JPOC debates data dashboard, messaging to explain progress on Whatcom justice projects

Whatcom County’s Justice Project Oversight and Planning Committee met May 15 and spent much of the session discussing how to present progress on the county’s 15 implementation-plan projects to the public, including a proposed data dashboard and boosted social-media outreach.

Committee co-chair Tasha Thompson opened the meeting and framed the discussion as a push for transparency and regular updates as the county moves forward on the new jail and a colocated behavioral care center. “We’re gonna look at prioritizing measures for the data dashboard,” she told members as the meeting began.

Why it matters: Voters approved a sales-and-use tax in November 2023 that funds elements of the implementation plan; residents and local businesses are seeking regular, concrete updates about where money and staffing are going and what results the projects are producing. Several committee members said an accessible dashboard and short social posts would reduce confusion about who is driving which decisions and highlight near-term wins such as hires or fundraising milestones.

Key points and next steps

- Who is responsible and why the county needs clearer messaging. Sheriff Tank told the committee that many residents assume the Sheriff’s Office is “the driver of all these projects,” and recommended public materials clearly explain the roles of the executive’s office, the IPRTF (Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force), council staff and contractors. “Many people believe that the sheriff’s office is the driver of all these projects and the organization that is making all the decisions for the projects, which is not true at all,” he said.

- STV owner’s-rep dashboard. Peter (committee member) said STV, the owner’s representative for the jail project, is building a project dashboard that he expects to be available “in the next couple months” and that it should show progress and outcomes over the life of the project. “STV… they’re the owner’s rep. And part of what they’re doing is they’re putting together a dashboard that… will directly… show progress and outcomes on the jail,” Peter said.

- What to measure. The group debated whether the public wants progress metrics (staff hires, construction milestones) or longer-term outcomes (reduced jail bookings, lower recidivism). Suggested indicators included overdose rates, violent-crime rates, jail bookings, recidivism, counts of housing placements and the number of new behavioral-health positions hired. Several members recommended publishing near-real-time status updates on fundraising or hiring (for example, “we’ve raised $X of $Y” or “we’ve filled N of M positions”) so residents can see concrete steps.

- Social media and outreach formats. Committee members proposed a layered communications approach to reach casual readers and engaged “divers” (people who want more detail): short social posts, a flip-through (carousel) for Instagram, and deeper material linked from the dashboard. Peter and others urged more proactive local media engagement and identified Reddit and the Bellingham subreddit as potential channels for moderated community Q&A.

- Legal and data-sharing constraints. Providers and case managers warned that cross-agency data sharing is constrained by privacy rules, including HIPAA and 42 CFR Part 2 for substance-use records, complicating longitudinal outcome measurement and warm handoffs. A provider described how differing release-of-information requirements across agencies make comprehensive tracking difficult.

- Public involvement and timing. Committee members asked staff to solicit public input on which measures matter most. The group expects a near-final evaluation and performance-measurement plan at the next meeting, scheduled for June 26, and asked staff to pursue a Nashville presentation (the team that runs a co-located Behavioral Care Center) for a future meeting.

Attributions and sources

Quotes and paraphrases above are drawn from committee discussion recorded May 15, 2025, in which the following speakers participated: Tasha Thompson (committee co-chair), Marty (council staff), Sheriff Tank (Sheriff’s Office), Peter (committee member), Holly (committee member/staff), Trevor, Rob, Hannah, Amber and several other community and provider representatives. Excerpts of the meeting transcript and the county’s executive quarterly report were cited in staff materials.

What’s next

The committee asked staff to compile suggested dashboard metrics and to coordinate with STV on timing and public access. Members also asked staff to prepare a short public-facing summary and suggested inviting representatives from Nashville’s model to speak at a future JPOC meeting. The committee will reconvene June 26 for a near-final review of the evaluation and performance-measurement plan.

Ending: The group emphasized transparency and actionable updates—short, regular updates on hires, fundraising, and concrete milestones—while noting privacy laws and agency silos will complicate some outcome measures.