Skip to main content

SB 6337

In Committee

Senate

Less restrictive alt/schools

Prohibiting sexually violent predators from being placed in less restrictive alternatives within 500 feet of, or with a sight line to, certain facilities or schools.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 29, 2026
Last Action: January 30, 2026
Status: S Human Services
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill tightens restrictions on where individuals civilly committed as sexually violent predators may live after being conditionally released from secure custody. It bans placements within 500 feet or with a sight line to schools, child care centers, and recreational facilities, and requires stricter monitoring and planning before release. It also adds rules to ensure fair geographic distribution of released individuals across counties and mandates enhanced support services during the transition to community supervision.

  • Prohibits individuals civilly committed as sexually violent predators from living within 500 feet of, or with a sight line to, public or private schools (K–12), child care facilities, or recreational facilities.
  • Requires courts to impose strict conditions for conditional release—including real-time GPS electronic monitoring, exclusion zones, and individualized risk-based restrictions on residence, contact, substance use, and treatment participation.
  • Mandates collaboration among the person, their attorney, prosecutors, treatment providers, and corrections officers to develop individualized, empirically based release conditions before court approval.
  • Introduces ‘fair share principles’ to prevent over-concentration of released individuals in one county or jurisdiction, and requires courts and the Department of Social and Health Services to document placement decisions and justify deviations from releasing someone to their county of commitment.
  • Requires the Department of Corrections to assign a social worker to assist with discharge planning—including benefit applications, clinical handoffs, and life skills support—at least 15 days before release.
  • Requires monthly progress reports from treatment providers and annual (or more frequent) court reviews of each person’s conditional release to assess ongoing safety and need for modifications.

Who is affected

  • Sexually violent predators subject to civil commitment under Chapter 71.09 RCWIndividuals who have been civilly committed as sexually violent predators and are seeking conditional release to community-based supervision (e.g., home placement with monitoring and treatment).
  • County governments and local law enforcement (e.g., sheriff’s offices, prosecuting attorneys)Local governments and law enforcement agencies in counties where individuals are placed under less restrictive alternatives; they receive notice and must consider how placements align with community safety and resource distribution.
  • Treatment and supervisory staff (e.g., Department of Social and Health Services, community treatment providers, Department of Corrections social workers)Staff at the Special Commitment Center and community treatment providers who must collaborate on discharge planning, coordinate clinical transitions, and report on compliance with release conditions.
  • Families, school communities, and residents near proposed placementsFamilies, schools, and community members who may be affected by where individuals under supervision live—especially near schools or child care facilities.
Effective: July 28, 2026Fiscal impact: Requires additional funding for hiring social workers to assist with discharge planning and clinical transitions, and for electronic monitoring equipment and oversight. The bill does not specify dollar amounts, but fiscal notes would be needed to estimate costs for staffing, technology, and interagency coordination.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 9:54 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • Prohibiting residences within 500 feet or with sight lines to schools and child care facilities directly reduces exposure of children and vulnerable populations to individuals with high-risk histories, enhancing perceived and actual community safety near critical institutions.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)
  • Mandating a clinical handoff 15 days before release improves continuity of care and reduces the risk of treatment interruption or relapse—critical for individuals with severe mental illness or paraphilic disorders, thereby supporting long-term recovery and stability.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(ii)
  • The fair share principles aim to prevent over-concentration of released individuals in one jurisdiction, reducing strain on local supervision resources and mitigating community backlash or stigmatization of specific neighborhoods—promoting more equitable distribution of supervision responsibilities.

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a), (b)(i)
  • Assigning a social worker to assist with benefit applications, housing support, and life skills training before release significantly improves the likelihood of stable housing and economic self-sufficiency—addressing key drivers of recidivism among this high-risk population.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(i), (vi), (viii)
  • Real-time GPS monitoring with programmable exclusion zones, combined with mandatory monthly progress reports and annual (or more frequent) court reviews, creates a robust, dynamic oversight system that can quickly detect and respond to violations—enhancing community safety and accountability.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (7), (8)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • The 500-foot proximity ban and sight-line restriction may unintentionally reduce housing options so severely that individuals under supervision are forced into unstable, transient, or substandard housing—potentially increasing recidivism risk and undermining community reintegration, which could ultimately harm public safety.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)
  • Mandating a clinical handoff 15 days before release requires significant staffing and coordination capacity; without dedicated funding, this may lead to rushed transitions, gaps in care, and increased psychiatric or behavioral crises post-release—particularly harmful for individuals with severe mental illness or substance use disorders.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(ii)
  • The fair share principles and mandatory notice requirements impose administrative burdens on counties—especially rural or resource-constrained ones—requiring additional staff time, interagency coordination, and legal review, without providing new funding to offset these costs.

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a), (c)
  • The combination of strict proximity bans and 15-day pre-release social worker assignment may delay releases indefinitely if suitable housing cannot be found quickly—prolonging institutionalization and increasing state costs, while leaving individuals in restrictive settings longer than clinically necessary.

    HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (6)(b)
  • While enhanced monitoring and court reviews aim to improve community safety, the bill does not address whether counties have the capacity to enforce GPS monitoring, conduct frequent reviews, or manage increased caseloads—risking inconsistent enforcement and potential system overload, especially in under-resourced jurisdictions.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a), (7), (8)

Who Is Most Affected

Sexually violent predators subject to civil commitment under Chapter 71.09 RCWNegative Impact

Individuals subject to civil commitment under Chapter 71.09 RCW face significantly tighter restrictions on where they may live, potentially prolonging institutionalization and limiting housing options. While enhanced support services may improve outcomes, the structural barriers may outweigh benefits for many, especially those with limited social support or co-occurring disorders.

County governments and local law enforcement (e.g., sheriff’s offices, prosecuting attorneys)Mixed Impact

Counties and local law enforcement gain clearer protocols for placement review and notice, but face increased administrative and supervisory burdens—particularly in rural or low-resource areas where housing and treatment options are scarce. Fair share principles may reduce concentration but not eliminate community opposition or resource strain.

Treatment and supervisory staff (e.g., Department of Social and Health Services, community treatment providers, Department of Corrections social workers)Mixed Impact

Treatment and supervisory staff gain structured mandates for collaboration and transition planning, which may improve care coordination. However, the 15-day pre-release social worker assignment and monthly reporting requirements increase workload without guaranteed funding, risking burnout or inconsistent implementation.

Families, school communities, and residents near proposed placementsPositive Impact

Families, schools, and residents near proposed placements benefit from heightened protections—especially near schools and child care centers—reducing proximity to high-risk individuals and increasing perceived safety. However, some may experience anxiety or stigma if placements occur nearby despite restrictions.

Sponsors

Senator Torres(Republican)District 15Primary
Senator Boehnke(Republican)District 8Secondary
Senator Conway(Democrat)District 29Secondary
Senator Dozier(Republican)District 16Secondary
Senator Gildon(Republican)District 25Secondary
Senator Holy(Republican)District 6Secondary