# A Vision for Justice Reform Takes Shape in Whatcom County On a crisp November morning in 2025, the Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for what would prove to be a pivotal meeting in the county's justice transformation journey. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan called the session to order at 11:04 a.m., with council members Jon Scanlon present in chambers and Tyler Byrd excused for a prior appointment. What unfolded over the next hour was a comprehensive look at how the county is reimagining its approach to criminal justice — from managing overwhelming caseloads in the prosecutor's office to planning a groundbreaking behavioral care center that could divert people from jail into treatment. The presentations revealed both the challenges facing the current system and the innovative solutions taking shape. ## Prosecutor's Office: Technology, Teamwork, and Rising Pressures Prosecuting Attorney Eric Richey opened the meeting with an update on his office's evolution, painting a picture of an agency adapting to both technological advances and mounting caseload pressures. "We are here to seek justice, uphold the law, and advocate for victims, protect public safety," Richey declared, outlining his office's core mission. But beneath this familiar statement lay a more complex reality. The prosecutor's office has undergone significant technological transformation, implementing a case management system called PBK (Prosecuted by Carpel) that has made the office paperless and improved communication. "Our case management system allows us to be paperless. It allows us to improve internal communication and case resolution speed," Richey explained. The data emerging from this system has been encouraging: "we are resolving cases faster than we are charging them, and that's great news." The office has also invested in an Axon digital evidence management system to handle photographs, audio, and video communications. While this system has been free in the past, it will now require funding — a supplemental budget request the council will see soon. Physical improvements have matched the technological upgrades. The office converted former copy rooms into offices, taking advantage of the paperless transition, and redesigned workstations to improve communication and morale. Perhaps most tellingly, the office has formed a softball team to build camaraderie — though Richey sheepishly admitted the public defenders "clobbered us" in their recent scrimmage. Behind these improvements lies a more sobering reality: unprecedented caseload pressure. The Criminal Division, the office's largest with 22 attorneys, currently manages 1,700 pending felonies and over 1,800 misdemeanors. "The workload is unsustainable," Richey stated bluntly. This crisis is about to intensify. State-mandated reductions in public defender caseloads will mean more attorneys fighting for defendants' rights, translating to increased litigation for prosecutors. "When that happens, that's going to have a great impact on my office," Richey warned. "It's going to increase litigation because there'll be more attorneys fighting for the defendant's rights." Council member Todd Donovan probed this dynamic: "Is it going to be like, well, then they're going to come back to us? Are we in this kind of like, when does it hit a balance where..." Richey acknowledged the challenge: "Back in the old days, the public defender and prosecutor would try to keep an equal number, and that was real important with the council and this community. But that's changed." A workload study being conducted by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys should provide guidance on future staffing needs. The office's civil division faces similar pressures. Despite handling every county department and approximately 50 boards, civil attorneys haven't seen a staff increase in 30 years. "That's something that should be addressed very soon," Richey noted. On a brighter note, the Child Support Enforcement Division has earned statewide recognition, recently signing a contract to handle services for Skagit and San Juan counties — a testament to their effectiveness. Council member Scanlon requested that Richey submit his presentation materials for the public record, emphasizing transparency. He also raised the broader budget context, noting projections of an $8 million general fund gap in the upcoming biennial budget. This financial reality will frame all discussions about staffing increases, though options like the new public safety tax could provide solutions. ## Justice Center Project: Validation and Community Engagement Adam Johnson from STV, the Justice Center project manager, provided an update on the massive jail and behavioral care center project. Currently in the scenario development phase, the project team is working to validate the overall program and cost estimates at a high level. The project's "base scope" centers on fulfilling core promises to voters: ending booking restrictions and incorporating behavioral health services throughout the facility. This includes demolishing the existing jail and finding ways to replace holding areas — a complex logistical challenge. "We had some great conversations with district