Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Multnomah County weighs two pretrial models as budget pressure forces choices
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners received competing pretrial delivery plans: a county-led consolidated services model serving supportive needs and a court-led restructuring that would shift many pretrial functions to the courts. Supporters argue option 2 saves millions and reduces duplication; some advocates urge survivor-centered staff and commissioners pressed for more cost detail and a transition plan.
The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners heard competing proposals April 1 to reorganize the county’s pretrial monitoring and services amid budget constraints and the prospect of cuts to existing programs.
Sarah Mullen, executive director of the county’s local Public Safety Coordinating Council, presented a final report that distilled the work of the pretrial subcommittee into two delivery options and called for a transition that preserves court appearance rates, community safety and equitable design. “A primary shared goal that we have is to increase successful court appearance,” Mullen said, outlining practices — unified case management, behavioral messaging for reminders, peer navigators and material supports — shown to boost appearance rates.
The court’s proposal, described as option 2 and advanced by Chief Criminal Judge Michael Greenlick and trial court administrator Barbara Marcio, would shift many pre-adjudication functions into a court-run unit and expand 24/7 release assistance officers to handle assessment, presiding release orders and low-risk monitoring. Greenlick said restructuring could reduce duplication and bring large savings: when including the DCJ recog/hearings unit the current system is about $6,000,000 annually; his estimate for the court-led reorganization would lower county costs substantially, approaching a $2.5 million reduction in some scenarios.
District Attorney Nathan Vasquez urged the commission to favor option 2, calling it both "safer" and cheaper: “This is a rare moment in government budgeting where we are offered a safer option that also costs significantly less,” he said, and estimated the county share under option 2 at about $3,420,000. Vasquez argued that a less-resourced option would strain monitoring staff and risk more failures to appear and downstream jail churn.
Victim and survivor advocates asked that any new pretrial agency embed survivor navigation and safety planning. Nichelle Moore, manager of victim and survivor services at the Department of Community Justice, said standard risk tools miss dynamics such as coercive control and recommended two FTEs focused on survivor navigation be part of any new pretrial program so survivor safety is not an afterthought.
Grant Hartley, director of Metropolitan Public Defenders, urged a unified, relationship-driven program that centers service connections rather than heavy reliance on law-enforcement-styled monitoring. He warned that court-run "release assistance officers" and the label "officer" could undermine trust and engagement for people already distrustful of law enforcement.
Commissioners pressed for more granular cost breakdowns, clarity on whether judges would rely on the new Oregon pretrial assessment tool (OPAT), and a concrete transition plan to avoid a cliff if current monitoring programs end. Multiple board members suggested a third, hybrid option that combines county-provided supportive services with court or state-managed monitoring functions. Denise Pang, director of the Department of Community Justice, and a sheriff’s representative said a ramp-down without a transition would require coordinated court orders and client transfers, including for people on GPS or electronic monitoring.
No formal decision was made; the board asked staff to collect follow-up information on operational space, data-sharing needs, the precise scope of proposed needs assessments, and full-cost comparisons. Commissioners signaled they expect additional briefings and data as they weigh whether to adopt a county-led services model, a court-led restructure, or a hybrid solution that balances services, monitoring capacity and budget realities.
