Can a Washington county run its own basic corrections officer training academy and certify its corrections officers, or does that have to go through the state Criminal Justice Training Commission?
Plain-English summary
King County's prosecuting attorney asked AG Bob Ferguson whether King County could run and administer its own basic corrections officer training academy, both training and certifying its new corrections officers. The answer pulls apart "training" and "certifying" and treats them differently.
Training: the CJTC Act, RCW 43.101, gives the Criminal Justice Training Commission discretion to approve basic corrections training conducted by entities other than the CJTC, including counties. Several provisions in the statute, RCW 43.101.080(9), (12), .170, and .220(1), point to that "approve programs run by others" model. The contrast with RCW 43.101.200(3) is significant: for basic law enforcement training, the legislature gave the CJTC "sole authority" to provide it. For corrections training, the legislature did not. Under the canon that omitted language is presumed intentional (Perez-Crisantos), the CJTC has the authority to approve county-run corrections academies.
Certification: only the CJTC can certify a corrections officer. RCW 43.101.080(2), .095(1), and the related provisions vest grant, denial, suspension, and revocation authority in the CJTC alone. Counties can recommend, request, and rely on conditional offers, but they cannot certify on their own.
Today's rules: the CJTC's regulations in WAC 139-10 use the definite article "the" to describe specific CJTC-run academies (the corrections officers academy, the juvenile corrections academy, etc.), and the CJTC's own published guidance directs that those specific courses are how the basic-training requirement is met. There is no current rule explaining how a county would apply for approval to run its own academy. So even though the statute permits it, the rules don't currently allow it. King County would need a CJTC rule, contract, or other approval mechanism before opening its own basic corrections academy.
What this means for you
If you administer a Washington county jail or juvenile detention center
The current rule set requires basic corrections officers to complete the CJTC's named academies. WAC 139-10-230, .240, and the related sections name specific courses. You cannot lawfully send a new hire through a county-run academy and have that satisfy the basic-training requirement for certification. If you want to do that, the path forward is to ask the CJTC to develop a rule, policy, or contract framework for approving county-operated programs. The opinion expressly leaves the form of approval (rule, contract, or other) open. The legislature also remains an option: a statute requiring or expediting the CJTC's approval would foreclose the discretionary stall.
If you're hiring corrections officers
A conditional offer of employment subject to CJTC certification is the statutorily contemplated path, RCW 43.101.095(2)(a). The hire works as a corrections officer only after CJTC certification or a recognized exemption. You cannot complete certification in-house.
If you advise the CJTC
The opinion is candid: "the CJTC has discretion" to approve county-run programs, and has simply not exercised that discretion. The board has policy choice here. It can keep the existing centralized model, build an approval framework, or develop hybrid contracts. Whichever way the CJTC goes, the regulatory record should track the discretion explicitly because the statute would otherwise read in tension with the CJTC's narrower current rules.
If you serve in the legislature on the relevant committees
The opinion identifies the meaningful policy lever: there is no statutory bar to county-run academies for corrections, only an unexercised CJTC approval power. If the legislature wants more local capacity, the cleanest fix is statutory direction or appropriation tied to a defined CJTC approval pathway. The same reasoning explains why local capacity for basic law-enforcement training is statutorily off-limits, RCW 43.101.200(3) is explicit about that.
Common questions
Can King County (or any county) train its own corrections officers right now?
Not for certification purposes. The current CJTC rules direct basic training to the specific CJTC-run academies. A county could run a parallel program for its own purposes (developmental, supplemental, refresher), but completing it would not satisfy the basic-training prerequisite for CJTC certification.
Could the CJTC change that without a new statute?
Yes. The opinion concludes RCW 43.101 gives the CJTC discretion to approve programs run by others. The CJTC could, by rule or contract, set up an approval pathway. The opinion does not require a particular form.
Why is corrections training different from basic law-enforcement training?
In 2021 the legislature gave the CJTC "sole authority" to provide basic law-enforcement training, RCW 43.101.200(3). It did not adopt parallel language for corrections, RCW 43.101.220(2). Under standard canons of statutory construction (the inclusion-elsewhere canon), the omission is presumed deliberate.
Can a county certify its own officers if it runs the training?
No. Certification authority belongs to the CJTC. RCW 43.101.080(2), .095(1), .105 lock that power down. There is no route to county-issued certification under existing statutes.
