Chuckanut Health Foundation
Community Health & Justice Data
 ← All Dashboards
About this research: Produced by Heather Flaherty, Chuckanut Health Foundation Executive Director, working independently on evenings and weekends. Claude (Anthropic's AI) was used as a research and coding partner throughout. No Chuckanut Health Foundation staff time used. Chuckanut Health Foundation's Executive Director serves as co-chair of the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF).
Whatcom County Jail Planning · April 2026 · Chuckanut Health Foundation

Five things to know
before the
April 28 decision.

The County Council is being asked to commit to a facility size on April 28, 2026. There is a lot of data in circulation. These are the five findings from the public booking record that matter most for that decision.

Data window
2023, 2024 & 2025 booking data
Total bookings analyzed
12,332 across three years
Decision deadline
April 28, 2026
Thing 1 of 5
Bookings went up 28%. Crime did not.

Between 2023 and 2025, jail bookings in Whatcom County rose from 3,695 to 4,743, a 28% increase over two years. Over the same period, Washington State NIBRS data shows reported crimes in Whatcom County jurisdictions held flat or declined. Violent felony bookings specifically went down, from 360 to 300.

3,695
total bookings, 2023
4,743
total bookings, 2025
+28%
two-year increase in bookings
360 → 300
violent felony bookings, 2023 to 2025 (down 17%)
What the NIBRS data shows Washington uses the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to track reported crimes. Whatcom County NIBRS data for 2023-2024 shows property crime rates declining in Bellingham and stable or declining across the county. The booking increase is not explained by a corresponding rise in reported criminal incidents.
Why this matters for the jail decision
A facility sized to accommodate a booking surge should understand what is driving that surge. If the increase reflects policy changes (booking restrictions, supervision policy, warrant enforcement) rather than underlying crime trends, then the surge may be modifiable through policy without requiring additional permanent capacity. Building permanent beds to house a policy-driven population increase locks in costs for 30+ years.
◆ ◆ ◆
Thing 2 of 5
Three categories explain most of the increase. None of them is violent crime.

The 2023-to-2025 booking surge is concentrated in three categories: warrant-only bookings, Department of Corrections (DOC) detainers, and drug charges. All three are driven by specific policy decisions, not by an increase in criminal behavior in the community.

Warrant-only bookings
2023: 756  →  2025: 1,213
+60%
DOC Detainers
2023: 32  →  2025: 240
+650%
Drug charges (any)
2023: 97  →  2025: 326
+236%
DUI bookings
2023: 1,113  →  2025: 1,322
+19% (stable)
Domestic Violence (DV) order violations
2023: 318  →  2025: 327
+3% (flat)
What each category means Warrant-only bookings jumped when booking restrictions were loosened in February 2025, allowing law enforcement to execute more outstanding warrants. The number of warrants issued did not necessarily increase. DOC Detainers are state Department of Corrections holds, not new local crimes. Their 650% jump reflects state supervision policy changes. Drug charges increased following SB 5536 (2023), which re-criminalized simple possession after the Blake decision.
Why this matters for the jail decision
A facility sized to accommodate this surge should be able to answer: are these booking categories permanent or reversible? DOC detainer volumes are set by state supervision policy, not by the county. Drug charge volumes depend on how prosecutors charge and whether treatment alternatives exist. Warrant volumes depend on booking restriction policy. None of these categories require a larger permanent facility if the upstream policy conditions change.
◆ ◆ ◆
Thing 3 of 5
78% of people are booked once. 22% account for 42% of all bookings.

Most people who contact the Whatcom County jail do not return in the same year. In 2025, 78% of individuals were booked exactly once. But 772 individuals, just 22% of the total, were booked two or more times. Those 772 people generated 1,996 bookings, 42% of the year's total.

