Deflection Center - 9th and Sandy
Upon Passing of HB 4002, County Chair Jessica Vega-Pederson began planning for a deflection center to provide some services and referrals to those caught with possession of drugs. Deflection is a program for those caught with possession of drugs as an alternative to facing jail time. Instead of typical incarceration in a jail, police would transport individuals to the newly planned deflection center instead. At this center, deflectors might receive some services and referrals to services instead of facing jail time.
Below is news, notes, and analysis regarding the deflection center proposal.
Below is news, notes, and analysis regarding the deflection center proposal.
October 5th, 2024
Posting this while on vacation so I will be brief. I missed the Monday meeting and will miss the next meeting as well. Last Monday's meeting did not include the county or Tuerk house and focused on what we want for our security planning and GNA items as a whole.
The meeting prior we had some discussion regarding CEIC's proposal for security as well as a new mediator in to help us move the conversations forward. It was spicy at times but I will say that I think we are getting our message across quite clearly. Many of the GNAC members outside of the county and Tuerk house are worried about that county's determination to open on their own schedule regardless of whether they will meet us in final negotiations. That is to say, our opinions don't really seem to matter to them and they will open with or without a GNA in place. I hope we are mistaken and that they agree to refrain from opening until we can have an agreement or at least be sure that an agreement cannot be reached.
I'm sorry that there is not a more fruitful update and I know I'm missing links! I'll try to get them up when I return.
Posting this while on vacation so I will be brief. I missed the Monday meeting and will miss the next meeting as well. Last Monday's meeting did not include the county or Tuerk house and focused on what we want for our security planning and GNA items as a whole.
The meeting prior we had some discussion regarding CEIC's proposal for security as well as a new mediator in to help us move the conversations forward. It was spicy at times but I will say that I think we are getting our message across quite clearly. Many of the GNAC members outside of the county and Tuerk house are worried about that county's determination to open on their own schedule regardless of whether they will meet us in final negotiations. That is to say, our opinions don't really seem to matter to them and they will open with or without a GNA in place. I hope we are mistaken and that they agree to refrain from opening until we can have an agreement or at least be sure that an agreement cannot be reached.
I'm sorry that there is not a more fruitful update and I know I'm missing links! I'll try to get them up when I return.
September 23rd, 2024 (edited to correct the date of initial entry)
Hi neighbors! We're going into another meeting tonight. I got the draft minutes from the 9/16 meeting on Saturday night but forgot to post them. Sorry!
I also need to share that I will be departing for a holiday and will be gone two weeks in Barcelona. Exciting for me, but it does mean that I will not be able to attend the GNAC meetings or the October BCA meeting. This means that I will not be able to provide updates during this time. I will try to get one more update from tonight's meeting before I leave though, with or without the meeting minutes. Here is the agenda for tonight's meeting. Most of it will be consumed by meeting new neutral facilitators the county has hired.
Hi neighbors! We're going into another meeting tonight. I got the draft minutes from the 9/16 meeting on Saturday night but forgot to post them. Sorry!
I also need to share that I will be departing for a holiday and will be gone two weeks in Barcelona. Exciting for me, but it does mean that I will not be able to attend the GNAC meetings or the October BCA meeting. This means that I will not be able to provide updates during this time. I will try to get one more update from tonight's meeting before I leave though, with or without the meeting minutes. Here is the agenda for tonight's meeting. Most of it will be consumed by meeting new neutral facilitators the county has hired.
September 18th, 2024
This is coming a little later than intended. Last week we had a meeting without county officials or Tuerk house due to the county officials unilaterally cancelling the meeting because a few staff couldn't make it. This was frustrating, but there was some healthy conversation and Sharon Meiran took notes. If you would like to read those notes, they are here. I will let the notes speak for themselves. I am also posting the corrected minutes from 8/27 as well as the minutes from our 9/4 meeting which were approved Monday night. You can ignore the draft watermark, there were no changes requested, though I admit I was not as thorough on reviewing those as I have for previous meetings.
Later in the week we got a response to our many questions that have been posited in writing. I'll give credit to the county for their answers being thorough, though personally I found that there were some wasted words and a few additional questions are being raised by their responses. That said, it also helped clear up some other issues that are allowing us to move beyond fundamentals to more concrete GNA terms.
The agenda for Monday night's meeting is here, as well as the slide deck regarding changes to security plan that Multnomah County shared at the meeting. In short, they give background on the number of camp assessments and cleanups in the immediate area. It's a little confusing because we can't see how it compares to the rest of the city in what they shared, but it's still interesting info to see. They also describe three zones.
Zone one is the type of zone that any business might have. County activities there include routine groundskeeping, cleanup and graffiti removal, and removal of dangerous wastes and biohazards. This is now only for the block that the facility is on.
Zone two has two-daily neighborhood patrols and additional patrols as needed. They will primarily act as reporters of illegal behaviors (especially drug dealing) and high-impact campsites. They will also intervene within the scope of the Good Samaritan Law meaning that they intervene in criminal activity where a person's safety or security is threatened. It is, as we were led to understand, a part of the security personnel's assigned job duties rather than merely a choice as other good Samaritans might make. Zone two is about 9 square blocks favoring the area east of the center (does not cross Sandy). This will encompass the pre-school.
Zone 3 is a wider area, 49 square blocks, centered directly on the center. In this area, there will be increased peer outreach from county teams, regular assessment of needs, and will be a high-priority zone for encampment assessment and cleanup. In the area, they will be conducting a needs assessments in the area to establish a baseline of what kind of activities exist there now, and they will seek to expand trash/debris cleanup in partnership with the CEIC.
Also included are some other updates as well as some links where you can report encampments directly to PDX Reporter and suspected drug dealing can be reported directly to the Portland Police without calling the non-emergency line.
Report Encampments (may require portlandoregon.gov account)
Reported Suspected Drug Dealing
Regarding my personal opinions and advocacy, I will be requesting some changes. In particular, I think zones 2 and 3 need modification. Regarding zone 2, it is all about patrols and monitoring, but it's unclear whether they will do a weave of all blocks or they will simply drive around the perimeter. If they are driving a route, I want to know the route. I would also like there to be additional times where they provide more close attention or support to the areas around Escuela Viva and Buckman Elementary, such as before and during times where children are likely to be playing outside and at night when drug users are most likely to stop, use, and abandon their drug paraphernalia on or near the play areas. I would also like zone 3 to be expanded to include a greater chunk of the neighborhood, especially where children gather/walk to school and where troubled spots are known to be. Obviously all the of the child learning areas should be included, but also the area around revolution hall and perhaps 20th and Belmont area where there is also known drug dealing at the corner of that park.
If you have any burning questions or places you think should be included in Zone 3 explicitly, please reach out to the board's email address with your questions/comments. Thank you everyone for reading and joining in the discussion!
This is coming a little later than intended. Last week we had a meeting without county officials or Tuerk house due to the county officials unilaterally cancelling the meeting because a few staff couldn't make it. This was frustrating, but there was some healthy conversation and Sharon Meiran took notes. If you would like to read those notes, they are here. I will let the notes speak for themselves. I am also posting the corrected minutes from 8/27 as well as the minutes from our 9/4 meeting which were approved Monday night. You can ignore the draft watermark, there were no changes requested, though I admit I was not as thorough on reviewing those as I have for previous meetings.
Later in the week we got a response to our many questions that have been posited in writing. I'll give credit to the county for their answers being thorough, though personally I found that there were some wasted words and a few additional questions are being raised by their responses. That said, it also helped clear up some other issues that are allowing us to move beyond fundamentals to more concrete GNA terms.
The agenda for Monday night's meeting is here, as well as the slide deck regarding changes to security plan that Multnomah County shared at the meeting. In short, they give background on the number of camp assessments and cleanups in the immediate area. It's a little confusing because we can't see how it compares to the rest of the city in what they shared, but it's still interesting info to see. They also describe three zones.
Zone one is the type of zone that any business might have. County activities there include routine groundskeeping, cleanup and graffiti removal, and removal of dangerous wastes and biohazards. This is now only for the block that the facility is on.
Zone two has two-daily neighborhood patrols and additional patrols as needed. They will primarily act as reporters of illegal behaviors (especially drug dealing) and high-impact campsites. They will also intervene within the scope of the Good Samaritan Law meaning that they intervene in criminal activity where a person's safety or security is threatened. It is, as we were led to understand, a part of the security personnel's assigned job duties rather than merely a choice as other good Samaritans might make. Zone two is about 9 square blocks favoring the area east of the center (does not cross Sandy). This will encompass the pre-school.
Zone 3 is a wider area, 49 square blocks, centered directly on the center. In this area, there will be increased peer outreach from county teams, regular assessment of needs, and will be a high-priority zone for encampment assessment and cleanup. In the area, they will be conducting a needs assessments in the area to establish a baseline of what kind of activities exist there now, and they will seek to expand trash/debris cleanup in partnership with the CEIC.
Also included are some other updates as well as some links where you can report encampments directly to PDX Reporter and suspected drug dealing can be reported directly to the Portland Police without calling the non-emergency line.
