SB 6336
In CommitteeSenate
Less restrictive alt./areas
Prohibiting sexually violent predators from being placed in less restrictive alternatives located in areas with a high concentration of children.
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 prevents sexually violent predators from being placed in community housing near schools or child care facilities where children outnumber adults within 500 feet. It tightens oversight of placements by requiring verification of location safety, electronic monitoring, and adherence to fair distribution across counties.
- Prohibits placement of sexually violent predators in less restrictive alternatives located in areas where the ratio of adults to children within a 500-foot radius is 3:1 or less—meaning more children than adults.
- Requires that all less restrictive alternative housing be verified by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to confirm compliance with the adult-to-child ratio and security standards before approval.
- Mandates that courts impose a minimum 500-foot distance restriction between a released person’s residence and schools (K–12), child care facilities, and other locations where children gather (e.g., parks, youth camps, libraries).
- Introduces or strengthens the requirement for ‘fair share principles of release’, aiming to distribute released individuals more evenly across counties and prevent overconcentration in any one jurisdiction.
- Requires real-time electronic monitoring with features like GPS tracking, programmable exclusion zones, and tamper alerts for individuals released to less restrictive alternatives.
- Requires the Department of Social and Health Services to assign a social worker (subject to funding) to help with discharge planning, benefit applications, and clinical transition to community providers—starting at least 15 days before release.
Who is affected
- Sexually violent predators — Sexually violent predators who are seeking or have been approved for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative placement in the community.
- Families and children in communities where placements may occur — Families and children living near proposed or approved community placements for sexually violent predators, especially in neighborhoods with high concentrations of minors.
- Counties (especially those with high or low numbers of released individuals) — Counties that currently host or may receive more or fewer individuals on conditional release, potentially affecting local resources and oversight responsibilities.
- State agencies (DSHS and DOC) — State agencies responsible for evaluating, approving, supervising, and reporting on placements—including the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Corrections.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The prohibition on placing individuals in areas with 3:1 or fewer adults-to-children (i.e., more children than adults) within 500 feet significantly reduces proximity to schools, parks, and child care centers—directly lowering exposure of children to individuals with a history of predatory sexual violence, and aligning with evidence that proximity to high-risk venues increases recidivism risk.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7), (14), (17); Sec. 2(3); Sec. 3(4)(a)Mandating real-time GPS monitoring with programmable exclusion zones and tamper alerts provides law enforcement with a robust tool to detect and deter violations, increasing accountability and enabling rapid response—studies show GPS monitoring reduces supervision failures and rearrests for high-risk offenders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(a)The “fair share principles” aim to prevent overconcentration of released individuals in a few counties, which could strain local resources and stigmatize entire communities—equitable distribution supports sustainable oversight and reduces political pressure on overburdened jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(5)(a), (b)(i); Sec. 1(2)Assigning a social worker to begin discharge planning and clinical transition 15 days before release improves continuity of care and access to benefits—key predictors of successful reintegration and reduced recidivism—especially for individuals with co-occurring mental health or substance use conditions.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(6)(b)Requiring housing verification by DSHS ensures that placements meet safety and security standards before approval, reducing the risk of unstable or unsafe housing (e.g., shelters, transient areas) that could undermine treatment adherence and increase public risk.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The 500-foot buffer and adult-to-child ratio requirement (3:1) may displace individuals to less monitored or less suitable housing in rural or lower-population areas, potentially increasing isolation and reducing access to treatment and supervision—factors associated with higher recidivism risk for sex offenders. This could undermine community safety despite the appearance of increased distance.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7), (14), (17); Sec. 2(3); Sec. 3(4)(a)The requirement for a social worker to begin discharge planning 15 days before release is contingent on appropriation, meaning it may not be implemented in years without dedicated funding—reducing its reliability and potentially creating gaps in continuity of care during high-risk transition periods.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(6)(b)The “fair share principles” mandate may force counties to accept individuals against local capacity or preference, straining local law enforcement, courts, and social services without corresponding state funding—particularly burdensome for small or rural counties with limited infrastructure.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(5)(a), (d); Sec. 1(2)The 500-foot restriction and adult-to-child ratio requirement drastically reduce eligible housing options in dense urban areas (e.g., Seattle, Spokane), where many low-income or transitional housing units exist—effectively pushing individuals into more remote, less connected, and potentially higher-crime neighborhoods, undermining stability and reintegration.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(a)Requiring a clinical handoff 15 days pre-release assumes timely coordination between state and community providers, but in practice, fragmented mental health and substance use treatment networks in many Washington counties may make this impossible—leading to treatment gaps or delayed care post-release.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(6)(b)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Children and families in neighborhoods with existing or proposed placements benefit significantly from reduced proximity to high-risk individuals, especially in areas with high child density. The 500-foot buffer and adult-to-child ratio are designed to minimize exposure to potential predators, enhancing perceived and actual community safety.
Counties with fewer releases may see reduced strain on local law enforcement and social services, but counties required to accept individuals under fair share principles may face increased supervision costs and political pressure—even if they lack adequate treatment infrastructure. Rural counties, in particular, may lack the staffing or facilities to support high-risk individuals effectively.
State agencies (DSHS and DOC) face increased administrative and staffing burdens—especially for housing verification, GPS monitoring, and pre-release social work coordination—though the bill clarifies DSHS’s role in quasi-judicial placement decisions, potentially streamlining oversight.
Sexually violent predators face stricter placement constraints and more intensive supervision, which may hinder reintegration but also provide clearer structure and support through mandated pre-release planning. While some may be displaced to less optimal housing, others benefit from improved continuity of care and reduced stigma from scattered, monitored placements.