Substitute Senate Bill 5426 revises and adds provisions to Washington’s juvenile justice statutes (amending RCW 13.40.020 and other sections and adding new sections to chapters 13.40 and 13.06) to expand and formalize diversion options, allow courts to contract with community providers, strengthen due process around diversion, and require improved data collection and reporting. The bill is a mix of statutory modifications and new law: it amends existing definitions and procedures, creates grant and programmatic authorities (through the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and its office of juvenile justice), and tasks the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) with developing uniform diversion and detention data standards and providing legislative reports. Key procedural changes include a requirement that probable cause be determined by a prosecutor or probation counselor before a diversion agreement is entered; that parents cannot block a juvenile’s participation in diversion; limits on diversion agreements (generally up to six months, with a possible six‑month extension at the juvenile’s request and certain provisions allowing supervision to extend beyond a juvenile’s 18th birthday); caps on community restitution (not to exceed 150 hours) and limits on counseling/educational hours in diversion; transfer and termination procedures that guarantee written notice, disclosure, hearing rights, and written findings, and a prohibition on terminating a diversion agreement on or after the juvenile’s 21st birthday. The bill also clarifies many statutory definitions (for example community supervision durations, community restitution, diversion unit, and that a successfully completed diversion may not be counted as criminal history) and includes timelines for residential treatment review hearings (first review within 60 days, then every 30 days). The bill creates program funding and reporting mechanisms: DCYF is directed to adopt standards for consolidated juvenile services, establish grant programs (subject to available appropriations) prioritizing community‑based organizations, and the AOC must collect youth‑level secure detention and diversion agreement data monthly and produce annual statewide reports disaggregated by age, race, ethnicity, gender, tribal affiliation if known, and county. An AOC data‑development section requires a report by July 1, 2026, and the AOC data‑development statutory work expires July 1, 2027. Several provisions (for interpreters, grants, and programs) are expressly subject to available funds. Some important specifics are not shown in the extracted text: the bill’s stated expiration date and the full amended language for the other cited RCWs (13.40.080, 13.06.010, 13.06.030, 13.06.040, and 2.56.032) are not included; portions of several definitions and due process provisions are cut off; and appropriation or funding details for the new grants and interpreter requirements are not provided in the excerpts.

If enacted, the bill makes diversion a more structured and enforceable option for young people by spelling out who can offer diversion, what agreements can include, and new protections for juveniles. Diversion agreements would generally be limited to six months (with one six‑month extension at the juvenile’s request), may extend past a youth’s 21st birthday if entered earlier, and cannot be terminated without a court hearing that provides written notice, evidence disclosure, and the right to counsel and confrontation. Prosecutors or probation counselors must determine probable cause before diversion, parents cannot block a child from entering diversion, restitution can be converted to community service at minimum wage if unpaid, and the state says it is not liable for certain counseling or program costs; several provisions (interpreters, grants, rulemaking, and DCYF/AOC duties) depend on available appropriations. The practical effects fall heaviest on juvenile courts, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), diversion units, and community providers. Courts must collect and transmit youth‑level detention and diversion data at least monthly and will face added administrative work to meet new reporting and disclosure rules; AOC must develop common measures and produce an annual, disaggregated diversion and detention report (with a data‑development effort due July 1, 2026 and that section expiring July 1, 2027). DCYF must set standards and run a discretionary grant program to support community diversion services, but funding and interpreter obligations are conditional on appropriations. Important implementation details are missing from the excerpts provided, including exact effective dates, specific appropriation amounts, and the full amended statutory language.