Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5873 amends existing law (RCW 72.01.370 and RCW 72.01.380) to expand and clarify when superintendents of state correctional facilities may grant escorted leaves of absence, subject to the approval of the secretary of corrections and the procedures of RCW 72.01.375. The bill lists permitted purposes for escorted leave including attending a funeral or going to the bedside of a seriously ill immediate family member (with an expanded definition of "immediate family" that lists specific relatives and includes families of adopted individuals except where one incarcerated person adopted another), participating in athletic contests, performing work connected with department industrial/educational/agricultural programs, receiving medical or dental care not available in the institution, participating as a volunteer in community service projects (limited to nonviolent offenders and only when requested by a local community), and participating in reentry programs for mentorship and reentry preparation. Leaves may not take an incarcerated person beyond Washington state, the secretary must adopt rules setting conditions and safeguards to prevent escapes and require reimbursement of the state's actual costs, and state funds may not be used for these leaves unless the incarcerated person and immediate family are indigent and lack resources to reimburse the state. The state retains full liability for any act constituting gross negligence by the Department of Corrections during an escorted leave. This is a modification of existing statutes that creates procedural changes and eligibility rules for escorted leaves, revises the statutory definition of "immediate family" for these purposes, authorizes administrative rulemaking by the secretary, and imposes a reimbursement requirement and funding restriction; it does not, in the provided text, create a new crime or change criminal penalties. Affected parties named include the Department of Corrections, superintendents, incarcerated individuals, defined immediate family members, nonviolent offenders for certain projects, local communities, reentry programs, and the State of Washington regarding reimbursement and liability. The extracted text omits key details needed to fully understand implementation: the content of RCW 72.01.375 (the procedures to which leaves are subject) is not included; the specific rules the secretary must adopt (procedures, timelines, approval criteria, and enforcement) are not provided; bracketed/struck formatting in the amendment to RCW 72.01.380 makes it unclear whether reimbursement and funding provisions apply to particular subsections beyond what is shown; and the bill does not define "nonviolent offender," "indigent," or the procedures for determining indigency, nor does it include any penalties, appeals, or oversight mechanisms related to leave decisions or enforcement of reimbursement.

If enacted, more incarcerated people would be allowed supervised, short-term outings for things like family funerals or bedside visits (with a much larger group defined as “immediate family”), athletics, work tied to prison programs, certain community service projects, and reentry mentoring — but all trips must stay within Washington and need the corrections secretary’s approval and department rules. The Department of Corrections would have to create and enforce safeguards against escapes and a reimbursement system requiring inmates or their families to pay the state’s actual costs unless both the inmate and their immediate family are judged indigent, shifting many of the direct costs and new administrative duties onto inmates, families, and DOC staff. The people most affected will be superintendents and DOC staff who must screen, approve, and supervise these leaves and handle collections, incarcerated individuals who gain more limited out-of-cell opportunities but face potential cost liability, and families who may need to reimburse the state or prove indigency to avoid charges. The state keeps full liability for any grossly negligent acts during a leave, which could create legal exposure. Important implementation details are missing here — notably how indigency and “nonviolent” status will be defined, what RCW 72.01.375 requires, and the exact rulemaking and enforcement procedures — so the practical application and cost-shifting mechanisms are not fully clear.