Spokane County says WASPIC behavioral health grant cut will reduce law-enforcement-funded co-responder roles

Spokane County officials told commissioners on June 10 that state funding for behavioral health co-responder teams administered through WASPIC (Washington State program described in briefing) has been substantially reduced and restructured to emphasize clinician funding rather than law enforcement. The county said the new award would fund a smaller number of co-responder clinician positions and that the sheriff's office plans to reduce one patrol FTE to preserve a deputy position dedicated to co-response in unincorporated Spokane County.

Sheriff's office staff said WASPIC awarded approximately $320,000 for the first year and $300,000 for a second year to the county's region, but that the total regional pool of eligible applicants increased and overall funding was cut by the legislature and governor. Under the new award, the county expects funding to cover two co-responder clinician positions and a reduced fringe benefits allocation; the county said partners will continue to fund at least one position contributed by Spokane Valley and the county hopes to maintain a shared position among jurisdictions.

County staff said WASPIC explicitly favored funding clinician positions over law enforcement roles; the program scoring reduced awards where proposals were law-enforcement-heavy. Because of the reduction, the sheriff's office intends to remove one FTE from patrol and reassign an existing deputy into a co-responder role so the county continues to field a deputy with specialized training for co-response.

Speakers outlined several mitigation options discussed with partners: (1) pursue other grant sources such as the new criminal-justice training commission (CJTC) grant if eligibility is met; (2) use opioid settlement or mental-health sales-tax funds where legally permissible to supplement clinician funding; and (3) negotiate staffing with Frontier Behavioral Health, which county staff said has historically supplied clinicians to co-responder teams and indicated willingness to staff available positions. County staff warned that some grant contract provisions, such as data-sharing agreements for use-of-force repositories, raise legal concerns and could complicate eligibility for future state funds.

Commissioners were not asked to increase county general-fund spending; staff said the county will sustain co-responder capability by reducing one patrol FTE and by pursuing other funding sources. Officials described the changes as an operational reallocation rather than a new request for county dollars at the June 10 briefing.