RCW 72.78.005
Findings
—
2007 c 483.
The people of the state of Washington expect to live in safe communities in which the threat of crime is minimized. Attempting to keep communities safe by building more prisons and paying the costs of incarceration has proven to be expensive to taxpayers. Incarceration is a necessary consequence for some offenders, however, the vast majority of those offenders will eventually return to their communities. Many of these former offenders will not have had the opportunity to address the deficiencies that may have contributed to their criminal behavior. Persons who do not have basic literacy and job skills, or who are ill-equipped to make the behavioral changes necessary to successfully function in the community, have a high risk of reoffense. Recidivism represents serious costs to victims, both financial and nonmonetary in nature, and also burdens state and local governments with those offenders who recycle through the criminal justice system.
The legislature believes that recidivism can be reduced and a substantial cost savings can be realized by utilizing evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs to address offender deficits, developing and better coordinating the reentry efforts of state and local governments and local communities. Research shows that if quality assurances are adhered to, implementing an optimal portfolio of evidence-based programming options for offenders who are willing to take advantage of such programs can have a notable impact on recidivism.
While the legislature recognizes that recidivism cannot be eliminated and that a significant number of offenders are unwilling or unable to work to develop the tools necessary to successfully reintegrate into society, the interests of the public overall are better served by better preparing offenders while incarcerated, and continuing those efforts for those recently released from prison or jail, for successful, productive, and healthy transitions to their communities. Educational, employment, and treatment opportunities should be designed to address individual deficits and ideally give offenders the ability to function in society. In order to foster reintegration, chapter 483, Laws of 2007 recognizes the importance of a strong partnership between the department of corrections, local governments, law enforcement, social service providers, and interested members of communities across our state.
[
2007 c 483 s 1
.]
RCW 72.78.010
Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) A "community transition coordination network" is a system of coordination that facilitates partnerships between supervision and service providers. It is anticipated that an offender who is released to the community will be able to utilize a community transition coordination network to be connected directly to the supervision and/or services needed for successful reentry.
(2) "Evidence-based" means a program or practice that has had multiple-site random controlled trials across heterogeneous populations demonstrating that the program or practice is effective in reducing recidivism for the population.
(3) An "individual reentry plan" means the plan to prepare an offender for release into the community. A reentry plan is developed collaboratively between the supervising authority and the offender and based on an assessment of the offender using a standardized and comprehensive tool to identify the offenders' risks and needs. An individual reentry plan describes actions that should occur to prepare individual offenders for release from jail or prison and specifies the supervision and/or services he or she will experience in the community, taking into account no contact provisions of the judgment and sentence. An individual reentry plan should be updated throughout the period of an offender's incarceration and supervision to be relevant to the offender's current needs and risks.
(4) "Local community policing and supervision programs" include probation, work release, jails, and other programs operated by local police, courts, or local correctional agencies.
(5) "Promising practice" means a practice that presents, based on preliminary information, potential for becoming a research-based or consensus-based practice.
(6) "Research-based" means a program or practice that has some research demonstrating effectiveness, but that does not yet meet the standard of evidence-based practices.
(7) "Supervising authority" means the agency or entity that has the responsibility for supervising an offender.
[
2007 c 483 s 101
.]
RCW 72.78.040
Pilot program limitations
—
Individual reentry plan liability limited.
(1) Nothing in *RCW 72.78.030
is intended to shift the supervising responsibility or sanctioning authority from one government entity to another or give a community transition coordination network oversight responsibility for those activities or allow imposition of civil liability where none existed previously.
(2) An individual reentry plan may not be used as the basis of liability against local government entities, or its officers or employees.
[
2007 c 483 s 104
.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note:
RCW 72.78.030
expired June 30, 2013.
Intent
—
2007 c 483:
See note following RCW 72.09.270
.
RCW 72.78.070
Funding entitlement, obligation to maintain network not created.
Nothing in chapter 483, Laws of 2007 creates an entitlement for a county or group of counties to receive funding under the program created in *RCW 72.78.030, nor an obligation for a county or group of counties to maintain a community transition coordination network established pursuant to *RCW 72.78.030
upon expiration of state funding.
[
2007 c 483 s 107
.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note:
RCW 72.78.030
expired June 30, 2013.