Multi-jurisdictional Task Force Roundtable Outcomes Report — Report to the Legislature (October 2025)
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
Summary
The Multi-jurisdictional Task Force Roundtable Outcomes Report, an October 2025 report to the Legislature by the Washington State Department of Commerce's Office of Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention/Community Safety Unit under Chapter 376, Laws of 2024, Section 93 (b). It describes the proviso providing $50,000 to coordinate three roundtables on policies, regulations and fiscal investments for multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, and lists invitees and attendees by sector. The report states that most participants (65%) were local law enforcement and that findings cannot be generalized to other sectors. Recommendations include modeling state funding rules on the Byrne JAG program, maintaining the peer review process, reviewing RCW 13.40.740, RCW 10.93.160 and RCW 10.105.010, and increasing funding to at least $300,000 per task force. Appendix A lists the roundtable questions.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Multi-jurisdictional Task Force Roundtable Outcomes Report — Report to the Legislature (October 2025).”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-multi-jurisdictional-task-force-roundtable-outcomes-report-final-27269/
, SHA-256 07f375ecabd7ba89a28fcd536ae4b121897842a84edb62075ebeb15dd32f2089.Full text
Multi-jurisdictional Task Force
Roundtable Outcomes Report
Chapter 376, Laws of 2024, Section 93 (b)
October 2025
Report to the Legislature
OFFICE OF FIREARM SAFETY
AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION/
COMMUNITY SAFETY UNIT Director Joe Nguyễn
v4
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Commerce
Cindy Guertin-Anderson, Assistant Director
Community Services Division
Kathleen Harvey
Managing Director
Office of Firearm Safety and Violence
Prevention/Community Safety Unit
Kathleen.harvey@commerce.wa.gov
Dave Pringle, Legislative and Policy Director
1011 Plum St. SE
P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.commerce.wa.gov
For people with disabilities, this report is available on
request in other formats. Please call 360-725-4000 with
your request.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 2
Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................8
Regulations.......................................................................................................................................................10
Policy ...............................................................................................................................................................11
Fiscal investment ..............................................................................................................................................13
Collaboration with cross-sector partners ...........................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Roundtable Questions ....................................................................................................................17
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 3
Executive summary
Overview
In 2024, the Legislature appropriated fiscal year 2025 funding for the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to
provide grant funding to local multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTF).
Each task force serves a designated geographic area to coordinate efforts that are usually beyond the capacity of
local law enforcement jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies partner together across federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies to form task forces that coordinate information, resources, and staff to target the illegal distribution
of drugs at the local and regional level. The multi-jurisdictional task forces are responsible for conducting high-level
narcotic investigations to identify, interdict, dismantle, and prosecute mid- to upper-level criminal organizations
engaged in illicit gang, gun, and drug activities.
Legislative mandate
FY24 ESSB 5950 p. 95 section 93 details the requirements of MJTFs and the requirements for the roundtables.
(a) $2,700,000 of the general fund—state appropriation for fiscal year 2025 is provided solely for the
department to continue to provide grant funding to local multi-jurisdictional task forces that previously
received funding through the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. Grants
provided under this section must be used consistent with the requirements of Edward Byrne memorial justice
assistance grants and with national best practices for law enforcement.
(b) Of the amounts provided in this subsection, $50,000 of the general fund—state appropriation for fiscal year
2025 is provided solely for the department, with the office of the governor, to coordinate three roundtables to
review policies, regulations, and fiscal investments regarding multi-jurisdictional drug task forces in
Washington state. The roundtables must include representatives from state, tribal, and local governments, and
invite representatives from the federal government. By June 30, 2025, the department must submit a summary
report of the roundtable's findings to the appropriate committees of the legislature.
Methods
Commerce implemented planning sessions to ensure alignment with the requirements outlined in the proviso. This
included meeting with:
Commerce's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) to plan a dedicated tribal roundtable.
The Governor's office to identify public, behavioral, and community health partners to invite to roundtable
sessions.
The following participants were invited. Invites may have been forwarded beyond the number of invitees listed.