Report Encampments (may require portlandoregon.gov account)
Reported Suspected Drug Dealing
Regarding my personal opinions and advocacy, I will be requesting some changes. In particular, I think zones 2 and 3 need modification. Regarding zone 2, it is all about patrols and monitoring, but it's unclear whether they will do a weave of all blocks or they will simply drive around the perimeter. If they are driving a route, I want to know the route. I would also like there to be additional times where they provide more close attention or support to the areas around Escuela Viva and Buckman Elementary, such as before and during times where children are likely to be playing outside and at night when drug users are most likely to stop, use, and abandon their drug paraphernalia on or near the play areas. I would also like zone 3 to be expanded to include a greater chunk of the neighborhood, especially where children gather/walk to school and where troubled spots are known to be. Obviously all the of the child learning areas should be included, but also the area around revolution hall and perhaps 20th and Belmont area where there is also known drug dealing at the corner of that park.
If you have any burning questions or places you think should be included in Zone 3 explicitly, please reach out to the board's email address with your questions/comments. Thank you everyone for reading and joining in the discussion!
September 5th, 2024
Late update, my apologies. I also do not yet have meeting minutes to provide, but will say I am glad that one didn't get recorded because there were some moments of frustration that spilled out.
I will say that representatives from the County Health Department and the police force shared "early data" from the deflection process so far. There were 10 encounters recorded of which 4 chose deflection, but only one or two got transported to their referral partners immediately. Here is a news story about how there is not enough detox capacity for the deflection process thus far, so that is an interesting but thoroughly unsurprising read as well. It was a little surprising that Multnomah County is now offering diversion as well, though they aren't calling it that. That story is a good one for other reason so definitely worth watching.
We also discussed the GNA framework and there was large agreement that it was appropriate to ditch the "framework" goal and work towards something official prior to the opening. We also got it out of Tuerk house that they do not have "Good Neighbor Agreements" but rather MOU's with other neighborhoods where they have opened centers. If you are not familiar, an MOU is a "Memorandum of Understanding" and is a legally binding contract that is signed by both parties. I asked Tuerk house to confirm that their MOUs were legally binding, which they did. However, Multnomah County is insisting that they will not be beholden to any legally binding contracts, so we will have to wait to see how exactly this plays out.
Security is the conversation for next week, as well as I'm sure a bit more big picture look at the GNA (or MOU) that we will be working towards. Sorry I don't have more for you tonight, but I hope that suffices for this week.
Late update, my apologies. I also do not yet have meeting minutes to provide, but will say I am glad that one didn't get recorded because there were some moments of frustration that spilled out.
I will say that representatives from the County Health Department and the police force shared "early data" from the deflection process so far. There were 10 encounters recorded of which 4 chose deflection, but only one or two got transported to their referral partners immediately. Here is a news story about how there is not enough detox capacity for the deflection process thus far, so that is an interesting but thoroughly unsurprising read as well. It was a little surprising that Multnomah County is now offering diversion as well, though they aren't calling it that. That story is a good one for other reason so definitely worth watching.
We also discussed the GNA framework and there was large agreement that it was appropriate to ditch the "framework" goal and work towards something official prior to the opening. We also got it out of Tuerk house that they do not have "Good Neighbor Agreements" but rather MOU's with other neighborhoods where they have opened centers. If you are not familiar, an MOU is a "Memorandum of Understanding" and is a legally binding contract that is signed by both parties. I asked Tuerk house to confirm that their MOUs were legally binding, which they did. However, Multnomah County is insisting that they will not be beholden to any legally binding contracts, so we will have to wait to see how exactly this plays out.
Security is the conversation for next week, as well as I'm sure a bit more big picture look at the GNA (or MOU) that we will be working towards. Sorry I don't have more for you tonight, but I hope that suffices for this week.
August 28th, 2024
The second GNAC meeting was last night, of which I am a member. Here are August 19th meeting minutes from the first meeting which we confirmed last night (I don't have a copy without the "DRAFT" watermark, but there were no major objections to them). I had thought I uploaded those previously but it looks like I did not. Additionally, here are the August 27th meeting minutes [finalized minutes now in Sep 18th post] in their draft form. I will be requesting a few corrections however.
For those that do not wish to read three pages of loosely taken notes, here are some highlights we've learned out of last night's meeting:
In other news, while we fight to delay the center's opening, Mayor Ted Wheeler is upset that the county engaged any brakes at all. His notion that mobile deflection is not a long-term solution is also outrageous. Forgive me for saying what probably sounds biased, but there are successful models using mobile deflection. In fact, the draft plan refers to STEER (page 17) as one such evidence-based model. Ironically(?), STEER is a mobile deflection model (see page 2, eight bullet).
Anyways, in the interest of fairness, Seattle's LEAD program is a more accurate source of inspiration for Multnomah County's approach as they also have a diversion center where police can drop those off instead of taking them to jail or a hospital. However, it's worth noting that they also have a mobile deflection team who goes to the sight of police interactions instead of requiring police to handcuff deflectors and transport them to their "Crisis Solutions Center" (i.e. deflection center). It's also probably important to note that they served over 1100 clients in the first quarter of 2024 alone according to their data, though not all were taken to the center of course.
I'm out of time, but I hope you find this interesting and informative.
The second GNAC meeting was last night, of which I am a member. Here are August 19th meeting minutes from the first meeting which we confirmed last night (I don't have a copy without the "DRAFT" watermark, but there were no major objections to them). I had thought I uploaded those previously but it looks like I did not. Additionally, here are the August 27th meeting minutes [finalized minutes now in Sep 18th post] in their draft form. I will be requesting a few corrections however.
For those that do not wish to read three pages of loosely taken notes, here are some highlights we've learned out of last night's meeting:
- People who cannot be verifiably identified through law enforcement databases will not be considered for deflection. We learned today (after the meeting) that physical identification is not going to be necessary in all cases, but the PPB has assured the county staff who passed along their message that they have other forms of identification "including mobile fingerprinting". Anything short of affirmative identification will not be brought to the center meaning that people with warrants for arrest will not be transported to Buckman for deflection. There are however questions that come from this.
- There was conversation once again around the number of persons served by this center, and it was noted that requirement for physical identification would greatly reduce that number while camping ban enforcement could greatly increase that number. We were somewhat reassured when hearing last night that [physical] identification would be required, but now that it's gone it would be reasonable to assume that increased enforcement of camping bans might indicate higher numbers of individuals brought.
- I personally raised this issue that how people come to the center has an impact on how people leave the center and expressed concern over the defined requirement that people who come to the center must do so in what may be considered a traumatic (or stressful) way. The only options at the onset will be to come via ambulance or handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser. My concern is that those individuals may be less inclined to accept transportation given how they were transported to the facility was under duress. This issue is not an easily resolved one, however, as the county's executive leadership has insisted people will not be forced to accept transportation. Every effort will be made to provide them transportation, and the committee is going to build the GNA under the assumption that every individual will be required to accept transportation away. The staff acknowledged we could do this, and it was mutually understood that it may require additional edits down the road.
- Some members of Tuerk house staff were there and they were professional, empathetic, and courteous. I will also note that they did appear (from my perspective) to be truly passionate in their mission and confident in their operational excellence. That aside, Tuerk house clearly indicated that in their other operations they track where someone is referred to and log whether or not any contact is made with those referred agencies. You can bet that I will be interested in these metrics within this particular operation as there are other notable differences in their operations as well. One that came out was that they do allow walk ins to their facility, even though our deflection center does not.
- There was a additional but brief discussion over metrics. The county did say that there would be checkups on metrics regarding the deflection centers outcomes every 30 days and it would have some bearing on how the center operates. We will also have the ability to add metrics as part of the GNA. That all doesn't meant that if they "fail" metrics they will be closed, but it is likely a significant number of GNA members will seek to add some sort of stipulations about what metrics (or repeated poor metrics) will mandate the center's closing. I, for one, will certainly be advocating that several months of failed security metrics will necessitate the immediate closure of the facility.
In other news, while we fight to delay the center's opening, Mayor Ted Wheeler is upset that the county engaged any brakes at all. His notion that mobile deflection is not a long-term solution is also outrageous. Forgive me for saying what probably sounds biased, but there are successful models using mobile deflection. In fact, the draft plan refers to STEER (page 17) as one such evidence-based model. Ironically(?), STEER is a mobile deflection model (see page 2, eight bullet).
Anyways, in the interest of fairness, Seattle's LEAD program is a more accurate source of inspiration for Multnomah County's approach as they also have a diversion center where police can drop those off instead of taking them to jail or a hospital. However, it's worth noting that they also have a mobile deflection team who goes to the sight of police interactions instead of requiring police to handcuff deflectors and transport them to their "Crisis Solutions Center" (i.e. deflection center). It's also probably important to note that they served over 1100 clients in the first quarter of 2024 alone according to their data, though not all were taken to the center of course.
I'm out of time, but I hope you find this interesting and informative.
