AN ACT Relating to requiring all less restrictive alternatives for sexually violent predators to be operated by the department of social and health services or a contracted provider;
HB2704 would revise Washington’s sexually violent predator civil commitment laws to require that all “less restrictive alternatives” (LRAs) be operated by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) or by a provider under contract with DSHS. The bill defines and updates a number of terms used in the civil commitment chapter, including “less restrictive alternative,” “secure community transition facility,” “treatment,” and “sexually violent predator,” and it clarifies the standards for conditional release from total confinement into an LRA setting.
The bill also gives DSHS primary responsibility for developing LRA placements and exclusive authority to contract with housing providers for those placements. It requires the department to use a request-for-proposals process, maintain statewide accounting of contracted housing and treatment providers, report to the Legislature and Governor on availability and adequacy of placements, and oversee vendors through inspections, rulemaking, fee schedules, and contract termination authority. The bill further sets out housing, zoning, public-service, treatment, and client-specific factors that the department must consider when planning and approving LRA placements.
HB2704 would amend multiple sections of Washington’s sexually violent predator civil commitment statutes in chapter 71.09 RCW. Its main legal effect is to centralize control of less restrictive alternative placements in DSHS, replacing any broader or less formal placement structure with placements operated directly by the department or by department-contracted providers. It also adds procedural and oversight requirements for courts, treatment providers, housing vendors, and the department, and it creates a new reporting obligation to the Legislature and Governor.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for tighter state control, standardized oversight, and more formalized placement management for sexually violent predators transitioning from confinement. The bill’s structure suggests an emphasis on public safety, treatment continuity, and administrative accountability.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s increased centralization of authority in DSHS, the department’s exclusive contracting power, and the added regulatory burden on housing and treatment providers. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s emphasis on oversight, security, and fair-share distribution of placements across counties, while opponents might argue that the requirements could limit placement flexibility, increase costs, or make it harder to secure enough community housing options. The bill also expressly addresses county distribution and site-selection criteria, which could raise local concerns about where facilities are located and how burdens are shared.