IPRTF steering committee reviews combined annual report and Justice Project implementation progress report

The Whatcom County Implementation Project Review Task Force (IPRTF) steering committee on Thursday reviewed a plan to combine the IPRTF annual report with the Justice Project Implementation Progress Report and asked committees for more input on resources, language and process.

“IPRTF is the annual reporting,” said Marty (committee member), presenting the materials. “This is so much fun because this is the first year we're gonna be dovetailing the IPRTF report with the Justice Project Implementation Progress Report.”

The steering committee was shown two linked outlines: (1) the IPRTF annual report, which the presenters said should cover organizational development, Justice Project implementation priorities and legislative priorities for the July–June fiscal year; and (2) a progress report focused on status and resource needs for the implementation plan’s 15 projects. Jill (staff member) answered a procedural question about combining the documents, saying, “Nothing says we can't,” and noting that the annual-report and implementation-plan reporting requirements are defined in the ordinance and resolution that established IPRTF duties.

Why it matters: Steering members said the combined approach could reduce duplication and help the public see program progress in one place, but emphasized the need for clear process and committee input on resource requirements and recommended updates to the implementation plan.

What was decided and the timeline: Presenters walked the committee through a stepwise schedule: steering committee review of outlines now; Crossroads will edit; May will produce the first full draft; steering committee will see the draft before it goes to the full IPRTF; the task force will consider approval in June; and the final report would be sent in July. The group asked that edits and comments be returned quickly—“if you can get us any changes this week,” the presenters said—and that the packet be ready to go to members the Monday before the full IPRTF meeting.

Committee feedback and content gaps: Members asked for clarification and additional detail in several outline sections. Bertie (steering member) asked for more specificity in the “organizational development” section about standing subcommittees and their roles. Steven (committee member) said the report’s sections on “resources needed” will likely require committee-level input and requested that committees be asked to send resource gaps or recommendations rather than having the steering committee guess. Elaine (committee member) requested more detail about pretrial services in Project 13 and asked that the legal and justice committee collect fuller descriptions from people running pretrial programs.

Project-level clarifications: Satpal (committee member) asked that the report explicitly document operating-fund uncertainty for a proposed facility: “we have this money to build it, but we have no guarantees of money of operating it,” he said, and suggested language be added to flag that the county has capital funding commitments for construction but unresolved operating revenue. Satpal also pressed for consistent terminology for Project 8, arguing the plan should use “behavioral care center” (BCC) rather than “treatment” to avoid implying a long-term hospital model; the committee discussed whether a recommended wording change to the implementation plan should be advanced and noted that such edits require a deliberate process.

Next steps: Steering asked presenters to circulate a first full draft in May, and committee members were urged to provide specific, committee-level input—especially on resource needs and operating funding—before the packet deadline. Presenters said the Justice Project website will incorporate the next quarterly update once Kayla’s report arrives.

Ending note: Committee members repeatedly asked for clarity about process—how recommendations would be surfaced, how committees would feed resource needs into the report, and where any edits to plan language should be resolved—so the steering committee will use the May–June drafting window to gather that input and return a version for the full IPRTF to review.