release oversight.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(9)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill creates a liability shield for the state and its officers when supervising individuals with domestic violence felony convictions, limiting liability to only cases of gross negligence — potentially reducing accountability for supervision failures that could lead to reoffending or harm to victims.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 1(4)(e)(ii)The liability limitation in subsection (4)(e)(ii) primarily benefits the Washington State Department of Corrections and state employees by reducing legal exposure, while shifting risk away from victims and the public — especially low-income survivors of domestic violence who may lack resources to pursue civil remedies.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(4)(e)(ii)Expanding mandatory supervision to include failure-to-register offenses (even for non-violent registrants) may disproportionately impact low-income individuals who lack stable housing or internet access, making compliance more difficult and increasing the risk of technical violations leading to reincarceration.
Rights & LibertiesLean industryRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(iv), Sec. 1(4)(d)The bill mandates supervision for individuals regardless of risk classification — including those assessed as low-risk — which may divert limited correctional resources away from higher-risk individuals and reduce the effectiveness of supervision overall, potentially undermining public safety.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 1(4)While the bill requires risk assessments, it does not allocate dedicated funding for these assessments or for the expanded supervision workload, placing added administrative and financial pressure on local probation departments and county jails that may serve as intermediaries before transfer to DOC supervision.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 1(8)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors or failure to register — many of whom are formerly incarcerated and struggling with housing, employment, and stability — may face heightened surveillance, increased risk of technical violations, and barriers to reintegration due to strict supervision requirements.
Survivors of domestic violence — particularly women and children — may benefit from increased supervision of repeat offenders, but could also be harmed if limited resources are spread too thin across low-risk individuals, reducing effectiveness for high-risk cases.
State and county correctional staff may face increased caseloads and administrative burdens without corresponding increases in staffing or funding, potentially reducing supervision quality and increasing burnout.
Local governments (counties) may bear transitional costs for housing, mental health services, or pre-release planning for individuals who are ultimately transferred to DOC supervision, straining already limited budgets.
Taxpayers may see increased state spending on supervision and risk assessments, but could benefit from reduced crime and victimization if the expanded supervision effectively reduces recidivism among high-risk groups.