The bill amends chapter 10.101 RCW and adds new sections to chapters 10.101 and 2.56 RCW to create a state-administered program in which the Washington office of public defense disburses appropriated funds to counties and cities to improve the quality of trial-level public defense. It designates 90 percent of the funding as county moneys, distributed pro rata to eligible counties based on the annual number of cases in which a public defender was assigned, and 10 percent as city moneys, distributed pro rata to eligible cities based on the annual number of misdemeanor cases for which a public defender was assigned. Cities and counties must apply for funds and eligibility is determined by the office of public defense. The bill creates procedural requirements and eligibility conditions: attorneys providing public defense must attend office-approved training at least once per calendar year; applicants must report prior-calendar-year expenditures, case statistics including per-attorney caseloads, and provide copies of current public defense contracts; counties must designate a public defense coordinator who is a lawyer with public defense experience; and contracting individuals or organizations must report hours billed for nonpublic defense legal services. Each fiscal year recipients must document to the office that they either meet Washington Supreme Court–endorsed indigent defense standards or that the funds made appreciable demonstrable improvements. The office of public defense is authorized to create eligibility standards, monitor services, and develop statewide data collection criteria and reporting forms, and the office of the administrator for the courts must include public defender assignment counts in its annual report. The bill also authorizes the office of public defense, upon request from any county with population density under 50 persons per square mile, to assume responsibility for providing some or all public defense services in that county if the office has capacity; in that case the office must notify the county within 180 days, retain the county’s pro rata share of funding to deliver services, may use employees or contract counsel, and the county must contribute funds toward service delivery. The office must examine caseloads and backlogs, require reporting of accused who are unrepresented due to lawyer shortages, make retention recommendations, and report findings to the legislature by December 1, 2027. Sections 1–5 are stated to take effect January 1, 2027, and the act is null and void if specific funding is not provided in the omnibus appropriations act by June 30, 2026. The extracted text omits the full language of certain new sections, the complete city moneys distribution provisions, and the specific appropriation amount.

If enacted with funding, the state will set up a grant program that sends most of the money to counties (90%) and a smaller share to cities (10%), with distributions tied to recent case counts. Counties and cities that take the money will be required to have public defense attorneys attend yearly approved training, file detailed prior-year expenditure and caseload reports, and supply current contracts; counties must also name a lawyer as a public defense coordinator and collect contractor reports of private hours. The Office of Public Defense will create eligibility standards, monitor trial-level services, require counties to report unrepresented accused due to lawyer shortages, and the Office and the courts will collect data and make recommendations to the Legislature by December 1, 2027; the program only starts January 1, 2027 if the Legislature provides specific funding by June 30, 2026. Counties and cities are the main beneficiaries but also bear new administrative duties and modest compliance costs for training, reporting, and appointing coordinators; public defense contractors and attorneys will face annual training and reporting requirements. Very low-density counties can ask the state office to take over some or all defense delivery, which would shift who runs services and how local funds are spent, but counties must still contribute funds toward those services. The total money available, exact city allocation details, and some implementation specifics are not shown in the provided text, creating uncertainty about the program’s scale and how strictly standards will be applied.