What does the WAC say if a county wanted to apply?
Nothing. WAC 139-10 has no application or approval procedure for non-CJTC programs. That absence is part of why the opinion concludes county-run programs are not currently authorized in practice.
Is this opinion binding on King County?
No. The opinion notes the standard rule that AG opinions are persuasive, not binding. Courts give "little deference to attorney general opinions on issues of statutory construction." If the County disagrees, it can litigate or seek legislative or regulatory change.
Background and statutory framework
The CJTC was created in 1974, originally to "provide programs and standards for the training of criminal justice personnel." The 1981 Corrections Reform Act extended training requirements to corrections personnel and directed the CJTC to provide that training. The 2020 amendments added a CJTC certification requirement for corrections officers as a condition of continuing employment. The 2021 amendments gave the CJTC "sole authority" for basic law-enforcement training, but, importantly, did not adopt similar language for corrections.
The opinion uses two interpretive moves to reach its conclusion:
- Read RCW 43.101 as a whole. Multiple provisions ("approve training programs," "permit required training... at existing institutions approved by the [CJTC]," "complies with standards adopted by the [CJTC]") only make sense if the CJTC may approve non-CJTC programs.
- Apply the inclusion-elsewhere canon. The 2021 sole-authority language for law enforcement, contrasted with its absence for corrections, is read as a deliberate legislative choice.
For training of corrections personnel today, RCW 43.101.220(1) requires compliance with CJTC standards; RCW 43.101.220(2) directs the CJTC to "provide" the training. The opinion concludes (2) tells the CJTC what it must do, not what others may not do.
For certification, RCW 43.101.080(2), .095, and .105 form a closed system: the CJTC grants, denies, suspends, and revokes; an employer's role is limited to conditional offers and requests for action.
Citations
The plain-meaning approach the opinion takes comes from Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn. The agency-rule interpretation principle (apply rules of statutory construction) comes from Overlake Hospital Association. The inclusion-elsewhere canon is anchored in Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm. The "AG opinions are persuasive but not binding" framing comes from City of Seattle v. Department of Labor & Industries and ATU Legislative Council. ZDI Gaming and City of Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems are cited for the same point in footnote.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/rcw-43101-permits-criminal-justice-training-commission-authorize-counties-operate-and
Original opinion text
Attorney General
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING COMMISSION – COUNTIES – LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS – STATUTORY AUTHORITY – REGULATIONS – RCW 43.101 Permits The Criminal Justice Training Commission To Authorize Counties To Operate And Administer Their Own Basic Corrections Officer Training Academies, But The Commission's Current Rules Have Not Granted Such Authorization, And Only The Commission Has The Authority To Certify Officers
August 21, 2024
The Honorable Leesa Manion
King County Prosecuting Attorney
King County Courthouse W400
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Cite As:
AGO 2024 No. 2
Dear Prosecuting Attorney Manion:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following question:
May counties operate and administer their own basic corrections officer training academies to both train and certify new corrections officers in accordance with standards established by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC)?
BRIEF ANSWER
RCW 43.101 permits the CJTC to approve county operated and administered basic corrections training programs, but it does not authorize any agency but the CJTC to certify corrections officers. While the CJTC could allow county-operated and administered basic corrections training programs, it has not yet done so. Thus, if King County could obtain approval from the CJTC, King County could operate and administer its own basic corrections officer training academy, but only the CJTC may certify new corrections officers.
LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Before turning to the specifics of your question, a few prefatory points are worth noting. First, as we frequently note, our role in an Attorney General Opinion is to give our best assessment of what the law is, not to opine on what the law should be or the merits of a particular policy. We thus express no view here on how corrections officer training should be conducted. Second, while courts give Attorney General Opinions "some deference[,]" City of Seattle v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 136 Wn.2d 693, 703, 965 P.2d 619 (1998), Attorney General Opinions are not binding on courts or others, see id., and courts "give[] little deference to attorney general opinions on issues of statutory construction[,]" like this one, ATU Legis. Council of Washington State v. State, 145 Wn.2d 544, 554, 40 P.3d 656 (2002). Thus, if the King County Prosecutor, who asked this question, believes our answer is incorrect, nothing in this opinion requires them to accept our conclusion. With those introductory points aside, we turn to the substance of your question.
