HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2009-11-02 Item 5 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Adopting Moratorium on Crisis Diversion Facilities for Mentally Ill & Chemically-Dependent Adults COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
�JIL4
,t J� 4 a Initials ITEM NO.
Meeting Date Prepared by j Mayor's review Council review
09/08/09 7P 1_1//-/
1 1
vJ, 1 1
11/02/09 7P
90
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 09-122 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
AGENDA I1 "EM TITLE An ordinance adopting a six -month moratorium relating to diversion facilities and
diversion interim service facilities.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 09/08/09 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 11/2/09 Mtg Date Mtg Date 11/2/09 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Le P&R Police PTV
SPONSOR'S On September 8, 2009, the Council passed an ordinance establishing a six -month moratorium on
SUMMARY the receipt and processing of building permit applications, land use applications and any other
permit application for diversion facilties and diversion interim service facilities. A public hearing
must be held by November 8, 2009 for the purpose of adopting findings and conclusions in
support of the provisions of the ordinance. The Council is being asked to adopt an ordinance
establishing findings of fact after the Public Hearing on 11/2/09.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte 111 F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: N/A Emergency
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Adoption of ordinance
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG.= DATE ,RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
09/08/09 I Adoption of Ordinance establishing a moratorium; Public Hearing to be held by 11/8/09
11/2/09 1
MTG: DATE ATTACHMENTS
09/08/09 Informational Memorandum dated 09/02/09
Ordinance in draft form
11/2/09 I Informational Memorandum dated 10/27/09
Ordinance in final form
Overview of Mental Illness Drug Dependency (MIDD) Strategy 10b from King County
Legal and Eligibility Structure for Crisis Diversion Facility for Jail Bound Persons
Letter from King County to Mayor Haggerton dated 10/26/09
1
TO:
ISSUE
BACKGROUND
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
City Council
FROM: Jack Pace, Director Community Development
DATE: October 27, 2009
SUBJECT: Crisis Diversion and Crisis Diversion Interim Services Moratorium
Public Hearing
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
The City Council is required to conduct a public hearing for the emergency moratorium that was
adopted on September 8, 2009 under Ordinance No. 2248.
On September 8 the City Council adopted Ordinance 2248 which established an
emergency six -month moratorium on the issuance and processing of permits relating to
diversion facilities and diversion interim service facilities within the City. The City
received several inquires from individuals who were seeking to establish a crisis
diversion facility or diversion interim service facility within the City. When working within
these individuals, DCD staff learned that King County (County) had a request for
proposal (RFP) published that was seeking proposals to establish and operate such
facilities within a limited geographical location which included the Tukwila city limits.
DCD was able to locate a copy of the RFP. The County's RFP was advertised on
August 6 and sealed proposals were due September 17, 2009. The County issued an
addendum to the original RFP on August 24 The type of facility described in the RFP
did not fit within the City's current zoning code; thus, a moratorium was necessary so
that the issue could be studied.
On September 15, 2009, following the City's adoption of the moratorium, DCD and the
City Attorney's Office filed a public records request for all documents pertaining to the
proposed RFP and the Crisis Diversion Facility in order to better understand the scope
purpose and functionality of the proposed facility. Brandon Miles, Senior Planner also
met with King County staff on October 20, 2009 to discuss the specifics of the County's
proposals.
Included with your packet are two documents provided by King County that outline the
County's RFP. A letter from the MIDD 10b Oversight Committee, dated October 26,
2009 is also attached.
Under State Law, the City is required to conduct a public hearing within 60 -days of
adoption of the emergency moratorium.
3
4
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
DISCUSSION
From reviewing the documents and in meeting with County staff, DCD has serious
concerns with the ability of the use to comply with the City's zoning requirements. The
City's Zoning Code does not specifically address the proposed use. While these
facilities are licensed by the Department of Health and the Department of Social and
Health Services as residential care facilities, the use would likely be inconsistent with
residentially -zoned uses and may also be inconsistent with commercial and industrial
zoned uses.
It is also unclear how the proposed facilities would impact City services, such as Police,
Fire, and Human Services.
In order to study this item, DCD suggests that a stakeholder committee be formed to
examine the issues associated with locating these types of facilities within the City. The
Committee would operate similar to the Sign Code Advisory Committee which worked
on updating the Sign Code.
Staff will strive to have a recommendation to the City Council in March. However,
working on this issue will have to be balanced with other priorities, such as flood
preparation, the Southcenter Plan Update, the Sign Code Update, and current planning
projects.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the attached ordinance after conducting the
required public hearing. The ordinance establishes findings of fact for the adopted
moratorium.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance in Final Form
B. Overview of Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Strategy 10b provided by King
County
C. Legal and Eligibility Structure for Crisis Diversion Facility for Jail Bound Persons
provided by King County Office of Prosecuting Attorney
D. Letter from King County dated October 26, 2009
b-
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO DIVERSION FACILITIES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MENTALLY ILL AND CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT
ADULTS IN CRISIS, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO JUSTIFY THE
MORATORIUM ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2248; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2009, the Tukwila City Council passed Ordinance No.
2248, which declared an emergency necessitating the immediate imposition of a
moratorium on the receipt and processing of building permit applications, land use
applications and other permit applications for diversion facilities and diversion interim
service facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35 63.200, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the
City is required to hold a public hearing within 60 days of adoption of a moratorium,
and to adopt Findings of Fact;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council adopts the following
Findings of Fact in support of the moratorium adopted by Ordinance No. 2248
A. On August 6, 2006, King County advertised a Request for Proposals No 1207
09RLD (hereafter "RFP to solicit sealed proposals to operate a crisis diversion facility
and /or a diversion interim service facility; and
B The RFP included the "ideal geographical" location as south of downtown
Seattle and north of Southcenter. This geographical location targets Tukwila as well as
other South King County communities; and
C. On September 15, 2009, the City filed a public records request with King County
for all documents pertaining to the RFP, proposed diversion facilities and diversion
interim service facilities. The City received a significant amount of documents from
King County on October 20, 2009; and
D. On October 21, 2009, City staff met with King County staff to discuss crisis
diversion facilities and diversion interim service facilities; and
E. The programs run in these facilities target mentally ill and chemically- dependent
adults in crisis who might otherwise be brought to a hospital emergency department or
arrested for minor crimes and taken to jail; and
F. The proposed facilities have varying lengths of stays for its residents, generally
ranging from less than 24 hours to two weeks or longer; and
G. Although these facilities are licensed by the Department of Health as Residential
Treatment Facilities and by the Department of Social and Health Services, Mental
Health Division, as Adult Residential Treatment Facilities, the use is highly inconsistent
W \Word Processing Ordinances Diversion Facilities.doc
BM:ksn 10/29/2009
Page 1 of 2
5
6
with residentially -zoned uses. Additionally, these facilities may also be inconsistent
with some commercial and industrial zoned uses; and
H. The Tukwila Municipal Code does not currently have a specific provision
addressing the use of property for such facilities; and
I. The Tukwila City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City to
prevent major investment and /or vested rights to develop such facilities, in conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's intent to carefully and thoroughly plan for
and provide appropriate regulations; and
J. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2248, establishing
a six-month moratorium to allow the City adequate time for staff to study zoning
impacts and the impacts to City resources associated with siting of crisis diversion
facilities and diversion interim service facilities within the City; and
K. Department of Community Development staff has presented a staff report to the
City Council that outlines a tentative schedule for examining the impacts associated
with crisis diversion facilities and diversion interim service facilities within the City;
and
L. The City Council, following public notice, conducted a public hearing regarding
the moratorium on November 2, 2009; and
M. The City supports the work of the Mental Illness Drug Dependency Committee
and wants to work cooperatively with King County on regional issues; and
N. The potential adverse impacts on the public health, property, safety and welfare
of the City and its residents, as set forth above, justify the need for the moratorium; and
O. The City Council has considered the foregoing facts, materials and testimony.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2009.