August 24th, 2024
I got this info yesterday but occupied at the time; I am sorry for the delay. Below are the draft minutes from the GNAC meeting on Monday. Please note that the minutes have not been approved yet. I will likely delete this post after Monday to replace it with the true minutes. As a participant in these meetings, I will share my opinion that the minutes leave out some details of what was discussed, but overall it is not a misrepresentation of what was discussed at the meeting. The only misleading thing I would say is it glosses over how much actual discussion was had about transportation and in particular whether or not requirement to accept transportation could (or should) be be required and/or whether failure to accept transportation away could (or should) be considered a failed deflection. That was one of the more contentious conversations as the implications of having someone fail deflection merely because they didn't want to be transported away.
We also have a form and response sheet where GNAC members can ask questions about the deflection center program plan and process and a google doc to view those answers. If you have burning questions you would like to ask, please email [email protected]. Currently they haven't answered the questions posted, but they have put up 3 questions they will answer before the next meeting. You can view the questions (and later the answers) on this google doc as Multnomah County prepares those answers.
I got this info yesterday but occupied at the time; I am sorry for the delay. Below are the draft minutes from the GNAC meeting on Monday. Please note that the minutes have not been approved yet. I will likely delete this post after Monday to replace it with the true minutes. As a participant in these meetings, I will share my opinion that the minutes leave out some details of what was discussed, but overall it is not a misrepresentation of what was discussed at the meeting. The only misleading thing I would say is it glosses over how much actual discussion was had about transportation and in particular whether or not requirement to accept transportation could (or should) be be required and/or whether failure to accept transportation away could (or should) be considered a failed deflection. That was one of the more contentious conversations as the implications of having someone fail deflection merely because they didn't want to be transported away.
We also have a form and response sheet where GNAC members can ask questions about the deflection center program plan and process and a google doc to view those answers. If you have burning questions you would like to ask, please email [email protected]. Currently they haven't answered the questions posted, but they have put up 3 questions they will answer before the next meeting. You can view the questions (and later the answers) on this google doc as Multnomah County prepares those answers.
August 21st, 2024
I know folks would have preferred an update yesterday or the day before. I apologize, but with my schedule and frankly my stress levels I just couldn't swing it. However, I am going to summarize what happened at the GNA Advisory Committee meeting on Monday night.
First however, I need to acknowledge that one news crew (KOIN 6) waited throughout the meeting to report on the story after we met. The interviewed me and used a small fraction of my words. However, there was some mistaken reporting on their part and so I would like to clarify that briefly.
1) This meeting was not exclusively between the BCA and Multnomah County. Not only did it only include two BCA members rather than the whole organization and/or board, but it also included many other community representatives including community members (Rick and Rich who attend BCA meetings frequently), Escuela Viva, CEIC, Bauman's Cider House, and a couple others as well. Also representing were members of Tuerk House and Multnomah County of course. Additional non-neighbor attendees were there, but they remained more as witnesses and available to answer questions targeted towards their expertise or involvement.
2) The meeting is likely not subject to Public Meeting Laws (beginning with ORS 192.610). This is because a majority of membership participating is not a governing body with the ability to create or advise on any legally binding policy. I can admit that after reading the public meeting laws there is some level of grey area here, but I believe the current status quo, that this meeting's outputs (including the GNA itself) is not legally binding in any way. That is a double-edged sword and I will likely advocate for legally binding clauses at the risk of having meetings return to being public.
3) Meetings were no longer being live-streamed for a slightly more complex reason than the reporting concluded. While it's true people didn't want to be in the spotlight, it is more accurate to say that the meetings being public was perceived as a source of intimidation and were similarly perceived as somewhat of a poor reaction by the county to our requests for transparency. Public meetings for non-governing members, beyond being intimidating, is not particularly trauma-informed. People feel more of a need to watch their words and will naturally cause some people to remain silent. To be both trauma-informed and inclusive, it was important to remove the live-streamed element. How it was done, at the last minute, was a poor choice however. While I personally detailed the change in the morning of the 19th, I didn't have an easy way to get that notice out to the general public. I will be learning how to send out emails to the whole BCA mailing list going forward so that if emergency information needs to be shared it does not fall exclusively on one or two members.
Alright, with those details cleared up, let's move on to the substance of the meeting. I've already shared membership above so I will simply say that the meeting was a bit mixed. I do need to keep this somewhat brief so will not give a full blow-by-blow (just kidding, it didn't come to blows), but I will summarize key discussions and conclusions (not necessarily in order).
I would also like to share that I personally spoke with the director of security after the meeting. I expressed concern that the draft plan for the facility stated that security "would not intervene in criminal activity outside of the perimeter" and stated that it sounds like the security guards were being discouraged or prohibited from engaging someone in criminal activity. The director of security explained that County Employees are subject to "Good Samaritan Laws" same as any other citizen and are generally encouraged to be Good Samaritans. However, she said that laws and contracts prevented the county from requiring security guards (who have no weapons or mace) to engage and made it somewhat clear that this just wasn't something they could change in our favor. That said, it is reassuring that county security will not be actively discouraged from intervening and will know they have protection should they choose to engage personally as a Good Samaritan even while on the clock. The director also suggested she would work to clarify the language while still leaving it clear they would not be required to intervene.
That's all that stands out as particularly interesting right now, though if you have any burning questions or you think I missed something, please feel free to reach out.
I know folks would have preferred an update yesterday or the day before. I apologize, but with my schedule and frankly my stress levels I just couldn't swing it. However, I am going to summarize what happened at the GNA Advisory Committee meeting on Monday night.
First however, I need to acknowledge that one news crew (KOIN 6) waited throughout the meeting to report on the story after we met. The interviewed me and used a small fraction of my words. However, there was some mistaken reporting on their part and so I would like to clarify that briefly.
1) This meeting was not exclusively between the BCA and Multnomah County. Not only did it only include two BCA members rather than the whole organization and/or board, but it also included many other community representatives including community members (Rick and Rich who attend BCA meetings frequently), Escuela Viva, CEIC, Bauman's Cider House, and a couple others as well. Also representing were members of Tuerk House and Multnomah County of course. Additional non-neighbor attendees were there, but they remained more as witnesses and available to answer questions targeted towards their expertise or involvement.
2) The meeting is likely not subject to Public Meeting Laws (beginning with ORS 192.610). This is because a majority of membership participating is not a governing body with the ability to create or advise on any legally binding policy. I can admit that after reading the public meeting laws there is some level of grey area here, but I believe the current status quo, that this meeting's outputs (including the GNA itself) is not legally binding in any way. That is a double-edged sword and I will likely advocate for legally binding clauses at the risk of having meetings return to being public.
3) Meetings were no longer being live-streamed for a slightly more complex reason than the reporting concluded. While it's true people didn't want to be in the spotlight, it is more accurate to say that the meetings being public was perceived as a source of intimidation and were similarly perceived as somewhat of a poor reaction by the county to our requests for transparency. Public meetings for non-governing members, beyond being intimidating, is not particularly trauma-informed. People feel more of a need to watch their words and will naturally cause some people to remain silent. To be both trauma-informed and inclusive, it was important to remove the live-streamed element. How it was done, at the last minute, was a poor choice however. While I personally detailed the change in the morning of the 19th, I didn't have an easy way to get that notice out to the general public. I will be learning how to send out emails to the whole BCA mailing list going forward so that if emergency information needs to be shared it does not fall exclusively on one or two members.
Alright, with those details cleared up, let's move on to the substance of the meeting. I've already shared membership above so I will simply say that the meeting was a bit mixed. I do need to keep this somewhat brief so will not give a full blow-by-blow (just kidding, it didn't come to blows), but I will summarize key discussions and conclusions (not necessarily in order).
- There was a bit of frustration over the lack of operational questions still needing answers. Ultimately, it seemed we had a consensus that there were certain elements of the operational planning that needed to be concrete and immovable before there was any sense in creating this Good Neighbor Agreement framework. Some of this include:
- Security Protocols for patrolling and intervening in the neighborhood
- Transportation (primarily from the cite away from the neighborhood)
- Rigor of identification for those brought to the facility
- The county was immovable on the notion of mandatory transportation away from the center. They will offer each and every participant transportation but have insisted that they cannot legally require someone to be transported, by police or otherwise, away from the facility if the participants refuses that transportation.
- Trust in the county was discussed as a major challenge for some members loose proof of county commitments are going to be a sticking point for those members; that is to say they will want more firm proof of those commitments from the county. In other words, they will not take the county at their word without more concrete data or resolutions to back it up.
- The county defined what they meant by "framework" for the GNA. Essentially, it is one that is intended to identify all of the key critical points that need to be in place on Day 1. It is expected that the remaining components will be added after and that some points may be changed as well in those early phases. It's still, admittedly, a little unclear but I'm expecting some of the details to be determined later will be methods for future revisions of the GNA.
- It was nearly unanimous in the agreement that we should make an effort to meet weekly going forward. That schedule is being decided still, but I suspect most members will want to keep it on Monday nights since I know at least a couple members have routine commitments on other nights.
