This bill amends existing law (RCW 9.94A.729) to revise procedures and eligibility for earned release time (sentence reductions for good behavior and performance). It directs the correctional agency with jurisdiction, chiefly the Department of Corrections (the department), to develop procedures for earned release that cannot be credited in advance, allows presentence incarceration credits certified by county jails, and lets the department approve jail certifications and adjust rates to its applicable rate without changing the number of presentence days the jail certified as lost or not earned. The amendment limits who may earn release credits and sets aggregate caps. It bars earned release for the portion of a sentence attributable to certain deadly-weapon/firearm enhancements for qualifying felonies after July 23, 1995, and for portions attributable to certain impaired-driving and minor-child enhancements. It sets specific percentage caps on aggregate earned release for various offense categories and dates (including 15% for certain serious violent or class A sex offenses committed between July 1, 1990 and July 1, 2003, and 10% for certain offenses committed on or after July 1, 2003), establishes a default cap of one-third in other cases, and creates a limited pathway to earn up to 50% aggregate credit for offenders who meet all conditions in the statute (subject to a department risk assessment using the tool recommended by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy); that up-to-50% option does not apply to offenders convicted after July 1, 2010. Subsection (6) adds specific disqualifications, including certain terms imposed under RCW 9.94A.670(5)(a) and violent offenses committed with a firearm or with a firearm enhancement. The bill makes procedural changes for release and reentry: offenders eligible for earned early release who will be supervised under community custody provisions must be transferred to community custody in lieu of earned release, and the department must approve a release plan (including residence) before transfer. If the department cannot approve a plan, it may place the offender in partial confinement for up to three additional months and/or provide rental vouchers for up to six months with transition services, maintain an approved housing provider list under RCW 72.09.285, and collect voucher effectiveness data as recommended by WSIPP. Important definitions and detailed criteria for terms like “violent offense,” “serious violent offense,” and the full content of other referenced RCWs are not included in the extracted text and would need to be consulted in the cited statutes to fully understand application.

If enacted, the department that runs state prisons will take on new day-to-day duties to manage earned early release: it will set procedures, check and adjust jail certifications of time served before sentencing, run risk assessments for higher early-release eligibility, approve or deny release plans, and when necessary place people in short partial confinement or pay up to six months of rental vouchers plus transition services to make release possible. County jails will have to certify presentence custody time and any lost early-release days when sending people to the department. Many people convicted with weapon, firearm, impaired-driving, minor-child, or certain violent enhancements will be barred from earning credits for those portions of their sentences, and overall early-release limits vary by offense and date of conviction, with a narrow group potentially eligible for up to 50% reduction under strict conditions. Practically, the department will likely need more staff and funding for risk assessments, housing voucher administration, maintaining an approved housing-provider list, and collecting outcome data per the policy institute’s guidance; housing providers on the approved list could receive voucher payments but must meet state requirements. Offenders’ chances of earlier release will change based on their offense type and whether an approved release plan exists, and victims or community safety concerns can lead the department to deny community custody and use partial confinement instead. Important eligibility details and statutory definitions referenced here are not included in the extracted text, so the precise scope of who can get higher credit rates and how some limits apply remains unclear.