ATTEST AUTHENTICATED.
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
W Word Processing Ordinances Diversion Fadlif es.doc
BM:ksn 10/29/2009
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Page 2 of 2
Overview of M1DD Strategy 10b
Background
The Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Plan was adopted through Ordinance 15949. The
primary vision of the MIDD is to:
"Prevent and reduce chronic homelessness and unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice and
emergency medical systems and promote recovery for persons with disabling mental illness and
chemical dependency by implementing a full continuum of treatment, housing, and case
management services."
Ordinance 15949 identifies five policy goals for the MIDD:
1. A reduction in the number of mentally ill and chemically dependent people using costly
interventions like jail, emergency rooms, and hospitals;
2. A reduction in the number of people who recycle through the jail, returning repeatedly as a
result of their mental illness or chemical dependency;
3. A reduction of the incidence and severity of chemical dependency and mental and emotional
disorders in youth and adults;
4. Diversion of mentally ill and chemically dependent youth and adults from initial or further
justice system involvement; and,
5. Explicit linkage with, and furthering the work of, other council directed efforts including, the
Adult and Juvenile Justice Operational Master plans, the Plan to End Homelessness, the
Veterans and Human Services Levy Service Improvement Plan and the King County Mental
Health Recovery Plan.
MIDD Plan developed by the King County Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services
Division (MHCADSD) and its stakeholders, identified 17 core strategies and corresponding sub strategies
for service improvement, enhancement and expansion to address these goals. Included in these
strategies is a Crisis Development Center (CDF).
The overarching vision of MIDD strategy 10b is to divert individuals from jails and hospitals. Based on
the National GAINS pre booking diversion model and MIDD strategy 10b stakeholder planning, the
county will fund the creation of the Crisis Diversion Facility, Crisis Diversion Interim Services (Respite
beds), and the Mobile Crisis Team.
Capacity to provide diversion services to mentally ill or chemically dependent individuals in crisis is
currently limited in King County. MIDD Strategy 10b establishes a Crisis Diversion Facility (CDF) to which
law enforcement and other crisis first responders can refer adults who are in behavioral health crisis.
The facility will evaluate and stabilize individuals in crisis and refer them to community -based services.
Respite beds will also be created to provide short -term housing for homeless individuals leaving the
center. Respite beds will be co- located with the CDF or within close proximity. Additionally, the strategy
includes creation of a Mobile Crisis Team of mental health and chemical dependency specialists who will
7
8
provide increased access to crisis response for police as well as referrals and linkage to the CDF and
other community -based services.
Review of CDF Planning
Crisis Diversion Facility identified as one of the top priorities by community stakeholders during
development of the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Action Plan (MIDD).
In depth planning began in April, 2008 with an all day meeting of community stakeholders with
consultants from the national GAINS Center and Bexar County (San Antonio), Texas Jail Diversion
Program.
Community stakeholder meetings (20 separate planning meetings) with representation from law
enforcement, courts, hospitals, advocates, consumers and treatment providers were held during
April 2008 February 2009.
Workgroups (Sub- committees) convened to develop recommendations in the areas of
transportation and crisis teams, location and facility design, licensing, target population and
discharge (backdoor) resources /respite.
Workgroup members visited other crisis diversion facilities in Whatcom, Skagit, Pierce and
Yakima counties. Two other workgroup members were also able to visit the Bexar County
program in San Antonio.
The University of Washington intern working on this project researched the literature on crisis
and jail diversion programs.
County staff compiled the information and recommendations received and developed draft
recommendations for implementation.
A. CDF Program Goal
MIDD strategy lob seeks to improve the lives of those impacted by mental illness and substance
abuse by providing therapeutic alternatives in the community resulting in reduced admissions to
jails, hospital emergency departments and psychiatric hospital inpatient units.
B. CDF Target Population
Adults (18 and older) in crisis in the community who might otherwise be brought to a hospital
emergency department or arrested for minor crimes and taken to jail will be targeted. Exclusionary
criteria for admission will include criminal charge /criminal history criteria and medical /behavioral
criteria, as recommended by target population workgroups (Attachments A B).
MHCADSD staff and the successful proposer(s) will develop and implement MIDD strategy 10b in
King County based upon the MIDD Plan Strategy 10b, the MIDD Evaluation Plan, the National GAIN
model, the MIDD 10b Population workgroup recommendations, and ongoing oversight of a MIDD
Oversight Committee subcommittee
MHCADSD will assure that training, technical assistance, coaching, fidelity monitoring, program
evaluation and capacity for system -wide quality improvement is available on an ongoing basis as
funding is available.
1 The MIDD Oversight Committee will create a subcommittee for MIDD strategy 10b in order to provide
administrative oversight, consultation and support on the implementation of services associated with 10b.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the CDF that was released on August 6, 2009 links to MIDD Strategy
#lob: Crisis Diversion Center, Respite Beds and Mental Health Crisis Team. Further information about
the MIDD Plan is available on the MHCADSD web pages,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/MHSA/MIDDPIan.aspx.
The National GAINS Center within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration acts
as a resource with a primary focus on expanding access to community -based services for adults
diagnosed with co- occurring mental illness and substance use disorders at all points of contact with the
justice system http:/ /gainscenter.samhsa.gov /html Pre booking jail diversion is when individuals
with mental illness and /or co- occurring disorders may be identified for diversion from jail by police,
before formal charges are filed. Pre booking diversion occurs at the point of contact with law
enforcement officers and relies heavily on effective interactions between police and community mental
health and substance abuse services. Most pre booking programs are characterized by specialized
training for police officers and a 24 -hour crisis drop -off center with a no- refusal policy for persons
brought in by the police.
MIDD Strategy 10b provides hospital diversion in addition to pre- booking jail diversion. The CDF will
deliver more appropriate care at less cost by having an alternative to hospitals and emergency
departments for people who are in behavioral crisis due to mental health issues or substance abuse.
This population consists of individuals whose first contact with law enforcement and other first
responders results from a mental health or substance abuse crisis that puts either the person or others
at risk. First responders are trained to recognize signs of mental illness and substance abuse and
deteriorating factors in the person's condition. Their training and background proves extremely
beneficial in quickly assessing the de- compensating nature of a person in crisis. However, options for
first responders after field assessments are made have been extremely limited. With a Crisis Diversion
Facility, first responders will be able to directly divert individuals in mental health or substance abuse
crises based upon initial contact. In addition, the CDF will provide law enforcement with the option to
divert individuals who otherwise would have been transported to the hospital. The Crisis Diversion
Facility will provide a therapeutic alternative to simply dropping off a person with a mental health or
substance abuse crisis at a hospital emergency room.
CDF Request for Proposals Process
Following the planning process, the county released a request for proposals in order to move forward
with the implementation of Crisis Diversion Services.
Specifically, the County sought proposals for the following services:
1. One (1) Crisis Diversion Facility (CDF): The CDF will have a capacity of 16 beds and be licensed
by the Department of Health as a Residential Treatment Facility (Chapter 246 -337 WAC). The
mental health and chemical dependence treatment services will be certified by the Department
of Social and Health Services, Mental Health Division as an Adult Residential Treatment Facility
(Chapter 388 -865 WAC).
9
10
2. One (1) Crisis Diversion Interim Services (CDIS): This facility will preferably be co- located with or
readily accessible to the CDF and have a capacity of at least 20 beds. The CDIS will function as a
respite service for people who are homeless or whose immediate needs may take longer to
resolve after the initial crisis has dissipated.