I would also like to share that I personally spoke with the director of security after the meeting. I expressed concern that the draft plan for the facility stated that security "would not intervene in criminal activity outside of the perimeter" and stated that it sounds like the security guards were being discouraged or prohibited from engaging someone in criminal activity. The director of security explained that County Employees are subject to "Good Samaritan Laws" same as any other citizen and are generally encouraged to be Good Samaritans. However, she said that laws and contracts prevented the county from requiring security guards (who have no weapons or mace) to engage and made it somewhat clear that this just wasn't something they could change in our favor. That said, it is reassuring that county security will not be actively discouraged from intervening and will know they have protection should they choose to engage personally as a Good Samaritan even while on the clock. The director also suggested she would work to clarify the language while still leaving it clear they would not be required to intervene.
That's all that stands out as particularly interesting right now, though if you have any burning questions or you think I missed something, please feel free to reach out.
August 19th, 2024 (Part 2)
Delayed! That's right, Multnomah county announced that the deflection center will be delayed until at least mid October. This is not quite the pause requested by Sharon Meieran or the BCA, but it is a start. Read the full story for more info. Pretty much every news network is covering it, so if you want to get your news from somewhere in particular they probably are covering today's news.
As for any analysis on the other stuff, that will have to wait. Initial thoughts are security is inadequate, it falsely claims we were on board with not having a full GNA in place prior to the deflection center opening, and I still have many more questions than answers on how this center will operate and be staffed. I also have no understanding of why the perimeter surrounds that one additional building but no others. Hoping for more answers tonight (though may not be able to update tonight in great detail).
Delayed! That's right, Multnomah county announced that the deflection center will be delayed until at least mid October. This is not quite the pause requested by Sharon Meieran or the BCA, but it is a start. Read the full story for more info. Pretty much every news network is covering it, so if you want to get your news from somewhere in particular they probably are covering today's news.
As for any analysis on the other stuff, that will have to wait. Initial thoughts are security is inadequate, it falsely claims we were on board with not having a full GNA in place prior to the deflection center opening, and I still have many more questions than answers on how this center will operate and be staffed. I also have no understanding of why the perimeter surrounds that one additional building but no others. Hoping for more answers tonight (though may not be able to update tonight in great detail).
August 19th, 2024
New development as of last night! Due to concerns raised by members of the GNA advisory committee, the meeting tonight will no longer be livestreamed or public. There will be an early opportunity for those who signed up to present public comments, and the meeting minutes will still be posted after these meetings, but there will be no opportunity to observe these meetings following the public comment period.
On a personal note, I agree with this change. The benefits of that level of transparency are outweighed by the intimidation and apprehension some members will feel being on camera. I believe that may have been the intent of the county in making them public in the first place, to give people the ability to point at us and say we're the problem. The meeting will minutes I will share whether the meeting minutes provide an accurate portrayal of what occurred at these meetings. If I believe additional context should be shared, I will do so. But volunteers do not need to be thrust into the spotlight on the county's whim purely because they wish to participate in this civic responsibility.
I will try to provide a part 2 post with some additional context on the draft plan and GNA framework later today, but I wanted to get this post out quickly (hoping people catch it before they get a surprise tonight).
New development as of last night! Due to concerns raised by members of the GNA advisory committee, the meeting tonight will no longer be livestreamed or public. There will be an early opportunity for those who signed up to present public comments, and the meeting minutes will still be posted after these meetings, but there will be no opportunity to observe these meetings following the public comment period.
On a personal note, I agree with this change. The benefits of that level of transparency are outweighed by the intimidation and apprehension some members will feel being on camera. I believe that may have been the intent of the county in making them public in the first place, to give people the ability to point at us and say we're the problem. The meeting will minutes I will share whether the meeting minutes provide an accurate portrayal of what occurred at these meetings. If I believe additional context should be shared, I will do so. But volunteers do not need to be thrust into the spotlight on the county's whim purely because they wish to participate in this civic responsibility.
I will try to provide a part 2 post with some additional context on the draft plan and GNA framework later today, but I wanted to get this post out quickly (hoping people catch it before they get a surprise tonight).
August 16th, 2024 (Part 2)
I'm not getting into the weeds on this, but I promised I'd share the Deflection Center's Draft Plan when it was given to us. I am also sharing the Draft GNA Framework that Hayden wants to use as a baseline and the GNA Committee Agenda which Hayden also prepared for Monday night's GNA committee meeting, the first one.
I'd also like to remind everyone that the GNA meeting on Monday night is open to the public and community members can sign up for public testimony by emailing [email protected] with your intention to publicly testify. You must do so before 5 PM on Monday. Only 15 minutes total will be available for all public testimony so please limit it to what you want to see in the GNA (i.e. the purpose of the meeting). You will be able to watch the livestream here. The link is also available on this website's home page (calendar feed).
I will spend some time this weekend reading this stuff and try to share some more thoughts about this plan on Sunday, as well as my thoughts on the GNA framework. I make no promises though!
I'm not getting into the weeds on this, but I promised I'd share the Deflection Center's Draft Plan when it was given to us. I am also sharing the Draft GNA Framework that Hayden wants to use as a baseline and the GNA Committee Agenda which Hayden also prepared for Monday night's GNA committee meeting, the first one.
I'd also like to remind everyone that the GNA meeting on Monday night is open to the public and community members can sign up for public testimony by emailing [email protected] with your intention to publicly testify. You must do so before 5 PM on Monday. Only 15 minutes total will be available for all public testimony so please limit it to what you want to see in the GNA (i.e. the purpose of the meeting). You will be able to watch the livestream here. The link is also available on this website's home page (calendar feed).
I will spend some time this weekend reading this stuff and try to share some more thoughts about this plan on Sunday, as well as my thoughts on the GNA framework. I make no promises though!
August 16th, 2024
Should have posted this yesterday, but this Sharon Meieran's clarification on her resolution. It describes with a bit more detail what she is and what she isn't asking for with this resolution.
Also, the county has been circulating privately and has shared with the media a 57-page document that details the project plan. It's still a draft document and is labeled as not to be distributed. I was asked by a news reporter to respond to a few segments from it which they shared with me, and particularly they were curious about the section on security. I could not respond in time to make it into the news piece, but David Watnick, lawyer and Escuela Viva parent, had a similar take to me (although slightly more hyperbolic). The main detail though is that if someone is committing a crime across the street, the security won't intervene except to call law enforcement (the plan explicitly states this). In the news piece the county spokesperson also says the county has committed in the good neighborhood agreement that they will "not leave the neighborhood in worse condition than they found it", except that there is no GNA framework yet, let alone an actual GNA. The workgroup for that GNA haven't even met yet!
Not surprisingly, despite assurances from the county that we would have a plan in hand by August 15th, the draft document has not been shared with the BCA by the county in any way. To us directly, they have not even acknowledged it's existence. So, if nothing else, we can count it as yet another source of opacity and failed promises from the County.
KOIN also put out an article related to this. The county has said they will consider and vote on Meieran's resolution at the next County Board meeting on August 22nd which is good news. The BCA board voted to support that motion publicly (see August 14th post). Additionally, Vega Pederson released an accompanying statement to reporters regarding security and the opening of the center. At the risk of sounding biased, I'd like to highlight and provide my interpretation of a part or two.
First:
"If at any point, it looks like we cannot open the facility in a way that is safe for participants, staff and the community we will ensure we take the time we need. But that decision would be based on operational plans and needs."
While the first sentence there sounds good and frankly inevitable, the second part of that sentence undermines it. It says that Jessica Vega Pederson's office simply doesn't care about the public's input and will go through with or without the support of the public. Given that the concerns of the BCA, CEIC, Escuela Viva, and majority community members has been that there is no concrete plan, and that our concerns would largely disappear if we had a clear and reassuring plan, these words are extremely concerning to me.
Second:
"Tuerk House, which has provided similar services in Baltimore for years, does not require participants in their existing program to accept transportation away from the facility, however they find that patients opt for the transportation more often than not."
I suspect this statement is deliberately vague. It can be true if 51% to 99% of individuals choose transportation instead of walking out directly into the community. Considering it neutrally and fairly, we can estimate then that about 25% of visitors will walk out into our neighborhood from the center after choosing not to go to jail (sorry, I mean choosing "deflection"). The county's estimate of people who will utilize the center is between 300 and 800. They've also floated a number in the 400's range, but I can't find the source for that. Conservate estimates therefore of about 450 people per year would mean that we can expect more than 35 people per year will be transported to this facility and then released into the neighborhood. I make no assertions about how long they will stay or what they will do, only a reasonably low estimate of the number of people that will walk out the doors into the community. However, I will add that most of those individuals will be from outside the Buckman neighborhood, though admittedly not all will be transported from other neighborhoods. Needless to say, I will use my voice on the committee to make sure that this is mitigated or that security has more responsibility outside their "perimeter".
Thank you all for reading. As soon as the draft plan is publicly available I get it uploaded here. I will do that one before I analyze it as I'm sure everyone who follows this page is eager to read it.
Should have posted this yesterday, but this Sharon Meieran's clarification on her resolution. It describes with a bit more detail what she is and what she isn't asking for with this resolution.
