House Bill 1905 (H-1221.1), introduced in the 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session and read first time 02/10/25, makes numerous amendments and reenactments to existing law governing involuntary behavioral health treatment and juvenile commitment. The bill reenacts and amends RCW 71.05.020 and RCW 71.34.020, and amends RCW 71.05.110, 71.05.130, 71.05.730, 72.23.010, 72.23.020, and RCW 2.70.023; it also repeals specified 2024 session law sections, establishes contingent effective and expiration dates for certain provisions, and includes an emergency declaration to take effect immediately. Sponsors, committee referral, and some timing contingencies are noted, but the full text of many amended sections and the contingent triggers are not included in the extracted material. The bill primarily changes definitions and procedures across the involuntary treatment and juvenile commitment chapters. It revises many definitions (for example, mental disorder, mental health professional, designated crisis responder, medical clearance, secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility, inpatient treatment for minors, and individualized service plans), clarifies that medical clearance is not required before a designated crisis responder investigates a person presenting in the community, requires secure withdrawal management and stabilization facilities to provide assessment, stabilization, detoxification, discharge assistance, security, and Department of Health licensing/certification, and expressly excludes correctional institutions from being evaluation and treatment facilities. For juveniles it restates and adjusts definitions and criteria such as gravely disabled minor, start of initial detention, history of violent acts (five‑year lookback for juveniles), and medical necessity standards; some definitions in the excerpts are incomplete. The bill also makes procedural and fiscal changes for legal representation in involuntary commitment cases. It amends entitlement to counsel and appointment procedures so the county where the person is detained administers appointed counsel (with counties allowed to provide counsel directly or by contract), provides that an appointed person must pay if financially able and directs reimbursement rules when indigent, and revises RCW 71.05.730 to authorize quarterly county or tribal reimbursement requests to behavioral health administrative services organizations (BHASOs) with reimbursement rates based on an independent assessment averaging three years of expenditures (or, if no baseline exists, 80 percent of the median). It clarifies prosecuting attorney and attorney general representation roles in commitment proceedings, amends the office of public defense rules to permit limited short‑term coverage and pro bono practices subject to client acknowledgments and office policy, and allows the office to provide public defense services in involuntary commitment cases at a county’s request using county funds. Important details and the full text of several amended provisions, plus some definitions that are cut off in the extracts, are not present in the provided material.

If enacted, the bill mainly clarifies who does what in involuntary behavioral health cases and sets new rules for paying for court-related services. Counties must administer appointed counsel for people detained under the involuntary treatment act and can provide lawyers directly or by contract, and indigent defendants will be reimbursed to counties by their local behavioral health administrative services organization (BHASO) under a new quarterly reimbursement process that uses a three‑year average of past judicial costs (or 80 percent of the median if there’s no baseline). The bill also tightens definitions and licensing standards for evaluation and treatment settings (including secure withdrawal management and stabilization facilities), clarifies roles for county prosecutors and the attorney general in commitment proceedings, and lets a county ask the Office of Public Defense to provide public defense in these cases using county funds. The people and entities most affected are counties (greater administrative and upfront cost responsibility for appointed counsel and new quarterly reimbursement paperwork), BHASOs and tribes (new reimbursement duties and application processes), state hospitals and other treatment providers (clearer licensing and facility definitions), and public defense systems (a new option to contract through the state office). Counties may face added short-term costs and administrative work and some risk if reimbursements are delayed or calculated below actual costs; BHASOs must establish or participate in the reimbursement assessment process. Important details that could change practical effects — such as specific effective and expiration dates, exact agency procedures, and some incomplete definitions and a potentially circular reimbursement phrase — are not included in the extracted text, so timing and certain administrative mechanics remain uncertain.