Buncombe County justice advisory council finalizes direction for two‑year strategic plan emphasizing behavioral‑health diversion and court reforms

The Justice Resource Advisory Council met Feb. 6, 2025, and worked through a draft two‑year strategic plan that centers behavioral‑health responses, court processing reforms and new workgroups to coordinate community engagement and domestic‑violence responses.

Facilitator Lee Creighton told the council the draft sets short, actionable goals and establishes workgroups with a named chair, a county staff lead and partner representatives. The council agreed the plan should be flexible and that each workgroup should present quarterly progress updates.

On behavioral health, council members endorsed two goals: review law‑enforcement referrals and the utilization of the community behavioral‑health urgent care (BHU/Beehive) and examine inpatient treatment bed capacity and access. An unidentified participant said Buncombe County is "the high 80% utilizer of the Beehive," and others said the BHU sees roughly "close to 300 a month" — comments Council members used to argue the facility is already well‑used but may need clearer pathways to serve as an effective diversion option for officers.

Members emphasized wording that prioritizes increasing access rather than simply creating additional beds. A county official noted recent legal changes — discussed in the meeting as affecting court discretion — have contributed to pressure on the jail population, strengthening the argument for diversion and alternative responses for people with behavioral‑health needs.

Council discussion also addressed juvenile justice scope. Members agreed juvenile issues are not currently under JRAC’s operational purview in the same way as adult systems (the juvenile funding/program work is handled by JCPC), but the updated bylaws explicitly permit the council to "look across juvenile and adult justice systems," leaving room to explore juvenile data and interventions in coordination with JCPC as appropriate.

A community engagement workgroup was set up to surface input from people with lived experience. Members discussed how to measure the workgroup's impact, suggesting that one clear metric should be the number of recommendations reviewed by individuals with lived experience and whether those recommendations informed final proposals.

On domestic violence, the council responded to a recommendation from the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team by creating a coordinated‑community‑response bucket to explore protocols that connect identified primary offenders to offender services while keeping existing victim referral protocols in place. Several members urged the workgroup to ensure victim services and the new high‑risk team’s work are explicitly linked to any offender‑referral protocol.

Under courts, the council listed three goals: recommend mental‑health/wellness alternatives to incarceration, review arrest and court data to reduce disparities, and develop case‑processing guidelines (members debated the term 'standards' versus 'guidelines'). Members also noted ongoing work on a mental‑health court being developed with Judge Keppel.

The most contested discussion centered on law‑enforcement‑assisted diversion. Several law‑enforcement‑aligned members said the council should treat diversion as exploratory, noting it would require substantial policy work, training and local statutory compliance, and that models from other cities would need adaptation for Buncombe County. One participant framed diversion as primarily aimed at lower‑level misdemeanants and repeat offenders with behavioral‑health needs rather than serious felonies.

Members agreed that law‑enforcement buy‑in is essential before moving beyond study: "There’s no program without it," one member said, arguing agency leadership must commit to participation. The council also noted co‑responder programs are already operating in Buncombe County with behavioral‑health funding and Sheriff’s Office partnerships — a ready area for expansion.

Next steps include distributing the finalized workgroup descriptions to membership, convening interested personnel between meetings, and having workgroups return refined goals for final approval at the next full meeting.

The meeting closed with administrative notes on scheduling and staffing; the next full council meeting is set for May 1, 2025.