Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026_08_06 CHunt_Encampment PolicyFrom:Well Organized To:Board of Health; Allison Berry Subject:Request for Board Review of Encampment Policy Implementation and Public Health Outcomes Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 12:00:47 PM ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Well Organized <info@well-organized.org> Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 5:51 PM Subject: Request for Board Review of Encampment Policy Implementation and Public Health Outcomes To: <JeffBoCC@co.jefferson.wa.us> CC: <HDudley-Nollette@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <heisenhour@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <AMartine@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <ABerry@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <jkennedy@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <aspeser@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <SFrederick@co.jefferson.wa.us>, <mreinders@co.jefferson.wa.us> Dear Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of Well Organized of Jefferson County and concerned community members regarding the recent unauthorized encampment removal off Mill Road. Our organization participated extensively in the public process that led to the adoption of Jefferson County's Unauthorized Encampment Removal Policy. We appreciated the opportunity to work alongside County staff, elected officials, service providers, and community members to help develop a policy intended to balance public health, public safety, and human dignity. Because we care deeply about its success, we want to share two situations that raise concerns about whether the policy is being implemented as the Board intended. We also recognize there may be facts or circumstances of which we are unaware. Our intent is not to reach conclusions prematurely, but to request transparency regarding these incidents and better understand how the County's public health framework is being operationalized in practice. The policy emphasizes that encampment removal should be a last resort, preserve personal property, connect people to services, and reduce harm whenever possible. The two examples below are shared not simply because of the individual harms involved, but because they raise broader questions about whether the County's public health framework is being implemented as the Board intended when it adopted this policy. 1. Loss of Prescribed Medication and Interruption of Care During the removal, one resident's prescribed Suboxone was reportedly discarded. The policy identifies prescription medications as personal property that is to be protected and made available for reclamation, rather than discarded. Following the loss of his medication, he relapsed. This raises important questions about whether existing procedures adequately protect prescription medications and maintain continuity of care for individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. 2. Reported Trespass and Barriers to Accessing Public Health Services Following the removal, a woman returned to retrieve belongings that she and her partner had temporarily hidden with the intention of returning for them. She was standing on the publicly accessible Larry Scott Trail when she was arrested. She was reportedly told that, because of the encampment removal and her previous presence on County property, she was trespassed from all County-owned property. If that information was communicated accurately, we are deeply concerned about both its scope and its consequences. After her release from jail, she was afraid to seek services at Jefferson County Public Health, including harm reduction services, because she believed she had been trespassed from all County property. Whether or not that belief reflected the County's legal intent, the result was that she avoided accessing exactly the services the policy is intended to connect people with. These outcomes appear difficult to reconcile with the policy's stated commitment to a public health framework, harm reduction, outreach, and connecting people with available services. Questions for Board Review We respectfully ask the Board to review these incidents and help answer the following questions: Was a countywide trespass order actually issued? If so, what is its legal basis and scope? If not, what steps will be taken to ensure individuals are not incorrectly told they cannot access Public Health, harm reduction services, or other County facilities? How was prescription medication handled during the removal, and what protocols exist to ensure continuity of care for individuals receiving medications for opioid use disorder, including Suboxone and methadone? Because the policy requires encampment removals to be approached through a public health framework and consultation with the Director of Public Health before removals occur, who within Public Health is responsible for participating in these reviews, what authority do they have, and what public health criteria are evaluated before a removal proceeds? How are Public Health's recommendations communicated to the County Administrator, Sheriff's Office, Central Services, Public Works, and other participating departments, and how does the County ensure those recommendations meaningfully inform implementation? If implementation decisions by one department undermine the policy's public health objectives, what mechanisms exist to identify, review, and resolve those conflicts? How will these issues be documented and incorporated into the annual review required by Section 2.7? The policy already anticipates this type of evaluation. Section 2.7 requires an annual report on shelter and housing capacity, encampment removal outcomes, equity and anti-displacement impacts, and any other information Public Health considers relevant. We respectfully ask that these incidents be included in that review and that the Board use it to evaluate whether implementation is achieving the public health and harm reduction framework it intended when adopting this policy. These incidents may also provide an opportunity to identify improvements before similar situations occur during future encampment removals. We also believe these questions warrant discussion before the next annual review so that any needed improvements can be identified and addressed in a timely manner. The success of this policy should be measured not only by whether encampments are removed, but by whether unnecessary harm is reduced and people remain connected to healthcare, harm reduction services, medication, and other essential supports. We appreciate your attention to these concerns and respectfully request that this matter be discussed publicly so the Board and community can better understand how the policy was implemented, whether these incidents have been reviewed internally, and whether any improvements are warranted. Because implementation of this policy spans multiple County departments, we have copied the relevant departmental leadership for transparency and coordinated review. Thank you for your continued service to Jefferson County. Sincerely, Cendre Hunt Co-Director Well Organized