3. One (1) Mobile Crisis Team: A team of at least two Licensed Mental Health Professionals (MHP)
available 24/7 with the capacity to conduct outreach visits to the community to assist people in
behavioral crisis. MHPs will also have professional certification in the field of chemical
dependency, or be working toward chemical dependency professional certification
King County has not selected a physical plant for this strategy but will consider any location proposed by
a provider as long as it meets the following criteria:
1. Centralized location with easy access and at least 2 routes to the facility by freeway and /or
major arterials. (Ideal location: South of downtown Seattle, North of Southcenter. Routes to
access Eastside: 1 -405 &I-90 Seattle: Hwy 99, Hwy 509 Northside: Hwy 99, Hwy
509 Southside: Hwy 167, East /West Valley Hwy).
2. Minimum of 7,200 sq /feet for the Crisis Diversion Facility (which will include office space for the
Mobile Crisis Team, police, Designated Mental Health Professionals and other professionals).
3. Co- location of the CDIS with the CDF or in near proximity for easy transfer of individuals
between locations.
4. On or easily accessible to a Metro bus route.
5. Easy access for law enforcement and ambulance.
2 Reimbursement for Chemical Dependency Professional certification and training costs will be made
available to the selected agency through the King County MIDD Strategy le through a separate contract
with the King County MHCADSD.
DANIEL T. SATTERBERG
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
King County
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney
CRIMINAL DIVISION
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Ave
Seattle, Washington 98 104
(206) 296 -9540
FINAL
TO: MIDD Oversight Committee
FM: Ian Goodhew, KCPAO
RE: Legal and Eligibility Structure for Crisis Diversion Facility (CDF) for Jail Bound Persons
June 25, 2009
L Introduction: Diverting the Mentally 111 and Drug Dependent from Our Jails
In 2006, the King County Council reached some alarming conclusions regarding the number of mentally ill
and chemically dependant individuals being housed in King County correctional facilities. In finding that the
King County Jail served as the "second largest mental health facility" in the state, with over two- thirds of that
same population in the throws of substance abuse, the county council formally requested the King County
Executive, council staff, the Prosecutor, the Sheriff, Superior Court, District Court and the Public Defender to
work together to address this growing problem by utilizing the county's new taxing authority granted to it by
the Washington State Legislature under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.14.055.
In calling upon the county's criminal justice stakeholders to act, the council made the following specific
findings in support of its call for action:
1. The Juvenile and Adult Justice Operational Master Plans require the use of alternatives to
incarceration, including treatment alternatives and placement in treatment for people with mental
illness and chemical dependency problems, following any incarceration.
2. Key leaders from the county criminal justice agencies agreed that the lack of access to ongoing
treatment and housing leads to crises that, by default, require criminal justice interventions that
are difficult, costly and most often ineffective in resolving problems.
3. The need for crisis intervention training to help law enforcement handle people disturbed
by mental illness and chemical dependency safely and effectively; the need for a place, other than
jail, where someone in crisis can be brought for immediate assessment and placement in appropriate
ongoing care.
4. Persistent problems arise from booking people who are unstable and disabled due to mental
illness and chemical dependency, creating a need for both pre booking diversion and diversion
after booking and before the filing of criminal charges.
Page 1 of 14
11
12
5. The average length of stay for felony inmates is 24 days, while the average length of stay for
mentally ill inmates is 158 days.
6. The average cost of incarceration for unstably mentally ill persons in the jail psychiatric unit is
about $300 per day as opposed to $95 per day for the average person in jail. An average cost per
"episode" for a mentally ill person is $47,000.
The council called upon the stakeholders within the criminal justice system to design programs to stabilize
people suffering from mental illness and chemical dependency, so that they would be diverted from jails
and emergency rooms by getting them proper treatment.
The council called for specific action including the following:
"...planning changes in criminal justice case processing to more effectively deal with people with
disabling mental illness and chemical dependency when appropriate service and housing options are
available in the community. The areas to be considered in this planning process are pre arrest
diversion, pre booking diversion, the use of deferred prosecutions, alternative sentencing methods,
including therapeutic courts..."
II. Goals and Action Plan: Develonine the Concent for a CDF
In October 2007, the council adopted the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Action Plan. The
council set the following as the goals of the effort to fund mental illness and chemical dependency programs:
1. A reduction in the number of mentally ill and chemically dependent people using costly
interventions like jail, emergency rooms, and hospitals.
2. A reduction in the number of people who recycle through the jail, returning repeatedly as a result of
their mental illness or chemical dependency.
3. A reduction of the incidence and severity of chemical dependency and mental and emotional
disorders in youth and adults.
4. Diversion of mentally ill and chemically dependent youth and adults from initial or further justice
system involvement.
5. Explicit linkage with, and furthering the work of, other council directed efforts including, the Adult
and Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plans, the Plan to End Homelessness, the Veterans and
Human Services Levy Service Improvement Plan and the King County Mental Health Recovery Plan.
In order to achieve the goals of the MIDD Action Plan the MIDD Oversight Committee was convened in
order to map out strategies. The committee eventually developed and approved 37 strategies to
accomplish the goals of the action plan.
One of the most innovative and promising strategies outlined by the Oversight Committee was the
establishment of a CDF, a facility designed to take in mentally ill and drug dependant persons who were
either headed to jail for petty misdemeanor criminal offenses or who found themselves in hospital
emergency rooms. The facility would provide immediate services to people in crisis in order to steer
them away from the jail cell or repeat trips to emergency rooms, and eventually engage them in longer
term services that would stabilize their lives.
Page 2 of 14
With these goals in mind, the CDF sub committee began meeting in the spring of 2008 to brainstorm the
manner in which the facility could provide these immediate services to the population in need.
III. Leffal Basis and Proposed Process for Divertine Individuals to a CDF in Lieu of Jail
A. Making Decisions in the Law Enforcement Field about Crisis Diversion
One of the first questions posed in developing the concept of a CDF is how would individuals
suffering from mental illness and chemical dependency be diverted from our jails to a CDF? As
police, medical personnel and treatment providers in the field can attest, there are dozens of ways in
which a person suffering from mental illness and/or chemical dependency ends up in jail on a petty
criminal offense. Along the way, decisions are made by first responders, law enforcement and,
ultimately the individual themselves as to where and how the person ends up in jail or the emergency
room first, if medical treatment is needed prior to a jail booking.
However, it is important to note that in order to divert an individual from jail, the primary decision maker will
be the police officer on the street. He or she will have to make a series of decisions about the individual they
have come into contact with to determine whether or not the person is appropriate to go to jail, the hospital, or
a crisis diversion facility.
Has this person committed a crime?
Does this person appear to have a mental illness or chemical dependency issue?
Does the offense the person is alleged to have committed require mandatory arrest and booking into
jail?
Is the offense the person is alleged to have committed, an eligible offense for diversion to the CDF?
Does the person have prior criminal history that is violent or otherwise would disqualify the person
-from being diverted to the CDF?
Does the person have any medical conditions at the time of arrest that requires immediate medical
treatment or referral to a hospital?
Does the person display any interest in being offered services at a CDF rather than being taken to and
booked into jail, or do the person's words and actions indicate they will be combative and non-
cooperative with the offering of services?
A patrol officer in the field will face each and every one of these questions when confronted with a person
who has committed a petty criminal offense but may be suffering from mental illness and/or chemical
dependency. Assuming that each of the questions provides an answer favorable to taking the person to the
CDF, rather than jail, we turn to a new set of questions about what if any legal authority exists to "hold" the
person at the facility in lieu of being booked into jail.
