Washington County updates commissioners on deflection program; staff report early results and funding uncertainty

Washington County staff on April 15 briefed the Board of Commissioners on the county's deflection program, sharing early participation data, program design features and concerns about future state funding.

Assistant County Administrator Erin Calvert introduced the presentation and turned it over to Danielle Farr, deflection program coordinator, who described the program model, current operations and early outcomes. The county launched the program in September and has focused on warm handoffs in the field, doing assessments outside the courthouse and partnering across departments including Health & Human Services, the sheriff's office and the district attorney's office.

Danielle Farr said the program initially accepted people with standalone misdemeanor possession (PCSU) and, as of Jan. 1, expanded eligibility to include PCSA cases; the county is discussing whether to include lower-level non‑drug charges such as criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. Farr said the program is pursuing multiple referral pathways, including field warm handoffs and an officer-initiated outreach model, and recently contracted for an internal warm-handoff peer to increase targeted outreach.

On program metrics, staff reported 76 total people deemed eligible; of those, 48 people have entered the deflection program and 11–12 have completed it. Staff said 28 eligible people did not respond to outreach or failed to appear and that 45% of enrolled participants were unsheltered at intake; about 50% of participants moved from unsheltered to sheltered during the program period. The program tracks ASAM assessments; staff reported 49% of participants completed ASAM assessments.

The board asked several clarifying questions. Commissioner Fai asked whether the 45% figure used 48 participants as the denominator; Danielle Farr confirmed the unsheltered percentage applies to people who have entered deflection (48 people). Chair Catherine Harrington asked about failure‑to‑appear (FTA) consequences; staff said the district attorney's office will allow a waiver of the FTA if the participant connects with the program within seven days, providing a limited grace period to encourage engagement.

On funding, staff said the program's initial budget is roughly $1.5 million for the 2024–25 fiscal year and that spending is expected to be 10–20% underspent to date. Staff emphasized the program is funded by a state grant (CJC/behavioral health deflection grant) and has no county general fund support; if state funding is reduced or discontinued, the program would shrink accordingly.

Pablo Nieves Valenzuela of the county government relations team reviewed relevant legislation: SB 236 and HB 3576 (each would require the Criminal Justice Commission, CJC, to develop a funding formula for distributing behavioral health/deflection grants) and HB 5005 (the CJC budget bill, which currently includes $40 million statewide for county deflection programs, a level staff said is insufficient). Staff reported the county provided supportive testimony with amendments to allow the CJC to adopt a formula through a collaborative process, and staff are coordinating with the Association of Oregon Counties on funding levels.

Commissioners asked about equity and eligibility. Commissioner Schneider raised concerns about excluding people based on prior involvement with the criminal justice system; staff and the DA's representative clarified that past drug convictions do not automatically make someone ineligible and that current pending charges or certain new offenses can be disqualifying. The board discussed the program's equity goals and the importance of avoiding policies that perpetuate prior injustices.

Staff identified growth opportunities: hiring a Spanish‑speaking warm-handoff peer to increase field outreach, expanding referral pathways (including a Naloxone Plus outreach model that would not require a citation), broadening eligibility for certain low-level charges, and improving data collection. Commissioners asked staff to follow up on whether citation records capture housing status at the time of citation and to return with more statewide context and performance comparisons as the program matures.

No formal board vote was recorded during the presentation; the board expressed support for the program while asking staff to continue coordinating with government relations on funding and to return with additional data and follow-up work.