The legislature created the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) in 1974. Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 94 (hereinafter, this law and its amendments shall be referred to as the "CJTC Act"). It was created to "provide programs and standards for the training of criminal justice personnel." Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 94, § 2. "Criminal justice personnel" is an umbrella term that includes peace officers and the corrections officers relevant to your question. Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 94, § 1(3); see also RCW 43.101.010(5) (defining terms). The 1974 CJTC Act required the CJTC to adopt rules and standards governing the training of certain criminal justice personnel, but did not require that the CJTC provide any such training. Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 94, § 16. Instead, the CJTC was specifically empowered to "permit required training and education of any criminal justice personnel to be obtained at existing institutions approved for such training by the [CJTC]." Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 94, § 17.
In 1977, the legislature amended the CJTC Act to require, among other things, that certain law enforcement personnel (peace officers and the like, not including corrections officers at issue here) "engage in basic law enforcement training which complies with standards adopted by the [CJTC]" and further required that "[t]he [CJTC] shall provide the aforementioned training together with necessary facilities, supplies, materials, and the board and room of non-commuting attendees for seven days per week." Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 212, § 2. This amendment was focused primarily on funding the required training, requiring that the CJTC reimburse small law enforcement agencies for temporary replacement officers during the time that the agency's officers were in training, and further requiring that the cost of training be partially funded through bail forfeitures. Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 212, §§ 2, 3.
The CJTC had no responsibility to provide training for corrections personnel until the Corrections Reform Act of 1981, which added language to the CJTC Act for corrections personnel mirroring the 1977 amendment regarding training for law enforcement personnel. Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 26. As part of a comprehensive package of reforms that, among other things, created the Department of Corrections, the legislature provided that "corrections personnel of the state and all counties and municipal corporations . . . shall engage in basic corrections training which complies with standards adopted by the [CJTC.]" Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 26(1). The legislature further directed the CJTC to "provide the training required in this section, together with facilities, supplies, materials, and the room and board for noncommuting attendees." Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 26(3). The legislature also set out a detailed intent section for the Corrections Reform Act. Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 2.
In 2020, the legislature again amended the CJTC Act to require that corrections officers obtain certification from the CJTC "[a]s a condition of continuing employment[.]" Laws of 2020, ch. 119, § 3. It directed the CJTC to "certify corrections officers who have satisfied, or have been exempted by statute or by rule from, the basic training requirements of [the CJTC Act.]" Laws of 2020, ch. 119, § 3(1). This amendment also required that the basic corrections officer training be at least ten weeks in length. Laws of 2020, ch. 119, § 14(1).
Finally, relevant to your question, the legislature amended the CJTC Act in 2021 to provide that the CJTC "shall have the sole authority to" "provide the [basic law enforcement training]" to "[a]ll law enforcement personnel" but did not make a similar amendment for corrections personnel. Laws of 2021, ch. 323, § 31(2), (1); see also RCW 43.101.010 (defining terms).
Today, the CJTC offers a variety of trainings to fulfill the basic corrections training requirement, including the Corrections Officers Academy and the Juvenile Corrections Officers Academy. It is our understanding that all Washington counties exclusively use the CJTC's training to certify their corrections officers in compliance with the CJTC Act. You represent that this is King County's practice as well. You also represent that King County would like to begin offering its own basic corrections training and assure us that any such training "would operate within CJTC standards in order to graduate competent and certified corrections officers."
ANALYSIS
Your question requires that we interpret the CJTC Act, codified at RCW 43.101. In statutory interpretation, the "fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature's intent, and if the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent." Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Plain meaning "is discerned from all that the Legislature has said in the statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question." Id. at 11. Your question also requires us to interpret the CJTC's rules. Courts interpret agency rules "pursuant to the rules of statutory construction." Overlake Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43, 51, 239 P.3d 1095 (2010).
Here, the CJTC Act unambiguously provides that entities other than the CJTC may conduct the basic corrections training. But it is equally clear that only the CJTC has authority to certify corrections officers after completing the required training, and it need not do so where the training has not been approved by the CJTC. The CJTC has adopted rules governing basic corrections training at WAC 139-10. These rules are ambiguous, but we conclude that the CJTC has not currently approved any other organization to conduct the training and instead requires all basic corrections training to be conducted by the CJTC itself. Thus, while the CJTC has the statutory authority to allow counties such as King County to administer their own training programs for the purpose of certifying corrections officers, it has not done so, and counties currently may not operate and administer their own training programs in order to certify corrections officers that they employ.
