Juvenile Rehabilitation Institutions.  On July 1, 2019, the Juvenile Rehabilitation division (JR) transferred from the Department of Social and Health Services to the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF).  JR operates three juvenile institutions for juveniles, who are convicted of crimes and serving more than 30 days of confinement.

The Echo Glen Children's Center in Snoqualmie serves younger males as well as female offenders.  The Green Hill School in Chehalis serves older male offenders.  The Naselle Youth Camp serves male offenders and provides services such as the forestry work program.
 
Capacity to Commit a Crime.  Under Washington State law, children under the age of 8 are legally incapable of committing a crime and may not be prosecuted in either juvenile or adult court.  Children ages 8 through 11 are presumed incapable of committing a crime, but this presumption may be removed by proof they have sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect, and to know that it was wrong. Children ages 12 and older are presumed to have the capacity to commit a crime.

Capacity to Commit a Crime.  Children under age 13 are incapable of committing crime.  Children ages 8 through 12 who are charged with murder 1 or 2 are presumed incapable of committing a crime.  This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the individual had sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect, and to know that it was wrong.  Children age 13 and older are presumed to have the capacity to commit a crime.  The minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction for the commission of an offense is 13 years old.
 
Raise the Age Juvenile Justice Task Force.  The Raise the Age Juvenile Justice Task Force (task force) is established to examine and plan for implementation of juvenile jurisdiction expansion to encompass individuals ages 18 and 19.  The task force includes legislative members from both the Senate and House of Representatives and members representing:

• Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration;
• Department of Corrections (DOC);
• Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs;
• Office of Public Defense;
• Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys;
• District and Municipal Court Judges' Association;
• Administrative Office of the Courts;
• Washington State Association of Counties;
• Association of Washington Cities;
• Washington State Council of County and City Employees;
• Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
• Minority and Justice Commission;
• Superior Court Judges' Association—one member representing western Washington and one member representing eastern Washington;
• Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators—one member representing western Washington and one member representing eastern Washington;
• Washington State School Directors' Association—a member representing a school district providing education services to a juvenile rehabilitation residential facility;
• organizations with interests in incarcerated persons—two members representing different programs and serving different constituencies; and
• organizations with interests of youth-involved in juvenile justice system—three members from different regions of the state or representing different programs.

A report will be submitted before December 1, 2022, that includes:

• necessary funding, essential personnel and programmatic resources, specific milestones related to operations and policy;
• measures necessary to avoid a negative impact on the state's child protection response;
• a timeline for structural and system changes within the juvenile justice system for JR, DCYF, DOC, and the juvenile court;
• an operations and business plan defining benchmarks and possible resource allocation changes;
• review of estimated costs avoided by local and state governments with the reduction of recidivism and an analysis of cost savings reinvestment options;
• estimated new costs incurred to provide juvenile justice services to individuals ages 18 and 19; and
• a clearly defined path for geographic consistency given varying local resources, staff, physical plant limitations, training, services, and partnering needs.

The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard.  PRO:  Youth are to be developed and not a problem to solve.  The brains of young people are still forming.  We are compounding the injustices and magnifying the racial inequities that exist throughout our legal systems.  There are successful models for 18-24 rehabilitation programs that do not rely on criminalizing behavior as the only way to get services.  Our current system flies in the face of adolescent brain development and shared commitment to protect our most vulnerable.  We can do better as a community and a state.
 
CON:  Expanding juvenile jurisdiction to include those aged 18 and 19 is problematic.  Age 18 is a logical start when an individual becomes an adult.  This policy could be addressed with the statewide criminal sentencing task force.  This bill will dramatically increase the risk to the marginalized youth and exacerbate the risk to these individuals as they would be preyed upon by adults.  Juvenile system needs a serious system and making juveniles less accountable is not the answer. 
 
OTHER:  This bill allows the juvenile legal system to serve the right youth, exclude those who would be harmed, and include those who would benefit the most from a rehabilitative system.  It aligns the way we treat children with research on recidivism and child development.  It is also good for public safety.  The health impact review shows strong evidence that this bill would decrease legal criminal involvement, improve health outcomes, and reduce recidivism.  Emerging adults have better health outcomes when they are housed in juvenile rehabilitation facilities compared to adult correction facilities. 
 
This bill moving 19 year olds to juvenile court jurisdiction is a major policy change that requires comprehensive planning and preparation.  There are fiscal impacts and staffing concerns as the county juvenile courts will have an influx of cases.  Moving adults to juvenile courts is not just happening on paper, it will cost more as juvenile rehabilitative services are more expensive and require more labor.