HB 2635
In CommitteeHouse
Sexually violent predators
Providing supervision of a sexually violent predator after release or discharge.
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
HB 2635 strengthens supervision and conditions for sexually violent predators released to less restrictive alternatives, requiring stricter monitoring, individualized release plans, and enhanced support services. It also expands the Department of Corrections’ authority to supervise individuals convicted of certain sex and violent offenses, and mandates fair distribution of released individuals across counties.
- Requires courts to impose specific conditions before releasing a sexually violent predator to a less restrictive alternative, including electronic monitoring with real-time tracking, residence restrictions within 500 feet of schools or child care facilities, and individualized conditions based on risk factors.
- Mandates collaboration among the person, counsel, prosecutors, treatment providers, and corrections officers to develop individualized, empirically based release plans before court approval.
- Requires the Department of Social and Health Services and Department of Corrections to provide enhanced support services, including social worker assistance for benefits, housing, and clinical transition planning, with transition occurring no later than 15 days before release.
- Implements fair share principles to ensure equitable distribution of released individuals across counties and prevent over-concentration in any one jurisdiction.
- Requires the Department of Corrections to supervise individuals classified as sexually violent predators, regardless of risk level, and to ensure supervising officers work within 50 miles of the person’s residence.
- Requires annual court reviews of conditional releases for up to one year after release (and annually thereafter until unconditional discharge), with reports from service providers and experts to inform decisions.
Who is affected
- Sexually violent predators — Individuals committed as sexually violent predators who are seeking conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (e.g., community-based supervision) will be subject to stricter conditions, including electronic monitoring, residence restrictions near schools, and mandatory collaboration with service providers to develop individualized release plans.
- Individuals on conditional release — People released from secure custody under a conditional release order will receive enhanced support services, including social worker assistance for benefits, housing, and clinical transition planning, and must comply with monthly reporting and court reviews.
- Local governments and law enforcement in receiving counties — Counties receiving individuals released under less restrictive alternative orders will receive formal notice and explanations from the Department of Social and Health Services, and must consider fair share principles to avoid over-concentration of released individuals.
- Department of Corrections and community corrections staff — Community corrections officers supervising sexually violent predators must work within 50 miles of the individual’s residence, and the Department of Corrections will assign social workers to assist with discharge planning for those released under court-ordered less restrictive alternatives.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Requires social workers to assist with benefits applications, disability accommodations, and life skills training *before* release—significantly improving post-release stability and reducing recidivism risk for individuals who otherwise lack support networks.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)(viii), (6)(b)(i), (6)(b)(iii)Mandates collaborative, individualized release planning involving the person, counsel, prosecutors, and clinicians—improving accuracy of risk assessment and increasing likelihood of successful community reintegration, especially for those with complex needs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b), (6)(a)(ii), (6)(a)(vii)Fair share principles aim to prevent over-concentration of released individuals in one county, reducing strain on local resources and potentially improving community acceptance and supervision effectiveness—though implementation depends on robust data and inter-county coordination.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a), (5)(b)(i), (5)(c)Expands required services (e.g., community escorts, transition planning, continued services post-discharge) to support successful reintegration—reducing the likelihood of reoffending and enhancing long-term public safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)(i), (6)(a)(iv), (6)(a)(v)Requires supervising officers to work within 50 miles of the individual’s residence, improving accessibility for supervision and reducing geographic barriers to compliance—especially beneficial in rural areas where corrections staff are often overextended.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(c), Sec. 2(7)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates fair share principles and county-level notice/explanation requirements for sexually violent predator placements, increasing administrative burden on local governments (e.g., law and justice councils) to review and document compliance, with no state funding provided to offset these new responsibilities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (5)(a), (5)(b)(i), (5)(c)Requires clinical transition of care 15 days before release, but this narrow window may strain community treatment systems that lack capacity for rapid intake, potentially increasing risk of relapse or noncompliance if community providers are unprepared—especially in rural counties with limited mental health infrastructure.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(ii)Mandates financial support for necessary housing and life skills assistance, but the bill does not define “necessary housing” or specify funding levels—making this provision vulnerable to underfunding, and likely to benefit only those who qualify for limited state programs rather than all released individuals.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)(vi), (6)(b)(iii)Annual court reviews and monthly reporting requirements may create a rigid, surveillance-heavy supervision regime that increases stress and recidivism risk for individuals with serious mental illness—especially if community-based treatment resources are insufficient to meet the demand created by the expanded mandate.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(ii), (7), (8)Mandates GPS monitoring, residence restrictions (500 ft from schools/childcare), and exclusion zones without providing clear appeal mechanisms or flexibility for individuals whose risk decreases over time—potentially imposing lifelong restrictions that exceed what is necessary for public safety.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (5)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Individuals released under conditional release gain access to structured support services and individualized planning, but face stricter, longer-term supervision with limited appeal options—net effect is mixed but leans positive for those who successfully navigate the system.
Community corrections officers gain clearer supervision mandates and geographic proximity requirements, but face increased caseloads and administrative burdens (e.g., court reporting, transition coordination), especially in counties with high release volumes.
Counties receiving released individuals benefit from fair share principles preventing over-concentration, but bear new administrative costs (e.g., reviewing notices, documenting compliance) without state reimbursement—disproportionately affecting small or rural counties.
Social workers and clinical staff gain expanded roles in discharge planning and transition coordination, but may lack adequate staffing or training to meet new requirements—particularly in under-resourced regions.
Victims and their families benefit from enhanced community safety measures (e.g., GPS monitoring, residence restrictions), but may experience renewed trauma during annual court reviews and public release proceedings.