A. Under the CJTC Act, Agencies and Organizations Other than the CJTC May Conduct the Basic Corrections Training If Authorized by the CJTC
The CJTC Act gives the CJTC authority to approve basic corrections training conducted by other agencies and organizations and to contract for such training. This necessarily means that agencies and organizations other than the CJTC, including counties, may conduct that training.
The provisions of RCW 43.101, read together, make clear that the CJTC can approve basic corrections training conducted by other agencies and organizations. For example, RCW 43.101.080(9) gives the CJTC the power to "[r]eview and approve or reject training programs conducted for criminal justice personnel and rules establishing and prescribing minimum training and education standards, including continuing education" (emphasis added). Similarly, RCW 43.101.080(12) gives the CJTC the power to "[i]ssue diplomas certifying satisfactory completion of any training or education program conducted or approved by the commission" (emphasis added). RCW 43.101.170 further gives the CJTC the authority to "permit required training and education of any criminal justice personnel to be obtained at existing institutions approved for such training by the [CJTC]." And RCW 43.101.220(1), which governs training for corrections personnel, requires that the basic education training "compl[y] with standards adopted by the [CJTC]." That would be an odd way to characterize the CJTC's role if only the CJTC were authorized to conduct the training. The plain language of all these provisions demonstrates that the CJTC may approve training programs conducted by agencies and organizations other than the CJTC.
One possible source of confusion is RCW 43.101.220(2), which states that the CJTC "shall provide the [basic corrections] training", but in light of the provisions discussed above this language is best understood as directing the CJTC to provide this training, not as prohibiting other entities from also providing such training. This understanding is confirmed by comparing RCW 43.101.220(2) to a similar statute, RCW 43.101.200(3), which governs basic law enforcement training and explicitly specifies that the CJTC "shall have the sole authority" to provide such training. The absence of similar language in RCW 43.101.220(2) strongly supports the interpretation that CJTC can approve corrections training programs offered by others. Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 187 Wn.2d 669, 680, 389 P.3d 476 (2017) ("[W]here the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another, the exclusion is presumed intentional."). Within its context, RCW 43.101.220(2) is about which entities bear the costs of the basic corrections training, not the authority to conduct it.
Interpreting the CJTC Act to allow other agencies and organizations to conduct their own training programs, with approval of the CJTC, is also consistent with the intent of the 1981 Corrections Reform Act, which required basic corrections training in the first place. Part of the intent of the Corrections Reform Act was to "provide for prudent management of resources" and to ensure that "local units of government . . . meet their responsibilities to make the corrections system effective." Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 2 (codified as RCW 72.09.010(6), (8)). If a government agency or organization has the resources to provide its own basic corrections training, then requiring that the CJTC, and only the CJTC, provide the training would run counter to the purpose of requiring "local units of government" to "meet their responsibilities." Laws of 1981, ch. 136, § 2 (codified as RCW 72.09.010(6), (8)).
B. The CJTC Has the Sole Authority to Approve Training Programs and Certify Corrections Officers
While the CJTC Act permits entities such as King County to provide the basic corrections training, the CJTC must approve the particular training program in order for completion of that training to entitle a corrections officer to certification. This conclusion stems from two exclusive powers of the CJTC: the power to approve training programs and the power to certify corrections officers.
First, and as described above, the CJTC has the exclusive power to approve training programs as complying with its promulgated standards. See RCW 43.101.080(9), (12); RCW 43.101.170. All corrections officers must complete or be exempt from the basic training requirements "under rule of the commission" in order to "retain status as a certified . . . corrections officer[.]" RCW 43.101.095(3)(a); see also RCW 43.101.105(3), (3)(a) (permitting the CJTC to "deny, suspend, or revoke certification" where a corrections officer "[f]ailed to timely meet all requirements for obtaining a certificate of . . . corrections training").
Second, the CJTC has exclusive authority to certify corrections officers. RCW 43.101.080(2) gives the CJTC the authority to "[g]rant, deny, suspend, or revoke certification of, or require remedial training for, . . . corrections officers under the provisions of this chapter." "As a condition of employment, all Washington . . . corrections officers are required to obtain certification as a . . . corrections officer or exemption therefrom and maintain certification as required by this chapter and the rules of the [CJTC]." RCW 43.101.095(1). RCW 43.101 does not contemplate the CJTC approving other entities to certify corrections officers as it contemplates the CJTC approving training programs by other entities.