B. Current Pathway to Jail and Criminal Charges on Minor Criminal Offenses
When a police officer is called to the scene of a reported crime, he or she will conduct an initial investigation
to determine whether there is any immediate danger, what if any crime occurred, who committed that crime if
one was found to have occurred, and locate that particular suspect of the crime committed.
In a hypothetical example, a police officer responds to a convenience store at the corner of Third and James
in downtown Seattle. The store clerk reports that the man down the street in a red jacket came in and took
several items without paying. He tried to leave, but the clerk confronted him. The man smashed a store
window with a bottle of pop he was trying to steal and then fled. The clerk positively identified the man
down the street as the man who did it.
Page 3 of 14
13
14
The officer contacts the man down the street, who denies everything. However, when he is patted down,
several items that appear to have come from the store are found in his pocket. The clerk examines the items
and confirms they are from his store. The officer now has probable cause to arrest the suspect.
The officer has several options here. He can arrest and release the suspect, arrest and detain the suspect back
at the precinct for follow up questioning if the suspect is willing to talk, or the officer can book the suspect
into county jail.
If the officer decides to book the individual into county jail, the officer must complete a superform"
(Attachment A). The superform requires the officer to provide identifying information about the suspect, as
well as a signed statement 'under penalty of perjury' laying out the facts that establish probable cause to hold
the suspect in jail pending a court hearing.
The officer will complete the superform, drive the person to jail, and drop both the person and superform off
at the booking desk with jail staff. Jail staff will then process the person into jail and set the person on the
next available "first appearance" calendar before a judge. At this point the process differs between the City of
Seattle (and several other cities).
1. The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (PAO) Process
For PAO cases, the hearing will typically occur within about 24 hours, depending on when the
person is booked into jail. Court rules and constitutional case law require the hearing to occur at a
maximum within 48 hours or the detention becomes suspect and subject to further litigation.
At the first appearance hearing a judge, prosecutor and "temporary" defense attorney will be present.
The judge will review the booking officer's signed "probable cause" statement to determine if there is
probable cause to hold the person for up to 72 hours so that the Prosecutor's Office can decide
whether they want to "rush" file a charge within that 72 hour window, or agree to the release the
person pending further investigation by the police and prosecutors.
The defense attorney can argue that the facts alleged in the "probable cause" statement by the officer
do not constitute "probable cause" and therefore the person should be let go immediately. The
attorney can also argue that bail should be imposed or no bail should be imposed based on the
seriousness of the allegations, the person's past criminal history for violence and/or his record of
appearing in court in the past when so ordered.
Once "probable cause" is found and bail is set, then the 72 hour period becomes the controlling time
period. If the prosecutor's office files a charge then arraignment is set about ten days out and the
person remains either in jail or out on bail depending if he or she is able to post the bail imposed. If
in that 72 hour window the prosecutor does not file a charge, the person is unconditionally released
from jail at that time but told that charges could be filed at a later date. Based upon these potential
outcomes, a person may be held in jail from 24 hours up to 72 hours. If a charge is filed a person
may remain in custody for weeks, even months, awaiting trial.
2. The Seattle City Attorney's (SCA) Process
For SCA cases, a prosecutor makes a decision to file or not to file charges. This occurs the morning
after the defendant is booked, excluding Sundays. The hearing is similar to the PAO's first
appearance, except that the judge reads the police report. If the SCA files, the defendant is arraigned
and the case proceeds from there. If the SCA declines to file, the defendant is released from jail on
that case. The SCA may choose to file at a later time, on an out of custody basis.
Page 4 of 14
C. Legal Basis to Hold Persons at the Time of Arrest
When a person is arrested and booked into jail, the federal and state constitutions prohibit the government
from simply holding the person in custody for an extended period of time without a judicial officer reviewing
the basis upon which the person was put in jail in the first place. The initial basis upon which a person can be
held is made when a court finds "probable cause" that the crime alleged was committed. The court will base
its finding on the review of a statement of "probable cause" made by the arresting officer, which is a
statement signed under penalty of perjury by the officer, summarizing the evidence gathered at that point that
suggests the person in question committed a specific crime.
Assuming the initial detention is approved by a court, the state and federal constitutions then set a time limit
upon which a person can be held prior to being charged with the criminal offense. The government is
required to either: 1) officially charge the person and set an appropriate bail amount to allow conditional
release, or 2) release the person pending further investigation for potential charges in the future.
In Washington State, Criminal Rule (CrR) 3.2.1 limits the amount of time a person can initially be booked
and held in jail prior to a judicial officer reviewing the "probable cause" basis upon which the police officer
booked the person into jail.
CrR 3 2 1 states:
"Probable Cause Determination A person who is arrested shall have judicial determination of
probable cause no later than 48 hours following the person's arrest, unless probable cause has been
determined prior to such arrest."
The 48 hour rule codified in CrR 3.2.1 finds its origins in the United States Supreme Court Case of Riverside
v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) which held that a jurisdiction is immune from systemic constitutional
challenge if a person has an initial probable cause hearing within a 48 hour window from the time of their
arrest. The Riverside holding clarified the holding in Gerstein v. Pugh_ 429 U.S. 103 (1975), which found
that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required a "prompt" judicial determination of probable
cause in order to justify extended pre trial detention following a warrantless arrest.
Based upon the 48 hour requirement for a court hearing, police officers would have the ability to divert a
person from jail booking to the CDF for up to a 48 hour period, without running into constitutional
prohibitions against holding a person on a criminal charge for too long a period of time. The officer could
complete his/her normal paperwork in the form of superform (Attachment A) which includes identifying
information of the person and a short statement under penalty of perjury that supports the initial arrest. This
document could then be diverted with the person to the CDF. At the same time, the officer could review with
the person an Agreement to Divert (Attachment B), have the person agree to divert to the facility, and then
take the person to the facility for evaluation and services rather than to jail.
Assuming the person agrees to being diverted, the officer can then deliver the person to the CDF, with the
agreement to divert and superform, which documents both the officer's basis to hold and then divert the
individual. The officer can leave the superform, agreement and person for an evaluation by diversion facility
staff of potential mental illnesses and/or chemical dependency issues. If the person meets the screening
criteria, facility staff will have up to 48 hours to get the person engaged in services offered. At some point
during this 48 hour window the engagement transitions from a 48 hour involuntary hold based upon a
criminal allegation and arrest into a voluntary acceptance of mental health and/or chemical dependency
services.
Page 5 of 14
15
16
If the person chooses not to engage in services, and/or becomes combative, uncooperative or threatening,
then CDF staff will temporarily detain the individual and re- contact law enforcement in order to take the
person back to jail on the criminal allegation.
No two cases will be the same. Consistent communication and back and forth will need to occur between law
enforcement and the CDF staff, as both will need each other's expertise depending on the situation. The hope
is that by diverting a number of mentally ill or drug dependant individuals from the county jail, we will
decrease their deterioration in our jails as well as decrease the number of return visits that individuals
committing petty criminal offenses with mental illness and chemical dependency are known to make through
our jail system.
Once a person is at the CDF, the use of the maximum 48 hour rule for judicial review may give way to other
legal basis to hold the individual at the CDF.
Under RCW 10.31.110 a police officer can refer a person suspected of committing a non felony crime to a
crisis stabilization unit (CSU) for examination by a MHP, who may then determine that civil involuntary hold
proceedings under RCW 71.05.180 may be more appropriate for the individual than the gradual voluntary
engagement of services that the CDF will steer them toward. In planning the CDF, a MHP will be on staff at
the facility to make this assessment within the three hour window required by 10.31.110 and then potentially
refer the person to a (CDMHP) for civil commitment proceedings. RCW 10.31.110 allows for a 12 hour
window once the person is brought to the CDF for this to happen.