Also, the county has been circulating privately and has shared with the media a 57-page document that details the project plan. It's still a draft document and is labeled as not to be distributed. I was asked by a news reporter to respond to a few segments from it which they shared with me, and particularly they were curious about the section on security. I could not respond in time to make it into the news piece, but David Watnick, lawyer and Escuela Viva parent, had a similar take to me (although slightly more hyperbolic). The main detail though is that if someone is committing a crime across the street, the security won't intervene except to call law enforcement (the plan explicitly states this). In the news piece the county spokesperson also says the county has committed in the good neighborhood agreement that they will "not leave the neighborhood in worse condition than they found it", except that there is no GNA framework yet, let alone an actual GNA. The workgroup for that GNA haven't even met yet!
Not surprisingly, despite assurances from the county that we would have a plan in hand by August 15th, the draft document has not been shared with the BCA by the county in any way. To us directly, they have not even acknowledged it's existence. So, if nothing else, we can count it as yet another source of opacity and failed promises from the County.
KOIN also put out an article related to this. The county has said they will consider and vote on Meieran's resolution at the next County Board meeting on August 22nd which is good news. The BCA board voted to support that motion publicly (see August 14th post). Additionally, Vega Pederson released an accompanying statement to reporters regarding security and the opening of the center. At the risk of sounding biased, I'd like to highlight and provide my interpretation of a part or two.
First:
"If at any point, it looks like we cannot open the facility in a way that is safe for participants, staff and the community we will ensure we take the time we need. But that decision would be based on operational plans and needs."
While the first sentence there sounds good and frankly inevitable, the second part of that sentence undermines it. It says that Jessica Vega Pederson's office simply doesn't care about the public's input and will go through with or without the support of the public. Given that the concerns of the BCA, CEIC, Escuela Viva, and majority community members has been that there is no concrete plan, and that our concerns would largely disappear if we had a clear and reassuring plan, these words are extremely concerning to me.
Second:
"Tuerk House, which has provided similar services in Baltimore for years, does not require participants in their existing program to accept transportation away from the facility, however they find that patients opt for the transportation more often than not."
I suspect this statement is deliberately vague. It can be true if 51% to 99% of individuals choose transportation instead of walking out directly into the community. Considering it neutrally and fairly, we can estimate then that about 25% of visitors will walk out into our neighborhood from the center after choosing not to go to jail (sorry, I mean choosing "deflection"). The county's estimate of people who will utilize the center is between 300 and 800. They've also floated a number in the 400's range, but I can't find the source for that. Conservate estimates therefore of about 450 people per year would mean that we can expect more than 35 people per year will be transported to this facility and then released into the neighborhood. I make no assertions about how long they will stay or what they will do, only a reasonably low estimate of the number of people that will walk out the doors into the community. However, I will add that most of those individuals will be from outside the Buckman neighborhood, though admittedly not all will be transported from other neighborhoods. Needless to say, I will use my voice on the committee to make sure that this is mitigated or that security has more responsibility outside their "perimeter".
Thank you all for reading. As soon as the draft plan is publicly available I get it uploaded here. I will do that one before I analyze it as I'm sure everyone who follows this page is eager to read it.
August 14th, 2024
KATU has acquired the Tuerk House Contract they hold with the county. See their full story here. I haven't yet had the chance to read all twenty-four pages, but will try to digest it in the next couple of days. If any community members would like to call my attention to anything, please do share!
Additionally, a "rebuttal" statement from Portland City officials stated that Ben Hufford's statement (see my August 7th post) was mistaken about the restrictions in city code that would prevent the center from operating as planned so long as they don't expand their scope. I would like to emphasize "as planned" for a few reasons. First, there isn't much plan to start with. Additionally, they highlighted some issues with the restrictions to the city codes. In particular, they cannot hold someone at the facility (voluntary or not) for more than 24 hours without violating city code. In my experience, a sobering center that would also offer peer support and referrals to other services would frequently need the option to hold someone longer. In fact, the Dallas Texas facility I mentioned in my July 20th entry (see below) specifically held people for 24 hours minimum.
And lastly, the BCA Board met in a supplemental board meeting this morning. The meeting was to discuss Sharon Meieran's proposal (see August 12th post below) to slow down on the deflection center process until a concrete plan and good neighbor agreement can be in place while researching and investing in other options that may not require a physical building. The board has a quorum of five members for this vote, which voted 4-to-1 in favor of the resolution and to publicly support it. It should be noted the three members were not able to make it, however two of them "unofficially" provided support via email that they would support the resolution as-written. I've listed the how votes panned out below:
Board Members - Vote:
Susan - Aye
Jens - Aye
Michael - Aye
Maren - Aye
Chris - Nay
Nick - emailed support
Jeffrey - emailed support
Scotty - unavailable at time of meeting
I will personally (albeit virtually) be speaking at the County Board meeting tomorrow. However, it should be noted that Meieran's resolution was not added to the agenda, so I will be speaking about it during the non-agenda question time near the beginning of the meeting. Our support for the resolution may amount to nothing, but there will be another county meeting prior to the end of the month so perhaps it will be heard then. If that is the case, I will try to be there as well.
KATU has acquired the Tuerk House Contract they hold with the county. See their full story here. I haven't yet had the chance to read all twenty-four pages, but will try to digest it in the next couple of days. If any community members would like to call my attention to anything, please do share!
Additionally, a "rebuttal" statement from Portland City officials stated that Ben Hufford's statement (see my August 7th post) was mistaken about the restrictions in city code that would prevent the center from operating as planned so long as they don't expand their scope. I would like to emphasize "as planned" for a few reasons. First, there isn't much plan to start with. Additionally, they highlighted some issues with the restrictions to the city codes. In particular, they cannot hold someone at the facility (voluntary or not) for more than 24 hours without violating city code. In my experience, a sobering center that would also offer peer support and referrals to other services would frequently need the option to hold someone longer. In fact, the Dallas Texas facility I mentioned in my July 20th entry (see below) specifically held people for 24 hours minimum.
And lastly, the BCA Board met in a supplemental board meeting this morning. The meeting was to discuss Sharon Meieran's proposal (see August 12th post below) to slow down on the deflection center process until a concrete plan and good neighbor agreement can be in place while researching and investing in other options that may not require a physical building. The board has a quorum of five members for this vote, which voted 4-to-1 in favor of the resolution and to publicly support it. It should be noted the three members were not able to make it, however two of them "unofficially" provided support via email that they would support the resolution as-written. I've listed the how votes panned out below:
Board Members - Vote:
Susan - Aye
Jens - Aye
Michael - Aye
Maren - Aye
Chris - Nay
Nick - emailed support
Jeffrey - emailed support
Scotty - unavailable at time of meeting
I will personally (albeit virtually) be speaking at the County Board meeting tomorrow. However, it should be noted that Meieran's resolution was not added to the agenda, so I will be speaking about it during the non-agenda question time near the beginning of the meeting. Our support for the resolution may amount to nothing, but there will be another county meeting prior to the end of the month so perhaps it will be heard then. If that is the case, I will try to be there as well.
August 12th, 2024
A few new updates:
First, it is confirmed that we will have the GNA "framework" meeting on Monday, August 19th from 6-7:30 PM at the Multnomah County Building (501 SE Hawthorn Blvd, suite 126). In this meetings, myself and other community members will work with representatives of the county and Tuerk house to create a Good Neighborhood Agreement. This meeting will be open to the public, so perhaps we will see folks there to support us.
Second, Sharon Meieran is adding a resolution to the County Board agenda for Thursday's meeting. This resolution would freeze funds on the deflection center until alternate options could be investigated and a better plan for community safety is in place, among other stipulations. This will certainly be a contentious board meeting.
Finally, I regret the delay in sharing this news from August 8th, but Escuela Viva has threatened a lawsuit against the county (full letter here). I've spoken with some members about this, but there is pretty strong legal precedent for this with respect to ORS 192.610 through ORS 192.690 (I recommend reading 610, 630, and 680. Read 660 as well if you want to confirm no exceptions apply).
Here is a bonus article about both second and third topics above. Again, I am sorry that I cannot post more often.
A few new updates:
First, it is confirmed that we will have the GNA "framework" meeting on Monday, August 19th from 6-7:30 PM at the Multnomah County Building (501 SE Hawthorn Blvd, suite 126). In this meetings, myself and other community members will work with representatives of the county and Tuerk house to create a Good Neighborhood Agreement. This meeting will be open to the public, so perhaps we will see folks there to support us.
Second, Sharon Meieran is adding a resolution to the County Board agenda for Thursday's meeting. This resolution would freeze funds on the deflection center until alternate options could be investigated and a better plan for community safety is in place, among other stipulations. This will certainly be a contentious board meeting.
Finally, I regret the delay in sharing this news from August 8th, but Escuela Viva has threatened a lawsuit against the county (full letter here). I've spoken with some members about this, but there is pretty strong legal precedent for this with respect to ORS 192.610 through ORS 192.690 (I recommend reading 610, 630, and 680. Read 660 as well if you want to confirm no exceptions apply).
Here is a bonus article about both second and third topics above. Again, I am sorry that I cannot post more often.
