This bill amends existing law (RCW 71.09.096 and RCW 9.94A.501, with 2025 citations noted) to change procedures for conditional release of persons committed under chapter 71.09 and to revise who the department must supervise under community custody. For conditional releases it requires courts or juries to order less restrictive alternatives when in the person’s best interest and when minimum statutory conditions are met, requires the court to impose additional individualized conditions to ensure treatment compliance and community protection or remand the person to DSHS custody if no such conditions exist, and directs the Department of Corrections to investigate proposed placements and recommend additional conditions within 60 days. The amendments add specific procedural requirements and minimum conditions: written agreements from non-DSHS/DOC providers (with waiver of privilege and ability to compel testimony), electronic monitoring with real-time tracking and tamper/exclusion-zone alerts where feasible, proximity restrictions of at least 500 feet from child care facilities and K–12 schools, potential use of polygraph/plethysmograph and GPS monitoring, monthly provider compliance reporting to the court and agencies, assignment of a social worker to assist discharge planning and start clinical transition 15 days before release (subject to appropriation), annual court reviews beginning within one year of release, and requirements about fair share placement considerations and notifications to county law and justice councils. The department’s development or proposal of less restrictive alternatives is treated as a predisposition recommendation and characterized as performing a quasi-judicial function in that context. The changes to RCW 9.94A.501 alter supervision responsibilities: misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenders supervised under the section must be placed on community custody; the department must supervise every felony-convicted person sentenced to community custody if a risk assessment classifies them as high risk, and must supervise people regardless of risk if they meet specified statutory criteria (a list of criteria in the statute is referenced); the department must also supervise persons released by the indeterminate sentence review board who were sentenced to community custody, persons granted conditional commutation, and sexually violent predators under chapter 71.09 (with the supervising community corrections officer’s primary work location required to be within 50 miles of the person’s residential placement). The department is not authorized to supervise persons unless supervision is required by this section. Supervision durations are tied to existing community custody duration limits except where exceptional terms or gubernatorial action apply, and supervision may be reduced by earned compliance credit. The department must perform a risk assessment for every felony-convicted person who may be subject to supervision. Several important details are missing from the extracted material and thus uncertain: portions of the amendments to RCW 9.94A.501 are incomplete (the text cuts off during a listed set of criteria), key definitions used repeatedly in the amendments (for example, a formal statutory definition of “less restrictive alternative” and full definitions related to the special commitment center or secure community transition facility) are not provided in these extracts, and the specific identity of “the department” referenced in the supervision provisions is not specified within the provided facts.

If enacted, courts will have a clearer, enforceable path to release certain committed individuals into narrowly tailored community placements instead of remaining in secure care, but those releases will come with strict, technology-heavy conditions: real-time GPS-style electronic monitoring with exclusion zones and tamper alerts, at least 500-foot buffers from daycare and K–12 schools, monthly provider compliance reports, and DOC-ordered investigations and recommended conditions within 60 days. Practical consequences include more frequent court reviews (within a year and annually), written agreements forcing non-DSHS/DOC providers to accept treatment and supervision duties (and to testify if required), and requirements that supervising community corrections officers be based within 50 miles of placements; a social worker must assist discharge planning if funds are provided and must start clinical transition planning 15 days before release. The agencies and people most affected are DSHS and DOC (more investigations, quasi-judicial planning, documentation, and potential new placement decisions), community corrections officers (work location constraints and added supervision workloads), private treatment providers (new written-agreement obligations, reporting, and possible legal exposure), counties and law-and-justice councils (receiving placements and notices, and dealing with “fair share” documentation), and the committed individuals (greater chance of conditional community release but under intensive monitoring and restrictions). The bill will likely increase staffing and monitoring technology costs and require DOC/DSHS to document placement rationales; however, some key details are missing or incomplete in the extracted text—notably full amendments to the referenced supervision statute and a formal definition of “less restrictive alternative”—so exact operational duties and scope remain partly uncertain.