Instead, the chapter as a whole supports a reading that the CJTC has the sole power to certify corrections officers. For example, RCW 43.101.105 gives the CJTC the power to deny, suspend, or revoke a corrections officer's certification. No other agency or organization has this power under the statutes. If a county could grant certification, then it would stand to reason that the county could also decertify, but that is not the case. Instead, the employer of a corrections officer must request that the CJTC take these actions (RCW 43.101.105(1)), and the CJTC "has sole discretion whether to investigate matters relating to certification, denial of certification, or revocation of certification" (RCW 43.101.145(2)). Similarly, employing agencies and organizations are permitted by statute to make only a conditional offer of employment subject to certification by the CJTC. RCW 43.101.095(2)(a). If the employing agency had the power to certify corrections officers themselves, this limited authority to offer conditional employment would be unnecessary in at least some cases.
To sum up, the CJTC has the sole power to certify corrections officers and has discretion to approve or reject any basic corrections training conducted by an agency or organization other than the CJTC. See RCW 43.101.080(9), (12); see also RCW 43.101.105(3)(a). The CJTC has discretion, for example, to require that all corrections officers take the basic corrections training from a course conducted and administered by the CJTC in order to be eligible for certification. As set out in the next section, that is exactly what the CJTC has done thus far.
C. The CJTC Has Not Enacted a Process to Approve County-Conducted Basic Corrections Training and its Rules Do Not Currently Allow for Such Training
The current rules of the CJTC do not expressly indicate whether a county-operated basic corrections training program could be approved for the purposes of corrections officer certification or how a county might obtain approval for such a training. However, we conclude that the existing rules do not permit such a county-operated training program.
WAC 139-10-210 requires that corrections personnel "commence training in a basic corrections academy" (emphasis added). It goes on, however, to enumerate several specific courses applicable to different sorts of corrections personnel. WAC 139-10-210(1). Each of these specific courses, identified in WAC 139-10-230, -235, -530, -237, -240, and -245 use the definite article "the" to describe the course. For example, "[a]ll employees whose primary job function is to provide for the custody, safety, and security of adult prisoners in jails and detention facilities must complete the corrections officers academy." WAC 139-10-230(1) (emphasis added). And "[a]ll employees whose primary job function is the care, custody, and safety of juvenile offenders in county facilities must complete the juvenile corrections academy." WAC 139-10-240 (emphasis added). The CJTC's website indicates that it offers training courses with exactly these names. On its website for the corrections officer academy, the CJTC instructs that it "must be completed within six months of hire by all full time corrections employees of a city, county, or political subdivision of the state of Washington per WAC 139-10-210, []-220 and RCW 43.101.220." A similar statement appears for the juvenile corrections officers academy, and each of the other courses identified as basic corrections training programs in WAC 139-10. The most logical reading of these rules, therefore, is that the CJTC requires corrections officers to take the specific courses offered at the CJTC.
Additionally, nowhere in WAC 139-10 has the CJTC enacted a rule governing how a county might apply for and receive approval to conduct basic corrections training. Nor has the CJTC enacted a rule specifying its training standards in anything more than a general way. WAC 139-10-230, -235, -530, -237, -240, and -245, for instance, describe the various basic corrections training courses with a short list of "subject matter areas" that they "may include" but are not limited to. The CJTC has also published a policy manual. But this manual directs the CJTC's internal operations only and does not address how a county might apply for and receive approval to offer the basic corrections training. The CJTC also publishes syllabi for its courses. But again, the syllabi are brief summaries, merely naming subject areas and the number of hours associated with them. There are no learning standards, objectives, or evaluation criteria.
These authorities indicate that the CJTC has not exercised its discretion to allow any entity but itself to conduct the basic corrections training. Therefore, while RCW 43.101 permits the CJTC to exercise its discretion to allow King County to conduct the basic corrections training required by RCW 43.101.220 and .105, the CJTC has not done so, and King County does not have the authority to conduct that training for the purpose of certifying its corrections officers without the CJTC's approval. We express no view here on the various mechanisms the CJTC might use to allow county operated basic corrections training programs, such as rule, contract, or other means.
We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
WILLIAM MCGINTY
Assistant Attorney General