August 7th, 2024
Two updates today and one of them is, I daresay, a big one.
First, clerically speaking, the GNA meetings is likely to occur on Monday the 19th from 6:00 - 7:30 PM. As of this time about half of the people have shared their availability and the only day that works for everyone is that day, but things may change as more people share their schedules. That meeting will be public and take place at the County office on 501 SE Hawthorne. There will be a virtual option for advisory members, so I expect there will be a virtual option for non-committee members also but cannot make assurances. A public comment period will also be available.
Second, a major shakeup and revelation provided by architect and city council candidate Ben Hufford. In his opinion piece published by the Portland Tribune, Ben clearly calls out permitting issues associated with the building. I encourage you to read the article of course, but Sharon Meieran has a pretty concise breakdown and really hits the key points in the Facebook post below, so I'll let her post do the work.
Two updates today and one of them is, I daresay, a big one.
First, clerically speaking, the GNA meetings is likely to occur on Monday the 19th from 6:00 - 7:30 PM. As of this time about half of the people have shared their availability and the only day that works for everyone is that day, but things may change as more people share their schedules. That meeting will be public and take place at the County office on 501 SE Hawthorne. There will be a virtual option for advisory members, so I expect there will be a virtual option for non-committee members also but cannot make assurances. A public comment period will also be available.
Second, a major shakeup and revelation provided by architect and city council candidate Ben Hufford. In his opinion piece published by the Portland Tribune, Ben clearly calls out permitting issues associated with the building. I encourage you to read the article of course, but Sharon Meieran has a pretty concise breakdown and really hits the key points in the Facebook post below, so I'll let her post do the work.
July 31st, 2024
A small group of Buckman neighborhood members and Escuela Viva parents met tonight to discuss our approach to the good neighbor agreement. Leaders in the Buckman community invested in this story have only grown more and more concerned with Jessica Vega-Pederson's approach to this center and the lack of answers they have. We mostly discussed how to create a "framework" for the GNA and how we might slow the county down until it has a real plan, but ultimately we decided to write a letter to the executive committee that expresses our concerns and seeks a better resolution. We will share that letter when it is sent. In the meantime, you should know that the Escuela Viva parents did get some reassurance from Tuerk House that indicated the center would not likely be operational by September 1st due to their own requirements for a fully defined GNA. If you review my post from the 26th, you will also see the timeline for developing a "framework" for the GNA (but not a fully defined working one.
I also want to share a few more resources with you:
Full text of HB 4002 (if you hate life and want to die reading)
Police chief recommending county scale back deflection from OregonLive
Full letter from Police Chief indicating his concerns with the current county plan
Letter from Portland Metro opposing the current plan to open a deflection center without a sobering center
Realistic Expectations, a short news story from Koin 6
To summarize, the general opinion is that this center should not be opened with the current plan. Some people think it shouldn't be opened at all, some that it shouldn't be opened without a sobering center attached, and some thinking that it's just too rushed and there are no answers. Ultimately, there is wide support for a plan like the one Julia Brim-Edwards proposed (see my earlier post), but the current plan has wide opposition outside of the committee. Some hearsay also indicates that some executive committee members also have reservations and opposition.
I'll probably continue to post every few days or when I see something interesting happen. It will not be every day though (sorry!). If you are following these posts closely though, please send a shoutout to the board email so I know there is interest in my continued sharing. As always, there is more information out there, so feel free to share that with me as well and I'll try and get it included!
A small group of Buckman neighborhood members and Escuela Viva parents met tonight to discuss our approach to the good neighbor agreement. Leaders in the Buckman community invested in this story have only grown more and more concerned with Jessica Vega-Pederson's approach to this center and the lack of answers they have. We mostly discussed how to create a "framework" for the GNA and how we might slow the county down until it has a real plan, but ultimately we decided to write a letter to the executive committee that expresses our concerns and seeks a better resolution. We will share that letter when it is sent. In the meantime, you should know that the Escuela Viva parents did get some reassurance from Tuerk House that indicated the center would not likely be operational by September 1st due to their own requirements for a fully defined GNA. If you review my post from the 26th, you will also see the timeline for developing a "framework" for the GNA (but not a fully defined working one.
I also want to share a few more resources with you:
Full text of HB 4002 (if you hate life and want to die reading)
Police chief recommending county scale back deflection from OregonLive
Full letter from Police Chief indicating his concerns with the current county plan
Letter from Portland Metro opposing the current plan to open a deflection center without a sobering center
Realistic Expectations, a short news story from Koin 6
To summarize, the general opinion is that this center should not be opened with the current plan. Some people think it shouldn't be opened at all, some that it shouldn't be opened without a sobering center attached, and some thinking that it's just too rushed and there are no answers. Ultimately, there is wide support for a plan like the one Julia Brim-Edwards proposed (see my earlier post), but the current plan has wide opposition outside of the committee. Some hearsay also indicates that some executive committee members also have reservations and opposition.
I'll probably continue to post every few days or when I see something interesting happen. It will not be every day though (sorry!). If you are following these posts closely though, please send a shoutout to the board email so I know there is interest in my continued sharing. As always, there is more information out there, so feel free to share that with me as well and I'll try and get it included!
July 28th, 2024
Saw this article and though people might be interested in it. That's it for now. Will share new information when available.
Saw this article and though people might be interested in it. That's it for now. Will share new information when available.
UPDATE: July 26th, 2024 - Progress on Deflection Definition and Requirements
For immediate release: July 26, 2024
This release is online here.
Media contact:
Ryan Yambra, [email protected]
On behalf of HB 4002 leadership team
Leadership Team agrees on key criteria for initial deflection program
Multnomah County, Ore. (July 26, 2024) —The Leadership Team and state-required partners responsible for developing policy and operations for a new deflection program in Multnomah County agreed today to key criteria around an initial framework of deflection.
Effective Sept. 1, House Bill 4002 re-criminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. The bill also encouraged local governments to create deflection programs intended to provide a system for law enforcement officers to connect individuals with services rather than take them to jail. Deflection provides an opportunity to leverage law enforcement contact with individuals who possess drugs for personal use and create a bridge to recovery. It is the guiding principle of addiction response that treatment is the fastest way to recovery.
The Leadership Team members who reached this agreement at a Friday meeting included the Portland and Gresham chiefs of police, the Multnomah County Chair, Multnomah County Sheriff, the Multnomah County District Attorney, Public Defenders, the Presiding Judge of Multnomah County Circuit Court, the chief criminal judge of the Circuit Court, representatives from the Mayor of Portland’s Office, the Chair’s Office and the Department of Community Justice, as well as the directors of the Health Department and the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. The DA-Elect did not attend the meeting though his concerns were considered.
The Team also agreed that they would review the data, experience of clients and partners, and public safety needs every 30 days and adjust any of the following agreed-upon terms and provisions accordingly.
Who is eligible for the initial deflection program?
Under this agreement, individuals stopped by law enforcement are eligible for deflection if they possess illegal drugs for personal use, are not committing any other crimes, and have not failed deflection within the prior 30 days.
What constitutes successful deflection for the initial deflection program?
An individual has successfully engaged in deflection if they have completed all of the following: a screening, received a service referral, and engaged with a referred service as recommended by the screening within 30 days.
Are there limits to the initial deflection program?
If an individual fails any of the above steps, they will not be eligible for deflection for the following 30 days and would instead be arrested and charged if contacted by law enforcement during that time period.
Background
Multnomah County is working to create a deflection system and center in response to HB 4002 by Sept. 1. The County has leased a building at 900 S.E. Sandy Blvd. as a temporary location for a drop-off program for law enforcement that will screen individuals, connect them to trained peers to help people move toward recovery, and identify pathways to detox and treatment. Planning and design is underway for sobering services in early 2025 and a permanent center in 2026.
The County also contracted with a nationally recognized expert, Tuerk House, to open a deflection center. Tuerk House, based in Baltimore, is an expert in drug and alcohol treatment and offers a full range of care to families and communities during an individual’s recovery. They bring nearly 50 years of experience operating crisis stabilization and short-term sobering services to people under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
The Leadership Team has been developing initial policy direction for deflection based on information known today, including that it can take multiple attempts to engage in treatment and services. There is also the need to hold individuals accountable for community safety. All of this work is taking place while the court system is overburdened and in particular, while there is a critical shortage of public defenders. Against these challenges, the team committed to reviewing information every 30 days to fine-tune the eligibility and criteria.
Based on the Leadership Team’s agreement, this framework will be operationalized so that logistics are in place in advance of HB4002 going into effect. These operational details will be developed by people with expertise in the relevant systems and procedures, including law enforcement, the Department of Criminal Justice, the Department of Public Health, behavioral health workers, and Tuerk House.
For immediate release: July 26, 2024
This release is online here.
Media contact:
Ryan Yambra, [email protected]
On behalf of HB 4002 leadership team
Leadership Team agrees on key criteria for initial deflection program
Multnomah County, Ore. (July 26, 2024) —The Leadership Team and state-required partners responsible for developing policy and operations for a new deflection program in Multnomah County agreed today to key criteria around an initial framework of deflection.
