Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Reentry Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Whatcom County behavioral health panel prioritizes reentry, Division Street planning and data work groups

2341951 · February 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Co-chairs of the Whatcom County Behavioral Health Committee said the committee will form small work groups to develop policy-level recommendations on reentry services, planning for services at the Division Street campus and data needs tied to the Justice Project implementation plan.

Whatcom County’s Behavioral Health Committee on a virtual call agreed to form three small work groups to develop policy-level recommendations this year on reentry services, services and facilities at the Division Street campus, and behavioral-health data needs tied to the Justice Project implementation plan.

The committee’s co-chairs framed the assignment as policy work rather than program implementation, asking volunteer members to convene small groups to “ground truth” possibilities and return with recommendations. Co-chair Steven Gockley said diversion and reentry are related but that reentry ‘‘is much more in our wheelhouse’’ for community-based supports.

The committee emphasized coordination with other task-force bodies. Members repeatedly noted overlap with the Legal and Justice Committee and with prosecutorial diversion work already underway, and urged the co-chairs to avoid duplicating existing operational efforts. Jill Nixon, legislative coordinator to the task force, and staff will provide administrative follow-up and a roster of volunteers.

Co-chairs Dan (co-chair, Behavioral Health Committee) and Steven Gockley (co-chair, Behavioral Health Committee) outlined three focal work groups: a reentry/diversion group (with reentry as the primary emphasis), a Division Street campus group (including possible planning for a 23-hour crisis relief center), and a data-systems group to identify evaluation and measurement needs tied to the Justice Project implementation plan. Dan described reentry as services that support people leaving jail or treatment into employment, housing and basic needs, and said reentry “has been prioritized here for our work plan going into 2025.”

Committee members stressed the need to include existing community practitioners and county contractors in work-group discussions rather than replacing that expertise. Julia Garrett, the Village REACH contractor developing the implementation project’s evaluation and performance measurement plan, asked for clarity on the meaning of “policy goals” and urged shared terminology between panels working on outcomes and those proposing structural components.

Members highlighted a recent local development: a ribbon-cutting at 2030 Division Street for a tribal mobile medical unit offering methadone and buprenorphine services. The co-chairs said the mobile unit can serve up to 400 patients per day and that planning for Division Street services should account for existing assets there, including the Anne Deacon Center and the new clinic operations.

Logistics and limits of staff support were raised. Co-chairs warned that informal work groups will not receive the same county staff support and Zoom resources available to the full committee and suggested small groups of about three to four people meeting outside regular committee time. Jill Nixon will circulate a summary and an email listing volunteers and next steps.

Volunteers and stated interests during the meeting included Maya (interested in the reentry work group), Danny (volunteered for Division Street work), Dean White (interested in the data work group), Arlene (expressed interest in the 23-hour crisis clinic focus), and Mike Hilly (offered to be involved where EMS interfaces with diversion and the 23-hour center). The co-chairs said they will convene the groups and report back to the full committee, which will review and vet any recommendations before sending them to the larger task force and county decision-makers.

The committee did not take formal votes at the meeting. Co-chairs said the groups should produce policy-level recommendations, which would then be elevated to the Incarceration Prevention Reduction Task Force and, if accepted there, to the County Council and executive for further detail and implementation.

The meeting closed with the co-chairs saying they would send an email in the next few days summarizing assignments and next steps and with a reminder that a joint meeting with the Legal and Justice Committee is scheduled in March.