Additionally, Commerce staff observed that not all participants signed in at the Roundtable Discussions, so the
number of attendees may be an undercount.
Federal law enforcement
Number of people invited: 4
Number of people who attended: 7
State law enforcement
Number of people invited: 1
Number of people who attended: 3
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 4
Local law enforcement
Number of people invited: 60
Number of people who attended: 41
National Criminal Justice Association
Number of people invited: 1
Number of people who attended: 1
Prosecutors Office
Number of people invited: 1
Number of people who attended: 1
Public health (Department of Health)
Number of people invited: 12
Number of people who attended: 5
Social services (Department of Social and Health Services)
Number of people invited: 2
Number of people who attended: 1
Health Care Authority
Number of people invited: 6
Number of people who attended: 0
Other statewide organizations and associations
Number of people invited: 2
Number of people who attended: 2
Caucus staffers
Number of people invited: 2
Number of people who attended: 0
Local political representatives
Number of people invited: 1
Number of people who attended: 1
Tribal partners
Number of people invited: 1
Number of people who attended: 1
Other statewide organizations and associations were invited, including:
WA Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
911/988
Volunteers of America
Frontier BX Health
Comprehensive Mental Health
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 5
The Commerce OTR sent invites to interested tribal citizens to participate in roundtable discussions.
In alignment with the proviso language, participants were asked to review policies, regulations, and fiscal
investments related to the multi-jurisdictional task forces. A full list of the questions posed is available in Appendix
A. The findings summarize group discussions and feedback from participating individuals. Not all feedback directly
corresponded to the question asked. Additionally, Commerce requested copies of current policies, regulations, and
detailed budgets to assess against but was unable to obtain them from key partners who cited confidentiality
concerns.
Limitations
Most participants (65%) were local law enforcement, which included 41 participants. This is a sufficient sample
size to capture all shared ideas for this group. However, participation rates for all other sectors were not
sufficient to capture all shared ideas, and the findings below cannot be generalized or considered representative
of any other participant group or perspective.
Although Commerce worked closely with the Office of Tribal Relations to disseminate invitations to tribes and
plan a specific tribal roundtable, only one tribal law enforcement representative attended the tribal roundtable.
Not all participants signed in at the roundtables, so the number of attendees and sectors represented are an
undercount.
The number of total participants is not a sum of all participants at all meetings. Some participants attended and
participated in more than one roundtable discussion.
Key findings
Below is an outline of key findings provided by roundtable participants. The findings presented below reflect what
was shared during the roundtable discussions, informed by the majority voice of local law enforcement. These
findings cannot be generalized to other sectors or participants.
Regulation Recommendations:
1. Identify a process for law enforcement agencies to start a task force.
2. Model state funding policies of MJTF regulations to the current federal Byrne JAG program, enforcing drug
interdiction and violent crimes. Allow funds to purchase equipment and training.
3. Maintain the task force peer review process.
4. Explore opportunities for improved interagency collaboration between the task force agencies and the
tribes.
5. Provide additional funding to support administrative and analyst positions within the task force regions.
Policy Recommendations:
1. Continue supporting a statewide overdose map to share data with the public about where
overdoses are occurring.
a. Please note: A statewide overdose map is currently available through the Washington State
Department of Health. Participants were unaware this resource already exists and
recommended creating a map. More information about the existing resource should be
shared for awareness.
2. Provide funding to support local prosecutors' offices to prosecute cases.
3. Review and assess state statutes for the following:
a. RCW 13.40.7401 - interviewing juveniles who engage in drug sales and violence.
1 RCW 13.40.740: Juvenile access to an attorney.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 6
b. RCW 10.93.1602 - prohibiting law enforcement from inquiring about citizenship status and
prohibits collaboration with federal immigration officers.
c. RCW 10.105.0103 - assets forfeiture.
4. Create RCWs setting policy regarding paying informants, outlining the elements of state drug
levels and prosecutions, and state outcomes on tracking and dismantling medium and large drug
trafficking rings.
5. Separate law enforcement task force responsibilities from public health responsibilities. Identify
who is responsible for resources, investigation materials, and equipment.