Effective Sept. 1, House Bill 4002 re-criminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. The bill also encouraged local governments to create deflection programs intended to provide a system for law enforcement officers to connect individuals with services rather than take them to jail. Deflection provides an opportunity to leverage law enforcement contact with individuals who possess drugs for personal use and create a bridge to recovery. It is the guiding principle of addiction response that treatment is the fastest way to recovery.
The Leadership Team members who reached this agreement at a Friday meeting included the Portland and Gresham chiefs of police, the Multnomah County Chair, Multnomah County Sheriff, the Multnomah County District Attorney, Public Defenders, the Presiding Judge of Multnomah County Circuit Court, the chief criminal judge of the Circuit Court, representatives from the Mayor of Portland’s Office, the Chair’s Office and the Department of Community Justice, as well as the directors of the Health Department and the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. The DA-Elect did not attend the meeting though his concerns were considered.
The Team also agreed that they would review the data, experience of clients and partners, and public safety needs every 30 days and adjust any of the following agreed-upon terms and provisions accordingly.
Who is eligible for the initial deflection program?
Under this agreement, individuals stopped by law enforcement are eligible for deflection if they possess illegal drugs for personal use, are not committing any other crimes, and have not failed deflection within the prior 30 days.
What constitutes successful deflection for the initial deflection program?
An individual has successfully engaged in deflection if they have completed all of the following: a screening, received a service referral, and engaged with a referred service as recommended by the screening within 30 days.
Are there limits to the initial deflection program?
If an individual fails any of the above steps, they will not be eligible for deflection for the following 30 days and would instead be arrested and charged if contacted by law enforcement during that time period.
Background
Multnomah County is working to create a deflection system and center in response to HB 4002 by Sept. 1. The County has leased a building at 900 S.E. Sandy Blvd. as a temporary location for a drop-off program for law enforcement that will screen individuals, connect them to trained peers to help people move toward recovery, and identify pathways to detox and treatment. Planning and design is underway for sobering services in early 2025 and a permanent center in 2026.
The County also contracted with a nationally recognized expert, Tuerk House, to open a deflection center. Tuerk House, based in Baltimore, is an expert in drug and alcohol treatment and offers a full range of care to families and communities during an individual’s recovery. They bring nearly 50 years of experience operating crisis stabilization and short-term sobering services to people under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
The Leadership Team has been developing initial policy direction for deflection based on information known today, including that it can take multiple attempts to engage in treatment and services. There is also the need to hold individuals accountable for community safety. All of this work is taking place while the court system is overburdened and in particular, while there is a critical shortage of public defenders. Against these challenges, the team committed to reviewing information every 30 days to fine-tune the eligibility and criteria.
Based on the Leadership Team’s agreement, this framework will be operationalized so that logistics are in place in advance of HB4002 going into effect. These operational details will be developed by people with expertise in the relevant systems and procedures, including law enforcement, the Department of Criminal Justice, the Department of Public Health, behavioral health workers, and Tuerk House.
July 26th, 2024 - Board of Commissioner Meeting Recap
The County Board of Commissioners met on July 25th, here is the video. This meeting was a very long one (full 9am to 5pm video). If you are reading this post, however, you are probably interested in the discussion regarding the deflection center (R4) specifically. Please note that the agenda item was specifically to discuss and vote on funding the construction of the facility at 9th and Sandy. The vote was not the operational plan of the project which I believe Vega Pederson is using her executive authority to push that through. I do not know if the plan is for a board vote on the project plan itself. Ultimately, after hours of questions and comments, the board voted to fund the construction effort.
To help you all navigate to the parts you might be most interested in, I've provided some timestamps below. They are provided to skip to specific sections but not to highlight specific information or soundbites; I will leave that to the media.
Timestamps
1:34:45 = Beginning of agenda item R4 (Deflection Center funding). Includes Vega Pederson's opening statement.
1:38:02 = Beginning of expert testimony from Division Director of Facilities & Property Management, Ass. Director of Construction Planning & Design, and Strategic Project Manager.
1:45:40 = Beginning of Public Testimony (Virtual x2, In-person x12)
2:25:25 = Lori Stegman (District 4) Questions
2:36:45 = Sharon Meieran (District 1) Questions
2:54:24 = Jesse Beason (District 2, vice Chair) Questions
3:20:50 = Julia Brim-Edwards (District 3) Questions
4:10:00? = Sometime around here it transitions to comments or a mix of comments and questions interspersed
4:49:20 = Final vote on Resolution R4 (followed by Board recess and R5)
You can read some media coverage here:
KGW - Multnomah County announces provider to operate drug deflection center
Koin 6 - Multnomah County approves $2M funding for new deflection center amid dissent
Willamette Week - Multnomah County Board Approves Money for Deflection Center After Marathon Session
Personal note, there were some really good questions raised by commissioners and community members as well as some very bizarre procedural dilemmas due to commissioner requests. Vadim Mozyrsky also came out to provide public testimony, in case anyone is following his campaign closely. He was a previous guest speaker at our Board Meeting a few months ago.
Thank you for following along and staying informed!
~Jens Knudsen, Co-chair
The County Board of Commissioners met on July 25th, here is the video. This meeting was a very long one (full 9am to 5pm video). If you are reading this post, however, you are probably interested in the discussion regarding the deflection center (R4) specifically. Please note that the agenda item was specifically to discuss and vote on funding the construction of the facility at 9th and Sandy. The vote was not the operational plan of the project which I believe Vega Pederson is using her executive authority to push that through. I do not know if the plan is for a board vote on the project plan itself. Ultimately, after hours of questions and comments, the board voted to fund the construction effort.
To help you all navigate to the parts you might be most interested in, I've provided some timestamps below. They are provided to skip to specific sections but not to highlight specific information or soundbites; I will leave that to the media.
Timestamps
1:34:45 = Beginning of agenda item R4 (Deflection Center funding). Includes Vega Pederson's opening statement.
1:38:02 = Beginning of expert testimony from Division Director of Facilities & Property Management, Ass. Director of Construction Planning & Design, and Strategic Project Manager.
1:45:40 = Beginning of Public Testimony (Virtual x2, In-person x12)
2:25:25 = Lori Stegman (District 4) Questions
2:36:45 = Sharon Meieran (District 1) Questions
2:54:24 = Jesse Beason (District 2, vice Chair) Questions
3:20:50 = Julia Brim-Edwards (District 3) Questions
4:10:00? = Sometime around here it transitions to comments or a mix of comments and questions interspersed
4:49:20 = Final vote on Resolution R4 (followed by Board recess and R5)
You can read some media coverage here:
KGW - Multnomah County announces provider to operate drug deflection center
Koin 6 - Multnomah County approves $2M funding for new deflection center amid dissent
Willamette Week - Multnomah County Board Approves Money for Deflection Center After Marathon Session
Personal note, there were some really good questions raised by commissioners and community members as well as some very bizarre procedural dilemmas due to commissioner requests. Vadim Mozyrsky also came out to provide public testimony, in case anyone is following his campaign closely. He was a previous guest speaker at our Board Meeting a few months ago.
Thank you for following along and staying informed!
~Jens Knudsen, Co-chair
July 24th, 2024 - Resource Dump
I must apologize once again for brevity. This is more of a resource dump unfortunately. I myself will be at the county meeting tomorrow morning (9 AM) sharing my own opinions, but notably on behalf of myself. That said, I plan to bring a little heat!
MultCo Board Meeting 7/23/24
Jessica Vega Pederson's official Blurbs
Agenda for Board Meeting 7/25 at 9AM
Proposed Flowchart County's proposed workflow for people undergoing deflection
News coverage from 7/23 (may not be inclusive)
-Oregon Live Article This is definitely the most detailed and thorough article
-Another KGW Article
-Koin 6 Article
I apologize there is not much more substance. I encourage you to watch segments from the Multco meeting on 7/23 as it is a primary source. It also provides all the nitty gritty that the county has prepared, such as an explanation of that flowchart.
I must apologize once again for brevity. This is more of a resource dump unfortunately. I myself will be at the county meeting tomorrow morning (9 AM) sharing my own opinions, but notably on behalf of myself. That said, I plan to bring a little heat!
MultCo Board Meeting 7/23/24
Jessica Vega Pederson's official Blurbs
Agenda for Board Meeting 7/25 at 9AM
Proposed Flowchart County's proposed workflow for people undergoing deflection
News coverage from 7/23 (may not be inclusive)
-Oregon Live Article This is definitely the most detailed and thorough article
-Another KGW Article
-Koin 6 Article
I apologize there is not much more substance. I encourage you to watch segments from the Multco meeting on 7/23 as it is a primary source. It also provides all the nitty gritty that the county has prepared, such as an explanation of that flowchart.
July 20th, 2024 - Follow-up Update
I was forced to be brief in yesterday's post, but I would like to share more information now. I assure folks that while I will be honest and factual in my statements and analyses, there is a chance (or probability) that I will not include everything that people feel is important. My comments below will still be less than you hope, but they will give you more to think about or review as you come to your own opinions.
