Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mental Health Court topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge urges refill of district court therapeutic-court coordinator, cites program success

Clallam County Board of Commissioners · April 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District Court asked the board to refill a therapeutic court coordinator position; the judge described the mental health court model, funding sources (state reimbursement and local sales tax), and program outcomes used to measure success.

District Court asked commissioners on April 27 to refill a therapeutic-court coordinator position after an incumbent gave notice, and the presiding judge summarized the program's structure and outcomes.

Judge Newbert (speaker 10) described the mental health court program, its eligibility criteria and the program's success measures, saying the court "takes folks in who have pending charges ... so those charges can be dismissed eventually." The judge emphasized that the program is not for everyone but noted positive outcomes for participants who comply with treatment and program requirements.

Funding and reimbursement details were discussed: the judge said the coordinator position has historically been reimbursed through the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts and referenced a local "hard road" sales-tax fund that priorities therapeutic courts. A staff speaker noted that the referenced grant covers a substantial portion of coordinator compensation; commissioners asked clarifying questions about the program's metrics and opportunities for improving efficiencies across therapeutic and drug-court coordination.

Commissioners voiced support for refilling the position and asked whether coordination across different therapeutic-court programs might yield efficiencies. The judge described current cross-referral practices and cautioned that superior-court and district-court programs have different statutory structures and outcomes; he said some shared efficiencies exist but a single, broadly stretched coordinator is not currently the preferred model.

Next steps: commissioners expressed support for moving forward with refilling the coordinator role; staff will proceed with recruitment and bring any necessary budget details to a future agenda.