Whatcom County consultant urges dedicated staff, shared definitions and data links for Justice Project evaluation

Julia Garrett, a consultant with VillageReach, presented the Justice Project performance measurement plan to the Whatcom County Justice Project Operations (JPop) Committee on June 26, laying out specific near‑term and longer‑term steps to turn the evaluation framework into operational reporting.

Garrett told the committee that the plan’s near‑term priorities (6–12 months) are: designate a dedicated staff role to coordinate measurement and data sharing; establish shared indicator definitions (for example, for recidivism, diversion eligibility and behavioral‑health status); convene a combined sequential intercept mapping and data‑systems workshop; and publish a set of “low effort” indicators already available in county data systems as an early public dashboard. "You can't track what you don't define or what you can't define, and then you can't measure what you don't track," Garrett said.

The nut graf: Committee members said the recommendations address long‑standing gaps that have hindered performance reporting for the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF) and related efforts, and they urged next steps to secure resources and partners to implement the plan.

Marty Solomon of Crossroads Consulting — who co‑facilitates JPop — and several committee members praised the plan as a necessary foundation for moving the Justice Project’s many initiatives toward measurable outcomes. "If we don't have this we don't have data and understanding of what it means," Solomon said, summarizing why the county needs a clear operational plan.

Garrett outlined the plan in two time bands. Near term (6–12 months): appoint a dedicated coordinator to manage cross‑agency work, finalize operational definitions for key indicators (recidivism, diversion eligibility criteria, definitions of behavioral health classifications), conduct a next‑generation sequential intercept mapping workshop that explicitly catalogs data systems and identifiers across agencies, and publish early, aggregate indicators drawn from the jail management system. Mid to long term (1–3 years): complete formal data‑sharing agreements and legal frameworks (including HIPAA/privacy considerations for medical records such as Epic/HealthSecure), build cross‑system data linkage infrastructure, expand indicator reporting and create new primary data collections where needed (for example, inmate experience surveys), and refine public dashboards with disaggregation by race/ethnicity and behavioral‑health status.

Committee discussion focused on definitions and governance. Members asked whether any prior working definition of recidivism existed; Garrett and other members said the task force and prior implementation planning work had not produced a single operational definition. Steven (JPop member) and others suggested adopting evidence‑based, research‑aligned definitions where possible; Garrett replied that the immediate need is for the county’s stakeholders to agree on one shared definition and that the data work group could bring evidence‑based options for that decision. Dean, representing the newly chartered data work group, said the group has prepared a charter and intends to support implementation and champion Garrett’s recommendations to county decision makers.

Committee members also urged that the county secure a university research partner and funding to support longitudinal analyses. Peter (JPop member) said a research partner is "critical" and that the county is already investing large sums without a clear way to know which programs are effective.

Ending: Garrett said she would finalize materials and drop off the project team; committee members agreed to deliberate on resourcing, chartering the data work group, and using the plan to launch early public reporting and a SIM/data workshop in the coming months.