Washington County officials on Oct. 28 presented a one-year progress report for the county's deflection program, an alternative pathway intended to divert people with substance use disorder away from the criminal justice system and into treatment and supports.

The program, launched in September 2024 and described to the board by Marnie Kyle and program staff, has served 105 people out of 177 deemed eligible between Sept. 1 and Oct. 9 of the current reporting period, Danielle Farr, the county's Deflection Program coordinator, told commissioners. Farr said 24 participants completed the program'meaning they met completion benchmarks and avoided court appearances during that time frame.

Why it matters: County staff said deflection is one of several pathways created after Oregon lawmakers modified Measure 110 through House Bill 4002 and related bills; the intent is to reduce criminal-justice contact for low-level possession offenses while improving access to treatment. Officials said the program is intentionally collaborative, built with input from the district attorney's office, sheriff's office, community corrections, behavioral health providers and numerous community partners.

What staff told the board: Danielle Farr summarized the program's structure and recent changes, saying the county adopted a cautious expansion approach, widening eligibility in some cases where co-charges previously would have disqualified people (examples cited by staff included some theft, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct charges when no restitution or aggravating factors exist). Farr said the county removed some co-charge exclusions after consulting the district attorney.

Eva Hawes, the program's evaluation lead, presented participant demographics and outcomes. She said the county is seeing a population with substantial social needs: 73% of participants are covered by the Oregon Health Plan; about 32% were unsheltered at intake; 49% had unstable housing; 29% reported a disability; and roughly 75% were unemployed. Hawes said those figures are based on intake data for roughly 100 people and cautioned that small subgroup counts limit precise statistical conclusions.

On service connections, staff reported the program has made more than 400 referrals to community providers; about 70% of those referrals were confirmed as accessed services. Farr described the program's 'sustained engagement' model: peer case managers and contracted navigators follow participants through outreach, treatment initiation and ongoing contacts rather than issuing a single referral and closing the file.

Program growth and changes: The county described several operational expansions during year one, including a wider grace period for missed court appearances (FTA), expanded eligible charges in partnership with the DA, plans to introduce contingency-management incentives (small gift-card rewards tied to treatment milestones), and a future non-citation pathway that would allow voluntary entry without an initial citation. Staff said contingency management will use modest gift-card awards within county policy.

Funding and risks: Staff told the board that Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) funding supports the program but that state-level changes slowed grant awards. Presenters said the previous grant period award was $1,504,008.85. They said the new award notice was received the Tuesday before the Oct. 28 meeting and that the updated grant is expected to cover 2025'2027 with an end date in early August 2027; the remaining funds are to be distributed in January. Staff said delays and a smaller-than-expected statewide award window had constrained expansion plans, and they called out state-level reductions to underlying behavioral-health networks as a material risk to scaling the program.

Partnerships and referral network: Staff listed 25 contracted referral partners (providers of outpatient SUD treatment, peer support, residential care, withdrawal management and primary care) and said discussions were underway with 10 more to expand geographic reach and access for privately insured clients. Lieutenant Noffsinger of the sheriff's office was singled out by staff for active outreach and training that, they said, helped increase participation from some jurisdictions.

Outcomes and participant voice: Staff said 44% of participants had completed an ASAM (substance-use) assessment and cited qualitative feedback: a participant quote read at the meeting said, ''The Washington County Deflection Program was the second chance I needed to make so many positive changes in my life. I plan to continue on this path.'' Staff emphasized sustained engagement and that many participants had contacted services even if they did not meet the strict program completion metric.

Next steps: Staff asked the board to continue supporting program operations and noted plans to introduce contingency management, expand a non-citation pathway in spring, and pursue jail in-reach to reduce missed-engagement opportunities. They said CJC funding would continue to be the primary resource but highlighted ongoing budget conversations within county leadership about how to manage any shortfalls.

Board reaction and follow-up: Commissioners praised the program's multidisciplinary design and the measurable early results. Several commissioners asked for clearer public-facing explanations of program metrics and for periodic memos summarizing major changes or newsworthy developments. Commissioners also requested follow-up on apparent differences in citation volume by city (some large jurisdictions showed low referral counts) so staff could report back on outreach and law-enforcement engagement.

Participant attribution: In the meeting, staff read two participant statements supplied to the county; staff did not provide names and the meeting transcript identifies these as participant comments.

Ending note: Staff said an annual report and a statewide evaluation (through the CJC) are in progress and that county staff expect more robust outcome data after the program completes a second year of operation.