Second Substitute House Bill 1668 amends Washington’s sentencing score statute, RCW 9.94A.525, updates RCW 9.94A.722, and adds a new section to chapter 71.24 RCW. The bill revises how an offender score is calculated and rounded, specifies which prior convictions are included or excluded (including time-based exclusions for certain class B and C felonies, serious traffic convictions, and repetitive domestic violence convictions), sets or clarifies point values for many categories of prior convictions (for example motor vehicle offenses, domestic violence-related felonies, drug offenses, manufacture of methamphetamine, escapes, burglary, sex offenses, failure to register, and offenses committed while under community custody), treats anticipatory offenses the same as completed offenses, addresses how out-of-state and federal convictions and Title 13 juvenile adjudications are scored, and requires omitted prior convictions to be included on resentencing when current law requires. The bill also imposes procedural requirements for treatment-related supervision: offenders ordered to receive mental health, chemical dependency, or domestic violence treatment must disclose whether they are under department supervision (or provide a copy of an order granting relief from disclosure), and behavioral health providers must report a supervised person’s compliance with their treatment plan to the community corrections officer when treatment is a sentence condition or is imposed by the department. A new section in chapter 71.24 RCW parallels this reporting requirement. These changes are procedural and sentencing-score adjustments rather than creation of a new crime; they alter how prior convictions affect sentence calculation and add information-sharing requirements for treatment providers. Section 1 of the act expires January 1, 2026, Section 2 takes effect January 1, 2026, and the act is null and void unless specific funding is provided in the omnibus appropriations act by June 30, 2025. Some scoring subsections and the full text of the RCW 9.94A.722 amendment or the added 71.24 section were not included in the extracted material, so details of a few provisions are incomplete.

If enacted, the bill tightens and clarifies how past convictions are counted when judges calculate an offender score, adding specific point amounts for many prior offenses (for example certain vehicle thefts, meth manufacture, sex offenses, escapes, and priors committed while on community custody) while also affirming time-based exclusions for older priors (fiveand ten-year clean periods for some classes of offenses). That will likely raise scores and lead to longer standard sentences for people with those listed priors or with prior offenses while under supervision, while people who have been crime-free in the community for the specified periods could see lower scores; judges still decide whether separate convictions were actually the same conduct, and the change that omitted priors may be added on resentencing means some people could receive longer sentences at later hearings. Important details on some scoring lines are missing from the excerpts, and Section 1 of the act expires January 1, 2026 while Section 2 takes effect January 1, 2026, so timing and which scoring changes remain in force are unclear; also the whole act will not take effect if the Legislature does not provide specified funding by June 30, 2025. The bill also creates a new, mandatory information flow between behavioral health or court-ordered treatment providers and community corrections: people ordered into treatment must disclose whether they are under supervision (or provide a court order that relieves that disclosure), and providers must inform community corrections officers about a supervised person’s compliance with treatment when treatment is a sentence condition or department-ordered. That will increase administrative work and privacy obligations for treatment providers, and give community corrections and the Department of Corrections more timely treatment compliance information; costs and staffing impacts for providers or community corrections are possible but the excerpts do not show whether funding is provided to cover those new duties.