78%
of 2025 individuals booked exactly once
772
individuals with 2+ bookings in 2025 (22%)
42%
of all 2025 bookings generated by that 22%
274
individuals with 3+ bookings in 2025
What the concentration means The "revolving door" narrative is real but describes a specific and identifiable population, not the majority of people who contact the jail. The top 10% of individuals by booking frequency account for 24% of all bookings. This concentration means that targeted intervention with a relatively small group could have an outsized effect on total booking volume and therefore on average daily population.
What the data shows about who returns The top return charges within 2025 are DUI (7.2%), DOC Detainer (7.1%), drug possession (5.1%), Assault 4th (4.7%), and DV protection order violations (4.7%). DUI recidivism, state supervision cycling, and DV order violations are the three largest categories of repeat contact. These all have known intervention pathways.
Why this matters for the jail decision
A facility sized to today's population should account for who is actually driving bed need. The high-frequency booking group is also the highest-average-length-of-stay group, meaning they contribute disproportionately to average daily population. Effective intervention with this population, through treatment, housing, DV programs, or DUI court, could reduce bed need more than proportionally. A facility plan that does not include a strategy for this group is incomplete.
◆ ◆ ◆
Thing 4 of 5
Most stays are very short. A small share of long stays drive the bed count.

The median length of stay in 2025 was 2 days. More than one in four bookings was a same-day release. But 14% of bookings lasted 30 days or longer. Those long-stay bookings, not the large volume of brief contacts, are what determine how many beds the facility needs on any given day.

2 days
median length of stay, 2025
25.6%
of 2025 bookings were same-day releases
14%
of 2025 bookings lasted 30+ days
15.3 days
mean stay in 2025 (pulled up by long stays)
Same-day (0 days)
25.6%
1,153 bks
1-3 days
~38%
est. ~1,700
4-29 days
~22%
est. ~1,000
30+ days
14%
632 bookings
The ADP math Average Daily Population (ADP) is what determines bed need. ADP is driven almost entirely by long-stay bookings. A person held for 1 day contributes 1/365th of one bed to ADP. A person held for 90 days contributes 90/365ths of one bed. The 14% of bookings lasting 30+ days contribute the majority of the jail's daily bed demand. Understanding who is in that 14%, and why, matters more for facility sizing than the overall booking count.
Why this matters for the jail decision
Counting bookings and counting beds are different problems. 4,743 bookings does not mean 4,743 beds needed. Bed need depends on how long people stay. The 71% of the jail population with behavioral health needs, documented by Washington State University (WSU), are concentrated in the long-stay group. Behavioral health capacity, case processing speed, pretrial services, and treatment alternatives all affect how long people stay. These are leverage points for reducing bed need that are not captured in a raw booking count.
◆ ◆ ◆
Thing 5 of 5
The county is being asked to commit before the diversion analysis is complete.

The STV/EP&A Behavioral Health Campus report includes an Attachment B: a diversion impact analysis that would show how much the proposed upstream investments could reduce jail bed demand. As of April 2026, Attachment B has not been published. The April 28 County Council deadline asks for a facility size commitment without that analysis in hand.

Unpublished
Attachment B, STV/EP&A BH Campus report (diversion impact analysis)
April 28
County Council deadline for facility size commitment
$200M+
capital commitment under consideration
30+ years
estimated useful life of the facility
What Attachment B would tell us The STV/EP&A report recommended a Crisis Receiving Center and a Co-Occurring Disorders inpatient facility as first-build priorities on the Behavioral Health Campus at 2000 Division Street. Attachment B was intended to quantify how much those investments would reduce jail population. Without it, the county is committing to a facility size based on a projected bed need that does not account for the impact of the upstream investments the same plan recommends.
The sequencing problem The Pasquo forecast (March 2026) projects an adjusted 2030 bed need of 422 beds, not the 480 figure used in all public scenarios. The 58-bed gap between 422 and 480 represents roughly $24-30M in capital cost at current per-bed estimates. Building to 480 without the diversion analysis means potentially building and paying for beds that the behavioral health investments were designed to prevent needing.
The question the community should be asking
The ordinance establishing the public safety sales tax (Ordinance 2023-039) already contains an expansion trigger: if utilization exceeds 85% for 8 of 12 months, the county is committed to expanding. Building a smaller facility and relying on that trigger if demand materializes is a real option. The question is not whether the county can build a larger facility, it is whether the county should commit to that size before understanding how much the behavioral health investments it is also funding would reduce the need.
Beta Project - Active development. Errors or omissions: info@chuckanuthealthfoundation.org