Superior Court prosecuting attorney and Defender's Office on Friday of last week about how we can move a lot of the non trial judicial operations so things like first appearances, things like that, out to the Labonte site," Johnson explained. This approach could save significant operational and capital costs by avoiding the need to build extensive new holding areas. The project team is grappling with crucial decisions about future-proofing the facility. Should they build kitchen and laundry facilities sized for projected 2050 needs, or locate them for later expansion? These seemingly mundane choices carry significant cost implications. Council member Donovan pressed on the core commitments to voters, noting that the ballot language emphasized public health, not just jail capacity. Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office clarified the community commitments: avoiding booking restrictions (crucial for city cooperation) and dedicating 50% of sales tax revenue to treatment and incarceration prevention services after the initial capital period. Johnson previewed a project dashboard that will track budget, milestones, and local business participation in real-time. The commitment to transparency extends to workforce participation, with tracking of certified, minority-owned, women-owned, and veteran-owned businesses. A Joint Advisory Workgroup (JAW) will convene by late November or early December, providing another avenue for community input. The project will also hold its first major public meeting on November 20 in Ferndale. Council member Scanlon inquired about outreach to diverse businesses, learning that formal outreach will accelerate as the project moves into actual construction phases. The design-build team has already participated in "meet the primes" events and established connections with local contractors. ## Behavioral Care Center: A Revolutionary Approach to Justice The meeting's most significant presentation came from the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF) workgroup that has spent months designing a behavioral care center model. Peter Frazier, IPRTF co-chair, introduced what he called "some good presentation for you," reflecting the group's excitement about their work. The workgroup brought together all the key players: Sheriff's office, prosecutor's office, public defender, Superior Court judge, health department, and project managers. Chief Corrections Deputy Caleb Erickson outlined their methodical process, starting with understanding Nashville's model and adapting it for Whatcom County's unique needs. Nashville's system — serving 4,000 jail beds with a 60-bed behavioral care center — doesn't translate directly to Whatcom County's smaller scale. The workgroup had to determine how many people would be eligible for services and what level of care they would need. Malora Christensen from Health and Community Services detailed the key decision points the workgroup wrestled with: in-custody versus out-of-custody treatment, on-site versus off-site location, and facility size. These discussions "focused on how to best balance safety, accessibility, treatment effectiveness, financial sustainability and community impact." The group coalesced around core principles: providing effective alternatives to incarceration, diverting people as early as possible, supporting both public safety and health outcomes, reducing strain on the jail system, and ensuring financial viability. The most crucial decision involved whether the behavioral care center should operate in or out of custody. After extensive deliberation, the workgroup unanimously recommended an out-of-custody model, believing it would serve more people more effectively while maintaining safety and accountability. Eric Sigmar from the prosecutor's office presented the legal framework that emerged from these discussions — what he called "a series of on ramps leading to recovery." The model creates multiple intervention points: 1. Law enforcement could take someone directly to the behavioral care center instead of booking them 2. People could be booked but released before charges are filed, with treatment as a condition 3. Post-charge diversion with court orders for treatment, offering charge reduction or dismissal for successful completion 4. Post-adjudication sentencing to treatment instead of jail time "The flexible options that are discussed on the slide... can accommodate the varying degrees of community safety risk," Sigmar explained. "The stakeholders all agree unanimously that providing greater opportunities to divert people from the jail into a fixed therapeutic setting is more humane, more cost effective, and anticipated to provide the greatest overall benefit to the community." Heather Flaherty, IPRTF co-chair, emphasized the significance of the prosecutor's commitment to true diversion. A key document in council packets was a letter from Prosecutor Richey agreeing to robust diversion policies in exchange for adequate in-custody treatment services in the new jail. "They asked that, and they said, in exchange, we will also commit to prosecutorial diversion," Flaherty explained. "That was a big concern, and question, is the prosecutor going to agree to divert people to