If the MEP finds that commitment proceedings under RCW 71.05 are appropriate, the case will move out of
the criminal diversion context and into the civil commitment context, which allows for involuntary holds and
treatment under different authority.
Some may ask, "How would a typical case Iook in such a system The following is a hypothetical case:
D. Case Hypothetical
1 RCW 10.31.110. Arrest Individuals with mental disorders
(1) When a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that the individual has committed acts constituting a non felony crime that is not a
serious offense as identified in RCW 10.77.092 and the individual is known by history or consultation with the regional support network to suffer
from a mental disorder, the arresting officer may:
(a) Take the individual to a crisis stabilization unit as defined in RCW 71.05.020(6). Individuals delivered to a crisis stabilization unit pursuant to
this section may be held by the facility for a period of up to twelve hours: PROVIDED, that they are examined by a mental health professional
within three hours of their arrival; (b) Refer the individual to a mental health professional for evaluation for initial detention and proceeding under
chapter 71.05; or (c) Release the individual upon agreement to voluntary participation in outpatient treatment.
(2) In deciding whether to refer the individual to treatment under this section, the police officer shall be guided by standards mutually agreed
upon with the prosecuting authority, which address, at a minimum, the length, seriousness, and recency of the known criminal history of the
individual, the mental health history of the individual, where available, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offense,
(3) Any agreement to participate in treatment shall not require individuals to stipulate to any of the alleged facts regarding the criminal activity as
a prerequisite to participation in a mental health treatment alternative. The agreement is inadmissible in any criminal or civil proceeding. The
agreement does not create immunity from prosecution for the alleged criminal activity.
(4) If an individual violates such agreement and the mental health treatment alternative is no longer appropriate:
(a) The mental health provider shall inform the referring law enforcement agency of the violation; and
(b) The original charges may be filed or referred to the prosecutor, as appropriate, and the matter may proceed accordingly.
(5) The police officer is immune from liability for any good faith conduct under this section.
Page 6 of 14
On Friday, July 31, 2008, at around 8:OOpm, Seattle police officer Scott Enright is called to the corner of
Third Avenue and James Street in response to a disturbance at the corner convenience store. Officer Enright
is a trained member of the Seattle Police Crisis Intervention Unit. He has particular training in spotting signs
of mental illness and/or chemical dependency in those he comes into contact with on the street.
Officer Enright arrives on the scene to discover a man later identified as James Smith outside of the
convenience store. The man is calmly sitting on the curb and appears to be talking to himself. The store
clerk is extremely upset and is yelling at the man sitting on the curb. The clerk reports to Officer Enright that
the man entered the store, yelled at the clerk and then tried to take a bag of potato chips without paying for
them. When the clerk confronted him, the man became upset, and knocked over a display stand of snacks in
the store, causing some minor damage The man then walked out to the sidewalk with the clerk following.
The man sat down and remained on the curb until Officer Enright arrived.
The clerk immediately reported the theft and property destruction to Officer Enright. When Officer Enright
tries to speak with James Smith, he is able to positively identify Smith but cannot get any other information
out of him. However, Officer Enright observes signs of both heroin use and indications supportive of some
form of paranoia or other mental condition.
Officer Enright obtains a statement from the convenience store clerk in whom the clerk clearly identifies Mr.
Smith as putting a candy bar in his pocket without paying for it, and then knocking over and breaking a
display stand for products, when the clerk confronted him at the front door about the candy bar. The candy
bar is found in Mr. Smith's pocket, when he is searched, and the damage to the display stand is minimal.
Based upon the clerk's statement, Officer Enright has "probable cause" for the crimes of theft in the third
degree $50 and malicious mischief $50, both of which are simple misdemeanors. Officer Enright has
discretion whether to arrest Mr. Smith at all. He could simply arrest and release Mr. Smith at the scene
with the hope that if Mr. Smith is charged by the city prosecutor, he will receive notice of his court date
and appear, rather than fail to appear and have a warrant issued for his arrest. Officer Enright could also
transport Mr. Smith back to the police precinct and release him there. Finally Officer Enright could arrest
and book Mr. Smith into the county jail, where he would remain for up to 48 hours before an initial
hearing is held to determine his custody status.
Officer Enright has to balance the relative lack of seriousness of the crime alleged against the fact that if
he releases the suspect, Mr. Smith, he could be back in that convenience store in an hour causing a similar
or more violent problem. In the meantime, Officer Enright's observations of Mr. Smith have continued to
provide him with small indications that Mr. Smith may have some mental health issues.
If Officer Enright's concerns about Mr. Smith reappearing at the store are high enough, jail is the most
likely result. With the CDF, Officer Enright now has a choice. He can complete his normal superform
paperwork for jail booking, but also go over the option of a divert agreement with Mr. Smith or simply
take Mr. Smith to the CDF to see if Mr. Smith will engage in an evaluation and services. Officer Enright
knows that if he does, perhaps he can stabilize enough to avoid a stay in jail. Officer Enright also knows
that if Mr. Smith does not cooperate and engage in the services offered, he or a fellow officer could
receive a call to have Mr. Smith taken out of the CDF and booked into jail on the theft and malicious
mischief charges.
Attachment C is a detailed decision tree that tracks the flow of potential cases and individuals in such
situations to the Crisis Diversion Facility. The left side of the decision tree concentrates on potential criminal
arrests and charges being diverted to the CDF.
IV. Eligibility Criteria for the MIDD Crisis Diversion Facility Based Unon Criminal Acts
Page 7 of 14
17
18
Before proceeding, it is important to understand what the term "diversion" means in the criminal justice
system context. In the context of KCMHC and the CDF, a diversion means that a person will be asked to
fulfill a contract with certain conditions in the contract, including things like attending treatment or
counseling sessions, possibly taking medications, or signing up for job training or educational opportunities.
In exchange for the person fulfilling these terms, the State (in this case the King County Prosecutor's office)
will agree not to file a criminal charge of theft or property damage or whatever the charge may be. If the
person follows through on the conditions for a certain period of time, the criminal charge will never be filed,
and the person will avoid the stigma and consequences of a criminal conviction. If the person fails to carry
out the conditions agreed upon, then the State can file the criminal charge and pursue punishment upon
conviction for that particular criminal act.
A. Kinz County District Mental Health Court
The PAO currently allows dispositional continuances, in other words a diversion, of certain criminal charges
in King County Mental Health Court. (KCMHC) To qualify for a diversion in KCMHC persons must also
have limited to moderate criminal histories and no history of violent criminal convictions on their record in
order to be eligible. Convictions for assault would automatically disqualify a person from eligibility for
diversion to a CDF. Some other felony crimes like Robbery 2 would also disqualify an offender from
diversion unless a sufficient period of time has passed since the commission of that crime so as to allow it to
"wash out" for purposes of entry into KCMHC. The following is a list of current offenses that are allowed
into KCMHC:
Criminal trespass II
Theft 3 $50
Malicious mischief $50
Unlawful bus conduct
Failure to appear /respond (court summons)
Disorderly conduct
Obstructing
Resisting arrest
Use of drug paraphernalia
Possession of marijuana
Alcohol in a park
NVOL (No Valid Operator's License)
DWLS (Driving with License Suspended) 3
Furnishing liquor to minor
Minor in possession of alcohol
Minor frequenting tavern or lounge
Unlawful issuance of bank checks
Prostitution
Patronizing a prostitute
Loitering for purposes of prostitution
Possess fraudulent driver's license
Failure to obey
Theft of rental property.
