Committee hears bill to require WSIPP evaluations and adjust juvenile diversion timelines

The House Early Learning and Human Services Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1248, which would require the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to conduct biennial evaluations of juvenile justice programs and would alter several rules governing juvenile diversion agreements, sponsor Rep. Travis Couture said during the committee hearing.

The bill aims to supply program-level data to jurisdictions that administer juvenile diversion and court programs. Committee counsel Luke Wickham summarized current state practice and the bill’s key changes: the state distributes juvenile block grant funding that prioritizes evidence‑based programs, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) maintains an inventory of evidence‑based and promising practices, and current statute and agency rules limit diversion agreement terms and eligibility. "House Bill 1248 requires the Washington State Institute For Public Policy to conduct evaluations of juvenile justice programs ... every 2 years," Wickham told the committee, adding that those evaluations must focus on recidivism and include a benefit‑cost analysis.

Why it matters: proponents told the committee that diversion programs vary across counties and that some widely used interventions have not been validated by current evidence inventories. Rep. Travis Couture, the bill sponsor, said the bill is a "small bill, but also impactful bill," arguing that regular evaluations would help jurisdictions identify which diversion practices reduce reoffending and make better use of juvenile block grants.

Details of the proposal: according to Wickham, WSIPP would evaluate all programs WSIPP identifies as evidence‑based at least every two years and must include recidivism outcomes and benefit‑cost analysis. The bill also alters diversion timelines: a juvenile diversion agreement could include a period extending up to the person’s 21st birthday, and after the 21st birthday any pending information in the case and any pending motion to terminate the diversion would be dismissed with prejudice. The bill would prohibit diversion agreements for an offense that occurred on or after the person’s 18th birthday; diversion must be for offenses committed while the person was a juvenile. Finally, the bill would allow a prosecutor to file an information on the offense for which a person was diverted in juvenile court if the person is under 21.

Testimony: Liz Troutman, executive director of Stand for Children Washington, said the bill is "a step in the right direction" for using available data to guide diversion and youth justice policy. Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said the bill fixes a drafting gap created when juvenile jurisdiction was extended up to age 21 in prior legislation and would ensure diversion options remain available to people still in juvenile court as they age. Roxanna Gomez, director of policy and systemic advocacy at Legal Counsel for Youth and Children, told the committee that only six programs had been approved by WSIPP as evidence‑based since 1997 and that the limitation affects which interventions counties can offer.

Process note: the hearing included questions from committee members about whether WSIPP’s analysis would mirror prior adult‑corrections cost‑benefit work and about how evaluations would inform block‑grant use. Committee counsel and the sponsor emphasized that the bill focuses on evaluation and technical fixes to ensure diversion processes align with the expanded juvenile jurisdiction to age 21.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 1248 with no formal vote during the session.