The Public Safety Committee heard an informational briefing April 30 on House Bill 5005 and statewide "deflection" programs from the Criminal Justice Commission, which said the programs show early promise but remain too new for firm conclusions.

The Criminal Justice Commission''s interim director, Ryan Katke, told the committee the programs were quickly implemented after fall legislation and that the commission has begun collecting standardized data: "We're starting to see results as a result of the data capture that goes through with over a thousand people being served by the program," he said. Katke said the programs were intentionally flexible so counties could tailor services to local needs.

Committee members were given a data snapshot showing 1,180 referrals to deflection programs statewide (data pulled April 17) and a breakdown of eligibility and program outcomes. Kelly Officer, research director at the Criminal Justice Commission, described the enrollment flow: deflection grantees are required to enter data into a system called REDCap and, of the referrals so far, 926 were deemed eligible for deflection while 249 were not. Of those eligible, 723 had enrolled; 88 had completed deflection, 223 had not completed, and roughly 412 remained in the program at the time of the report.

Why it matters: deflection programs are intended to connect people who commit certain low-level offenses to services instead of progressing through traditional criminal prosecution. The committee sought early evidence about whether the interventions reduce later criminal justice involvement, how counties are spending funds and which practices are most effective.

Key facts and budget details presented

- Initial state capital for the program was reported as $20,000,000. Katke said that most of the grant awards were used for ongoing operations rather than one-time planning costs.

- The commission categorized program spending into four main buckets: program coordination (oversight, eligibility review, data tracking), case management (staff who perform warm handoffs or intake and referrals), client stability (immediate needs such as food, clothing, identification, transportation vouchers and housing), and other operations (equipment, supplies, training). Katke said about $2,300,000 was being used for client-stability efforts and that about 40% of that amount was for housing, mainly short-term or emergency shelter.

Data, timeline and measurement cautions

Officer emphasized that the data represent roughly 7.5 months of activity (earliest entries Sept. 1) and that counties came online at different times. She warned against treating early completion rates as definitive: "Please be very cautious in doing that, because as mentioned, it's early." The commission noted some programs require 90 days for completion while others require six months, so completion tallies remain provisional.

Eligibility and program variation

Committee members pressed the commission about eligibility differences across counties. Katke and Officer said counties set many local criteria: some admitted only people charged with possession of controlled substances (PCS) while others have broadened to include co-occurring charges. The commission said 64% of disqualifications resulted from local eligibility criteria (for example, prior disqualifying convictions or active supervision status).

Multiple referrals and county-to-county differences

Committee members asked about individuals with multiple deflection events. Katke said counties differ on whether they allow repeat enrollment: "Some counties have said, 'Hey, you get one try and then we're not going to let you back in.' Other counties have said, no, depending on the circumstances, that will be an option." He added that movement across county lines and differing local rules can result in the same person appearing in more than one county's records, at least temporarily.

Warm handoffs and contact problems

The commission highlighted warm handoffs (an in-person or immediate connection from an officer to program staff) as a best practice linked to better outcomes, but said roughly 49% of referrals did not include a warm handoff because counties lack 24/7 staffing. The commission reported that inability to contact participants was the most common reason for noncompletion: about 60% of noncompletions were driven by lack of contact or failure to attend initial appointments.

County-level activity

The commission provided a county-by-county count through April 17. Large Willamette Valley counties led in raw referrals (Multnomah, Lane, Marion), while several rural Eastern Oregon counties had smaller counts but higher referral-to-arrest ratios. For example, Klamath County had a relatively high ratio when referrals were compared to arrests with PCS charges.

What the commission will track next

CJC said its plan is to link program participation to traditional criminal-justice outcomes (new arrests, case filings, supervision) at six months and one year to assess impacts and to identify program-level success factors. Officer said roughly one year of follow-up after program exit would likely be needed to assess criminal-justice outcomes with reasonable confidence.

Committee questions and requests

Several legislators asked for more granular follow-up reporting: county-level comparisons of cost per person served, program eligibility rules, and a future report identifying counties with stronger completion outcomes and the accountability measures they used. Katke said the commission can provide arrest-versus-deflection counts and will continue reporting as programs stabilize.

Ending note

The Criminal Justice Commission told the committee the programs have created a new early intervention point in the system and that counties are actively adjusting eligibility and operational practices as they gain experience. The committee did not take formal action; the session was informational.