Steering committee debates voluntary vs. involuntary model for proposed behavioral care center; legal and design questions raised

Whatcom County IPRTF steering committee members spent a large portion of the Jan. 16 meeting debating whether the county’s planned behavioral care center (BCC), discussed as part of the justice project, should include an involuntary treatment capability.

Multiple steering members raised legal and operational limits on involuntary holds, noting the relevance of the Fourth Amendment and that existing practice models (including a referenced Nashville approach) sometimes rely on post‑charging diversion pathways. Participants said whether involuntary capacity is legally feasible in Washington state may require consultation with the county civil division and, potentially, state legislative changes before the county could build a facility that holds people involuntarily.

Speakers also noted substantial design and licensing implications: involuntary beds or detained treatment areas would require specific design standards, different staffing and additional licensing or certifications. Steering members said such design increases cost and complexity and that the facility could include a smaller number of involuntary beds if the county chose that path rather than making the entire BCC involuntary.

Multiple members recommended structured steps: hold a focused learning session at the Feb. IPRTF meeting on the legal frameworks and operational models; invite county attorneys (civil and prosecutor’s offices) and executive‑office staff to present; and create a small work group, nested in Legal & Justice and Behavioral Health committees, to outline the legal questions, licensing requirements and facility design choices.

Public comment at the Jan. 16 meeting included an operational detail relevant to the debate. Renee Reese, clinical nurse manager for Whatcom Triage at the Anne Deacon Center, said the Anne Deacon Triage unit is licensed to perform involuntary holds, has a seclusion room and 16 beds, and currently has the training and space to hold involuntary patients. Reese said attorneys had previously advised against using that authority because of lawsuit concerns. Steering members acknowledged that information and said it would inform the legal review and facility planning discussions.

Committee members also discussed the operational differences between diversion before filing charges and post‑charging diversion programs, and how a diversion pathway with formal court involvement could create enforceable compliance steps (for example, court‑ordered diversion or recovery‑court type structures). Several members emphasized the need to clarify whether any involuntary capability would be limited in scope, what due‑process protections would be required, and how the county would obtain necessary licensing and design standards before construction.

Several steering members proposed bringing this discussion to the full IPRTF in February as a structured learning agenda item and forming a work group to develop the questions that must be answered by counsel, licensing authorities and planners. No formal decisions were made at the Jan. 16 meeting; members asked staff to prepare a preamble and focused materials for the February agenda.