State hearing previews statewide deflection report and data; officials cite implementation gaps, rural challenges

A legislative informational hearing on statewide behavioral‑health deflection on March 1 heard a preview of a best‑practices report and an update of early program data showing hundreds of referrals but significant drop‑offs before enrollment and uneven county coverage.

Dr. Elizabeth Waddell, a researcher with the OHSU‑PSU School of Public Health, read the working definition the team used in its review: “Collaborative intervention connecting public safety and public health systems to create community‑based pathways to treatment for people who have substance use disorders, mental health disorders, or both, and who often have other service needs, without entry into the justice system.” She said the full report will be published on April 1.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) presented statewide figures drawn from arrest, court and program dashboards. Ken, a CJC staff member, said the commission logged just over 5,000 possession‑related arrests statewide between Sept. 1 (when recriminalization began) and the first week of February. Of those arrests, he said about 3,100 drug‑enforcement misdemeanor cases were filed in circuit court; roughly one‑quarter of arrests were for stand‑alone possession. Ken also reported, from county REDCap program reports, 894 deflection referrals for 841 people so far, with enrollment falling short of referrals in many counties.

Why it matters: lawmakers and local officials told the committee that the new statewide deflection effort is meant to give law enforcement an alternative to arrest and to connect people quickly to treatment, housing and social services. Presenters said the state has an opportunity to learn which local models work and whether eligibility or operational rules should be broadened.

Key program elements and evidence

Researchers emphasized that local programs use multiple referral “pathways.” Waddell and other presenters described six commonly used pathways: self‑referral; active outreach by teams; naloxone‑plus outreach after an overdose; community or social referrals (for example peer or health‑team referrals during crisis de‑escalation); officer prevention (no arrest option); and officer intervention (where charges may be held in abeyance). “We want to encourage self referrals and social referrals, particularly with no charges present,” Waddell said, noting the literature supports operating multiple pathways rather than relying solely on officer referrals.

Presenters identified “warm handoffs” as an engagement best practice: an in‑person transfer at first contact from law enforcement or EMS to treatment or peer staff. Waddell said programs with stronger warm‑handoff capacity convert more referrals to ongoing enrollment.

Data highlights and limitations

CJC staff warned that statewide data remain early and imperfect. Dashboard figures are updated weekly and rely on county reporting cycles; grantees are expected to report monthly but not on a single mandated date, producing reporting lags.

Ken reported these data points to the committee from the CJC dashboards and partner systems: about 5,000 possession‑related arrests since recriminalization; about 3,100 drug‑enforcement misdemeanor cases filed at the circuit‑court level in that period; roughly 894 deflection referrals for 841 people reported through REDCap; and about 275 people admitted to Department of Corrections supervision for drug‑enforcement misdemeanor charges, of whom roughly 73 percent were placed on conditional discharge. He said about a quarter of arrests were “stand‑alone” possession and the most common co‑occurring charges included trespass, theft and failure to appear.

Ken and researchers stressed that the state can now compare local program elements using standardized REDCap fields, but that outcomes remain hard to compare nationally because programs use different success endpoints. Waddell summarized approaches to measuring individual success as either case‑by‑case assessments (improvements in housing, employment or substance use) or predetermined metrics (attendance, assessment completion, negative UAs).

Implementation challenges raised at the hearing

- Officer buy‑in and discretion: presenters and county leaders said officer discretion and skepticism limit referrals. Dr. Christopher Campbell, a subject‑matter expert at Portland State University, noted line officers in some rural counties report they “don’t really believe in this” or lack familiarity with the process; he recommended regular engagement (briefings/roll calls) and follow‑up to build rapport.

- Eligibility constraints: Waddell and Campbell said using only stand‑alone possession as an eligibility filter narrows reach; both recommended local programs consider flexible rules and, where appropriate, inclusion of low‑level co‑occurring charges. Campbell estimated expanding eligibility to include the top four co‑occurring charges (failure to appear, theft in the second degree, trespass in the second degree, and supervision violations) could substantially increase the pool of candidates for deflection.

- Rural logistics and staffing: multiple rural sheriffs told the committee that small county populations and large geographic areas limit warm handoffs and same‑day in‑person connections. Wasco and Hood River county leaders said combining grants into regional consortia made programs financially viable; they described hiring navigators who cover multiple counties and the need for sustainable funding and transportation resources.

- Treatment and capacity limits: nonprofit providers and peers said referrals depend on available treatment beds and housing. Tony (4D Recovery, executive director) told the committee that deflection’s success is constrained if treatment capacity is insufficient, and he urged continued investment in treatment access.

Program models and on‑the‑ground experience

Several counties described Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) variants and co‑response models. Marion County’s LEAD navigators said police call a navigator 24/7 to respond to scenes; navigators reported multiple clients regained custody of children, completed parole or entered sustained recovery after LEAD engagement. Ben Spence, Marion County partner, described a client who received a same‑day warm handoff, a shelter referral and treatment assessment and who later entered residential care.

Campbell described national evidence that many programs are led by law enforcement and vary in coordinator responsibilities from high‑level partnership building to day‑to‑day client navigation. He said the Bureau of Justice Assistance survey showed many programs nationwide do not use the officer‑intervention pathway and recommended layering additional pathways such as naloxone‑plus and active outreach where feasible.

Questions for policy makers

Presenters and legislators raised policy questions for the committee, including whether House Bill 4,002’s implementation rules should be clarified, whether Measure 110 funding should remain available for deflection activities, and whether eligibility for deflection should be broadened to include low‑level co‑occurring offenses. Ken said the CJC’s statutory charge includes studying racial disparities and other outcomes and that some analyses will seek to separate recriminalization impacts from deflection program results, though disentangling them is difficult.

What’s next

Researchers and the CJC said the OHSU‑PSU best‑practices report will be published April 1 and that REDCap‑based tracking and weekly dashboards will continue to evolve. Dr. Campbell said technical assistance to counties is active and “currently funded through May of this year.” Several county teams described ongoing stakeholder outreach and continued coordination with statewide technical assistance partners.

The hearing concluded with lawmakers thanking presenters and program partners and noting follow‑up questions for agencies about funding, eligibility and rural supports.