IPRTF endorses off-site behavioral care center model, removes specific location from recommendation

The Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force voted to advance a behavioral care center model to the Whatcom County Council on an amended recommendation that removes a specified location.

The IPRTF BCC work group recommended adoption of “the behavioral care center model as outlined in the draft document developed as part of an integrated off-site behavioral health campus providing inpatient therapeutic community based care as an alternative to incarceration rather than an in-custody model,” Peter Frazier, who presented the recommendation, read into the record. The motion was moved by Bertie Safford and seconded by Alexis Haas; the roll-call vote passed with one abstention by Raelene King.

Why it matters: The recommendation pushes the county’s planning process toward an out-of-custody treatment model intended to expand diversion options, integrate crisis response and in-custody behavioral-health supports, and establish legal entry points coordinated with courts, prosecutors and defenders.

What the motion says: The work group’s draft recommends a facility sized to accommodate priority diversion referrals and eligibility for individuals charged with behavioral-health-driven offenses. It calls for the IPRTF and the Finance and Facilities Advisory Board to advance the model to County Council for inclusion in justice-project planning and cost analysis, with further refinement of data measures, staffing roles and implementation planning.

Key points from the meeting: Prosecutor Eric Ritchie said the office can “reengage with people and initiate charges,” explaining the legal pathway to pursue charges if someone leaves a diversion program. Hannah Fisk of the health department summarized cost research: “when you look at an inpatient treatment program that has correction staffing, you're kind of looking in the ballpark…4 to 5,000,000 annual dollars,” while an out-of-custody model could be “75 to a 100% reimbursed through insurance and other reimbursement program models.”

Local law-enforcement leaders raised transport and custody questions. The sheriff said deputies may not legally transport someone who is not in custody and that more transport would require additional staffing and funding. Prosecutor Ritchie and other legal advisers said court orders and judicial processes could be used to clarify custody status at transport if the parties adopt those procedures.

Supporters emphasized therapeutic benefits of a campus setting. Melora Christiansen said locating the BCC on a behavioral-health campus creates a different therapeutic environment than co-locating next to a jail: “when people are in a therapeutic setting...it's different than being co located next to a jail.”

Vote and next steps: The IPRTF amended the recommendation to remove a specific location from the text and approved forwarding the revised model to the County Council with a request that the council include the recommendation in justice-project planning and cost analysis. The work group asked STV to provide construction cost estimates for multiple options (co-located at LeBounty, at Division Street, or repurposing an existing work center). The IPRTF asked that data, cost and operational estimates be refined as implementation planning proceeds.

Implementation questions remaining: members flagged the need for clarified protocols on transport, custody status during transport and arrival, waiver rules for Medicaid eligibility and bed counts (a common base size cited was 16 beds), and how local dollars and insurance reimbursements will affect long-term operations.

Provenance: First related remarks were presented when the work-group recommendation was read into the record; the vote and roll-call are captured later in the meeting transcript.