In addition to the listed misdemeanor crimes the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (KCPAO)
may be willing to take felony level simple drug possession cases that are currently being sent to District
Court and filed as "expedited misdemeanors" and allow police officers to divert those expedited cases to
the CDF as well. Those charges would primarily consist of the following:
Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act (VUCSA): simple possession of cocaine 3 grams
Page 8 of 14
VUCSA: simple possession of heroin 3 grams
VUCSA: simple possession of methamphetamine <3 grams
VUCSA: possession of legend drugs (prescription drugs without proper prescription).
B. Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court
Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court offers dispositional continuances, or diversion. In determining which
cases are eligible for a dispositional continuance, the SCA considers the facts of the crime charged, the
defendant's criminal history, the impact of a conviction on the defendant's housing, and any other factors that
may impact public safety. There is no specific list of charges that are eligible, but in practice most
dispositional continuances in Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court occur in cases where the offense
charged are of the type listed in subsection A above.
C. Eligibility Criteria for the Crisis Diversion Facility
In order to have a CDF that serves the mentally ill the, National GAINS center eligibility criteria appears to
be well targeted and should be followed. The person should have a likely mental illness and/or substance
abuse affecting behavior and committed or is about to commit a criminal offense that has been deemed
divertible under the above criteria. The person then must be screened for disqualifying violence criminal
history and or a history of civil commitment proceedings. The officer can check the criminal history in the
field and the mental heath professional can access The Extended Client Lookup System (ECLS) to determine
history and past diagnoses once the person is diverted to the CDF for follow up care.
Assuming hospital emergency rooms are allowed to refer patients into this facility, there will need to be some
assurance that police referrals receive first priority when there are capacity issues at the CDF.
The PAO does currently prohibit individuals in MHC from seeking a diversion if they have an arrest for a
violent incident in the last seven years. The reasoning is that we do not want actively psychotic individuals
with a history of violence to be placed in a non secure group setting.
Mentally ill individuals who do not qualify for MHC due to the current charge or due to a history of violence
will still have the opportunity to connect with mental health treatment with the hope of reducing recidivism.
The jail liaisons refer in- custody defendants to the 12 month co- occurring treatment program, Project
IMPACT and Project START, which comes with housing, case management services, mental health and
chemical dependency treatment including medication. They also have access to the housing voucher
program. If the same parameters were established for eligibility in the CDF, persons who were excluded
from the facility could still access services through MHC which takes referrals for misdemeanor and felony
cases and comes with its own resources.
What Offenses are not allowed to be diverted to the Crisis Diversion Facility?
violent current offense
violent criminal history
domestic violence offense (current state statute requires mandatory arrest and booking into jail)
Again, the most important factor that will determine who receives the resources that the CDF provides will be
the discretion of the police officer. We will need to rely on the officer's judgment and experience when it
comes to recognizing signs of mental illness and chemical dependency. The officer will also need to
recognize who may be ready to receive some help in dealing with the challenges that mental illness and
chemical dependency present.
Page 9 of 14
19
20
V. Conclusion
Police officers who arrest offenders for minor criminal acts have limited choices when the offender may
suffer from a mental illness and/or chemical dependency. This lack of choice can create a revolving door
of low level offenders who simply sit in jail and possibly deteriorate. The CDF is designed to give police
officers in the field who recognize mental illness and recurring chemical dependency a choice that can
help break the cycle of going in and out of jail. Each and every case will not fit the model described
above. However, if the population of low level offenders who have mental health and chemical
dependency issues in the jail can be lowered with the option of a CDF, then the entire community benefits
from having more productive community members and saves money by avoiding the repetitive cost of
housing certain individuals in jail because there is nowhere else for them to go.
Page 10 of 14
AGENCY: UNINCOfiPORATED KING COUNTY
CITY OF
1 6001.7N0 OATEIMEE IAANEsrLOCATI
NMFFEULST, RRST, ASOOL031., S7t, IST_21401
IDEMTTIV OST'o1 r, D11
Yrs RO
DATE OF ARRESr/TIME
SCARS. MARAE, TATTOO:, DEroRMRIEs
I CCN;JCN NUMBER
ATTACHMENT A
SUPERFORM
I PA NUM8EA I PCN NUNIMA
ALIA1, RICIWAMES
I SZE Ags.y NGT VAT i EYft I HPIR
LAST KNOWN AODAt1 ..�._w cm/ STATE WE I REVOENCE M10NE BUSNETS p.1014 I C11tEERSH�R
OCCUPATION ETAF LOYER, SLS10ol IADORbib, SNGFAINION EnAMSCAI SO C1 K SECiIRITY NWdDT
bR V ERY UCDIbF I STATE I Arts r 1 Fig f I STATE ID E
VFli1CLE UCU* 1 r r STATt var. i MAKE MOt (L I VFN10.E LOCATION I TOW COEWARY
0 3.NaON TO BE CoNTAETED M EASt of F,EINGYNCY I RELATIONCEN. 1 ADOAESS I ET FY i STATE I PHONE
II OFFENSE A. COURTICAUr UTATIpN
O aV
71 OFFFNS£ ACWlGF:Or COUKTKAUf CaYATIOI!
O DV
31 OFFEEISE ACY..'R]RRr C0URT,CAU7 LITATIDAY
O W.
SE ACY.VOROr COUNT/C.4W urwriow
6' DY
V OTNNII ADORIOHAL CHANCES ICRRRBLALTMFEIC ..,.,J,. ATTAc0 DT 1ACCw TVCFS
YFS 0 RO O 1
UMT Va .o.Ett ITpA0 OR PROPORTY LEFT FOR AWTEATEE AY JAJL
u:47 VALDAWJ nEtA.r OR wmFEKFY ENTIWO 7N1O PaOFNCf
YED .0 No 0 IT YE3, GEbl`AIzE,
IoogYE ptsCR@TEOA. g 010E 00 1 MAPX SEW.. •l
TOTAL CAST1 of ARRLSTEE WYE CASH TAKES INTO EV.OEN7 7 EAWIATUtE GF STAFF ACC(r0INO RUAS17EA'AL
0 T:
ActouN PAR/S11740 OFFICER/SENA/
PAR/S11740 D I TAARWORTINDOf0CEW1ENAL P' 18AE1 9GI{ArtgiEFS.FNAL r
SUPERFPRM coFAFLCTTu SY EVONATUAE/SEAEAL,E ty CONTA;.TFEAtoN Fos ADDITWNN .INFORMATW1{ WAMEroEIUAL o NWEE
MISDEMEANOR BOOKINGS: Complete to this line. FELONY BOOKINGS; Complete both,sides.
OBJECTION 10 RELEASE i.MISOEMEANOR OR FELONY) IS ON REVERSE SIDE.
FFISUPEO CM INiCOURT f IN CUSTODY COUNT GLV*E ISTAIAF CA *OTD
Ri�ilE1I O p AT LM,GE
Lf OW SONO
COUATAISr. "'rah CT BOND RiOVEETE6: SW. CT. DATE ...ARRANT 1.11:4111131 L7 RD, 1{tJN01 E
VO CCAAMT DP it OF F COD7 OFFENSE Al tDl21T OF 9,UL FELONY NENCH I J
L
R I F MISP. PANTS,.
POLICE AGENCY ISSUSHG (COWF 1YIHRAM'R€LEA FO: tERIAI WIT DATE TYE
7 919009 Ay7ROV Wo EXTRADITION 9EA '4.9(7 {p�,,� C�LY .Yl` pXTMFIFFF ?NOM NCeC.IML E�7 g7O NCVGLL EYTLNM.i1T gIOM
WACGLTATE'ew P I LT 8 Ut t &g S AE, M. Ar A, NY, OrIA ALL (O STATE.:
N J 0 00,
F
f?'
