Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing For Success topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clackamas County pauses $465,761 housing legal-services contract after DA and commissioners raise concerns
Summary
The board pulled a proposed $465,761 contract with Metropolitan Public Defender’s community law unit to provide legal barrier‑removal services for the Housing for Success program, directing staff to revise the scope and consult with the DA’s office and local partners before returning with a new proposal.
The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners removed a proposed personal-services contract with the Metropolitan Public Defender’s community law department from the consent agenda on March 19 and directed staff to return with a narrowed and revised proposal.
The contract — part of the county’s Housing for Success program — would have funded a dedicated legal position to help up to 125 households clear civil “barriers” to employment and housing (expungements, driver-license restoration, debt negotiation and similar services). Shannon Callahan, executive director of the Clackamas County Housing Authority, told the board the service was selected after a competitive process to reduce long-term rental assistance costs and support participants toward self-sufficiency.
District Attorney John Wentworth objected to contracting with Metropolitan Public Defender (MPD), citing two concerns: MPD’s reported staffing shortfalls in neighboring counties and the risk that a broad expungement scope could remove information relied upon in sentencing and restitution. "Once the case is expunged, I have no knowledge," Wentworth said, describing how expungements can limit prosecutorial and victim information.
Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives, including narrowing eligibility (for example, focusing on low‑level offenses and administrative barriers), using local nonprofit legal-aid providers, or structuring the service as a pilot. Staff said the contract as written purchased a 1.0 full‑time equivalent that would provide on‑demand services for program participants and that the larger-dollar figure reflected a multi‑year budget projection; they also noted overlap with internal employment-navigation and other wraparound services in the Housing for Success program.
Rather than approve the contract, the board asked staff to explore narrower scopes, local alternatives and clearer oversight, and to return with a revised proposal. "This item is dead as it is in front of you today," staff told commissioners.
What happens next: Staff will rework the contract scope and identify providers or revisions that address DA concerns and capacity questions; the board did not take a final vote on the E4 contract at the meeting.