6. Request additional funding for the following:
a. Establish multi-year contracts with a funding structure that addresses the task force's
unique needs.
b. Establish governing policies and procedures that include options at a local board level, state
board level, defined executive board, and collaboration with federal agencies to support
resource allocation.
Fiscal Investments
Increase funding appropriation to at least $300,000 per task force.
Consider establishing a funding matrix to create a funding structure that would address the needs of small and
large task forces.
2 RCW 10.93.160: Immigration and citizenship status—Law enforcement agency restrictions.
3 RCW 10.105.010: Seizure and forfeiture.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 7
Introduction
Background
Commerce has been the State Administering Agency for the federally funded Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for more than three decades and uses JAG awards to fund a portion of the
operating budgets of 16 active task forces across the state.
Each task force received a sub-award for approximately $150,000 for state fiscal year (SFY) 2025.
Additionally, Commerce provided $144,000 to 1110 Precision Services LLC to serve as a Peer Coordinator. The
Peer Coordinator:
Monitors the multi-jurisdictional task force activities for compliance.
Provides technical assistance regarding operational aspects of the task forces.
Meets with the task forces to evaluate performance standards and make recommendations for
improvement.
In addition, a 17th task force, the Pacific County Drug Task Force has been funded through a dedicated budget
proviso for $371,000 in state funds for SFY 2023-2025.
The multi-jurisdictional task forces are responsible for conducting high-level narcotic investigations. Each
established task force supports a designated geographic region within Washington. Their primary purpose is to
stop drug traffickers, including dealers, manufacturers, and distributors of narcotics and firearms. Cases are then
either prosecuted in state felony courts or handed off to federal law enforcement agency partners to prosecute
individuals involved in criminal organizations.
Between 2015-2024, Washington task forces accomplished the following4:
Executed 1,125 search warrants
Completed 216 drug arrests of high-level narcotics
Completed 492 non-drug related arrests
These activities resulted in:
1,200 felony charges
297 misdemeanor charges
396 prosecutions
357 convictions
In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1)5 6 provides that JAG funds are to be
used to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and
information systems for criminal justice, including for any one or more of the following programs:
Law enforcement programs.
Prosecution and court programs.
Prevention and education programs.
4 Sample data consists of 10 years of data (2015 - 2024) from some of the participating task forces and is not conclusive.
5 Purposes for Which Funds Awarded Under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program May Be Used
6 Bureau Of Justice Assistance Fact Sheet
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 8
Corrections and community corrections programs.
Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.
Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation).
Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs
and crisis intervention teams.
Implementation of State Crisis Intervention court proceedings and related programs or initiatives, including but
not limited to (i) mental health courts, (ii) drug courts, (iii) veterans courts, and (iv) extreme risk protection order
programs.
The DOJ requires the State Administering Agencies to prepare a comprehensive strategic plan to guide overall JAG
program implementation. The plan spans five years and is updated every two years. Commerce completed its JAG
strategic plan in June 20237. A subcommittee of JAG Advisory Committee members guided the development of the
plan. Commerce and the Advisory Committee received technical assistance from the National Criminal Justice
Association (NCJA) on Byrne JAG strategic planning throughout 2022. NCJA is the technical assistance provider
for all states receiving Byrne JAG funds and has a robust suite of strategic planning tools. The National Policing
Institute provided an assessment report identifying a broader picture of funding for the task force operations and
the use of JAG funds within the state.8
The final JAG strategic plan proposed
The creation of a new JAG Innovation Fund, an initiative to support short-term, smaller projects that advance
equity and promote new and promising practices in the criminal legal system. Approximately 1.5 million dollars
of JAG funding would be dedicated to the initiative each year.
The creation of a second solicitation supporting programs and initiatives in three priority areas of focus:
Planning, Evaluation and Technology Improvement; Crime Victim Programming, Support and Advocacy; and
Community Safety Enhancement and Law Enforcement Programs/Support.
The recommendation is for Commerce to commission a Criminal Legal System Needs Assessment to inform
future efforts.
