HB 1218 to set up a state incentive program for jurisdictions that reduce competency referrals is scheduled to be voted out of a Senate committee.
The bill was criticized by prosecutors at a Thursday hearing before the Senate Law & Justice committee for the increased resources required for its modifications of competency evaluation processes, and for geographic disparities in the availability of services.
AWC is grateful that the bill has been amended so that it no longer proposes to fine local governments where courts exceed a cap on competency referrals, as the original version did. As a result of this change, AWC changed its position from opposed to neutral. That penalty has been replaced with an incentive program to instead pay state funds to cities and counties where restoration orders go down. However, the source for this funding and its accessibility for all potentially eligible cities remains unclear.
Watch AWC’s testimony at TVW.
The Senate Law & Justice Committee is scheduled to vote on HB 1218 April 1, with further amendments expected to be introduced.
Court competency evaluation changes bill to receive public input before Senate committee
March 24, 2025
HB 1218 to modify how courts handle competency evaluations will receive a public hearing this week after passing the House.
Thursday’s hearing is an opportunity to voice cities’ concerns about this bill. Although the version that passed the house was much improved from the initial proposal, it still contains a number of elements that could strain cities’ limited mental-health resources.
The bill also proposes to create a new funding source to reward jurisdictions for decreasing their reliance on judicial competency referrals, but the state’s ability to pay for this incentive program in a year of deep budget strain remains unclear.
AWC remains engaged on this issue as it navigates through the Legislature.
Dates to remember
HB 1218 is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Law & Justice Committee on Thursday, March 27 at 10:30 am.
Competency evaluations bill passes House after amendments remove AWC-opposed cap and fines
March 17, 2025
A much-improved HB 1218 proposing changes to how courts handle competency evaluations moves to the Senate after a 53-44 House vote March 12.
The amended version replaces a flawed proposal to cap competency evaluations and impose fines if courts exceed the number of referrals, despite potential variances in a community’s need for behavioral health interventions. That limit has been replaced with a requirement for the state Department of Health and Human Services to provide an incentive fund to reward cities and counties that reduce their numbers of people entering the justice system with needs that require behavioral health intervention.
AWC continues to have concerns about the bill, including the array of factors that can lead to increased demand for mental-health services, as well as the availability of resources to fund the incentive program.
The bill sits in the Senate Law & Justice Committee awaiting a hearing to be scheduled.
AWC testifies in opposition of bill that would cap competency evaluations and fine cities
March 3, 2025
AWC continues to oppose HB 1218 as it moves forward in the legislative process. Watch AWC’s testimony on TVW.
AWC finds this bill is not the right approach to help solve an increasing issue of more people coming in contact with the criminal justice system who are also in dire need of mental health care services.
The bill proposes to cap the number of competency evaluations themselves, regardless of a community’s potentially high need for behavioral health intervention for those charged with a crime. This change assumes that any city has any level of control over the number of people who enter the criminal justice system who a judge determines needs to be assessed and/or receive competency evaluation or restoration in the first place.
The bill goes even further in that it proposes financial penalties for jurisdictions that go over the proposed cap for evaluations.
Cities instead seek statewide solutions to address the issue of increased competency evaluations by helping increase the existing capacity to treat mental health conditions out in the community, before someone with a condition reaches the point of committing a crime and thus court involvement.
Reach out to us with any stories or information you have about how this would impact your courts, community, and city.
Amendments to bill changing trial competency evaluations do not improve it for cities
February 24, 2025
HB 1218, proposing to impact the frequency of competency evaluations to stand trial, was amended as it passed out of its committee.
The amended bill makes the following changes:
- Allows a party in the proceeding to request that a forensic navigator referral be made for a person charged with a class A felony;
- Adds the following duties for forensic navigators:
- Gather collateral information regarding the presence of disabilities, injuries, or cognitive disorders to help inform referrals for diversion or services;
- Gather accurate contact information from relevant persons to facilitate timely contact if the individual is referred for services; and
- Provide a coordinated transition of an individual found not competent and not restorable due to an intellectual or developmental disability, dementia, traumatic brain injury, or other neurocognitive disorders to appropriate case managers within DSHS.