E CLTF9 704 L OOC
.7 9 C
T
R .N WALE TOG TOC
A
p Y NIC/ CPI N ORE
PFV. 7784
(perforation/do not duplicate below this line)
I
CASE NUMBER
FILE NUF+1'3ER
WEE TWE
1 A".∎ oANOTAOVf
Y70 NU
Page 11 of 14
21
22
N
ON AT
ij DAN TIME
C
WASHiNGTON,
E
P
B
A
1.
SUSPECT NAME:
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: NON-VUCSA FELONY
coNc*ELy SET ECM PACTS SNOWING FRORABLE CAUSE FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE AND THAT THE st/N4CT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE.
IF NOT PROVID(D, THE SUSPECT WILL Be AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED. INDICATE ANY WEAPON INVOLVED. STOTUO CRIME CERTIFICATE BELOW.)
tow, 0N oteLmei w1004 PENAJ, TY Of Pf.fIJUKY UNOCE TOO LAWS Of THE ITAft OF
c wNWHNGTuN THAT THL fali(GO:HO IS TRUE *HO CORRECT.
DATE ANC PLACE
E
WHIN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF
CITYMNINCONP, AREA OP co.
graUEET 72.1(61VaiRTITICET
ns0 NO 0
BIGNATURE,AGENCY ANTICIPATED ROW; DATE
DRUG CRI.ME CERTIFICATE
C.ASENOINIM
Pan I: On Mats) AIN Sinpwl ISuec.N.Yt Nano,
POSSESSED WITH INTENT To OELIVER/MANUFACIURE 0 POSSESSED fh• oodoNiOned OITeFn
WItDaer'It *nand Raced on Training and esperlenas. WE.. la Re ImanvainTaW auanale owl LLTA 04 comm:HI
D manterwel Apptandmahr new valve 04 do comnalktel autann-na ie (value of druos"
R
Pan It FACTS INDICATING THE SUSPECT °DELIVERED 0 POSSESSED PRTH MINT TO OCLNraimANuFACTLIPLE 0 POSSESSED THE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:
at within the CourRyol Kino SI.. el Westitaran.
dote Woe CAyAintrIcotp. WV, of oo.
DO-0=1:123
My ranacet o nformiLlan about thle crIcrta (a,o, wycatt, DINH otatton with Iltrthend krovilatION
1 0 Other Facts
A kavotify Wt dentarel Itoda, perlaltV of porjury unies d 114,V. of thr SW. of WI asisings. tMo lotegolog Is fl o 411■14,0/..C1.
Data stal Hew SIgnature/Aeon0a
ITEDIFEST 2.fliVeikihiriFifeTTorTah
0 O 0
1,N)Nre
YES N
V. 0 No 0 v...0
At L w tO WIT gal
LAW ENFORCEMENT OBJECT TO RELEMIE? N. WYE.% EXPLAIN WHY SAFETY OF INERVIDUAL OR PUBLIC WILE RE THREATENED
O IF SUSPECT IS RELEASED ON SAILOR RECOGNIZANCE ICONSIDER HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. MENTAL ILLNESS. ORUG DEPENDENCY,
tIFIUG DEAAING., DOCUMENTED GANG MEMOS. FAIWOE TO APPEAR. L8C1C OF TES TO COMMUNITTI. INCLLIDg PARR GUADELENES.
DESCRIBE TYPE OP WEAPON- ISE sntinc,
TIES TO COMMUNITY (MARITAL STATUE. TIME IN CouNIY, ETC.)
A
L
CONVICT ION RECORD:
0 suaitcW AHMED/DANGERDUS SUSPECT IOENTtlY 114 OUESITON 0 WARRANT'S] POR FTA
0 HISTORY OF f (.rsT)
NC DATE 1.1)/DRE BAIL AMOUNT t
PtIEUMINARY APPEARAE
D
r
I moNs RETIERNNT Fxc
usul
T/
L14 Yin
A RETURN DATE CONO
ip7riorationtdonWfiupticate below this line)
Page 12 of 14
Police Incident
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE TO DIVERT TO CRISIS DIVERSION FACILITY FOR
EVALUATION AND SERVICES
I, Officer of the Department am
providing notice to a suspect under
Department Incident that I am diverting the suspect from being
booked into King County Jail to the King County Crisis Diversion Facility.
I am diverting the suspect to the Crisis Diversion Facility because I have reason to
believe that the person suffers from some form of mental illness and /or chemical
dependency.
I have explained to the individual that I could book them into jail and that they
could be held for up to 48 hours before they appear before the County and have a
determination of probable cause made on the matter. I have explained to the person that I
am choosing to divert them to the Crisis Diversion Facility for up to 48 hours based upon
my concern that they suffer from some form of mental illness and /or chemical dependency.
I have further informed the suspect that they will be evaluated for a mental illness
and /or chemical dependency and receive services at the Crisis Diversion Facility. I have
explained to the person that they can remain at the Crisis Diversion Facility for up to 48
hours and that if he /she chooses not to engage in the services offered at the Facility, they
can be taken by police to jail on the charge for which he /she was arrested. Finally, I
explained that if the person participates in the recommended services successfully, no
criminal charges will be filed out of the Police Incident Number listed above.
Officer Signature Date CDF Staff Date
Page 13 of 14
23
0.003 4000
vopro, 0.A44"-±, 010e3
1
140
0000 01
owin ticasoopeom
,,10000. 000604
ituAri ap.0.4.1e
"r4 410.0 1.1.M1
pm0140 4.,iyi0,, 00+4
$41
0
Fc4u,k90.; 40041 .00)104 000
`0004. 0003 t#1•30 0604;
‘i41 OA ,,VSACi WO, 00
m
1
Woo ±Ja 0.10 404 014
•vt'Uto if04 011'7
mips worwaa AmoAssowoovo"
vuoso •sa0.44
0.1000±a±
fru.%
Owe' 01'4
sso Impr.±*
a 011
4904
1■1119.e uolslap,t,c3 sIspo skeroAled
WO 00°64
di00 000'
71.
A0 po00
•00,1, 015.11__
0.1:0
1 .j111
eor
A
Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD)
Oversight Committee
The Honorable Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mayor Haggerton:
King County
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
October 26, 2009
We are writing on behalf of the King County Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD)
Oversight Committee in response to legislation recently passed by the City of Tukwila
imposing a moratorium on building permit applications, land use applications, and other permit
applications related to diversion facilities and diversion interim facilities. The creation of a
crisis diversion facility to facilitate linkages to treatment in lieu of incarceration for non violent
offenders with mental illness and chemical dependency is one of the key concepts of the MIDD
Plan. As the co- chairs of the MIDD Oversight Committee, we are writing to express our
concern with the action taken by your council, as well as our hope that we might explore
possible alternatives together.
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature authorized counties to implement a one -tenth of one
percent sales and use tax to support new or expanded chemical dependency or mental health
treatment services, and new or expanded therapeutic court programs. In. 2007, after many
months of community input, the Metropolitan King County Council moved to authorize the
collection of the one -tenth of one percent additional sales and use tax for the purposes of
expanding and improving access to mental health and chemical dependency services, and
therapeutic courts.
The ordinance established five policy goals for MIDD programs:
Goal 1: A reduction in the number of mentally ill and chemically dependent people
using costly interventions, such as, jail, emergency rooms, and hospitals.
Goal 2: A reduction is the number of people who recycle through the jail, returning
repeatedly as a result of their mental illness or chemical dependency.
Goal 3: A reduction of the incidence and severity of chemical dependency and mental
and emotional disorders in youth and adults.
