This bill text amends RCW 71.09.096 and changes the procedures and conditions for ordering a conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (LRA). It directs that a court or jury must order an LRA if release is in the person’s best interest, adequately protects the community, and minimum conditions in RCW 71.09.092 and the section are met. The court must impose any additional conditions needed for treatment compliance and community safety; if no such conditions exist, the person is remanded to DSHS custody for secure facility treatment under RCW 71.09.060(1). Non-DSHS/DOC service providers designated to deliver treatment must agree in writing to provide treatment and monitoring and may be compelled to testify (testimonial privileges are waived for them). The amendment imposes specific minimum conditions and procedural requirements: electronic monitoring with real-time tracking features to the extent feasible; a residence proximity restriction of at least one-half mile from child care facilities, K–12 public or private schools, and recreational facilities; monthly reporting by designated providers on compliance; and court review of each LRA case no later than one year after release and annually thereafter. The Department of Corrections (DOC) must investigate proposed LRAs, recommend additional individualized conditions within 60 days, and may recommend conditions such as residence restrictions, verified social contacts, victim contact prohibitions, substance restrictions, specified treatment (including polygraph/plethysmograph monitoring), GPS monitoring, DOC supervision, travel restrictions, and other court-ordered conditions. DOC must try to identify placements consistent with “fair share” principles, document its rationale, and notify the receiving county’s law and justice council if the person is released outside the county of commitment; DOC’s LRA recommendations are described as “predisposition recommendations” and DOC is treated as performing a quasi-judicial function in developing and enforcing LRAs. When ordered to investigate, DOC must, subject to appropriations, assign a social worker to assist with discharge planning and benefits and must initiate clinical transition of care at least 15 days before release. This is a procedural change to existing law that adds specified conditions, monitoring, reporting, timelines, DOC duties, and collaboration requirements for LRAs; it does not create a new substantive crime or change criminal penalties. The text references other statutes (RCW 71.09.092, RCW 71.09.080(4), RCW 71.09.060(1), RCW 72.09.340, RCW 36.69.010, RCW 71.09.250) whose full content is not included here, and the identity of “the secretary” referenced in subsection (8) is not specified in the provided facts.

If enacted, the law would push many people now in secure civil commitment toward supervised community placements unless a court finds that release would not protect the community or necessary conditions can’t be imposed. Courts would routinely require real‑time electronic monitoring with geofencing and tamper alerts, a minimum half‑mile ban on living near schools, child care, and recreation sites, and regular court review; if acceptable community conditions can’t be found the person stays in a secure DSHS facility. The Department of Corrections would be required to investigate proposed placements within 60 days, recommend individualized supervision and treatment conditions, try to distribute placements according to “fair share” principles, and—when ordered—deliver or coordinate specific transition services including housing support and a community care coordinator. The practical burdens fall most heavily on DOC (tighter deadlines, new investigation and documentation duties, a quasi‑judicial role, and potential costs for housing and services) and on local courts (to impose specified monitoring and proximity limits and hold annual reviews). Community treatment providers must enter written agreements, report monthly, and can be compelled to testify, creating extra administrative work and potential legal exposure. Funding and staffing questions remain unclear: assigning DOC social workers and some DOC duties are explicitly tied to appropriations, and the text references other statutory minimums and “the secretary” without defining them, so the scale of costs and how some requirements will be implemented is uncertain.