In SFY 2024-2025, the MJTF was allocated $2.7 million in state funding. None of the task forces received federal
dollars from Commerce for task force operations.
7 Washington JAG Strategic Plan 2023_2027
8 NPI JAG Final Report Commerce
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 9
Regulations
See Appendix A for a list of questions posed to participants. Below is an outline of key findings provided by
roundtable participants. The findings presented below reflect what was shared during the roundtable discussions,
informed by the majority voice of local law enforcement. These findings cannot be generalized to other sectors or
participants.
Regulations supporting the MJTF:
Participants recommend any spending requirements under state funds replicate the same regulations used for
the federal Byrne JAG program in Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.9.
Participants recommend changes to the following regulations:
Use state appropriated funds to purchase equipment and training.
Remove the Department of Justice, Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA) reporting requirement10.
Include investigating violent crimes into the matrix of authorized activities.
Structure reporting data collection to reflect the authorized activities of the task force.
Peer review process
The current peer review process, supported by state funding, monitors the MJTF operations in terms of best
practices, sound management, and monitoring performance measures. This is done through audits and
inspections of first-level supervisors and senior members to ensure accountability to the program. The Peer Review
coordinator, contracted through Commerce using task force funds, is responsible for evaluating the MJTF
operations and providing recommendations for improvement. Roundtable participants found value in the current
peer review process. Participants recommend to:
Ensure consistent practice and provide training on the process while outlining clear expectations.
Create a space to identify best practices shared with all the task forces and leadership.
Host an annual meeting/convention for all MJTF to support collaboration.
Regulation recommendations
The multi-jurisdictional task forces officers indicated they want to primarily focus on task force related
enforcement and investigations. Officers and detectives share responsibilities with their home agencies and must
compete against other agency priorities. Investigations are time-consuming and can span across state and
international borders. When officers are pulled away from task force investigations, the investigation can stall.
Overall recommendations include:
1) Using a three-pronged approach to include prevention, treatment and interdiction. Roundtable participants want
to focus on interdiction and leave prevention and treatment to public health.
2) Provide additional funding to support training, investigations, equipment and resources.
3) Law enforcement recommends standardization task force operations across the state.
9 34 USC Subtitle I, CHAPTER 101, SUBCHAPTER V, Part A: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
10 H.R.1447 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 10
Policy
See Appendix A for a list of questions posed to participants. Below is an outline of key findings provided by
roundtable participants. The findings presented below reflect what was shared during the roundtable discussions,
informed by the majority voice of local law enforcement. These findings cannot be generalized to other sectors or
participants.
Data collection focused on transitioning the MJTF from federal Byrne JAG regulations to comply with Washington
state RCWs and WACs. Currently, MJTF relies on federal policies to outline operational expenditures, expected
outcomes and responsibilities.
Governing policies for multi-jurisdictional task force operations
The multi-jurisdictional roundtable discussions, participants identified policies that should be incorporated into
state funding, including separating law enforcement and public health responsibilities, identifying who is financially
responsible for resources, investigation material, supplies and equipment, outlining multi-year funding, and
determining a funding structure that addresses the task force unique needs.
Identifying MJTF governing body to administer grant funding
Roundtable participants discussed who should govern the task force policies pertaining to operations. Listed below
are governing options discussed in roundtable discussions:
Local board level - If there are multiple task forces within a region, a governing board should oversee the
finances, share resources, and discuss best practices and information.
State board level – focusing on RCWs and WACs, the state board would govern the overall operations of the task
forces including budget allocations. State patrol plays an active role when receiving requests for service and
forwards requests to the corresponding MJTF.
Defined executive board - responsible for overseeing all task forces in WA state. This includes outcomes and
performance measures, establishing training protocols, asset allocations, financial awards and governing
regulations on task force activities. Develop an oversight board to monitor the mission and goals of the task
forces.
Federal level – a coordinated response between law enforcement agencies. The federal response must meet
certain requirements before federal resources are available.
Agency administrative authority- current agency administrative authority is at the Washington State Department
of Commerce. Some participants expressed interest in shifting to another state administrative authority under
the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC).
Policy recommendations include:
1) Establish an RCW governing the MJTF funding and operations.
