Whatcom County work group backs off‑site behavioral care center as alternative to incarceration

The Incarceration, Prevention, and Reduction Task Force’s Behavioral Care Center (BCC) work group recommended adoption of an integrated, off‑site behavioral care center model and asked that the task force and the county’s Facilities and Finance Advisory Board advance the plan to the County Council for inclusion in justice‑project planning and cost analysis. The recommendation was read aloud at the task force meeting on Sept. 22, 2025 by co‑chair Peter Frazier.

Why it matters: the work group framed the center as an inpatient, community‑based alternative designed to increase prosecutorial diversion options for people whose offenses are driven by behavioral health needs. Proponents said an off‑site model would allow people to accept longer treatment stays, make the center eligible for Medicaid and other insurance, and integrate more easily with existing community crisis services. Work group members warned, however, that capital and operating funding and legal coordination remain major hurdles.

Hannah Fisk, the health‑department staffer who led the presentation, described the three linked pieces of the county’s justice implementation plan: behavioral health inside the jail, a separate behavioral care center, and a 23‑hour crisis center. “This is an update just kind of on our justice implementation, and new jail build from the lens of behavioral health,” Fisk said during her presentation. She described design priorities such as natural light, visiting spaces for children, on‑unit treatment rooms, and a rapid resource center to help people exit custody with immediate supports.

The work group weighed two broad legal/operational models for the BCC: an in‑custody unit collocated with the jail (a model used in Nashville) and an out‑of‑custody, community‑based inpatient facility. Judge Evan Jones, a member of a smaller legal subgroup that reviewed court intake and diversion pathways, summarized the legal entry points the group mapped out: referral at booking prior to criminal charging, at first court appearances or arraignment, during the pretrial period through negotiated conditions of release, and at case resolution through plea or deferred‑prosecution agreements. “This graphic is meant to identify those opportunities we all thought could work and would work through agreement of the prosecutors and the defense attorneys or by order of the court,” Judge Jones said.

Prosecutor Eric Ritchie told the task force he supports pursuing an off‑site option: “I think this is our only real choice,” Ritchie said, noting the community has long asked for diversion options. The work group reported that an in‑custody inpatient unit tends to produce higher short‑term completion rates but is more costly and inflexible: a Human Experience (HX) Medicaid feasibility study cited to the group estimated annual operating costs for an in‑custody facility in the range of $3–$5 million and said Medicaid reimbursement would be limited. Fisk told the group an off‑site model allows use of Medicaid and private insurance, offers greater flexibility for longer stays when medically necessary, and may improve long‑term reintegration even if short‑term completion rates can be lower.

Funding for the linked 23‑hour crisis center also remains unsettled. Fisk said the county has secured roughly $13–$14 million in capital funding but lacks a sustainable operations funding model; estimates for annual uncovered operating costs ranged from about $4 million to $12 million, depending on the model and payer mix. Fisk said Medicaid typically covers about 40% of operating costs for 23‑hour sites, leaving the remainder to counties and local partners. She flagged state legislation (identified in the presentation as House Bill 1813) and a January start date for a state work group as possible sources of additional guidance but said the bill’s effect on funding was unclear.

Work group recommendation and next steps: the read recommendation urged adoption of the off‑site inpatient model with four legal entry points coordinated among courts, prosecutors and defenders; capacity sufficient to accommodate priority diversion referrals; eligibility for behavioral‑health‑driven offenses; and integration with crisis response and in‑custody behavioral health supports. The group also recommended that the IPRTF and the Finance and Facilities Advisory Board advance the model to the County Council with further refinement of data measures, program models and staffing as implementation planning proceeds. Kayla (executive‑office staff) told the task force that if the IPRTF makes an official motion the executive team will transmit the recommendation to the county council and communicate program requirements to the design‑build team so the jail project can be programmed accordingly.

Where questions remain: presenters cautioned that an off‑site BCC will require complicated legal coordination to permit conditional releases and court‑ordered treatment, robust transport and elopement mitigation processes if referrals come from in‑custody populations, and a durable funding plan for operations. Fisk and others also noted gaps in available treatment beds statewide, and task‑force members repeatedly raised housing and long‑term treatment availability as critical constraints.

The work group said it has completed its work and sunsetted; it asked the IPRTF and advisory boards to advance the off‑site model into county planning and cost analysis so that the design‑build process for the county’s new jail and related campus can reflect the chosen approach.