Committee hears sweeping juvenile-disposition bill as advocates and prosecutors clash over funding and public safety
Loading...
Summary
The Early Learning & Human Services Committee debated House Bill 23-89, which would expand community-based disposition alternatives, require mid-sentence reviews for long juvenile commitments and reduce some juvenile sentencing ranges; supporters said it promotes rehabilitation and reduces racial disparities, while prosecutors, sheriffs and some judges warned it shifts costs to counties and could risk public safety without added resources.
The Early Learning & Human Services Committee on Jan. 5 heard hours of testimony on House Bill 23-89, a package of changes that would expand eligibility for suspended disposition alternatives so more juveniles are supervised in the community instead of placed in state juvenile rehabilitation (JR) facilities.
Sponsor Vice Chair Julio Cortez (38th Legislative District) said the bill “modernizes how Washington responds to young people who enter our juvenile justice system” and prioritizes community-based rehabilitation when it is safe to do so. Cortez told the committee HB 23-89 would force courts to weigh treatment and support before resorting to confinement and would require judges to explain why community placement would be unsafe for particular youth.
Proponents, including juvenile defenders, researchers and people with lived experience, argued the current system over-relies on confinement and that shorter, individualized responses reduce recidivism. Katie Hurley of the King County Department of Public Defense said the bill reduces reliance on a 50‑year‑old sentencing grid and gives judges authority to consider a young person’s development and supports. Dr. Edward Mulvey, a researcher cited by supporters, told the committee that Washington’s average stay after disposition is “about 11 and a half months,” roughly double the national average and that periodic reviews can distinguish treatment engagement from “just doing time.”
Several witnesses who said they had been incarcerated described traumatic experiences at JR facilities and urged the committee to give judges off-ramps to preserve rehabilitation. Dorothy Adams, who testified about being trafficked as a teen and later institutionalized, said HB 23-89 “gives judges the ability to see the whole child and not just the charge.”
Opponents raised operational and public-safety concerns. Judge Kristin Ferreira, speaking for the Superior Court Judges Association, said Part 1 of the bill effectively compresses many offenses into the lowest sentencing category unless a judge makes specific findings and warned the bill requires infrastructure and programming that many counties currently lack. Prosecutors and county officials, including Russell Brown (Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys) and Travis Dutton (Association of Counties), said the measure shifts responsibility from the state to counties, could increase court workloads through new appellate rights and mid-sentence reviews, and would need dedicated funding for supervision, electronic home monitoring, victim services and other supports.
Opponents also stressed limits of community capacity. Barbara Serrano of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) told lawmakers that while the bill could produce modest population reductions over five years, Green Hill School’s population is heavily weighted toward youth with adult felony sentences who remain ineligible for community placement; she urged clearer emergency-transfer language and a practical plan for addressing overcrowding.
Committee members pressed witnesses for specifics about sentencing-grid changes. Ranking Member Burnett asked staff for numeric equivalencies after staff described reductions in the sentencing ranges for robbery offenses. Staff said the bill reduces certain juvenile robbery ranges substantially (for example, a reduction for some 15‑year‑olds from roughly 103–129 weeks down to about 30–40 weeks) and referred members to the bill analysis for full tables.
The hearing featured strong, competing testimonials: survivors and defense advocates urged more individualized, community-based responses and cited racial disparities in juvenile confinement, while law‑enforcement and prosecuting officials warned that some youth need JR services and that adding presumption and appellate review rights would increase administrative burden and fiscal pressures on counties.
The committee paused HB 23-89 at the end of the day and left the hearing record open for additional testimony and written comments. No committee vote or formal action occurred during the session.