2) Determine funding using a tier-based approach, taking into consideration task force outcomes and
performance metrics.
a) Create a policy on how informants are paid for providing intelligence. The current RCW 10.56.040 does not
specify if, when, or how informants are paid for information.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 11
3) Address state RCW and WAC to identify, arrest and question juveniles, ask about immigration status, and how
asset forfeitures are processed through the court system.11
a) Provide clarity on state outcomes requirements for identifying and dismantling drug trafficking rings.
b) Change state drug laws and prosecution levels to deter drug trafficking.
4) Establish public defender standards providing timely defense so prosecutors are not forced to close cases.
5) Collaborate with the county prosecutors' office to address the lack of consistency in how local prosecutors
accept and process cases.
6) Establish a working relationship with the Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.
7) Enable MJTF to be nimble and adjust internal policies to the changing community environment.
Additional feedback:
Participants provided additional feedback that is outside the scope of policies regarding MJTF, including concerns
with the prosecutorial process.
11 Referencing RCW 13.40.740, RCW 10.93.160, and RCW 10.105.010
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 12
Fiscal investment
See Appendix A for a list of questions posed to participants. Below is an outline of key findings provided by
roundtable participants. The findings presented below reflect what was shared during the roundtable discussions,
informed by the majority voice of local law enforcement. These findings cannot be generalized to other sectors or
participants.
The fiscal investment discussion focused on the current funding structure, how funding is used and sustainability.
The current structure is as follows:
Each MJTF received $150,000 for SFY 2025, which is reported to only fund a portion of the MJTF local
operating budget.
The Peer Coordinator received $144,000 for SFY2025 to conduct quality assurance oversight.
Current task force funding
The feedback from the roundtable discussions identified inadequate funding for sustainable and reliable program
support. Due to this lack of funding, the number of MJTFs has declined from 22 to 16. MJTFs rely on a blending of
funding from county, state, federal, and grant resources to operate within their jurisdictions. When the funding is
reduced or no longer available, the task force will either reduce its capacity to work cases or disband. Lack of
dedicated funding has also prevented adequate planning and training. Officer time is often shared locally, with a
portion of time spent on task force investigations.
Current funding streams include:
Local funding - funding is allocated through the task force law enforcement agency or by local city councils. The
states' MJTF funding is dedicated to salaries and benefits.
Federal resources - such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA12) for participating counties.
Federal law enforcement agencies provide funding when they accept a local case.
State funding - state funding is very limited and unreliable. State Patrol offers some grant funds to pay for
equipment.
Tribal funding - participating tribal communities have provided funding if they have an inter-agency agreement to
support law enforcement operations.
Seizure funds - funds received through a drug seizure. Seizure funds are unpredictable and are only awarded
once the case has been processed through the court system.
Other local grants - depends on availability and accessibility is not reliable.
Lack of funding — Impacts
Generally, the MJTF operates with 90 days of funding. Roundtable participants expressed concern that once a
MJTF is no longer working in an area, drug trafficking, violent crimes and human trafficking may increase. Rural
task forces are at the greatest risk of disbanding due to lack of funding. These rural areas often have small police
departments and rely on local MJTFs or federal partners to investigate drug crimes. Lack of funding also impacts
the following:
The ability to retain staff and provide training.
Maintaining or purchasing new equipment such as Global Positioning System (GPS) and wire technology,
replacing undercover vehicles, and support for K9s and handlers.
Paid informants for information to an investigation.
12 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Summary
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 13
Blended funding with public health organizations
Not every task force works with public health and rural areas have limited capacity to interact with public health
partners. Funding local public health departments would provide for additional Naloxone (Narcan) kits, public
awareness campaigns, and drug testing for known and unknown substances.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 14
Collaboration with cross-sector partners
Throughout the roundtable discussions, participants shared recommendations related to collaboration with tribal
partners and health departments. Given the low representation of tribal, local public health, and state public health
partners, these recommendations are compiled into an additional section. The recommendations below are from
the majority perspective of local law enforcement.
