Sentencing Guidelines Commission adopts nonexclusive factors for judges on repeat juvenile Option B dispositions

The Sentencing Guideline Commission on Feb. 13 voted to adopt a consolidated, nonexclusive list of factors judges should consider when deciding whether to impose a second or subsequent juvenile Option B community disposition.

Vice Chair Ty Mentzer opened the discussion and framed the item as part of a broader SGC report on sentencing alternatives. The commission heard from judges, juvenile court administrators and practitioners that local procedures and resource differences have produced county‑to‑county disparities in access to community‑based sentences.

Judge Galvan urged the group to separate policy from procedure and focus on ‘‘what is good for the children of Washington,’’ saying the report should be ‘‘based upon evidence’’ rather than political considerations. Juvenile court administrator Nordy Gregor and others described how local practices — including differing interpretations of Supreme Court juvenile rule 7.16 on warrants — limit some counties’ ability to deliver community interventions.

Ramona Brandes and staff presented two draft sets of criteria: a more constrained list intended specifically for subsequent Option B decisions and a broader draft from an outside author (Katie Hurley) that included language establishing a presumption in some cases. Members agreed the presumption provision was a separate policy choice and focused the commission’s action on identifying judicial considerations.

After extended discussion about victim input, the weight given to prior unsuccessful local sanctions, and whether programs should be described as “evidence‑based or research‑informed,” the commission moved to adopt the edited set of factors. Chair Ty Mentzer made the motion to adopt Brandes’ criteria as edited; the motion was seconded and carried. The chair and staff recorded the outcome as passing with an affirmative count (chair’s count and staff notes reflected roughly eight yes votes and one abstention).

The adopted guidance emphasizes that the list is nonexclusive and intended to inform — not replace — judicial discretion. The factors include consideration of treatment amenability, current availability of research‑based or research‑informed programming, victim input or victim impact statements as allowed by law, and individualized assessment of the youth’s current needs and past opportunities to engage in services.

Commissioners repeatedly stressed that expanding access to community sentences will require adequate funding and implementation planning. Several members noted that out‑of‑state programs cited as examples (Redeploy Illinois, Ohio Reclaim) relied on grant or reallocation models that yielded larger savings only at greater initial scale; one speaker cited costs for intensive, day‑reporting models at about $1,000,000 per youth as an example of resource intensity discussed during the meeting.

Next steps: SGC staff will incorporate the adopted language into the sentencing alternatives report and circulate a redlined version to members for final review. The commission also signaled it will continue monitoring bill 2389 and related legislation during the session and will reconvene if significant statutory language changes require revisiting the commission’s positions.