I would first like to share the full video from the meeting on July 17th (password: kZKrPgG2) with chair Jessica Vega Pederson's office. Here is also a link to the full executive committee that is currently conducting all planning for the deflection center.
It was brought brought to my attention by another community member that the plan proposed by Julia Brim-Edwards for a sobering center, the report for which finally was released in late April, would provide additional answers to our questions. I had hoped it would shed some light as well, truth be told, but after reviewing the document I think there was simply a misunderstanding. It appears that the sobering center proposed by Brim-Edwards is what the County might be planning for two years from now in 2026, but it does not appear functionally equivalent to what the county is currently working to implement on September 1st at the 9th and Sandy location. Personal bias here, but I really wish the proposed drop off and sobering center planned by Brim-Edwards is what we would see in September, but alas the building requirements are not a match and neither do other aspects correlate with what the county has described in our recent meetings.
The meaning of Deflection is also something that has been a point of misunderstanding with the county. Here are the slides where the county describes what little information they have agreed upon thus far. The key takeaway (my opinion) is in their Deflection Eligibility statement which acknowledges that they do not know what engagement requirement, and by extension what outcomes, will constitute a complete deflection. For those who watch the video of the meeting, this lack of consensus and outcome based planning is only further reinforced. I also did some of my own research to try and substantiate or predict what the county's goals might be based on other deflection outcomes in other regions. My research pointed to a few key differences that provided more confusion about the county's plan than it did answers.
First is the difference between deflection programming, a well-established evidence based approach to community justice, and deflection center, a relatively new term that seems to have no defined meaning. While I didn't look too hard, I only found two other deflection "centers" in an online search. One I had trouble learning more about as I hit a pay wall, but the other was referring to a deflection center in Dallas, Texas that opened in 2022. If I had more time I would dig a little deeper for other examples, but if anyone would like to continue the search I would be curious to see what you find.
From the news on that deflection center, it becomes immediately clear to me that the deflection center that opened in Dallas had much more accountability planning than ours currently does. Two main engagement requirements stood out. First was that the individuals dropped off at the deflection center would be required to stay for 24-48 hours prior to leaving, a requirement which Vega Pederson's planning team has yet to commit to. The second engagement requirement was that individuals would be provided a hand-off to another service provider for needs-based and/or culturally specific services. This requirement is something that the county has admitted is not likely going to happen, at least not in the early phases. However, from the meetings it did sound like they would have some sort of case management to help provide meaningful referrals even if there is no warm hand-off to another agency or accountability to follow through. All that said, it appears the Dallas center also appears to have been underutilized and the metrics collected at that site do not appear to have been collected for over a year, suggesting to me that the center may have even closed.
Alright, I'm tired, so I'm just going to provide links below to additional reading that may or may not be interesting to those interested in deflection.
White House article on Deflection Programming
OHSU's ECHO network information about deflection
The "Blue" perspective from Police Chief Magazine
Some "light reading" from a research perspective by Justice System Partners
Thanks for reading and I'll try to post more news as it comes in.
I was forced to be brief in yesterday's post, but I would like to share more information now. I assure folks that while I will be honest and factual in my statements and analyses, there is a chance (or probability) that I will not include everything that people feel is important. My comments below will still be less than you hope, but they will give you more to think about or review as you come to your own opinions.
I would first like to share the full video from the meeting on July 17th (password: kZKrPgG2) with chair Jessica Vega Pederson's office. Here is also a link to the full executive committee that is currently conducting all planning for the deflection center.
It was brought brought to my attention by another community member that the plan proposed by Julia Brim-Edwards for a sobering center, the report for which finally was released in late April, would provide additional answers to our questions. I had hoped it would shed some light as well, truth be told, but after reviewing the document I think there was simply a misunderstanding. It appears that the sobering center proposed by Brim-Edwards is what the County might be planning for two years from now in 2026, but it does not appear functionally equivalent to what the county is currently working to implement on September 1st at the 9th and Sandy location. Personal bias here, but I really wish the proposed drop off and sobering center planned by Brim-Edwards is what we would see in September, but alas the building requirements are not a match and neither do other aspects correlate with what the county has described in our recent meetings.
The meaning of Deflection is also something that has been a point of misunderstanding with the county. Here are the slides where the county describes what little information they have agreed upon thus far. The key takeaway (my opinion) is in their Deflection Eligibility statement which acknowledges that they do not know what engagement requirement, and by extension what outcomes, will constitute a complete deflection. For those who watch the video of the meeting, this lack of consensus and outcome based planning is only further reinforced. I also did some of my own research to try and substantiate or predict what the county's goals might be based on other deflection outcomes in other regions. My research pointed to a few key differences that provided more confusion about the county's plan than it did answers.
First is the difference between deflection programming, a well-established evidence based approach to community justice, and deflection center, a relatively new term that seems to have no defined meaning. While I didn't look too hard, I only found two other deflection "centers" in an online search. One I had trouble learning more about as I hit a pay wall, but the other was referring to a deflection center in Dallas, Texas that opened in 2022. If I had more time I would dig a little deeper for other examples, but if anyone would like to continue the search I would be curious to see what you find.
From the news on that deflection center, it becomes immediately clear to me that the deflection center that opened in Dallas had much more accountability planning than ours currently does. Two main engagement requirements stood out. First was that the individuals dropped off at the deflection center would be required to stay for 24-48 hours prior to leaving, a requirement which Vega Pederson's planning team has yet to commit to. The second engagement requirement was that individuals would be provided a hand-off to another service provider for needs-based and/or culturally specific services. This requirement is something that the county has admitted is not likely going to happen, at least not in the early phases. However, from the meetings it did sound like they would have some sort of case management to help provide meaningful referrals even if there is no warm hand-off to another agency or accountability to follow through. All that said, it appears the Dallas center also appears to have been underutilized and the metrics collected at that site do not appear to have been collected for over a year, suggesting to me that the center may have even closed.
Alright, I'm tired, so I'm just going to provide links below to additional reading that may or may not be interesting to those interested in deflection.
White House article on Deflection Programming
OHSU's ECHO network information about deflection
The "Blue" perspective from Police Chief Magazine
Some "light reading" from a research perspective by Justice System Partners
Thanks for reading and I'll try to post more news as it comes in.
July 19th, 2024 - Opening Update
I apologize to our community members for the late opening of this info page. I also apologize for the brevity as there is a lot going on and things have moved fast.
Approximately two weeks ago, we were informed that Multnomah County would be opening a deflection center on the corner of 9th and Sandy at the location formerly operated by Precision Imaging. At the point the BCA was notified, the Chair's office had already completed a search for the premise and signed the lease for the building. The concern around the lack of transparency, collaboration, and opportunity for community input really took community members by shock. The BCA quickly worked to establish a co-hosted meeting which was held on the evening of July 17th, while an early meeting with CEIC officials was held the week prior. Jens (BCA co-chair) attended both meetings and Susan attended the meeting on the 17th. We tried to get answers, as did other members of our community, but the Jessica Vega Pederson's office simply didn't have many answers to provide. At this time, the BCA and community appear largely in agreement that the cart was put before the horse.
We put out a survey for community members to share opinions and ask questions. I've summarized a table of the multiple choice responses below. If you did not get the chance to take the survey, you can find it below the survey (last item on page). You can also find the unformatted questions and comments in this document, but additional questions and comments will not automatically be added to the document in the same way they were added to the table. I want to stress that they are unformatted and unfiltered, so there will be redundancies and some may have stronger language than others. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go into much more detail, but I will add soon some additional thoughts, considerations, and assessments soon I hope. For the time being, I spoke with Blair Best from KGW (channel 8) briefly on July 18th to share some of my opinions. Check it out here.
I apologize to our community members for the late opening of this info page. I also apologize for the brevity as there is a lot going on and things have moved fast.
Approximately two weeks ago, we were informed that Multnomah County would be opening a deflection center on the corner of 9th and Sandy at the location formerly operated by Precision Imaging. At the point the BCA was notified, the Chair's office had already completed a search for the premise and signed the lease for the building. The concern around the lack of transparency, collaboration, and opportunity for community input really took community members by shock. The BCA quickly worked to establish a co-hosted meeting which was held on the evening of July 17th, while an early meeting with CEIC officials was held the week prior. Jens (BCA co-chair) attended both meetings and Susan attended the meeting on the 17th. We tried to get answers, as did other members of our community, but the Jessica Vega Pederson's office simply didn't have many answers to provide. At this time, the BCA and community appear largely in agreement that the cart was put before the horse.
We put out a survey for community members to share opinions and ask questions. I've summarized a table of the multiple choice responses below. If you did not get the chance to take the survey, you can find it below the survey (last item on page). You can also find the unformatted questions and comments in this document, but additional questions and comments will not automatically be added to the document in the same way they were added to the table. I want to stress that they are unformatted and unfiltered, so there will be redundancies and some may have stronger language than others. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go into much more detail, but I will add soon some additional thoughts, considerations, and assessments soon I hope. For the time being, I spoke with Blair Best from KGW (channel 8) briefly on July 18th to share some of my opinions. Check it out here.