this treatment center instead of incarceration, and their letter says we will robustly create policy and diversion opportunities." ## True Diversion: A Historic Shift Public Defender Stark Follis provided perhaps the most powerful perspective on the proposed changes. "What I would tell counsel is, in my view, there is no diversion in Whatcom County as it exists right now," he stated emphatically. "A true diversion is when somebody is diverted out of the criminal justice system rather than entering the criminal justice system." Current programs like drug court and mental health court, while valuable, don't qualify as true diversion because people are already in the system. The behavioral care center would offer something genuinely different: "the ability to take people at the point of arrest and diverting them into a behavioral Care Center, rather than incarcerating them and giving them an opportunity to succeed, and in exchange for that, they will not be prosecuted." "That is a momentous thing, and it is a first in Whatcom County, to my recollection," Follis declared, though he cautioned that agreements between current officials might not survive administrative changes unless formally codified. Council member Ben Elenbaas sought clarification on accountability, asking whether people who don't complete programs would face prosecution. The answer was yes — the system maintains consequences while offering genuine alternatives. Follis also emphasized the need for restitution mechanisms for victims, even when people successfully complete diversion programs. "Accountability can take a lot of forms," he noted, "but I do think we need to provide for restitution for victims, even if people do successfully complete the BCC program." ## Moving Forward: Decisions and Implementation As the meeting wound down, practical questions emerged about next steps and timelines. Council member Donovan asked about the process for advancing the workgroup's recommendations. Committee Chair Buchanan expressed support for the out-of-custody model while emphasizing the importance of public input, particularly at the November 20 community meeting. "I'm leaning towards the outer custody model myself, because I think it's proven to be the most viable option for what we're trying to do here," Buchanan said. "But I do want to... we've done all along the way, since we started this project, we've been very inclusive of the public, and I don't want to change that." Council member Scanlon pressed for specifics on the location decision — on-site versus off-site. Schott-Bresler indicated they need this decision within the next few months and are assembling cost analyses comparing different options. However, she emphasized that "the project team and the group are unanimous in their recommendation for an out-of-custody model." The facility size remains under discussion, with recommendations likely to be 16 or 32 beds based on federal regulations and licensing requirements. The team is modeling capacity needs to ensure the facility can meet community demand without being immediately overwhelmed. Scanlon raised crucial implementation concerns about codifying agreements between independently elected officials. "What I don't want to have happen, and I think we do have happen sometimes in the criminal justice system, is that when things aren't set in stone, you then allow individuals to make decisions," he said, noting that elected officials change and verbal agreements may not survive transitions. The need for extensive training and written protocols loomed as another implementation challenge, particularly for law enforcement officers who would need clear guidance on when to divert people to the behavioral care center versus traditional booking. ## A Collaborative Achievement Throughout the presentations, speakers repeatedly emphasized the collaborative nature of the work. Frazier noted the inspiring daily collaboration he observed in Nashville, where "a prosecutor, a public defender and a mental health professional would get together in the same room, or virtual room, and look at who is coming into the jail stream and deciding who is appropriate for diverting to their BCC." "I needed to see here in Whatcom County before I was really going to believe that this was going to work for us, and I saw that in this process," Frazier said, highlighting how the workgroup brought together traditional adversaries in the justice system. The presentation included a comprehensive list of organizations consulted during the four-month development process, from frontline workers to policymakers to people with lived experience. This inclusive approach helped refine the model to address real-world concerns and opportunities. ## Looking Ahead As the meeting concluded at 12:03 p.m., the path forward seemed clear even as important details remained to be resolved. The unanimous support for an out-of-custody behavioral care center represents a significant milestone in Whatcom County's justice transformation. The county appears poised to implement something genuinely innovative: a system that diverts people from jail into treatment before they become deeply embedded in the criminal justice system. If successful, it could serve as a