- Requires a court hearing on whether a person should be transferred from inpatient to outpatient restoration to occur within 10 days (rather than 5 days) of notice from DSHS;
- Provides alternative language regarding orders for involuntary medication. Requires a court to set a hearing to consider an order for involuntary medication within 10 days of receiving notice from the DSHS that a defendant’s condition and amenability to treatment are such that an order for involuntary medication is necessary. Allows hearings relating to involuntary medication to be conducted by video if specified standards are met;
- Delays implementation of the growth cap penalty provisions until fiscal year 2027;
- Disconnects the growth cap penalty amounts from whether or not the county has established a behavioral health diversion plan. Provides instead that commencing in fiscal year 2028, each county is subject to a penalty of 150 percent of the rate for the third and subsequent individual orders over the baseline; and
- Specifies necessary components of behavioral health diversion plans and states that the DSHS may provide technical assistance and data to counties developing diversion plans.
As amended, AWC remains concerned with the impacts of the bill, in that it still would pit jurisdictions within a county against one another, it still assumes that cities have control over (and thus the ability to limit) the number of people charged with a crime also requiring a competency evaluation, and still would penalize jurisdictions over the lack of local access to behavioral health care in the region, regardless of the existing availability of local services.
AWC testifies with concerns over bill changing trial competency evaluations
January 17, 2025
A bill that proposes to impact the frequency of competency evaluations to stand trial had a hearing last week.
HB 1218, sponsored by Rep. Darya Farivar (D–Seattle), directs the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to establish a cap program to limit the number of in-jail competency evaluations in each county.
Over the years, the number of in-jail competency orders have increased as we have more individuals in the criminal justice system presenting with mental health concerns. This proposal proports to address the rising cost of providing necessary competency restoration services; however, the bill simply restricts the number of evaluations themselves, regardless of a community’s need for behavioral health intervention for those charged with a crime.
AWC opposes the bill as written and provided testimony alongside other local government partners detailing our concerns. Namely:
- This bill proposal would have unintended consequences of pitting jurisdictions within a county against one another over already scarce resources, because proposing a limit means some communities will be on the hook for extra costs if they go beyond the cap.
- This proposal assumes that cities and counties have control over the number of individuals charged with a crime who also suffer from a mental health disability.
- This bill would penalize jurisdictions over the lack of local access to behavioral health care in the region, regardless of the existing availability of local services. This would also lead to more cases being dismissed.
Cities instead seek statewide solutions to address the issue of increased competency evaluations by addressing the existing capacity to treat mental health conditions out in the community, before someone with a condition reaches the point of committing a crime and thus court involvement.
Watch AWC’s testimony on the bill and reach out to us with any questions or concerns you may have about this legislation.
Background
The U.S. District Court’s 2015 Trueblood v. DSHS lawsuit challenged statewide unconstitutional delays in competency evaluation and restoration services for people detained in jails.
As it currently works, if a court believes a mental health disability may prevent a defendant from assisting in their own defense, the criminal case is put on hold while an evaluation is completed to determine the defendant’s competency. If an evaluation finds the defendant competent, they are returned to stand trial.
If the evaluation finds the person is not competent to stand trial, the court can order services to restore competency. To avoid penalty fines, the state must:
- Complete in-jail competency evaluations within 14 days of court orders; and
- Provide competency restoration services within 7 days of court orders.
Restoration treatment to stand trial aims to answer two questions:
- Does an individual understand the charges against them?
- Are they able to assist the attorney and participate in their own defense
If no to either question due to a behavioral health condition, then restoration sets the goal to get individuals to a point where they can understand the charges before they proceed in a trial.