Behavioral Health Committee weighs restorative-justice pilot, flags legal protections

Maya Vanyu, Chief Deputy Public Defender, told the Whatcom County Behavioral Health Committee on June 16 that restorative justice approaches presented at a statewide summit are victim-centered and show promise but also raise legal and operational hurdles.

“At the core of these practices is that the aggrieved party has to be on board and interested in this outcome,” Vanyu said, describing models such as Circles of Peace and Restorative Pathways. She said Dispute Resolution Center staff completed Circles of Peace training and that the model typically requires months of preparation before a circle convenes.

The nut of the committee’s concern was legal exposure. Vanyu said Oregon dispute resolution centers operate under legislation that can protect statements made during restorative processes; Washington does not currently provide the same statutory confidentiality. “We don’t have that same protection here in Washington,” she said, and added that a local pilot would need either legislative change or a contractual use‑immunity agreement with the prosecutor’s office to protect participant admissions from later prosecution.

Community partners and committee members broadly praised the models’ potential benefits. A social worker on the call said the conference left her “with a new framework” that complements trauma‑informed care and harm reduction. Panelists pointed to the Dispute Resolution Center and DV SAS as key local partners that have been doing community outreach and could help design victim supports.

Committee members also pressed on practical design questions: which offenses to include, how to handle restitution, and whether restorative processes should be limited initially to domestic violence cases. Vanyu and others suggested starting with domestic violence because of existing wraparound expertise but noted the model could be adapted for some property or stranger offenses depending on victim preferences.

Several members emphasized victim safety and adequate psychological support. “One of the criticisms from large restorative efforts elsewhere is insufficient support for victims,” said a committee speaker, urging that any local pilot include explicit victim supports and trauma care.

Next steps recorded in the meeting included a staff tasking to gather best practices and convene a work group—including DV SAS, the Dispute Resolution Center, District Court Probation and county health staff—to draft pilot parameters, an eligibility framework, and a budget estimate. The committee also discussed educating the broader public about the victim‑led nature of restorative processes to address common misperceptions.

The committee did not vote on a formal recommendation at the meeting; members agreed to follow up with additional stakeholder sessions and to work on legal mechanisms for confidentiality before pursuing a pre‑charging pilot.