Opponents say bill to ease juvenile overcrowding by sending older youth to DOC risks undoing JR-to-25 reforms

Opponents of Senate Bill 5278 told the Senate Human Services Committee that the bill’s sweeping transfer powers would strip youth of procedural protections and risk moving people into the adult prison system for reasons beyond their control.

The bill, presented to the committee as the Juvenile Rehabilitation Overcrowding Relief Act, would require or permit transfers from the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) juvenile rehabilitation system to the Department of Corrections (DOC) when facilities exceed certain ‘‘rated bed capacity’’ thresholds, and it would change when hearings are required for transfers. Proponents said the measure is needed to address chronic overcrowding at Green Hill School; critics said it would reintroduce the very harms the JR-to-25 policy was meant to prevent.

Kelsey Anne Fung, staff to the committee, summarized the proposed substitute and said the bill contains five main elements including a requirement that DCYF adopt rules for safe operational capacity, authorization to move certain people to DOC without a transfer hearing when institutions exceed 105% of rated bed capacity, a process for some voluntary adult-court transfers, mandatory transfers for staff assaults, and accelerated deadlines for transfer hearings in certain disciplinary cases. Fung also noted DOC’s partial fiscal estimate: an indeterminate annual impact likely greater than $50,000 and a possible one-time cost of about $3,500,000 plus 29 FTEs to open dedicated housing if DOC must create space for persons under 18 separated from adults.

Sen. John Braun, R-20, sponsor of the bill, said Green Hill is ‘‘overcrowded by anywhere from 50 to 70 residents at any one time’’ and that the state is failing to deliver promised rehabilitative services under JR25. Braun said the bill is intended to give the agency tools to ‘‘make reasoned decisions’’ about moving people to relieve overcrowding, while noting that portions of earlier drafts dealing with staff sexual misconduct were being removed and handled separately.

Advocates and defense lawyers urged caution. Greta Schultz, an attorney with TeamChild, said the science that produced JR-to-25 recognized developmental differences between youth and adults and argued the solution is more investment in juvenile services, not moving young people into DOC. ‘‘Sending these youth to DOC would be the most harmful amongst them,’’ Schultz said.

Sarah Nagy, staff attorney at Columbia Legal Services and counsel in Tafalicia v. DCYF, said the bill would create mandatory transfer regimes that override statutory process rights for some youth. ‘‘A mandatory provision renders any discretionary provision meaningless in practice,’’ Nagy said, adding that the bill risks returning youth to a situation where they can be ‘‘taken away from one day to the next with no warning,’’ undermining rehabilitative incentives.

Law-enforcement organizations voiced conditional support. James McMahon, policy director for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said his organization supports the bill ‘‘with the hope that it’s never needed,’’ and warned that capacity failures in JR can create public-safety problems in local communities.

DCYF testified that the term ‘‘safe operational capacity’’ needs clear statutory or rule-based definition. Lisonbee Kreutzinger, a DCYF policy official, said DCYF engaged national juvenile-justice experts who recommended criteria — such as single-bed occupancy, access to showers and programming space — to calculate a safe capacity figure and suggested that number and the associated criteria be codified in rule so it can change without further statute. Kreutzinger also raised operational concerns about some transfer deadlines in the bill and said the department expects nontrivial workload and placement-planning impacts if transfers occur routinely.

Several testimony points touched on disciplinary practices and whether local prosecutorial charging contributed to the problem. Elizabeth Mustin of the Washington State Office of Public Defense said youth at Green Hill are disproportionately charged with serious offenses such as ‘‘prison riot’’ compared with adults in DOC institutions, distorting who is considered a safety risk. Multiple witnesses urged expanding community transition services and other community-based alternatives as less harmful tools to reduce JR population.

Committee members asked multiple follow-ups about definitions and consequences. Sen. Claire Wilson, serving as chair, and Sen. Mark Christian pressed about whether the bill would allow voluntary transfers, whether youth could change their minds after transfer, and how ‘‘safe operational capacity’’ would be defined in practice. DCYF and the bill sponsor acknowledged that work remains to refine definitions and operational details.

The committee heard a mix of support for the bill’s goal of relieving acute overcrowding and opposition focused on procedure and child-development concerns. No committee action or vote on the bill was recorded in the hearing transcript.

The committee received pro/con sign-in tallies during the 5278 hearing; staff reported 21 pro, 19 con and 1 other for that bill’s testimony day.

Looking ahead, proponents and opponents both urged further interagency work: DCYF recommended codifying safe-capacity criteria in rule; advocates recommended preserving current access to contract counsel and transfer hearing protections or creating other procedural checks if transfers proceed; and law-enforcement groups asked for durable, system-level capacity improvements so emergency transfer tools are rarely needed.