national model for communities seeking alternatives to mass incarceration. However, significant challenges remain. Budget pressures threaten to constrain implementation even as caseload pressures mount across the system. The need to formalize agreements between elected officials and develop extensive protocols will require ongoing attention. And the community engagement process, while comprehensive, must continue to build public support for this ambitious vision. The November 20 public meeting in Ferndale will provide the next major test of community acceptance. As committee chair Buchanan noted, public inclusion has served the project well so far — and maintaining that engagement will be crucial to realizing the vision of a more humane and effective justice system. In a county grappling with growing populations, complex cases, and limited resources, the behavioral care center represents more than just a new building. It embodies a fundamental shift in how the community thinks about crime, punishment, and healing. The success or failure of this vision will likely influence justice reform efforts far beyond Whatcom County's borders.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on November 5, 2025, for a comprehensive review of criminal justice operations and planning. The meeting featured three major presentations: Prosecutor Eric Richie's annual report on office operations and caseload pressures, a Justice Center project update on construction progress and community commitments, and a detailed presentation on the Behavioral Care Center model from the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force workgroup. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Prosecutorial Diversion:** A process where prosecutors can divert defendants away from traditional criminal proceedings into treatment programs before formal charges are filed or early in the process. **Behavioral Care Center (BCC):** A proposed treatment facility that would serve as an alternative to incarceration for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders who have been arrested. **In-Custody vs. Out-of-Custody Model:** The fundamental design decision for the BCC—whether it operates as a secure facility (in-custody) or as a voluntary treatment center (out-of-custody) that participants can leave. **Sequential Intercept Model:** A framework for understanding points where interventions can redirect people with mental health issues away from the criminal justice system. **IMD (Institution for Mental Diseases):** Federal regulations that affect Medicaid reimbursement for certain types of mental health facilities, influencing how the BCC can be structured and funded. **Justice Implementation Plan:** The comprehensive plan developed for how to spend the sales tax revenue approved by voters for justice system improvements. **Lead (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion):** An existing pre-booking diversion program that connects people to services instead of jail for certain low-level offenses. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Committee Chair | | Jon Scanlon | Committee Member | | Eric Richie | Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney | | Adam Johnson | STV Project Manager for Justice Center | | Peter Frazier | IPRTF Co-Chair | | Heather Flaherty | IPRTF Co-Chair | | Caleb Erickson | Sheriff's Office Chief Corrections Deputy | | Laura Christensen | Health and Community Services | | Eric Sigmar | Prosecutor's Office representative | | Stark Follis | Public Defender | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Executive's Office | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during a critical planning phase for Whatcom County's major justice system transformation, funded by a voter-approved sales tax. The county is building a new jail and behavioral care center while addressing longstanding issues with overcrowding, inadequate mental health services, and limited diversion options. The Prosecutor's Office faces increasing caseloads—1,700 pending felonies and over 1,800 misdemeanors—while new state requirements will reduce Public Defender caseloads, potentially increasing litigation and workload pressures on prosecutors. The Justice Center project represents a significant community investment in transforming how the county handles criminal justice and behavioral health issues. The voter-approved measure included specific commitments: ending booking restrictions for cities, dedicating 50% of ongoing tax revenue to treatment and prevention services, and creating both a new jail and behavioral care center. The BCC workgroup spent months developing a consensus model that would provide true diversion—redirecting people at the point of arrest into treatment rather than prosecution. ### What Happened — The Short Version Prosecutor Richie reported on office modernization efforts, including new case management systems and workplace improvements, while warning that reduced Public Defender caseloads will likely require additional prosecutor staffing. The Justice Center project team provided construction updates, confirming they're on schedule and have contracted 27% of work to date, with upcoming community meetings planned. The main