This bill amends existing juvenile diversion and sentencing laws. For diversion, it adds procedural protections and duties: a divertee can be terminated from diversion only after written notice, disclosure of evidence, and a court hearing that gives the youth opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and confront witnesses; the court must state in writing the evidence relied on and why termination occurred and require proof of a substantial violation of the diversion agreement. The diversion unit must advise youths of their rights (including a right to counsel before initial interviews and at all critical stages), provide interpreters subject to available funds, refer youths to restorative, counseling, or treatment programs, obtain and retain a signed acknowledgment that diversion counts as criminal history, and may refuse diversion or supervise agreements extending past a youth’s 18th birthday. Restitution may, with diversion unit agreement and written modification, be converted to community restitution calculated at state minimum wage; community agencies that falsify participant or progress reports can be fined up to $25,000 enforceable by the Attorney General. The Supreme Court is directed to set the advisement content in simple language. The amendment is to RCW 13.40.0357 and a disposition-mapping table is included but the full table is not provided here. The bill also creates a required juvenile sentencing schedule and directs courts to select one of four disposition options (A through D): Option A applies standard-range confinement periods; Option B permits imposing a standard confinement disposition and suspending it on conditions including local sanctions and participation in evidence-based or research-based programs with sanctions or revocation for noncompliance; Option C allows chemical dependency or mental health dispositions for eligible offenders; and Option D permits departures from the standard range when necessary to avoid manifest injustice. RCW 13.40.193 is amended to require that, when a respondent possessed a firearm in violation of law, the disposition include participation in a qualifying program when available unless a written juvenile court risk assessment finding says participation is inappropriate; qualifying programs are defined by examples and by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s list. The amendment adds specified additional confinement periods when a firearm was used or present during certain felony or violent offenses (including fixed month increases and a 12‑month add for violent offenses by 16or 17-year-olds, with certain gang-related firearm offenses receiving an additional consecutive adjustment), clarifies that terms under this section run consecutively to other confinement, and allows alternate dispositions to prevent manifest injustice. The document also repeals RCW 13.40.308. These changes are procedural and substantive amendments to existing law: they expand diversion procedural protections and administrative duties, add administrative penalties for contracted community agencies, establish a statutory juvenile sentencing schedule with specified disposition options, and add sentence enhancements and program-participation requirements tied to firearm possession and certain offenses. Important context is missing from the provided text: the diversion section begins mid-sentence, the full offense-to-category disposition table and some prior definitions (for example the full RCW 13.40.020(8) criminal-history definition and the complete mapping of offense categories to the sentencing grid) are not included, so precise category mappings and any additional related provisions cannot be confirmed from these extracts.

If enacted, juveniles and diversion units would face more formal procedures and paperwork: divertees could only be removed from diversion after a noticed court hearing with full disclosure of evidence, and juveniles must be told and acknowledge that diversion counts as criminal history and be advised of their right to counsel before intake and at key stages. Diversion units would have to provide interpreters when funds allow, may supervise agreements past the juvenile turning 18, must immediately refer cases they refuse or that violate terms to court and prosecutors, and could convert unpaid restitution to community service at the state minimum wage if agreed in writing. Community agencies that falsify attendance or progress reports risk civil fines up to $25,000 enforced by the Attorney General, so organizations providing diversion services face higher compliance and liability risk. The juvenile sentencing system would become more standardized, with courts required to use a new grid and choose among set disposition options including suspended or treatment-focused alternatives, and specific rules increasing confinement when juveniles possess firearms or commit violent offenses (including fixed month additions for certain armed felonies and extra time for 16and 17-year-old offenders). Treatment and evidence‑based programs are more likely to be required when available, increasing demand on those services and on the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to maintain program lists. The exact offense-to-category mappings and some prior definitions are not fully shown in the provided text, so how particular offenses translate into the new grid and some implementation details remain unclear.