This bill amends existing law to add detailed procedures and requirements for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (LRA) for persons committed under chapter 71.09 RCW and to expand and clarify whom the department will supervise under community custody provisions. It modifies RCW 71.09.096 to require courts to impose conditions necessary to protect community safety and ensure treatment compliance or remand the person to DSHS custody; to require written agreements from designated service providers and waiver of privilege for compelled testimony; and to require certain monitoring, reporting, and review procedures for LRAs. The bill also amends RCW 9.94A.501 to state that the department shall supervise specified individuals sentenced to probation or community custody, explicitly including sexually violent predators under chapter 71.09 RCW. Key legal changes are procedural and supervisory: courts must at minimum order electronic monitoring with real-time tracking features where feasible, programable inclusion/exclusion zones, tamper and zone-entry alerts, and impose residence proximity restrictions (including at least 500 feet from child care facilities and K–12 schools and compliance with RCW 72.09.340). The Department of Corrections (DOC) must investigate proposed LRA placements and, within 60 days, recommend individualized conditions; DOC is required to attempt to align placements with “fair share” principles, document rationales, and notify county law and justice councils when releases occur outside a person’s county of commitment. The bill requires DOC to provide specified transition and treatment supports when ordered (including assigning a community care coordinator and, subject to appropriations, a DOC social worker who must begin clinical transition no later than 15 days before release), monthly provider reporting to the court and agencies, annual court review of LRAs, and a supervising community corrections officer whose primary work location is within 50 miles of the person’s residential placement. The amendments introduce supervisory-scope clarifications and limited liability language: the department’s authorized supervision period is tied to existing community custody durations with some exceptions and may be reduced by earned supervision credit; one provision states the state and its personnel are not criminally or civilly liable for supervision actions under a listed subsection unless grossly negligent. The text references other statutes (including RCW 71.09.092 and multiple community custody and conditional commutation provisions) that are not reproduced here, and a portion of RCW 9.94A.501 in the provided extract is cut off, so full details of some supervisory criteria and listed offenses are unclear from these facts alone.

If enacted, the law would make conditional releases out of civil commitment more tightly supervised and more resource-intensive: people released to less restrictive settings (including sexually violent predators) would almost always be put on electronic monitoring with geofencing and tamper alerts, barred from living close to K–12 schools and child care (minimum 500 feet), subject to travel limits, drug and alcohol bans, specific treatments (potentially including polygraph and plethysmograph), and regular court reviews. Courts would rely on DOC investigations and recommendations delivered within 60 days, and DOC would be ordered to provide or arrange detailed transition services—discharge-plan services, a community care coordinator, possible housing support, life-skills training and benefits assistance—and to assign a social worker to help with transition if funding is provided; service providers would have to agree in writing, report monthly, and could be required to testify. The practical burdens and costs mostly fall on DOC, DSHS, courts, service providers, and local communities: DOC would likely need more staff, social workers, and supervision resources and must document placement “fair share” reasoning and notify county law and justice councils when placements cross county lines; community corrections officers must be located within 50 miles of placements, increasing staffing or travel demands; service providers face added reporting and legal exposure; individuals under release face stricter limits and monitoring. Important details are missing here—key definitions, parts of the supervision statute, and the referenced minimum conditions in RCW 71.09.092—so the exact scope of who is covered and what is required remains partly unclear.