focus was the Behavioral Care Center presentation, where the IPRTF workgroup presented their unanimous recommendation for an out-of-custody model located off-site from the jail. This represents a significant shift toward true diversion, with prosecutors, public defenders, and judges agreeing to redirect eligible individuals from arrest directly into treatment. The model includes multiple intervention points and accountability measures for those who don't complete treatment. Committee members expressed support for the out-of-custody approach while emphasizing the need for written agreements to ensure continuity across changing elected officials. ### What to Watch Next - November 20, 2025: Public meeting in Ferndale on Justice Center project - Late November/early December: Joint Advisory Workgroup convening - Next few months: Decision needed on BCC location (on-site vs. off-site) - Upcoming: STV cost analysis comparing different BCC location options - Future: Formal Inter-local agreements and protocols for diversion programs ---

**Q:** How many pending felonies does the Prosecutor's Office currently handle? **A:** 1,700 pending felonies and over 1,800 misdemeanors, creating what Prosecutor Richie called an "unsustainable workload." **Q:** What percentage of Justice Center project work has been contracted to date? **A:** 27% of the project has been contracted, with real spending data being tracked on a new public dashboard. **Q:** What is the key difference between "in-custody" and "out-of-custody" BCC models? **A:** In-custody operates like a secure facility within the jail system; out-of-custody is a voluntary treatment center that participants can leave. **Q:** Who participated in the BCC workgroup that developed the diversion model? **A:** Representatives from the Sheriff's Office, Prosecutor's Office, Public Defender, Superior Court, Health Services, and the IPRTF task force. **Q:** What makes this diversion model different from existing programs like Drug Court? **A:** This provides "true diversion" at the point of arrest before formal charges, unlike existing programs that require people to already be in the criminal justice system. **Q:** What are the two core community commitments for the Justice Center project? **A:** Avoiding booking restrictions for cities and dedicating 50% of ongoing sales tax to treatment and prevention services. **Q:** What happens if someone leaves the Behavioral Care Center program early? **A:** Prosecutors can bring them back to court through summons or arrest warrant, then potentially pursue traditional prosecution. **Q:** How much could the new Axon digital evidence system cost the Prosecutor's Office? **A:** The office will request supplemental budget funds as the previously free system now requires payment for digital evidence management. **Q:** What size is being considered for the Behavioral Care Center? **A:** 16 or 32 beds, based on IMD waiver requirements and licensing considerations. **Q:** What did Public Defender Stark Follis say about current diversion in Whatcom County? **A:** "There is no diversion in Whatcom County as it exists right now" - existing programs serve people already in the system, not true pre-charge diversion. **Q:** When did the BCC workgroup begin meeting? **A:** Initial meetings started in May 2025, with the framework developed over four months of discussions. **Q:** What technology improvements has the Prosecutor's Office implemented? **A:** PBK case management system allowing paperless operations and faster case resolution, plus Axon digital evidence management. **Q:** What community engagement is planned for the Justice Center project? **A:** Public meeting November 20 in Ferndale, plus ongoing newsletters and presentations to various boards and committees. **Q:** What percentage of jail population needs behavioral health treatment? **A:** More than 70% of people in jail need substance use or mental health treatment, according to task force estimates. **Q:** What will happen to the current jail when the new one is built? **A:** It will be demolished, requiring relocation of holding areas and judicial operations, with some moving to the Labonte site. **Q:** Who is providing funding for the new courthouse dog? **A:** Dawson Construction promised a donation to replace retiring courthouse dog Davey, with the new dog likely named Dawson. **Q:** What is the Nashville model that influenced the BCC design? **A:** A behavioral care center with 60 beds serving a 4000-bed jail system, with daily collaboration between prosecutors, defenders, and mental health professionals. **Q:** How will the BCC workgroup ensure continuity across changing elected officials? **A:** Committee members emphasized need for written agreements and formal protocols, not just verbal commitments between current office holders. **Q:** What revenue source is available for additional public safety staffing? **A:** A new public safety tax option is available for cities and counties to consider, though other funding sources may also be explored. **Q:** When will decisions be needed about BCC location and design? **A:** Location decision needed within the next few months, with STV conducting cost analysis of different site options first. ---