SB 6315
In CommitteeSenate
Disaggregated data
Concerning collection and publishing of disaggregated data to inform state-funded programs, services, and activities.
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 requires state and local governments, and organizations receiving state funds, to collect and publish data broken down by race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity to improve accuracy and fairness in policy and funding decisions. It aims to correct historical data bias that has led to undercounting or misrepresenting women and people of color, especially in health, housing, transportation, and education programs.
- Requires state and local governments, and organizations receiving state funds (except federally recognized tribes), to collect, analyze, and publish data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity in studies, reports, surveys, and other data-gathering activities.
- Mandates that state agencies include these data collection requirements in contracts and grants with covered entities.
- Requires state agencies to follow existing federal standards for race/ethnicity data (OMB Directive 15) and Washington state administrative code standards for sex/gender identity data (WAC 246-455-025(6)) until new guidelines are published.
- Requires agencies to consult with the Office of Equity, Office of Privacy and Data Protection, Attorney General, and Washington State Institutional Review Board before collecting or publishing data to protect privacy and prevent identification of individuals.
- Sets a deadline of December 31, 2026 for full implementation of the data disaggregation standards.
Who is affected
- State and local governments, and organizations receiving state funds — State agencies, local governments, and organizations receiving state funding must collect and report data on race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity in a standardized way, and include these requirements in contracts and grants.
- Data collection staff and program managers in covered entities — Must consult with state offices on privacy and data protection practices before collecting or publishing disaggregated data to avoid identifying individuals.
- Women and girls, especially those from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups — May benefit from more accurate data to design and target programs for women, especially Black, Indigenous, and women of color, in areas like health, housing, and transportation.
- Members of communities historically excluded or miscounted in data — May experience improved trust in government data systems if they see their experiences accurately reflected in public data.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandates sex- and gender-disaggregated data collection in health programs (e.g., maternal health, behavioral health, reproductive services), which is critical for identifying and addressing documented disparities—such as higher maternal mortality among Black women or underdiagnosis of heart disease in women—that have been obscured by male-default data models.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(7)(a)-(f)Requires transportation safety planning (e.g., lighting, route design, policing) to be informed by sex- and race-disaggregated data, addressing well-documented gaps in how transit infrastructure serves women and people of color—e.g., higher rates of harassment on transit, different travel patterns due to caregiving responsibilities.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)(e), Sec. 1(7)(f)Improves accuracy of public health and child welfare interventions by ensuring data on domestic violence, child abuse, and injury prevention reflects the experiences of women and children of color—groups historically underrepresented in state data systems—leading to more targeted and effective prevention programs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)(b), Sec. 1(7)(c)Standardizes data collection across agencies, enabling better measurement of gendered and racial disparities in school health services, after-school programs, and discipline—supporting more equitable resource allocation and accountability for districts serving high-need populations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(9), Sec. 3(1)Improves visibility of gendered and racial disparities in housing and homelessness (e.g., domestic violence survivors, LGBTQ+ youth) by requiring sex- and gender-disaggregated data in housing programs, enabling more effective shelter capacity planning and tenant protections.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(7)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates state and local governments (and their contractors) to collect, analyze, and publish disaggregated demographic data, increasing administrative burden and requiring new staff training, software, and compliance processes—costs that fall disproportionately on small and under-resourced local governments and nonprofits that lack dedicated data infrastructure.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(2)Consultation requirements with multiple state offices (Office of Equity, Privacy and Data Protection, Attorney General, IRB) before data collection or publication may delay or deter data-driven public safety initiatives (e.g., crime pattern analysis, traffic safety studies), especially in rural or under-resourced jurisdictions lacking legal or technical capacity to navigate multi-agency review.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4Use of a specific state administrative code standard for sex/gender identity data (WAC 246-455-025(6))—which defines gender identity as “a person’s internal sense of gender” without requiring medical documentation—may create legal and administrative friction for healthcare providers, schools, and social service agencies that must reconcile this standard with federal HIPAA, Medicaid billing, or insurance requirements that do not recognize the same categories.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(b), WAC 246-455-025(6)Small businesses and nonprofits receiving state contracts or grants must incorporate new data collection requirements into procurement and service delivery, potentially increasing compliance costs and exposing them to liability if data collection or anonymization fails—even when they lack technical expertise or legal counsel to ensure compliance.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 4While the bill aims to protect privacy, the requirement to consult multiple state offices before publishing *any* disaggregated data—even in aggregate form—may create a de facto chilling effect on data transparency, especially for community-based research or participatory action projects that rely on trust and low-barrier data sharing.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4
Who Is Most Affected
Local governments and small nonprofits with limited data infrastructure will face new administrative costs and legal risks in implementing standardized data collection, especially in rural or underfunded jurisdictions.
Women, especially Black, Indigenous, and women of color, are the primary intended beneficiaries—more accurate data will improve targeting of health, safety, and economic support programs that have historically excluded or mischaracterized their experiences.
State agencies will gain standardized, comparable data across programs, enabling better policy design and accountability—but will also face new compliance burdens and inter-agency consultation requirements.
Data privacy advocates may support the consultation requirement but worry that the broad mandate to collect sensitive identity data—even in aggregate—could normalize surveillance and erode trust if anonymization fails.
Healthcare providers and researchers will benefit from more accurate data on sex- and gender-specific health outcomes, but may face new legal and technical hurdles in collecting and reporting data under state standards that differ from federal norms.