After conducting a second review of Clackamas County’s grant application for a drug deflection program, the IMPACTS Grant Review Committee of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission voted to reverse its original decision and approve an amended version of the county’s proposal Monday, Aug. 12. However several committee members still expressed disagreement with Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth’s characterization of the terms “deflection” and “diversion,” which were part of the basis for their initial denial of the county’s application.
The committee’s reconsideration of the application came after criticism from both the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners and local legislators last week.
When the Oregon Legislature opted to re-criminalize drug use earlier this year, it created a grant system to provide money for counties to start deflection programs. The state defines deflection as “a collaborative program between law enforcement agencies and behavioral health entities that assist individuals who may have substance use disorder, another behavioral health disorder or co-occurring disorders, to create community-based pathways to treatment, recovery support services, housing, case management or other services” according to the CJC website.
Clackamas County submitted an application requesting about $950,000 for a program that would be administered through the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office. Staff for the Criminal Justice Commission said that the application met requirements, but the review committee voted against it with some members saying the proposal seemed more like diversion than deflection. This was because, under Clackamas County’s proposal, people taking part in deflection would already be enmeshed in the legal process.
Under the county’s proposal, all Clackamas County law enforcement agencies would refer people cited for minor drug possession charges to community court — the county’s court system for low-level charges.
“Our law enforcement partners will cite all HB4002 defendants and refer to Community Court on either the 2nd or 4th Thursday of each month. (Law enforcement) will then forward the citation and police report to the DA’s Office. The program coordinator and program navigator will decide if the defendant is eligible for deflection after reviewing the police report, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and their current involvement with relevant county and non-profit partners,” the county’s application reads. “If a candidate has already had significant contact with providers and has turned down housing and treatment opportunities, they will not be offered deflection but they will be eligible for conditional discharge. Our law enforcement partners will also be able to refer a field contact to our program navigator for connection to services without a citation.”
Those eligible for deflection would be contacted by a program navigator — in person, if possible — before their community court date, according to the application. If they accept deflection, they would be connected to program resources and partners; in the event that the defendant is not contacted before the court appearance, deflection would be offered during that appearance, according to the county.
Some committee members were displeased that the Clackamas County program coordinator would be housed in the District’s Attorney’s Office and felt the expenses associated with administration were too high.
County officials and representatives pushed back strongly, however, and County Commission Chair Tootie Smith stated during a meeting that she felt the grant denial was political. Legislators within the Clackamas County Caucus sent a letter to the grant committee asking it to reconsider.
Ultimately, the committee voted to reverse its decision Monday. Members of the committee amended the county’s proposal however, nixing an administrative position in the DA’s office that was projected to use about $196,000 of the grant funds.
At the Aug. 12 meeting, committee member and Lane County Circuit Court Judge Suzanne Chanti said she initially felt the county’s proposal was too “top-heavy” in terms of funding for personnel within the DA’s office. However she noted that the committee approved Washington County’s application, which included even more funds for administrative personnel. Chanti also said the committee could have done a better job of defining “deflection” versus “diversion.”
Committee member Janie Gullickson said she was bothered by the use of the term “defendant” throughout Clackamas County’s application.
“By nature of its definition, the term implied that the person is in the court process and therefore in my mind had not been deflected but was eligible then for diversion,” Gullickson said.
Speaking to the committee during the Aug. 12 meeting, Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth said Gullickson’s critique of the use of the term “defendant” was fair and the word could be swapped in the application and other materials going forward. The DA also expressed frustration with the ongoing debate over the terms “deflection” and “diversion.”
The county’s proposal, Wentworth asserted, met the state’s definition of “deflection.”
“The difference between a diversion program and a deflection program, which by the way most of us had never heard the word deflection until February of this year, is that diversion can only occur post-charges,” the DA said.
Committee member and Oregon Health Authority Behavioral Health Director Samantha Byers said she felt the Clackamas proposal was more diversion than deflection because it still sent people to court.
Wentworth noted that community court is not equivalent to the county’s regular criminal court and said employees of the deflection program would attempt to work with the cited person before their court date.
The committee’s final vote was 10-1 in favor of the application.
Corey Buchanan contributed to this story.