25
26
The Honorable Jim Haggerton
October 26, 2009
Page 2 of 3
Goal 4: Diversion of mentally ill and chemically dependent youth and adults from
initial or further justice system involvement.
Goal 5: Explicit linkage with, and furthering the work of, other council directed efforts
including the Adult and Juvenile Justice Operational Master plans, the Plan to
End Homelessness, the Veterans and Human Services Levy Service
Improvement Plan, and the King County Mental Health Recovery Plan.
As an advisory body to the King County Executive and King County Council, the MIDD
Oversight Committee works to ensure that the implementation and evaluation of the strategies
and programs funded by the MIDD sales tax revenues are transparent, accountable,
collaborative, and effective. The committee is a voice for all of the taxpayers in King County
who expect to realize the greatest possible value from the MIDD sales tax. For your
information, we have attached a roster of committee members.
One of the very important strategies of the MIDD plan is the development of a crisis diversion
facility for persons with mental illness and chemical dependency. This particular diversion
strategy was identified and prioritized through a countywide stakeholder process in 2008
involving dozens of entities and individuals from across King County. We are now at the stage
of seeking bids to provide the services and facilities for operation of the facility. Attached, for
your information, is a brief description of the project. Following the receipt of bids, we will
then work with the winning bidder to develop policies and procedures regarding discharge of
individuals into the community, and ensuring that individuals who receive mental health and
chemical dependency services are not simply discharged onto the street, and that appropriate
client and community protections are in place.
The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office has identified the legal and eligibility
structures for diverting from local j ails those persons with mental illness and chemical
dependency who are arrested for petty criminal (non dangerous) offenses. A copy of the
diversion process is enclosed. This process will allow law enforcement officers the flexibility
to bring those individuals to a crisis diversion facility when their criminal actions appear to be
the result of untreated mental illness or chemical dependency.
The MIDD Oversight Committee convened more than 20 community stakeholder meetings
from April 2008 through February 2009 to discuss the crisis diversion services plan
components with representatives from law enforcement, courts, hospitals, advocates,
consumers, and treatment providers. Tukwila's Chief of Police, David Haynes, was one of the
many law enforcement representatives who received invitations to planning meetings. We
understand your council concerns with regard to hearing there was interest by community
providers in proposing that Tukwila be a site for the facility. The criteria developed by the
planning groups included county wide access by car and in a centralized location with easy
access and at least two routes to the facility by freeway and/or major arterials. The ideal
location identified was south of downtown Seattle, north of Southcenter, which makes Tukwila
The Honorable Jim Haggerton
October 26, 2009
Page 3 of 3
a very good location for this particular use. Please be assured that other cities and communities
are hosts to programs for difficult to serve clients. We understand that there are fears and
stigma associated with individuals who have mental illnesses or chemical dependency. We are
committed to working to dispel that stigma, as it is often a barrier to treatment; it discourages
individuals and their families from getting the help they need due to the fear of discrimination.
We would like the opportunity to discuss the potential crisis diversion facility and other MIDD
planning with the councilmembers of the City of Tukwila. We also invite the city to send a
representative to our monthly MIDD Oversight Committee meetings and to participate in our
crisis diversion planning meetings.
Please let us know what information or assistance we can provide you and your colleagues to
address your concerns. We hope that after meeting with us, the City of Tukwila will embrace
this vital regional community resource.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sue Rahr
King County Sheriff
MIDD Oversight Committee Co -Chair
Attachments
5 1 L-Q1 aa-vtrf
Shirley Havenga, Chief Executive Officer
Community Psychiatric Clinic
MIDD Oversight Committee Co -Chair
cc: The Honorable Joe Duffie, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Verna Griffin, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Joan Hernandez, Council President, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Kathy Hougardy, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Pamela Linder, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
The Honorable De'Sean Quinn, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
The Honorable Dennis Robertson, Councilmember, City of Tukwila
Kurt Triplett, King County Executive, Office of the King County Executive
The Honorable Dow Constantine, Chair, Metropolitan King County Council
The Honorable Julia Patterson, Councilmember, Metropolitan King County Council
Brandon Miles, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila
MIDD Oversight Committee Members
27
28
Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Attachment A
Third Ouarter 2009 Report to the Metronolitan King County Council
MEDD Oversight Comm
Shirley Havenga, Chief Executive Officer (Co- chair)
Community Psychiatric Clinic
Representing: Provider of mental health and
chemical dependency services in King County
Susan Rah r, Sheriff (Co- chair)
King County Sheriff's Office
Representing: Sheriffs Office
Jim Adams, NAMI member
Representing: NAMI in King County
Bill Block, Project Director, Committee to End
Homelessness in King County
Representing: Committee to End Homelessness
Linda Brown, Board Member, King County Alcohol and
Substance Abuse Administrative Board
Representing: King County Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Administrative Board
Merril Cousin, Executive Director, King County Coalition
Against Domestic Violence
Representing: Domestic violence prevention services
Mike Crieghton, Councilmember, City of Bellevue
Representing: City of Bellevue
Nancy Dow Witherbee, Member, King County Mental
Health Advisory Board
Representing: Mental Health Advisory Board
Bob Ferguson, Councilmember
Metropolitan King County Council
Representing: King County Council
David Fleming, Director and Health Officer
Public Health— Seattle King County
Representing: Public Health
Jaime Garcia, Executive Director, Health Work Force
Institute, Washington State Hospital Association
Representing: Washington State Hospital
Association/King County Hospitals
Helen Halpert, Assistant Presiding Judge, King County
Superior Court
Representing: Superior Court
Zandrea Hardison, PACT Team Nurse, DESC
Representing: Labor, representing a bona fide labor
organization
Mike Heinisch, Executive Director, Kent Youth and
Family Services
Representing: Provider of youth mental health and
chemical dependency services in King County
David Hocraffer, Director, King County Office of the
Public Defender
Representing: Public Defense
Darcy Jaffe, Assistant Administrator, Patient Care Services
Representing: Harborview Medical Center
ittee Membership Roster
Norman Johnson, Executive Director, Therapeutic Health
Services
Representing: Provider of culturally specific chemical
dependency services in King County
Bruce Knutson, Director, Juvenile Court, King County
Superior Court
Representing: King County Systems Integration
Initiative
Barbara Linde, Presiding Judge, King County District
Court
Representing: District Court
Marilyn Littlejohn, Executive Manager, Human Services
Representing: City of Seattle, Office of the Mayor
Jackie MacLean, Director, King County Department of
Community and Human Services (DCHS)
Representing: King County DCHS
Donald Madsen, Director, Associated Counsel for the
Accused
Representing: Public defense agency in King County
Barbara Miner, Director, King County Department of
Judicial Administration
Representing: Judicial Administration
Mario Paredes, Executive Director, Consejo Counseling
and Referral Service
Representing: Provider of culturally specific mental
health services in King County
Dan Satterberg, King County Prosecuting Attorney
Representing: Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Mary Ellen Stone, Director, King County Sexual Assault
Resource Center
Representing: Provider of sexual assault victim services
in King County
Crystal Tetrick, Associate Director for Health Care
Operations, Seattle Indian Health Board
Representing: Council of Community Clinics
Dwight Thompson, Mayor Pro Tem
City of Lake Forest Park
Representing: Suburban Cities Association
Kathy Van Olst, Director, King County Department of
Adult and Juvenile Detention
Representing: Adult and Juvenile Detention
Sheryl Whitney, Assistant County Executive
Representing: County Executive
Oversight Committee Staff:
Andrea LaFazia, Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and
Dependency Services Division (MHCADSD)
Cindy West, Office of Management and Budget
Bryan Baird, MHCADSD
Page 1 of 1