This bill amends existing law (RCW 9.94A.729) to change how earned release time (good-time/earned early release) is calculated and administered for people in department-operated correctional facilities. It requires programs to allow earning credits for presentence incarceration, directs county jails to certify presentence custody and any early-release credits lost or not earned when an offender is transferred to the department, and permits the department to correct jail certifications only to recalculate time served (not to change certified lost early-release days). The bill also prohibits awarding credits in advance and requires the department to adjust any presentence credits to the department’s earned release rate. The amendment sets detailed eligibility rules and caps on aggregate earned release: specific caps (10% or 15%) for certain serious violent and class A sex offenses depending on offense dates; a general cap of one-third of the sentence in other cases; and a potential up-to-50% aggregate credit if an offender meets a list of conditions (not high risk per a WSIPP-recommended risk tool, no confinement for listed offense categories, no prior convictions for those offenses, participation in reentry programming, and no new felony while under community custody after July 22, 2007). It bars earned-release credits for portions of sentences tied to certain sentencing enhancements (deadly weapon enhancements for felonies committed after July 23, 1995, specified impaired driving and minor-child enhancements, firearm enhancements, and a statutory subsection RCW 9.94A.670(5)(a)), and specifies that some eligible offenders who will be supervised under RCW 9.94A.501 or 9.94A.5011 must be transferred to community custody in lieu of earned release. The bill adds procedural requirements around release planning and housing: the department must require an approved residence and may deny transfer if the plan risks sentence or supervision conditions or public safety, may place an offender in partial confinement in lieu of earned release for up to three months, and may provide rental vouchers for up to six months together with transition programming. The department must keep a list of housing providers meeting RCW 72.09.285 and gather WSIPP-recommended data to evaluate voucher effectiveness. The act is named the Gavin Looper Act. Affected entities include the department operating correctional facilities, county jail administrators, WSIPP, and housing providers. The extracted text relies on statutory definitions and cross-references in other RCWs (for example, the definitions of violent or serious violent offenses and the exact meaning of referenced subsections) which are not included here, and the document does not define “the department” or provide an effective date or full applicability details.

If passed, the bill changes who gets to shorten a prison term and by how much: it sets firm caps on earned release credits (often 10–15% of a sentence, with up to 50% possible for low‑risk, nonviolent people who meet program and prior‑conviction conditions) and explicitly bars credits for many enhancements (deadly‑weapon, certain impaired‑driving and child enhancements, and firearm or other specified violent convictions). The Department of Corrections will assess risk using a WSIPP-recommended tool and can move eligible people directly to community custody instead of reducing prison time, but only after approving a release plan; if a plan is not approved the department can use up to three months of partial confinement or provide up to six months of rental vouchers plus transition services, and must keep a list of approved housing providers and collect data on voucher outcomes. County jails must certify presentence custody and lost-credit days when transferring people, and DOC can correct certifications without reducing days flagged as lost. Practically, the groups most affected are incarcerated people (their potential time served changes and eligibility narrows), the Department of Corrections (more risk assessments, housing approvals, voucher and partial‑confinement administration, and data collection), county jails (added certification duties), and housing providers on the DOC list. Expect increased administrative work and program and housing costs for the department and potential community supervision workload shifts; the text leaves open some implementation details such as exact definitions of qualifying offenses, which agency offices carry specific duties, and no effective date or rollout timeline is provided.