Whatcom County committee hears VillageReach plan to measure justice-project outcomes, identifies data gaps

VillageReach, a public-health nonprofit, presented a six-month scope of work on Feb. 6 to the Information Needs and Data Exchange Index Committee in Whatcom County, detailing an evaluation and performance measurement plan (EPMP) for the county’s Justice Project implementation plan.

The presentation and follow-up discussion focused on producing draft performance measures for the implementation plan’s 15 projects and five strategies, identifying data sources required to calculate those measures, and flagging where county data modernization will be needed to produce ongoing dashboard measures.

At the meeting, Julia Garette, senior manager and data analyst at VillageReach, said the EPMP will prioritize indicators that align with stakeholder preferences and map existing data sources against those indicators. “A big part of this is really making sure that we're hearing from folks like you all as well as other key stakeholders that are central to the implementation plan,” Garette said. She emphasized that VillageReach is not contracted to build a public dashboard but to prepare the measurement plan and inventory of data needed to enable one.

The nut graf: committee members agreed the work should start by cataloging what data the county already holds, where gaps exist, and what it would take to calculate headline measures such as recidivism, diversion rates and case-resolution efficiency. VillageReach will produce draft measure definitions and a template for committee members and data stewards to populate.

Garette walked the committee through a results-based accountability framework she will use to organize measures: performance accountability (project-level “how much did we do” and “how well did we do it”), strategy-level measures and population-level impact (the countywide question of whether health and safety increase). She said most work will emphasize performance accountability and rely on data from county departments that touch behavioral health and criminal justice.

Committee members pressed on scope and data availability. A committee member identified as “Dean” asked whether the client population for measurement should include all people who encounter the criminal legal system or be limited to those with behavioral health needs whom the Justice Project aims to divert. Garette and other members said that question will shape which measures are prioritized and which data sources are required.

County staff and system partners volunteered to support the inventory. Caleb (chief corrections deputy, Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office) offered to share details about jail-related fields and data collection. Perry Rice (Information Technology, Whatcom County) said county IT has previously worked with sheriff’s office staff to format extracts and that Rick Anderson is the intended IT lead for criminal-justice system data, though his position is not fully filled. Jake Bewish (District Court) said the county’s current court database is difficult to query but will be replaced in the future, which could ease reporting. A public defender’s office representative, Maya, said the office is working to improve internal reporting and welcomed IT support.

Several sources VillageReach will review were named: Justice Counts, Measures for Justice and Thurston County’s Commons portal. A county official speaking as “County executive (unnamed)” urged the team to study existing solutions rather than “reinvent the wheel,” while Garette said the county’s objectives may require combining criminal-justice measures with behavioral-health measures in ways existing tools do not currently support.

Next steps and logistics: Garette said she will prepare a template for stakeholder consultations and data mapping (definitions, numerator/denominator, source systems, variables needed). The committee agreed she should place the template in a shared Microsoft/SharePoint folder (rather than a personal Google account) to address public-records concerns; the committee chair (Bertie) will distribute access and coordinate a small work group to populate the template. Volunteers named to assist include Caleb, Lynette (role not specified in the transcript), Perry Rice, Maya and Jake. The committee noted that any working-group meeting that reaches a quorum of index-committee members must be publicly noticed.

Committee members noted a near-term calendar item: Garette plans to present draft definitions of success at the Feb. 20 JPOP meeting and to continue stakeholder consultations through early March to produce consolidated draft measures. The EPMP outputs listed in the meeting included: draft measures for each of the 15 projects; agreed definitions of success at strategy, system-service and facility levels; calculations and data-source mappings for cross-project success measures; and an inventory of missing variables or modernization needs.

There were no formal votes taken at the Feb. 6 meeting. The committee adjourned after confirming the workgroup approach and the immediate assignment for VillageReach to deliver the template and initial draft measures.