Subcommittee advances Oregon DOJ budget with funding for IT, fraud investigators and child advocacy

The Public Safety Subcommittee advanced the Legislative Fiscal Office recommendation on House Bill 5014, the Oregon Department of Justice budget, on June 3, sending the measure to the Ways and Means full committee with a due‑pass recommendation.

The LFO told the committee the department's recommended total‑funds budget is $966,835,947, including $198,065,487 general fund and funding for 1,604 positions (1,588.84 FTE). LFO staff described an overall 8.5% increase in total funds over current service level and said the request contains multiple division‑level packages across the agency.

Committee members said the changes matter because they shift resources into information technology and internal legal capacity while responding to new workloads such as Medicaid fraud and returning county child‑support operations.

The LFO presentation outlined several packages driving the change. Package 103 is a $2.3 million agency‑level investment LFO described as “keeping up with inflation for existing IT contracts and improving agency IT security” and the portion allocated to administration is roughly $980,000 in total funds. LFO also identified a classification/roll‑forward error in the Oregon Position Information System (ORPICS) that required a one‑time correction across divisions and added positions/step increases that were not carried forward automatically.

Several divisions saw targeted increases: the Civil Enforcement Division received funding to add four Assistant Attorney General positions (package 221) — two to assist with wildfire cases and two for antitrust and false‑claims matters — and a separate package (package 108) added seven positions to support the Medicaid fraud unit, which LFO said reflects federally mandated caseload growth. LFO noted Washington County is returning child‑support operations to the state effective June 30, an action that LFO said increases DOJ costs by about $7.4 million agency‑wide and specific totals for the Division of Child Support.

The committee discussed a package to bring more legal work inhouse in the trial/agency legal services division. LFO said the package would add 33 positions at a total package cost of about $10,817,947 in other funds. Committee members differed on whether that change would save the state money overall. LFO explained the internal rate charged to state agencies is a function of costs divided by billable hours: adding attorneys increases billable hours and can reduce the hourly rate even while increasing total department costs.

Representative Helfrich said the in‑house approach could save money and yield faster service because in‑house attorneys “have a better handle on facts and can get things done more quickly.” By contrast, one committee speaker labeled outside legal billing “a racket” while others pressed for clearer accounting of benefits and offsets.

The budget also responds to a federal funding shortfall for victim services: LFO reported a $15,000,000 reduction in VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) federal funds and a carryover backfill package that includes $1,050,000 general fund to cover part of that reduction in the next biennium. Package 327 (as described by LFO) deposits $34,000,000 ($17,000,000 general fund and $17,000,000 other funds) into funds used to disperse survivor and children advocacy services, with $5,000,000 listed for domestic violence services (reduced from an original $10,000,000 request, LFO said).

After brief discussion the committee moved the LFO recommendation and the dash‑1 amendment and voted to forward HB 5014 as amended to the Ways and Means full committee with a due‑pass recommendation. No roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript; the chair announced the motion passed.

The committee also reviewed key performance measures tied to the DOJ budget and approved the LFO recommendation to restore one measure's target from 75 back to 65 based on recent results.

Looking ahead, committee members asked for follow‑up on certain administration decisions — including whether some department charges to other agencies should move to the general fund — and requested further information on how new positions and in‑house legal work will translate into agency savings or program improvements.