Recommendations
Roundtable participants recommend that state funding be sustainable and predictable. They recommend
increasing annual funding to at least $300,000 per task force, setting up a funding matrix model to differentiate
between small and large task force needs, and identifying the process of starting a task force. Secondary
recommendations include establishing partnerships with local county public health agencies and tribes.
Collaboration with tribal partners
Tribal collaborations vary within task force operations. Limited interlocal agreements allow tribal police
departments to share information with the task forces or refer a case to the federal authorities that have
jurisdiction to investigate criminal complaints. Some tribal police departments have limited jurisdictional authority
to participate in investigations.
Participant recommendations include:
Creating a pathway to establish interlocal agreements between tribal police departments and task force
operations.
Supporting funding dedicated to tribal law enforcement agencies to participate fully in task force investigations.
Collaboration between local and state health departments
In 2023, the Office of Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention/Community Safety Unit contracted with the National
Policing Institute to complete an assessment of Washington JAG support for the Multi-jurisdictional Task Force
program.13 One of the recommendations is for task forces to consider integration with public health organizations
to coordinate tracking drug supply and overdoses.
Collaboration between the MJTF and public health organizations varies based on the location of the task force.
Local public health jurisdictions provide some support, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or
medication used to reverse or reduce the effects of opioids, such as Narcan, to officers.
Participating local public health organizations also provide support in the following areas:
Share Toxicology reports that indicate the types of narcotics prevalent in the community. Use resources to test
unknown substances that test negative with traditional drug testing kits;
Provide hot spot analysis to focus investigations;
Make referrals to the Washington State Department of Ecology to test for environmental contamination;
Establish additional relationships with local prosecutors’ offices, Washington State Department of Children,
Youth and Families, Child Protective Services, the coroner’s office, local fire and aid, and hostage negotiators as
needed;
Share drug testing results to identify trends;
Host county opioid response boards to share information;
Engage school districts with local law enforcement to speak with youth and parents about the use of drugs; and
13 NPI JAG Final Report Commerce
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 15
Provide resources for landlords such as how to identify when a tenant is potentially trafficking narcotics.
The following recommendations to partner with the local public health departments to strengthen the relationship
between the MJTF and public health include:
1) Continued investment of mapping software and provide a statewide overdose map.
2) Create a working group to include the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the
Health Care Authority to share information in existing programs, share data and pilot new treatment programs.
3) Increase public messaging about state opioid use.
4) Provide funding for an analyst and support person to engage with law enforcement agencies for non-law
enforcement duties.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 16
Appendix A: Roundtable Questions
Regulation questions
What regulations should be in place for MJTFs?
What are the pros and cons of the Peer Review Process?
How have tribes been involved with the task forces (or related efforts)?
How do/or should the task forces integrate with public health organizations?
What public health organizations should be considered and what roles could they play?
As it relates to statewide drug epidemic response – What role(s) can/do/should MJTFs play in the holistic
approach and how can this be implemented within MJTFs (outside of traditional accountability roles)?
Policy questions
Based on statewide policies (RCW’s, WAC’s), or previous JAG/federal policies are the task forces able to
meet expected outcomes?
What is working? What are some barriers?
What state level policies currently exist that govern MJTF’s operations?
What policy recommendations would enhance the task force's ability to complete objectives?
Fiscal questions
What would long-term/dedicated/stable funding look like for MJTF’s?
How are most MJTF’s currently funded?
If the state does not continue to participate in funding (either through pass-thru grant funding or otherwise)
how would this impact operations of MJTF’s?
Has prior funding of MJTF’s in WA been adequate?
What is the fiscal impact for MJTF’s that currently collaborate with Public Health?
What would be the ideal MJTF funding allocation?
What Fiscal Investment recommendations would enhance the task force's ability to complete objectives?
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE — ROUNDTABLE OUTCOMES REPORT 17
File and source
- File
- 2025_multi-jurisdictional-task-force-roundtable-outcomes-report-final-27269.pdf
- Size
- 356,921 bytes
- SHA-256
- 07f375ecabd7ba89a28fcd536ae4b121897842a84edb62075ebeb15dd32f2089
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov