2010-2794-Minutes for Meeting May 03,2010 Recorded 8/18/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS 1~J 7410.7194
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/181010 09:59:56 AM
11111111111111111111111111111111
2 10-2754
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
w rt Z~
G {
MINUTES OF MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010
County Administration Building
1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioner Alan Unger; Dave Kanner,
County Administrator; Ken Hales, Community Justice; Hillary Saraceno and
Jessica Kelly, Commission on Children & Families; Ruth Jenkin, Sheriff's Office
(Jail); Jack Blum, citizen member; Shelly Smith, KIDS Center; Chief Ron Roberts,
Redmond Police Department; Carl Rhodes, Oregon State Police; Eileen Stein, City
of Sisters Administrator; Aaron Brenemann, defense attorney; Scott Johnson,
Health Services; Jessi Watkins of JBar J Youth Services; and one other citizen.
No representatives of the media were in attendance.
1. Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
2. April Minutes
Ken Hales moved approval; Jack Blum seconded; and the minutes were
unanimously approved.
3. Public Comment
Citizen William Kuhn explained he lives on Sisemore Road northwest of Bend,
in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range. It is considered mostly off the beaten path.
There are a number of things happening there that he would like to see dealt
with in a better way.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010
Page 1 of 5 Pages
He said that people come to the area and dump garbage. They also ride ATV's
onto Sisemore Road, which is not legal. They ride in areas where the plants and
animals are protected. Because they are surrounded by BLM land and the forest
zone is nearby, they never know who to call for a specific situation. He would
like to know who might coordinate the enforcement of infractions in that area,
and asked if there is an interagency group that deals with this type of situation.
Judge Sullivan asked if there is someone at the Sheriff's Office who might be
able to help answer these concerns. Capt. Ruth Jenkin said that much depends
on whether it is BLM, private or another type of land, but perhaps she will try
to make sure he speaks with Capt. Tim Edwards.
4. Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan
Hillary Saraceno introduced Jessica Kelly, the new Prevention Coordinator at
the Commission on Children & Families. It has been ten years since the last
Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan was approved. This is a chapter within the
comprehensive plan. The timelines for the various plans are not coordinated.
The targeted projection for coordination of all health and social services
planning processes is 2014, but in the meantime pieces are being added, such as
the JCP Plan.
The plan provides a guideline for funding, but its primary purpose is to give an
overall view of quantitative and qualitative data related to juvenile behavior in
the community, to look at risk and protective factors and where the greatest
needs and gaps are related to crime prevention among youth.
In the past, Deschutes County has qualified for an early childhood waiver, to be
able to use some juvenile crime prevention funding for children 0 to 8 years. It
was established in 2000 and renewed since then. At this time, one of the six
criteria for being eligible for the waiver cannot be met because they are required
to have adequate funding for the older age group.
She asked LPSCC members to provide feedback no later than Monday, May 10.
She then gave an overview of the process and the teams utilized to complete the
requirements and the document.
A few of the positive trends learned during the planning process are a lower
dropout rate, lower teen pregnancy rates and lower foster care rates. Data was
limited, as the juvenile risk assessment tool was not used. There has been a
continued decline in offender rates and recidivism.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Jessica Kelly summarized the qualitative information (a copy of which is
attached). They conducted one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders, and
developed surveys and community-based processes involving citizens,
including youth, agencies and providers. Some were on-line or randomly
mailed surveys.
Some concerns are youth substance abuse, unsupervised youth, domestic
violence and poor family functioning, and a greater need for after-school
enrichment activities.
Jack Blum asked how they decided who would receive the mailed surveys. For
instance, 600 were sent to Sisters residents. Ms. Saraceno said addresses were
selected at random, utilizing the Minnesota Institute of Public Health that
specializes in this type of survey and research. It would have been cost
prohibitive to mail them to everyone.
The target population identified during the planning process for prioritizing
efforts and resources was identified as at-risk, non-adjudicated youth ages 10-
14 transitioning from middle to high school and in need of intervention. A
recognized concept is being considered that the money will follow the youth,
with set criteria to deal with the specific needs of the youth. They would also
like to centralize the JCP case management. Probably 150 youth will be in this
category, and everything possible will be done to keep them out of the system.
There are various ways being considered on how to track the success of the
program. They hope to reestablish a juvenile crime prevention committee like
one that used to exist, or create a new one that will develop criteria to follow.
Ken Hales said that to maximize the value of the funding, it should be spent on
those who are most likely to be high-risk offenders. 92% of youth who have
contact with law enforcement self-correct their behavior. The other 8% needs
to be identified and treated, and the juvenile risk assessment tool is meant to
help identity that 8%. The risk screening tool is meant to help determine this.
Also, they want to create a profile of those youth in the system and not spend
money on things that are not a problem. For instance, alcohol abuse might be a
problem overall but does not necessarily correlate with those youth who end up
in the system.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Eileen Stein asked if they have a good sense of the type of youth that might be
subject to ongoing problems. Mr. Hales stated that a broad net is cast for this.
Almost every youth who gets a citation of any kind results in a record. Oregon
has an integrated juvenile community justice data base of not just offenders, but
those who have receive a citation for other things. Street level discretion might
be used by an officer in some cases, and it may not end up in the system.
Most misdemeanors result in a formal intake, which may or may not be
prosecuted. A first-time, non-violent action may not result in any more than
community service, but those instances are still recorded.
Capt. Jenkin stated that sometimes it is not proper to release them back to the
parents due to various risk factors. Often the youth will be cited and released,
and emergency shelter is provided if necessary.
Chief Ron Roberts said that a lot of mediation takes place to resolve these
issues. Judge Sullivan added that the responses vary widely. Mr. Hales said
that some parents just don't want to deal with it at all, and the youth cannot be
detained simply because the parents won't be responsible.
Ms. Saraceno explained the continuum of services, from age 0 to 17. The
programs at risk are those that target and assist younger children.
Ms. Saraceno said that LPSCC does not need to formally approve this Plan, but
she hopes for its support and a recommendation.
The group indicated its unanimous support of the Plan.
5. Inactive Probation
Ken Hales said that this was one of the State Department of Corrections
programs that they were to develop. There are revised regulations. Sixty days
before every probationer reaches 50% of his or her probation time, a list will
come to Mr. Hale's department. The assigned Parole Office will determine if
the individuals are eligible for "good" time. If there has not been another
violation for six months and they have paid restitution and completed treatment
if required, they are eligible.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010
Page 4 of 5 Pages
There have been about 200 so far on the list, with about 30 that were eligible.
Most come off case banking, and many would be already eligible for minimal
supervision. The effect is a subset of those on case bank that are now
considered inactive. In this way, funding is cut by the State. The District
Attorney and a Judge are asked to review the inactive list.
Mr. Hales feels this will not have a huge impact because the number of eligible
probationers is low.
6. Other Business
The Domestic Violence Council is working on a program to deal with this
problem.
On June 23 and 25, three hours of training for law enforcement individuals
has been offered at the Bend Police Department training room, and more at
the Sheriff's training room.
The OSP/911 building is on budget and being built on time, and should be
ready for occupancy by July.
Being no further discussion or items addressed, the meeting adjourned at
4: 35 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
+-AAAI~
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Agenda
Exhibit B: Sign in sheet
Exhibit C: Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan Summary & Report
Exhibit D: Amendment regarding Active & Inactive Probation
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010
Page 5 of 5 Pages
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
JTES eo`2
o <
Monday, May 3, 2010 - 3:30 p.m.
Barnes and Sawyer Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR
Age
,!Ida
Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan
II April Minutes Attachment 1
Judge Sullivan
Action: Approve February minutes
III Public Comment
Judge Sullivan
IV Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan Attachment 2
Hillary Saracen
Brief Council on plan and receive comments
V Inactive Probation Attachment 3
Ken Hales
Update Council on inactive probation regulations
VI Other Business
Judge Sullivan
z
u
LU
J
CL
9
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
'
I
I
~
I
1
w
I
I
I
.
I
i
I
Jn
( I
Q
Q) a
E
g
i
a
c.
fl,J I
v
3
c `
~1
I
I
~
VV
~
~I
'
~
Fl
I
~
~
~i
I
v
0
m
v
a
Deschutes County
2009-2013 Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan Summary Report
Historical Overview
1. Last JCP Planning process was completed in 2000 (statutory requirement).
Time line is through 2013 in order to align with other planning processes
2. The JCP Plan is the county's plan - NOT CCF's plan and is considered a
part of the Comprehensive Community Plan. Time lines are not yet
coordinated; goal is to have a standardized coordinated planning process
for ALL human services in FY 2014 (also trying to coordinate planning with
new Oregon Health Authority).
3. In 2000, Deschutes County was granted an early childhood waiver to have
the option to use JCP funds for programs targeting a younger population
(0-8) and it was renewed in 2005. The waiver is granted based upon the
criteria set by the JCPAC.
4. In 2003, the requirement for using JCP funds for evidence based practices
was implemented and remains in effect today (SB267).
5. In 2009, Deschutes County was unable to meet one of the six criteria set
by the JCPAC and therefore, no longer eligible for the early childhood
waiver at this time (criteria not met: availability of adequate resources to
fund services for the 10-17 population). End date is June 30, 2010.
6. Fall 2009, the JCP Core Planning Team began meeting to plan for the JCP
planning process. The JCP Partnership Team was convened in January
2010 and both teams met on a regular basis January through March 2010.
7. Plan to be approved by the BoCC end of May, following review and
comment from the Professional Advisory Council, LPSCC, and CCF Board.
8. Once submitted, the plan will be reviewed and approved by the JCPAC.
)CP Planning Process and Teams
The five steps of an evidence-based model for decision making, called the
Strategic Prevention Framework decision-making model was used for the planning
process: 1) Participation and Collaboration with key partners; 2) Review and
assessment of quantitative and qualitative data; 3) Planning in order to select and
develop strategies to address identified needs; 4) Implementation 2011-13; and 5)
Evaluation.
Two teams were established for the planning process: the JCP Core team that
created the framework for the planning process and the JCP Partnership Team,
which included the statutory or mandated partners, CCF board members, service
providers, school officials, law enforcement as well as two high school youth from
the Loft.
Data Trends
1. A wide range of community specific quantitative data was collected and reviewed:
a. several positive trends:
➢ Low dropout rate
➢ Low teen pregnancy rate
➢ foster care rates below the state average
b. Only a limited amount of JCP data was available due to the fact that the
JCP screening tool was administered to only a small group of youth
(following referral to the Juvenile Department). However, the data that is
tracked on a regular basis since 2001 demonstrated the following:
➢ 13% drop in referral rates
➢ 11% drop in the annual number of offenders
➢ 6% reduction in recidivism rates
c. Concerning trends:
➢ Increase number of hotline calls for domestic violence last year
➢ Increase in the number of 8th graders reporting alcohol use.
2. Qualitative data was also collected and reviewed, including 1:1 interviews
with key stakeholders. Several different surveys were developed and
implemented to obtain input from community leaders and providers and a
"5 Minutes for Families" survey was also developed and implemented to
obtain input from community members: See Attached Survey matrix.
a. Common themes reaardina concerns:
➢ Youth substance abuse
➢ Un-supervised youth
➢ Poor family functioning
➢ Need for more after school programs for kids (over five
hundred written comments from the "5 Minutes for
Families" survey expressed the need)
Target Population
As a result of the planning process, non-adjudicated youth ages 10-14 with an
emphasis on transition years (elementary to middle school or middle school to
high school) prioritized as the targeted population for future JCP efforts and
funding 2011-13.
Recommended Strategies for Use of 3CP Funds (Conceptual)
While details will need to be defined over the next fiscal year, the JCP Core Team
recommends development and implementation of the following strategies:
1. Centralized JCP risk assessment and case management services
2. Expanded training within the community on how to conduct JCP risk
screens to determine eligibility for services
3. Client specific flex funds to purchase needed services (funds follow the
youth rather than funds being arbitrarily given to specific programs)
4. Re-establish or identify an existing body to serve as the Juvenile Crime
Prevention Advisory Board. The advisory board would help to develop
and define the process, define parameters for the use of flex funds,
develop the specific policies and protocols for assessment
Proposed Outcome Measures
1. % of youth connected with services
2. % of youth exhibiting decrease in risk factors
3. % of participants with a criminal referral to the Juvenile Department
rn
c
C Zj
ca :3
CL V)
O
4-0
Q~
>
L- Ln
a w.
O
Zll
C
3
O
U
O
L
N
O
E
*a m
U E
° E
O Ln
O
n
0
c
O
c
O
E
~
m
m
~
c
c
c
c
v
v
E
E
a
i
0
CL
0
a
0
a
0
a
•
O
O
O
O
L
yV
O
O
O
O
v
w
N
N
(A
Ln
wc
0
0
0
0
(\fl =
L
m
+
'
+L'
4-j
O
N
(U
w
a)
'
O
7
O
c
O
0 Co
0
'D
E
E
E
E
p„
i
,0
u
CD
ca
ra
ra
ca
i
;5
m
Mn
A
T
(n
.5
N
cu
°a
fo
c
t
75
r
t
:3
L
N
U
C
O
c
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
V
N
C
ca
m
ca
c0
a)
0
m
'
(A
4-0
4-J
4-1
.61
~..i
0.
O
N
w
:3
L
C
01
0
O
0
0
i.+
V)
'a
3
Z
C
L
L
°
L
L.i
0
=
a
Q.
Q
Q
a
4-1
4-0
cu
(V
}
0
J
ii
Q
Q
Q
Li
\
\
0
0
•
M
co
M
~
Ln
~
ON
r*%
C
p N
a
O
o
O
rn
O
co
3
O
U
V1 O
w0
o~
N
a~
(u O
a0,
Q)
ac
O
ac
o
N
V) c
Q)
~
° cn
c
E
~
E
N
E
N
Er,
EK
.
O
~ N
CD
M
La
Ca.
Ln
°
ra
m
N
mN
NON
mN
V)
ai
E v)
C: (A
-a
"a
"
'
a)
ai
a w
D w
~
Q
O ~
CC
~
4! (A
Or y
a
7
3
:3
Ln
Ln
:3
Ln
(n
O
w
E
C
v
C
a)
C
N
C
L
LL
m
m
m
m
m
V1
o
-i°
'
BO
O: a)
w
_
7-4
N O
.27-N CD
w
n
N
±
.2
O
i0, N
L
oZs O
3
,
3
cL
Em
~N
Em
E
E
E
Ln
E -t
V
i
U °
U
U
U
L
U
O
U
O
75
Ln
N
O
m
E
O
N
2
O
i
C
to
a
M
r4
O
N
O1
O
O
N
i
a
U
N
Y
N
O
n
E
O
i
ca
LL.
U
Ln
O
°
cu
O
cu
O
O
W
N
ca
v
°
c
O
L
O
ca
c
U
N
CO)
L
ca
ca
L
Q.
-
r-
co
U
'2
U
2
0
cu
a
U
C 'm
t 7
Q.
O
a
N
7
" U
O
m
O
co
C
r
O
a~+
H
+r U
cu
ci
>
cu
42
U O
N
O
°
>
cu
vi
1
+
L
a
a
ca
>
.
N
N Cr
+
a
Y
-C
C
ca
°
Lin
N
a
a
'
Co
C
o a
aa
O
O
N
j
`
O
4
EE
C
a)
to
a, CD
°
U
-0
NO
C Q
>
N o
c
ca
ca
L
.
a
a
~ a
n
CA
°
v
ca
j
N
c
a) a)
N
L
c
O i-d
O
cc >
L- :3
'
m
CL
O
O
00
CL
!O
C.)
ca
cn ca
CIO
0
a) CL
0) a)
c
>
N O
a)
Y
-0
~
N
cc
a
p
cc
L
O
O
E
L O
N-
to
tm
a)
a.>
ca
a) a)
ca =
L~
Q
O
c
S
to
O.~
ca d)
N
O
c
U
N (D
(D
7`~
O
U
O
CL
U+~
O
N
L~
N
N
N N
U
ca =
tmz
L 3
co
Co
o c
r 4-
~
Co
N
r
U
O
O
N
fa
C ca
Q.
p 0
O L
3
N -
C
>
c
N O
a)
a
~
o
U
o
a
=
O
=
N
a)
N
~
0
C-
cLa
.r
N N
N ~
Q
~
cn a
-0 m
Y
> ca
N
Q
O
E
O
c^p'
a
fl
cn N
N
M
-
U
L
cc
L L
O L
N
~
Y°
20
W M
0
W
J
m
O0
W
2Q
J
Z
J
Q
cn
O}
Z
U
U)
m
O
a)
w45
3
C6
N
CD
cc
W
co
C
N
E
vi
a
N
N
C
U
U)
ca
m
O N
CL U
ca ca
-00
a N
0 (,D
~ O
N
E
O
t
L
7 p
O
a) cc
N
Q.
ON
0 3
N ~
N a)
CL
O O
:.r N
N
> o
c
Q'3
C
O
C N
c
(D
> O
a Q
V)
C
U
~I
i>l
Q
L_
r
Q
v
w
a
W
Q
O
Z
Z
O
co
W
2
I-
W
D
O
Z
Y
m
H
Q
W
I
m
gCO
OU LU
N
O
(n U
gw
J W
O=
U~O
u
0
'a
U
O
N
N
0
rev
E
N
N
i
c
ca
a
M
0
N
O~
O
0
a
V
U
7
C
E
U
i
N
LL
U
Cfi
>N 'D
° 00
ca ?
CO)
cc (1) a)
a) co
c E c 0
.O 'nom U
co
cu
U O +r c Q
L o
0 c 2
a) U ~ ~ a) H
CA m co w
O N ^ 'a ca LL
L L
cu a) co >
U L O U L Rf 0
+ • O c0 C
C U - a) d
(1) cu
O > 3 p W
> C to
cu -C
a) Y L U O cu N ~
cn O c 2 L°
L- CO A- U) c~a Z
> a) _ " N m Z
cu CU
L m
(D 0
> N U p
D L
U) _0 w CU 0-cl)
cu _0 x
^O Y N W 0-"L)
0
fQ L cQ C m
O ° C -0-0 W
cu co La) c O O 2
>
O :5 "O -p -0
3 a) cu 75
ca o CD W
>O N O N :3 c O N L
> Ya) -a a) U wO = U) 0 U)
N O c ca r O_ a) 0
L > N 4- •F C U c Q. O O
L c 2 O
N M > O O > Z
0 Cc m :3 :3
a) 0
c co
-0 N v co CO L Z
U) cu
c o Via) 0) E o O o° F-
a) CD
a>i~ ca 0H N 0 Q
L `
Lp a) 3. ma '@ a) c
cu L- 0
0 a)
cn a) p a
UY ~Y L N (u Z 7E L._ W
c M m = ca a) '5 > 0-
~
U) Q a) a) C o a) o c m
q- 0 to
2 12 L- 0
~ cu o - U W m a) Q a) > CD
a) m
cis U) U) L- c:
a) 3: CO)
a = a) N a) c cn J U)
L- 2 C~ co
L
CU = cu ~ Ica m cu Cu 0 °-O 0W
0U = C a)° Q >0 W~
cu cu ~m U a) to N to cl)_
Q a co L- Q
N Q- Q° m Cl) c U c CY) 00
Co a) a) O O i2 0 p a) C M C.) co a) CL E L) U) co 0
cu cu L- 2 a)L m >0 C W
N2 a)
c a) p
a) o ca 0 -a o ~ O L co cu O
Y 2 Z W 9 W _J 0 .Q cn U 0
De~iChYl~es Co11
High Risk 3uvenile Crime Prevention Plan
2009-2013
Overview
In the last several years, Deschutes County has seen a number of positive trends in the
well-being of at-risk adolescents, their families and the community. These include a
13% drop in referral rates and 11% drop in the annual number of offenders since 2001
despite being one of the fastest growing counties in Oregon, and a six percent
reduction in recidivism in the same time period (Juvenile Justice Information System
Annual Reports 2002-2008). Generally, juvenile offender trends are positive, which
allows the county to examine the subsets of offenders with whom we do not find as
much success. These are the chronic offenders (3+ offenses within one year) with
additional chronic detention admissions and/or long stays in detention due to inability to
return home for personal/family or public safety reasons. The juvenile department also
continues to find challenges in being successful with juveniles who present with multiple
risk factors in the family functioning and school life domains, and with young offenders.
Following statewide trends made available in draft form by the Oregon Youth Authority,
the department wishes to improve its identification, assessment and intervention of the
high-risk younger youth who have law enforcement contact, as this population re-
offends at a greater rate than juveniles making a first contact with law enforcement at
older ages.
Juvenile Services/JCP History in Deschutes County
➢ Funding to counties for juvenile services began in 1979 with requirements for a
comprehensive plan including a county wide needs assessment and funding
priorities. The process was informal and based on local ideas about what worked
to support children and families.
➢ In 1994 increased requirements for accountability and a focus on public safety
were required.
➢ Over the next several years, Deschutes County became an innovative leader in
developing and applying the Balanced and Restorative Justice model and for not
only including 10-17 year olds in the continuum of services model but for
including younger children and early intervention in the JCP continuum. While
resources have declined, the spectrum of available programs and services in the
continuum have likewise declined; however, the services continuum model
established years ago continues to be adhered to today (see Attachment A).
➢ In 1999, a second JCP Planning process was developed and implemented in 2000
➢ In 2000, Deschutes County was granted an early childhood waiver to have the
option of using JCP funds for programs targeting a younger population (0-8).
This waiver was granted based upon the availability of adequate resources to
fund services for the 10-17 population.
➢ The requirement for using resources for evidence based practices began in 2003
and remains in effect today (SB267).
- 1 -
Juvenile Crime Prevention Services, 2001 to Present
Currently, counties receive funds for juvenile justice services in three categories:
prevention, basic and diversion. In Deschutes County, the Commission on Children &
Families manages the prevention funds and the Juvenile Community Justice Department
manages the basic and diversion resources.
For the 2009-2011 biennium basic and diversion funds were allocated for the following
strategies.
1. Basic ($367,844h Evidence-based family-based treatment (Functional Family
Therapy) for medium and high risk juveniles who have been referred and
adjudicated and on probation, or agreed to a Formal Accountability Agreement,
in relation to a criminal offense, and who are at risk for further involvement with
the juvenile justice system.
2. Diversion ($312,169) Treatment foster care (Maplestar Oregon) for high-risk
juveniles adjudicated and on probation who are at imminent risk of being placed
out of home (residential treatment or close/secure custody w/ the state) due to
continued criminal offensive behavior.
For FY 2009-10 fiscal year Juvenile Crime Prevention funds were allocated under the
early childhood waiver to the following programs.
1. Healthy Families of the High Desert - (formerly Ready Set Go) Parole and
Probation - This program provides home visits to parolees/probationers with
infants.
2. First Step to Success - is an early intervention program that helps young children
(N5 years of age) who are at risk for developing or who demonstrate anti-social
or aggressive behaviors get off to the best possible start in school.
3. Family Resource Center - Family Trax parent education program serves families
of youth ages 0 to 18 and utilizes evidence-based programs to provide
opportunities to strengthen parenting skills, utilize community support services,
and contribute to the development of healthy, viable communities.
Due to the county's inability to meet all of the early childhood waiver criteria set by the
Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Council (JCPAC), the Juvenile Crime Prevention
funds currently used to fund early childhood service providers will cease at the end of
the 2010 fiscal year (June 30, 2010). With the loss of the Community Youth
Investment Program (CYIP) funds and the decline of resources over the past eight
years to serve youth, the county no longer has adequate resources available to fund
services for the 10-17 year old youth who fit within the JCP funding criteria.
Because of the uncertainty of state funding and potential budget reductions, the CCF
board has made the decision to not conduct a competitive RFP for the second half of
the 2009-2011 biennium. Instead, the board is in the process of developing a
mechanism to provide funding to current contractors in year two. Resources currently
utilized to fund JCP prevention programs under the waiver will be shifted to fund
services targeting the 10-17 age group that fit the JCP funding criteria. The decision-
-2-
making process for 2010-11 funding is being driven by the JCP criteria and JCP Plan
findings.
Section 1- SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS
Strategic Prevention Framework Decision-Making Model
In Deschutes County, as well as several other counties in the state, prevention efforts
(including juvenile crime prevention) are addressed using an evidence-based model for
decision-making called the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). Developed by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the SPF model has five
distinct phases designed to facilitate logical decision-making and realistic outcomes:
1. Assessment: Collected current local and community specific quantitative data
and statistics to determine the critical issues affecting juvenile crime in
Deschutes County. Analyzed the data to identify reasons why they occur. Process
included a collection of qualitative data through interviews with key stakeholders,
survey of community leaders and a broad range of youth and family service
providers. Inclusion of youth who have had involvement in the juvenile justice
system also provided valuable insight regarding the system and its effectiveness.
2. Participation and Collaboration (Capacity Building): The SPF process
recommends participation and input from a wide range of community sectors
including: youth 18 years and younger, schools, youth services and other
agencies that address youth issues, law enforcement, health care, state or local
government, faith community, civic and volunteer groups, business and media.
The local process included most of these sectors in the planning partnership
team and all of these sectors were included in the survey and information
gathering processes. While there has been considerable effort to ensure the
inclusion of youth in planning and implementation efforts, over the next year CCF
staff and the Community Youth Development Action Team will work to increase
on-going participation from sectors not consistently represented (e.g. faith and
business sectors).
3. Planning: The CCF staff convene and facilitate a wide range of prevention
groups, task forces and advisory boards in the community; however, there
currently is not a community advisory committee specifically dedicated to the
purpose of discussing JCP issues identified through the community assessment
and to identify or develop strategies to address those issues. The CCF staff will
be working with the Community Justice department, Local Public Safety
Coordinating Council, and the Safe Schools Alliance to address the identified
needs and recommendations coming out of the JCP Plan process.
4. Implementation: The CCF staff will work with the JCP Core Planning Team
(described below) to further coordinate, develop and implement the JCP Plan
and strategies to address juvenile crime in Deschutes County. While innovative
approaches will be considered, evidence-based prevention programs, practices
and strategies will be prioritized. In addition, CCF will work with the local juvenile
justice department to coordinate and protect the continuum of JCP services, CCF
funded and other community services in the JCP continuum of services
addressing and serving at-risk and high-risk children and youth.
-3-
5. Evaluation: CCF staff assess the success of implemented strategies on an on-
going basis to ensure desired outcomes and changes are achieved. Data sources
used to monitor this include work plans and quarterly reports from funded
programs and initiatives, annual analysis of programs completed by NPC
research, and other data collected and compiled by partner agencies, service
providers and the community.
In Deschutes County, the Board of County Commissioners designated the local CCF as
the lead planning agency for the JCP Plan. Two separate planning groups were
created: the JCP Core Planning Team and the JCP Partnership Team. CCF Board
Member Howard Finck, who has extensive background, training and expertise
Nationwide in a wide range of youth services and models, led the process and served as
Chair for both the JCP Core Planning and the JCP Partnership teams. Invitations to
participate in the planning process were prepared and sent by Commissioner Tammy
Baney. The JCP Core Planning team consisted of a county commissioner, juvenile
department delegate, the JCP Plan Consultant (Teri Martin PhD), CCF staff and three
CCF board members. This group was responsible for developing and implementing the
planning process, the frame work for the plan, developing the planning team meeting
agendas and the identification, gathering and analyzing data. Core Team meetings
occurred two times a month from December through April. The Partnership Team met
once a month from January through April. Two high school students who currently
reside at the Loft (a runaway and homeless shelter) also participated as members of
the Partnership Team. Additionally, they assisted in the development and
implementation of the "5 Minutes for Families" survey and distributed it at the local high
schools. The JCP Partnership Team, The Professional Advisory Council to the CCF, the
Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC), and the CCF Board reviewed the plan
and provided comments prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Section 2 - PARTICIPATION & COLLABORATION
Please refer to Attachment B for a list of JCP Partnership Team participants.
Section 3 - ANALYSIS
Data collected for the planning process included qualitative and quantitative data.
Citizen, community leader and provider surveys were conducted during the planning
period and 1:1 stakeholder interviews were conducted by the JCP planning consultant.
Members of the JCP Partnership Team regularly participated in both small and large
focus groups that occurred throughout to planning process.
During the course of planning, several surveys were conducted, they include.
5 Minutes for Families - Utilizing "Survey Monkey" the 5 Minutes for Families survey
targeted all citizens including youth. Radio and website advertising resulted in over 830
responses, which exceeded our expectations. Results from the survey were intended
for use with the JCP Plan and the Comprehensive Plan update and included requests for
feedback relating to juvenile crime and other child, youth and family issues.
Synthesizing answers to open ended "comment" questions was difficult because there
were over 500 responses; however, there were common themes that emerged.
Citizens wanted more activities for kids, stronger parental involvement and stronger
accountability for youth and parents of youth offenders.
-4-
Community Leader Survey - Targeted provider and professional leadership groups,
with 245 responses. Invitations to participate in the survey were distributed via email
utilizing "Survey Monkey" as the survey tool This survey was an attempt by three
county departments (Community Justice, Health Services and the CCF) to coordinate
efforts and to develop one survey in which to gather needed input and information for
several state planning updates including the county's Addictions and Mental Health
(AMH) Plan, the AMH Prevention Plan, the Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan and the
Comprehensive Community Plan Update.
Weed & Seed - A process of prioritizing community risks was conducted during
multiple focus group meetings with Redmond residents for the purpose of identifying
needs for the submission of a Weed & Seed grant proposal. Crimes committed over the
past two years were mapped out by location and type to identify areas of high crime
and the types of crimes occurring in different areas of the community. Approximately 40
residents participated in the process.
Community Readiness Survey - A total of 333 people participated in this random
survey prepared by the Minnesota Institute of Public Health to indentify perception of
problem behaviors relating to alcohol, drugs and gambling. The risk factors listed below
represent the common top three issues of concern from all four surveys:
1. Youth substance abuse
2. Un-supervised youth
3. Poor family functioning
Key Stakeholder Interviews
Teri Martin, Ph.D. conducted 34 key stakeholder interviews during January and
February, 2010. Participants included JCP Partnership Team members, the DA, juvenile
department staff, law enforcement, education, the CCF Director and youth. See
Attachment "B" for a complete list of interviewees. Participants were asked to respond
to a list of questions relating to accomplishments of current juvenile crime prevention
approaches, factors contributing to the successes, gaps in the prevention system,
priority strategies and implementation, and indicators of success. Although opinions
varied, there were several common themes:
1. The Juvenile Department's and Commission on Children and Families' emphasis
on evidence-based programs has enhanced the quality and results achieved by
prevention efforts. The Juvenile Department maintains an analyst position to
further its commitment to evidence-based practice, and to seek out grants that
support innovative programming.
2. Those concerned about the success of juvenile crime prevention efforts need to
regroup, re-energize and work together to determine the direction Deschutes
County wants to go as a whole community. Deschutes County has the creative
capacity and vision to continue as a leader in the juvenile justice and crime
prevention field.
3. Relatively few professionals outside of the Juvenile Department are familiar with
or trained in the use of the JCP risk assessment instrument.
-5-
4. Prevention programs should have funds that can be used to facilitate their
clients' participation in sports and other positive activities inside and outside of
school ("flex" or "barrier removal" funds).
A comvft summary of interviews along with observations/recommendations from the
consultant are included in Attachment C.
Juvenile Crime in Deschutes County
Deschutes County, like all other Oregon counties, utilizes juvenile referral data to
understand trends in juvenile crime. Referrals, defined as a referral to the juvenile
department by a law enforcement agency alleging one or more offenses (either that
which would be a crime if the juvenile was an adult or a status violation that is illegal
based on the juvenile's minor age status), are tracked consistently through state-wide
agreement on data entry, by juvenile justice departments and the state Youth Authority
in the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS). The law enforcement community
uses its own Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) to track arrests, citations and to
some extent, convictions. Access to LEDS is highly restricted for non-law enforcement
agencies and available only to certified, audited staff. Data entry practices into LEDS
vary from police agency to police agency and juvenile departments are not provided
access to create or view aggregate reporting mechanisms. The state and advocacy
groups (i.e. Children First for Oregon) occasionally releases "arrest rate" data on
juveniles by county, citing LEDS data. There are several factors impacting arrest rates
and therefore this data is often misleading and rarely conforms to "referral rate" or
other referral data from JJIS. Deschutes County prefers to work with referral trend data
based on a statewide agreement and the consistency through which data is entered;
reports are created and audited, then published.
Referral Rates (see table below)
Referral rates have been declining since 2002, with a significant drop in 2008. Property
crimes topped the list of types of crime. Female arrests for most crime categories
were significantly lower than the males, with the exception of status offenses.
Comparing Juvenile Population and Referral Rate
Changes Since 2002
0.2 - - -
0.15
0.1
0.05-Ju\enile Population
V 0 Change
-0.1 44~~200=2006 2007 2008 Juvenile Referral Rate
-0.1
IL -0.15 Change
-0.2
-0.25
Recidivism Rates
Rates of recidivism for Deschutes County dropped from 2007 to 2008 and typically fall
below the state average. In 2008, 70.2% of youth referred to the Juvenile Department
did not receive a new referral within one year.
-6-
Risk Factors (see tab/e below)
Findings from assessments conducted on 240 youth revealed that over half (59%)
experienced household problems and 64% reported past problems with alcohol and
other drug use. Data from the ]CP Risk Assessment that was conducted with 397 youth
in 2009 and revealed that 60% of the youth were NOT involved in extra curricular
activities.
Anti-
Anti-
School
Family
AOD
social
social
behavior
peers
First
None or
Problems
Poor
Household
Past
Current
offense
anti-social
at school
school
w/
problem
AOD
12
peers
attendance
problem
AOD use
problems
history
2007
25.6%
15.3%
39.5%
32.7%
48.9%
49.0%
7.7%
2008
21.9%
11.9%
38.7%
30.7%
41.3%
28.5%
9.0%
2009
25.7%
19.0%
36.7%
34.5%
59.2%
64.6%
10.9%
MS (n=240)
Family
Strengths.
1. Child Abuse and neglect rates are low compared to state averages
2. Teen pregnancy and foster care rates lower than the state average
3. Continuum of early childhood prevention programs to train and support parents
4. Functional Family Therapy for high-risk youth and families
Challenges.
1. Domestic violence rates - calls increased last year (see table below)
2. 59% of youth currently on probation report household problems (see table on
following page)
Deschutes Co. Hotline Calls for Domestic Violence
a 2000 1,93 1,971
1, 77
~ 1,68
0 1,454
ro 1000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
-7-
Strengths:
1. Declining referral and recidivism rates
2. Citizens and businesses willing to support and invest in children and families
Challenges,
1. Lack of afterschool activities that are accessible and affordable for all families
2. High number of families transitioning
3. Unemployment rates exceed national/state averages
4. Lack of community awareness of the scope and importance of juvenile crime
prevention efforts
5. Of the total 1,840 homeless persons in the Deschutes County one-day homeless
count in January of this year, 782 (43%) were children under the age of 18.
Strengths,
1. Community School initiative implemented in several Redmond schools. Plans
underway for expanding the community schools initiative in Redmond and for
implementing the initiative in both Sisters & LaPine
2. The percentage of students graduating from high school is significantly higher
than the state average
3. School based heath centers - more being added in Bend, Redmond and Sisters
4. School resource officers
5. County behavioral health services are available to students in many schools and
additional services are being added in areas with identified need (e.g. Sisters and
La Pine)
6. In 2009, Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) received a five year,
$651,054 per year, federal LAUNCH grant (Linking Actions for Unmet Needs in
Children's Health). LAUNCH is a collaborative wellness and early intervention
program for children 0-8 years and is being implemented through the community
school based health centers.
Challenges,
1. Confidentiality policies in some schools prevent collaboration with agencies
-8-
source: JCP assessment results of youth adjudicated and assigned to probation.
2. Budget restraints prevent collaborative opportunities between schools and
providers outside the school environment
3. Deschutes rated second to last among Oregon counties in terms of kindergarten
readiness (see table below)
Ready to Learn
Source: Dept. of Education 2006
100% 94% 87%
75%
US 50%-
10
IL
Deschutes Oregon Benchmark
4. The percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch is lower than the
state average (48%) in most Deschutes County schools. The exceptions are
Marshall High School (71%), Pilot Butte Middle School (63%), LaPine Middle
School (65%) and LaPine High School (67%)
5. Most Deschutes County high schools report meeting or exceeding state
benchmarks for reading and math, with the exception of LaPine, which is falling
behind the state average (see table below)
LaPine Schools . ea ing Scores '08209
100%
82% 83%
80% 65% 70% 62% 66%
60%
40% ■LaPine
20% • Oregon
0%
3rd Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade
Source: Dept. of Education
Strengths:
1. A very small percentage of youth are involved in gang activity
Challenges::
1. 30-day alcohol use among 8th and 11th graders exceeds the state average.
-9-
Section 5 - JCP COMMUNITY ISSUES
1. The high unemployment and homeless rate has taken its toll on Deschutes
County families. Some believe that there is a strong correlation between these
conditions and the increase in domestic violence calls.
2. Lack of supervision and economic stressors associated with many single parent
or two parent working households increases the risk delinquent behavior. This
concept was supported by citizen survey comments that revealed a strong desire
for more out of school time activities and stronger accountability for parents who
fail to supervise their children.
3. Lack of resources continues to plague most youth serving agencies, especially
non- profit organizations. Historically, these agencies have had a strong base of
business supporters. Deep cuts to the construction and tourism industries
resulted in cancelation or poor participation in fund raising events resulting in
declining support to programs and services.
4. Lack of knowledge of resources continues to be an issue for schools, social
service agencies, and families especially for those with adolescent children who
are exhibiting negative behaviors at home and at school. School personnel and
service providers tend to make referrals without a clear understanding of
eligibility and other factors resulting in youth being under served or participating
in services or activities that are not suitable for the youth or the family.
Reductions in school personnel, due to budget constraints, has created
limitations on how much time counselors and other school staff can network,
collaborate and receive program information and training from youth serving
providers.
Section 6 - TARGET POPULATION
The target population has been identified as non adjudicated youth aged 10-14 with an
emphasis on transition years (elementary to middle school and middle school to high
school), who have come to the attention of government or community agencies,
schools or law enforcement. The planning team further defined this population as
exhibiting behaviors that exemplify risks associated with poor family functioning,
negative peer association, anti-social behavior and school failure.
Section 7 - STRATEGIC APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
The JCP Partnership Team created a list of potential activities tied to the targeted
population and desired outcomes (tied to risk and protective factors).
The follo wing is a list of potential strategies developed by JCP Partnership Team:
For youth screened and eligible for JCP Rrrograms
Case management tool
Progress indicator
SST's- ID youth at risk
Level risk assessment
_10-
Mentoring
Peer mentors/adult mentors
Access to services in schools: expanded and/or enhanced services via:
School Resource Officers (SROs)
Health care providers in schools (school based health centers)
Family Access Network (FAN) advocates
School counselors and other professionals
School nurse
Cognitive, thinking errors - groups
Mentoring for parents, families
Parent training
Family mediation
Activities that youth are passionate about
Job training and work experience
Service learning
The following is a summary of the recommended strategies for the 2011-13 biennium:
System Imurovement Plan: To address one of the issues identified in the analysis
and interview process and recommendations from community partners, provide JCP risk
assessment training to identified partners needing and/or requesting to be trained. This
will allow for JCP risk assessments to be conducted at various locations throughout the
county, by either a case manager or trained professional. Following the assessment, the
case manager will meet with the youth and make a recommendation for services. The
case manager will coordinate with school staff, parents and providers to insure that the
youth engage in recommended services or activities. This will result in the consistent
use of the JCP assessment tool and a baseline of more accurate risk and protective data
collection for future planning.
With local partners and stakeholders, the Commission on Children & Families will
explore the concept of resurrecting the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory board or
utilizing and existing advisory body for this function, if appropriate. The lack of a
consistent structure or mechanism for group decision making or collaboration relating to
juvenile crime prevention issues is problematic based on information gleaned in the
stakeholder interviews.
Referrals will come from schools, families, juvenile department and law enforcement:
➢ Schools identify children and youth are who are exhibiting concerning behaviors
➢ Law enforcement, including juvenile department refer youth that have come to
their attention but have not been adjudicated
Youth meeting a minimum of two risk factors will be assessed utilizing the JCP
screening tool and if found to meet the criteria, the youth will be referred to the
appropriate services from a menu of choices.
- 11 -
Service Delivery Plan: A pool of client specific flex funds will be used to purchase
services for youth following the assessment. Criteria for how these funds can be used
will be developed by the JCP Core Team and/or the local JCP Advisory board.
Section 8 - MEASUREMENT
Following twelve months of service, the youth will be re assessed utilizing the JCP tool.
We will measure the listed outcomes:
% of youth connected with services
% of youth exhibiting decrease in risk factors
% of participants with a criminal referral to the Juvenile Department
Section 9 - CONTINUUM OF SERVICES
Over the years, beginning with the visionary leadership of the late Community Justice
Director Dennis Maloney, Deschutes County has been an innovative leader in
developing and applying the Balanced and Restorative Justice model; part of the
uniqueness of the local continuum of services model has been that it not only includes
10-17 year olds in the continuum of services model but also includes younger children
(0-9 years of age) and early intervention in the JCP continuum (see Attachment A).
Unfortunately, with the continuing decline of resources to serve youth in the community
and with the loss of the early childhood waiver and the Community Youth Investment
Program (and the wealth of funds for prevention efforts that came as a result of it), the
continuum of prevention and early intervention services targeting younger children has
declined significantly and these programs are at risk of going away permanently.
The JCP Basic and Diversion funding in Deschutes County is administered by the
Juvenile Community Justice Department through a contract with the Oregon Youth
Authority (OYA). The juvenile department complied with the required elements of the
OYA planning process in the spring of 2009 for the 2009-2011 biennium Basic/Diversion
funds. The OYA does not require a formal plan coordination with any other agencies.
The department informed the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council of the plan and
the CCF Director is a member of the LPSCC. The timing of the Oregon Commission on
Children and Families JCP Plan process this year did not allow formal coordination
between the two plans.
The Basic/Diversion 2009-2011 plan is in conformance with the results of the OCCF JCP
Plan results, identifying family functioning as the highest priority risk factor among
juvenile department involved youth. Currently, 100% of Basic funds are used to finance
Functional Family Therapy and this will continue. In keeping with the purpose of
Diversion funds, the department utilizes 100% of the Diversion funds for community-
based short-term treatment foster care, to avoid placement at the OYA while
also keeping a juvenile in the community, close to positive family members and other
supports.
-12-
Section 10 - BUDGET INFORMATION
JCP funds will be utilized to hire 1-2 case managers who will be responsible for
conducting the JCP risk assessments, developing a plan for services for the youth and
providing case management for the youth. The case managers will also be responsible
for helping to reduce barriers that historically have kept youth and their families from
follow up services. The case manager will be responsible for entering data into the
system and conducting the 12 month assessment.
Flex funds will be used to purchase client specific services to meet the case plan goals.
Guidelines on how these funds will be allocated will be developed by the JCP Core Team
or the Advisory Board.
Budget
)CP Revenue
229,542
JCP Expenditures
Admin 10%
22,954
Personnel
165,246
Flex Funds
41,774
-13-
d
N
V
W
4W
c
r ka O
~ 0i 1 hoc
,o
€a
E fill, 4t
O 4
L U
O
N m Il~ 1.
y E C ~ ~
16
~ N O
33
I ~ I
I I
I I
I I
L__A
> 31
0 <
lip%
y~
0
0
N
O
m
(U
c
a
tA
0
on
oj
I~
sl
FS
ATTACHMENT A - Continued - Deschutes Co. Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan
Current Deschutes Co. Resources Identified
January 11, 2010 Partnership Planning Team
PRIMARY- Universal
Boys & Girls Club (6-18 years)
Community Schools (K-12 Redmond)
OHP MH Assessment and Services
Positive Behavior Supports (PBS)
Life Skills Training - Middle School
Safe School Alliance
School Resource Officers
Challenge Day
Family Access Network (FAN)
Family Resource Center (FRC)
Choice Friday (Redmond)
SECONDARY - Selective
SRO
Cascade Youth and Family Services - The Loft
Basic Center Funding (10-21 years)
Big Brother Big Sister (BBBS) (6-15years)
Community Schools by specific invitation (K-12)
Girl's Circle (11-14 years)
YES - LaPine Youth Diversion Services (JCAP)
Sisters Outlaw Justice
Alternative programs in schools (by school)
Central Oregon Government Council programs
First Step (5-9 years)
SISA-youth led (14-18 years)
SMART Recovery- Cognitive group (14-18 years)
Safe School Alliance
Truancy - Redmond Police and Schools (K-12)
Caldera Arts - mentoring (11-18 years)
Friendly PEERsuation - girls (11-18 years)
Safe School Assessment - MH (K-12)
Art Central
Rimrock Trails - Chemical Dependency (12-17 years)
Youth Challenge - National Guard
FFT (11-17 years)
Youth Build - Heart of Oregon
Project Stay Out
SRO's
Safe School Alliance
Grandma's House (Bend)
TERTIARY - Indicated
Diversion
Cascade Youth and Family Services - The Loft
Girl's Circle (14-17 years)
Youth Enhancement Services (YES)
FA Agreements (diversion-could have expunged)
Youth Challenge - National Guard (YCC)
Truancy program
Safe School Assessment
Rimrock
Sally Phiefer and Associates
FFT (11-17 years)
Treatment Foster Care (15-17years)
-15-
Attachment B
)CP Partnership Team Members
Bruce Abernethy
Deschutes Prevention Coalition/Bend LaPine School
District
Stephanie Alvstad
J Bar J (Youth services/runaway and homeless
youth provider)
Tammy Bane *
BoCC
Lisa Burbid a
Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Oregon
Co Darling
Bend Police Department
Bill Davidson
CCF Board Member
Vicki Ertle
Family Resource Center (Parent Ed service
Provider
Howard Finck*
CCF Board Member
Erica Fuller
Rimrock Trails adolescent A & D service provider)
Joe Hayes
c/o Diocese of Baker Youth Ministry)
James Hill
The Loft client, youth member
Dee Holcomb*
Deschutes County Juvenile Department
Cynthia Irvin
The Loft client, youth member
Bob Jones
Bend/LaPine School District
Bill Lindemann*
CCF Board Member
Diane Luckett
First Steps Service provider)
Desiree Margo"
Redmond School District
Donna McClung
Ore on Youth Authority
Maryanne McDonnell
Mental Health
Kate Moore
DCHS Public Health
Hillary Saraceno
CCF Director & member of LPSCC
Marianne Straumf'ord, MD
DC MH/Addictions Advisory Board LADPC
Dave Tarbet
Redmond Police Department
Am Ward
Bend Police Department SRO - Bend H.S.
*JCP Core Team Members
BOLD: Members required by statute
-16-
Attachment C
Deschutes County Juvenile Crime Prevention Plan 2010
Stakeholder Interview Summary
by Teri K. Martin, Ph.D.
April 2010
This summary outlines what I learned from individual and small group interviews with over 30
Deschutes County professionals from a wide range of agencies and disciplines. The composite
of observations and opinions is organized into three categories: strengths to build on,
challenges to address, and opportunities and future directions to consider.
Strengths to Build On
Policy and Organizational Strengths:
• There is a strong history of collaborative policy development and program implementation around
children, youth and families in Deschutes County, and a continued willingness to be involved in
productive partnerships to address juvenile crime prevention issues.
• The Deschutes County Juvenile Department (JD) pioneered the Balanced and Restorative Justice
(BARD) model, and is still committed to approaches that balance requiring accountability, repairing
harms done, and offering opportunities to build competencies and succeed. The JD is currently
writing policies and procedures that will help to sustain this commitment into the future.
• The Juvenile Department's and Commission on Children and Families' emphasis on evidence-based
programs has enhanced the quality and results achieved by prevention efforts. The JD maintains
an analyst position to further its commitment to evidence-based practice, and to seek out grants
that support innovative programming.
• Safe Schools Alliance members represent nearly all of the agencies that are key to establishing and
sustaining a collaborative approach to juvenile crime prevention: District Attorney's office schools,
SROs, and juvenile department probation officers.
• There are benefactors, both businesses and individuals, in the County who are willing to invest in
family and children's programs. There are also a number of younger retirees who have made this
their "community by choice" and are willing to volunteer their time and talents.
Program Strengths:
• Deschutes County, with the support of both the Commission on Children and Families and,
historically, the Juvenile Department, has built a continuum of excellent early childhood prevention
programs, including First Step, Healthy Beginnings, Ready-Set-Go, Healthy Families, Family Access
Network, Head Start, and the Family Resource Center.
-17-
• The Juvenile Department provides the evidence-based program Functional Family Therapy (FFT) to
high risk youth with family issues using JCP Basic funds.
• The community schools initiative in Redmond is a well-funded opportunity to test creative ideas for
after-school and outside-of-school programs for children and youth, and to explore effective ways
to involve parents, businesses, and other volunteers in providing out-of-school activities.
• School-based health centers are available in a number of schools, and are being planned for others.
• Girl's Circle is a valuable resource in schools where it is offered. The annual Girls Summit in LaPine
is another valued gender-responsive offering for high school girls.
• As a result of efforts by the Safe Schools Alliance, school districts and local law enforcement
agencies, School Resource Officers (SROs) are present in most high schools and available to a
number of middle schools. They contribute significantly to keeping school environments safe and
supporting children, youth and their families. The number of school-based incidents referred to the
Juvenile Department has reportedly declined over the past several years.
• The Loft transitional living center provides a safe and supportive place to live for youth who can't
go home.
• There are residential treatment programs available in the County for substance abusing youth
(Rimrock) and for chronically delinquent boys (J Bar J).
Challenges to Address
Policy and Organizational Challenges:
• Because the BARJ approach has now become standard practice in many juvenile justice agencies
across the country, the shared sense of being leaders on the cutting edge that pervaded Deschutes
County more than a decade ago has diminished substantially, and with it the creative energy that
fueled legislative, policy and program innovations.
• Changes in leadership of the Juvenile Department and the CCF have diminished the historically
strong collaboration between these key agencies on juvenile crime prevention policymaking,
program design and performance measurement.
• The recent loss of Deschutes County's waiver that permitted investing the CCF's JCP funds in
prevention programs for children under 10 threatens the continued stability of programs that have
relied on that funding source.
• There are questions about whether Youth Service Teams (YSTs) are functioning optimally, i.e.,
providing a forum for schools, treatment providers, juvenile department, OYA, DHS, the courts and
law enforcement to share information and develop collaborative intervention strategies for
individual children, youth and their families.
• Some are concerned that schools have often not been willing partners in juvenile crime prevention
efforts, in part because budget constraints mean that they don't have staff or other resources to
contribute, and also because of confidentiality issues around sharing student information.
-18-
Resource Challenges:
• There has been a significant reduction in resources for prevention programs for youth during the
past several years; OYA has reduced diversion/CYIP funding to all counties and Boys & Girls Clubs
of Central Oregon has cut back on its teen programming locally.
• There are not sufficient residential placement options, particularly shelter care beds, to serve as
alternatives to secure detention.
• There is not enough capacity to serve the mental, physical and dental health needs of children and
youth covered by the Oregon Health Plan (OHP).
• Respite care, especially for families with older children, is very limited.
Assessment and Eligibility Challenges:
• Relatively few professionals outside of the Juvenile Department are familiar with or trained in the
use of the JCP risk assessment instrument.
• There is a lack of clarity regarding eligibility criteria for locally available residential treatment
options (Rimrock Trails, J Bar J), which can contribute to program failure of inappropriately placed
youth.
• If parents are unwilling to participate or to give their consent for their children to participate in
prevention programs, this is both a risk factor and a significant barrier to providing appropriate
supportive services.
Performance Measurement Challenges:
• There is little or no local data about what kind of substance abuse treatment (residential and
outpatient) works best for different types of youth, which makes it difficult to match clients to the
services that would be best for them.
• Deschutes County does not have a historic baseline of information about the JCP risk profile of its
youth, since the instrument has not been used to assess those admitted to JCP-funded programs.
(The Juvenile Department only recently began to use the risk assessment tool routinely.)
• Initial risk assessments of troubled families often look more positive than reassessments after
several months, because it can take that long for trust to develop between family members and
treatment/service providers. This means that programs may appear not be effective if the only
measure of success is reduction in risk levels from initial to reassessment.
Opportunities and Future Directions to Consider
Policy and Organizational 00portunities:
• Those concerned about the success of juvenile crime prevention efforts need to regroup, re-
energize and work together to determine the direction Deschutes County wants to go as a whole
community. Deschutes County has the creative capacity and vision to continue as a leader in the
juvenile justice and crime prevention field.
• We need to challenge each other to innovate and take risks rather than retreating to our narrow
perspectives/silos and adopting a survival mentality. We know from our own past experiences that
-19-
successful collaboration depends to a large extent on our willingness to share resources, including
not only dollars but also ideas and the kudos that come with success.
• We should continue to explore structural and policy mechanisms to strengthen collaboration and
communication among key agencies, both at the case management and policy-making levels.
Collaboration is more than cooperation or co-location of agency offices.
• Those who value the process of planning and decision-making must work with those who are
anxious to take action and those who are good at tracking results. All of us must value process,
action and evaluation equally.
• The sustainability of any juvenile crime prevention effort depends on the active involvement and
ongoing support of locally elected leaders.
• Business people can contribute not only financial resources but also their expertise in designing
innovative customer-focused perspectives to designing effective JPC systems.
• Youth must be actively engaged in JCP policy-making, governance, community organization, and
intervention. Their involvement can strengthen any initiative.
• We must clarify the definition of "'juvenile crime prevention" and describe the continuum of services
and programs that should be in place for Deschutes County children, youth and families.
• JCP funds could be used as a spur to innovation and greater collaboration through funding a pilot
project to test a new approach to juvenile crime prevention (rather than just using the funds to
patch gaps in the continuum).
• Rather than competing for resources, we should be determining which agency or program is best
able to provide the services or functions required.
• Consider ways that the Safe Schools Alliance could serve as a forum to assist in the process of
developing and implementing a continuum of collaborative approaches to juvenile crime prevention.
For example, schools using Positive Behavioral Supports and juvenile justice practitioners of BAR]
could learn from one another, and develop coordinated, consistent approaches to working with and
disciplining children and youth.
• There should be county-wide coordination of agencies and organizations applying for state and
federal grant opportunities, so we are not competing with each other, and are able to "put all of
our best feet forward."
• Agencies should collaborate to recruit, train and supervise volunteers who can augment paid staff
in accomplishing JCP goals; Volunteer Connect, a new program in Bend, offers help with matching
volunteer interests to agencies' needs.
Training and Education Opportunities:
• To improve collaboration at staff and mid-management levels, agencies should collaborate to
providing cross-training and "sit-along" opportunities, and shared training on topics of mutual
-20-
interest. All those who work in prevention and treatment roles should be involved (private mental
health and substance abuse treatment providers, SROs, Juvenile Department staff, DHS and County
Health staff).
Training should be made available to school personnel, primary care physicians, and faith
community leaders to help them learn to identify signs that children and youth are at risk (of
suicide, aggressive or criminal behavior, or other bad outcomes), and about resources available to
help these children and youth.
• There should be more public education about risk and protective factors and their relationship to
juvenile crime and other negative outcomes.
• One way to engage community members is to have a community speakers' bureau that exposes
them to new and inspiring information about JCP programs and promising practices, presented by
powerful speakers who are leaders in their fields.
Program 0012ortunities:
• Deschutes County shouldn't just pick an "evidence-based" practice from the shelf; it should build its
own practice -based evidence for innovative, fresh program designs tailored to the risk factors and
needs of the County's youth and their families.
• The County should continue to invest in early childhood prevention efforts for at-risk families,
because that is the best "bang for the buck." Parents of younger children are usually easier to
engage, less defensive and more open to trying new approaches.
• For first offenders with few risk factors (who are unlikely to continue to commit offenses), we
should focus simply on holding them accountable and instilling a sense of responsibility for the
consequences of their actions.
• School-based prevention programs (supportive services and treatment) are an essential part of the
continuum. The school-based professionals who provide them are more accessible and better
positioned to identify youth earlier in their path toward juvenile crime and other bad outcomes
(e.g., school failure or dropout, substance abuse, teen pregnancy).
• In particular, mental health and substance abuse counselors should be located in more schools to
increase access and reduce stigma.
• When youth enter middle school, part of their orientation should be a session in which youth who
successfully avoided continuing down the path to juvenile crime talk about their experiences and
perspectives.
• We should pay more attention to the negative impacts of school culture on youth, and increase our
efforts to help break down barriers to understanding and cliques (e.g., like the Challenge Day done
in LaPine Middle School a few years ago).
• Youth should be encouraged to talk to adults about problems they or their friends are facing. They
should feel safe to ask for help, including an alternative place to live other than with their parents
-21-
or guardians, without fear of negative consequences. When youth report that they are experiencing
issues at home, school or elsewhere, their concerns should always be taken seriously.
• Consider providing alternative learning environments for more students beginning in middle school;
too many are not able to succeed in a regular school setting.
• Community service opportunities are good for all middle and high school kids, especially those who
may be struggling in school and need success experiences.
• There is a significant need for more mentoring resources for youth, by both adults and peers.
• Youth need more opportunities for healthy recreation and activities. Children's and teen centers like
those operated by BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL OREGON are a promising approach,
especially if transportation issues can be resolved.
• Consider the role school buses could play in getting children and youth to after-school activities not
sited at schools.
• After-school programs that offer creative arts options may be more successful in engaging a
broader range of youth.
• To engage more youth in academic after school activities, consider using a system like that of Boys
& Girls Clubs Of Central Oregon and Redmond community schools in which youth trade homework
time for time in "fun" classes and activities.
• Prevention programs should have funds that can be used to facilitate their clients' (children, youth
and their family members) participation in sports and other positive activities inside and outside of
school ("flex "or "barrier removal" funds).
• Parents need a "clearinghouse" where they can go to get information about services and support
available to help them and their children.
• Consider contracting with Oregon State University's team (guided by Clara Pratt) that developed a
"parenting ladder" of training options for parents of younger children to do the same for parents of
10 to 17-year-olds.
• Use trained parent (peer) educators as well as professionals to provide parenting training for at-risk
families.
• Interventions that are designed to support troubled families in managing their lives and parenting
their children that continue over an extended period of time (18 months or more) are most likely to
have long-range impacts on children and youth.
• There should be more programs that can work with children and youth whose parents are resistant
to change, or even enabling negative behaviors; the family court could help by holding parents
-22-
accountable along with their children.
• Programs that work with higher-risk youth in groups should provide opportunities to work
separately with girls and boys to ensure that they are gender-responsive and therefore maximally
effective with both boys and girls.
• Consider expanding family drug court to include men as well as women with children, to have a
positive impact on more children of addicted parents.
• Provide more wraparound services and residential options for youth who can't go back to their
family homes (like the Loft).
• The County needs a shelter facility for youth who must be temporarily removed from their homes in
order to address behavioral and family issues.
Targeting Opportunities:
• There are a number of youth risk factors that may be relevant to the choice of target group and/or
treatment or program type for the CCF JCP dollars:
lack of caring adult
poor family functioning
substance abuse/addiction
chronic truancy,
peers and/or family with antisocial attitudes and values
families that move frequently
parents or other family members who are or have been on probation or in prison
• The optimal time to intervene with youth 10 to 17 to prevent them from committing crimes is when
they are in middle school.
• Consider further focusing on the transition years from elementary to middle and middle to high
school.
• Consider whether the target age range should be older for boys, since they reach puberty with its
associated challenges later than girls.
• The LaPine area is lower-income, with a higher rate of adult substance abuse putting children at
risk, so perhaps more JCP resources should be focused there.
Assessment Opportunities:
• All partner agencies need to develop a common language and understanding of risk and protective
factors, and expertise in using the JCP risk assessment tools.
• We should use the JCP instrument to identify those who are at risk and thus eligible for JCP-funded
programs.
-23-
In using the JCP risk assessment, we should consider looking not just at the number of risk factors
or domains in a youth's life, but also whether their risk factors are related to the program they are
being considered for (e.g., family functioning if the program is family-focused).
In any assessment process, we should look for strengths, i.e., the things that youth or family are
doing right that can be built upon (protective factors and more).
Performance Measurement Opportunities:
• One important measure of a juvenile crime prevention program's impact is the change in
participants' risk/protective factor profile. In interpreting observed changes, it is important to take
into account the possibility that initial assessments may be more positive than reassessments
because at first parents and children do not feel comfortable disclosing the full extent of their
difficulties to professionals they do not yet know and trust.
• Other outcome measures to consider for JCP programs in addition to avoiding referral to the
Juvenile Department are improved grades, increased attendance, and high school graduation or
earning a GED.
• Partner agencies should collect, analyze and publish data and findings on outcomes of JCP
programs in a format agreed upon by all stakeholders. One index that could be used is return on
investment, or ROI.
Outcomes should be regularly published to keep partners and the public informed about results
achieved and to provide the basis for fine-tuning to improve outcomes as necessary.
-24-
Observations and Recommendations
Teri Martin, Ph.D.
April 2010
Deschutes County has many strengths that can be built on to enhance its juvenile crime
prevention (XP) efforts
• Skilled, experienced and committed staff, managers and administrators of agencies that
are key to JCP.
Business people and other citizens who are willing to invest their time, talents and
resources in the children, youth and families of Deschutes County.
• A continuum of excellent early childhood intervention and prevention programs.
• Evidence-based programs that serve high-risk youth
• Innovative programs that support children, youth and families with health, mental health,
and school-related issues and concerns.
There are also several challenges that Deschutes County must address in order to make
progress in JCP.•
• Resource scarcity is likely to worsen before it improves.
Key agencies in JCP cooperate but they do not collaborate on an ongoing basis.
Loss of the waiver permitting investment of CCF JCP funds in programs for younger
children threatens continued stability of key early childhood interventions.
• Most Deschutes County professionals who work with youth are not familiar with or trained
in the use of the JCP risk assessment tool that is required to be used to determine eligibility
for JCP-funded programs.
In order to put in place a comprehensive and effective juvenile crime prevention system,
Deschutes County policymakers must recognize that how they do this work is just as important
as what gets done.
• True collaboration involves all partners bringing their resources to the table and being
willing to make decisions together about how best to use them. It is about sharing the risks
and the rewards of innovation. Deschutes County needs to revitalize the collaborative JCP
policy and program development process that used to characterize the County.
• Deschutes County has been a national leader in juvenile justice and JCP practice, and it is
time to take the lead again. Innovation (being on the cutting edge) requires prudent risk-
taking by leaders who have a clear vision of where they are headed and what it will take to
make the journey, and who motivate others to travel with them.
• Resource scarcity should motivate agencies not to defend their ""turf" but rather to work
together to make optimal use of their collective capacities.
-25-
• There should be an ongoing mechanism (JCP planning or advisory body) to continue the
work that the Partnership Group has begun, with broad representation and involvement of
those in decision-making roles, both in the public and private sectors, throughout the
County.
• JCP is a high priority for everyone in Deschutes County, and agencies doing this work
should redouble their efforts to engage citizens and the business community in donating
their time, talents and monetary resources to JCP programs.
• Agencies should invest in their most precious resource, their staff, by providing them with
training that builds their skills and encourages and enables them to collaborate with
professionals in other agencies.
Having a strategy and resources devoted to measuring and reporting JCP program impacts
and results (not just to funders and other professionals, but also to the community as a whole)
is essential to sustaining momentum in JCP work.
-26-
Signature Page
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
REVIEW AND COMMENTS
Deschutes County
The Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council has reviewed
the High Risk Juvenile Crime Prevention plan for 2009-2013. Any comments and
recommendations are attached.
Name of the Chair:
Address:
Telephone No.
Signature:
Date:
Comments & Recommendations:
Attachment 3
ACTIVE AND INACTIVE PROBATION
Division 206
NOI to Amend and Temporary Adoption
291-206-0005 Authority, Purpose, and Policy
(1) Authority: The authority for this rule is granted to the Director of the Department of
Corrections in accordance with ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530.
(2) Purpose: The purpose of these rules is to describe the manner in which an offender
sentenced to probation under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission may be
emplaced on inactive supervision or returned to active supervision in accordance with the
provisions of Or Laws 2009 Ch 660.
(3) Policy:
(a) It is the policy of the Department of Corrections that eligible offenders sentenced to
probation may be considered by the supervisory authority for a reduction in the period of
active probation for compliance with conditions of probation and their supervision plan
pursuant to Or Laws 2009 Ch 660, as provided in these rules.
(b) Offenders whose supervision has been transferred to another state under the
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision are ineligible for inactive probation
under these rules.
(c) These rules apply to offenders convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 2011,
and who are on probation on or after February 24, 2010.
111..,,111,,.:: of arative probation supervisi
(b) An offender- plaE@a--vn-=rrluEtive ProvcrcTVrr scup
tti`V e. " VFFV nder's best ipAefest or- the best interest of s fat`• of the . n t.,
{.1111
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
291-206-0010 Definitions
(1) Active Probation Supervision: Supervision requiring the supervising officer's regular
contact and monitoring to assure continued compliance with the general and special
conditions of probation supervision.
(2) Compensatory Fines: A court-imposed penalty for the commission of a crime resulting in
injury for which the person injured has a remedy by civil action (unless the issue of punitive
damages has been previously decided on a civil case arising out of the same act and
transaction). The court may award compensatory fines in addition to restitution.
(3) Compliance with the Conditions of Probation and Supervision Plan: For purposes of
these rules an eligible offender shall be deemed by the supervisory authority to be in
compliance with the conditions of probation and any applicable supervision plan if:
Temporary Adoption Effective 3123110 Div 206 - Page 2 of 5 N01 to Amend 3123110 (a) All
special conditions imposed by the sentencing court for the offender on the term of
probation under consideration for inactive supervision have been satisfactorily
completed, including the full payment of any restitution or compensatory fine ordered;
(b) There have been no technical violations of probation conditions reported to the
sentencing court for the immediate six months prior to the consideration for inactive
status;
(c) There have been no new crime violations of probation conditions reported to the
sentencing court during the term of probation under consideration for inactive
supervision; and
1
t
Attachment 3
(d) All terms of any applicable supervision plan have been satisfied.
(!L3) Inactive Probation Supervision: A reduced level of supervision that does not include
any direct supervision by a supervising officer or regular reporting; however, the
offender remains subiect to arrest by a supervising officer for violations of condition of
supervision and return to active supervision at any time until expiration of the term of
probation. SupeFvisien in whieh the eff-ender- remains under- however-, the
All general and special conditions of supervision sly-remain in effect with the following
exceptions:
(a) General Condition #1 - Pay supervision fees (fines, restitution or other fees
previously ordered by the court remain in effect) "T'h......e no addi.ienal super -vision fees;
and
(b) Special conditions specifically deleted by the court.
Seetiens (a) and (b) above do fiet apply te these offenders being supen,ised in another- sWe
(L4) Offender: Any person under supervision who is on parole, post-prison supervision,
transitional leave, local control or probation status. These ..:'.es apply to eft nde's se..__..
te-prebation.
(L&) Supervising Officer: The A-parole and probation officer assigned to supervise the
offender.
(L6) Supervisory Authority: The state or local corrections agency or official designated in
each county by that county's Board of County Commissioners or county court to operate
correction supervision services, custodial facilities, or both per ORS 144.087(1).
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
291-206-0015 Period of Active Probation Supervision
(1) Except as provided in Not withstanding subsections (2),LapA-(3) and 4 of this rule
see ien, all persons convicted of a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989 and
sentenced to probation under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall
serve a minimum period of active probation supervision as follows:
(a) Nine months of active probation supervision for crimes in crime categories 1 and 2;
(b) Twelve months of active probation supervision for crimes in crime categories 3, 4, and 5;
(c) Eighteen months of active probation supervision for crimes in crime categories 6, 7, and
8; or Temporary Adoption Effective 3123110 Div 206 - Page 3 of 5 NOI to Amend 3123110 (d)
Thirty months of active probation supervision for crimes in crime categories 9, 10, and 11.
(2) All persons convicted of a felony and who are subject to a departure sentence as
authorized by OAR 213-005-0008(2) shall serve a minimum period of active supervision,
which equals one-half of the supervision period ordered by the sentencing court.
(3) All persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to probation pursuant to ORS 137.012
shall serve a minimum period of active supervision, which equals one-half of the supervision
period ordered by the sentencing court.
(4) All persons convicted of a felony committed before November 1, 1989 and sentenced to
probation shall serve a minimum period of active supervision, which equals one-half of the
supervision period ordered by the sentencing court.
(5) When an eligible offender has served the minimum period of active probation supervision
established under subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this rule, the supervisory authority may
place the offender on inactive supervision status in the manner provided in these rules.
2
Attachment 3
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
291-206-0020 Inactive Supervision
1 Upon completion, anytime after- the e.,. 1 , f the minimum period of active
supervision as authorized in OAR 291-206-0015, the supervising officer or designee shall
review the offender's file and determine if the offender is in compliance with the
offender's probation conditions and any applicable supervision plan as defined in these
rules.
(a) If the supervising officer or designee determines that the offender is in compliance,
the su ervisin officer shall recommend to
. sing he off-ender or designee must ~ ques the supervisory authority that it place
the offender on inactive probation supervision, not to exceed the supervision term imposed
by the sentencing court under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and
applicable laws, if the ff a ti substantially plied with the nditions of p ebation
their- super-vision plan, and has paid any eew4 efder-ed restitutien or- eempefisatery - Upon
receiving a request from the supervising officer, the supervising authority shall place
the offender on inactive probation supervision if the supervisory authority determines
that the offender is in compliance with probation conditions and any applicable
supervision plan as defined in these rules.
(b) If the supervising officer or designee determines that the offender is not in
compliance with the conditions of probation and any applicable supervision plan, the
supervisory authority shall extend the period of active probation supervision for the
remainder of the supervision period imposed by the sentencing court under the rules of
the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and applicable laws.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) (b) of this rule, the supervising authority may later
place the offender on inactive probation supervision upon request of the supervising
officer if the supervisory authority determines that the offender has subsequently come
into compliance with the conditions of probation and any applicable supervision plan,
and that inactive probation supervision for the offender is in the best interest of the
offender and the community.
(3) Offenders on or Requesting Compact Supervision in Another State: Temporary
Adoption Effective 3123110 Div 206 - Page 4 of 5 NOI to Amend 3123110 (a) Offenders
whose supervision has been transferred to another state under the Interstate Compact
for Adult Offender Supervision are ineligible for inactive probation under these rules.
(b) An offender requesting to leave the State of Oregon to reside in another state while
on inactive supervision must receive approval for transfer of the offender's supervision
through the Interstate Compact process before being allowed to do so.
(2) When an offender is on inactive supervision or is being supervised via Interstate
Compact, the general and special conditions of supervision shall remain in effect with the
following exceptions for those offenders being supervised in the State of Oregon:
(a) General Condition #1: Pay supervision fees (fines, restitution or other fees previously
ordered by the court remain in effect); and
(b) Special conditions specifically deleted by the court.
(3) There is no direct supervision by a supervising officer and no requirement for regular
reporting. This does not apply to those being supervised via Interstate Compact;
(4) An offender requesting to leave the State of Oregon to reside in another state while on
inactive supervision must go through the Interstate Compact process before being allowed to
do so.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
3
Attachment 3
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
291-206-0025 Return to Active Supervision
(1) An offender remains is subject to arrest for violations of conditions of supervision while
on inactive probation supervision.
(2) Once an offender has been placed on inactive probation supervision, the supervisory
authority may return an offender to active probation supervision for the remainder of the
supervision period imposed by the sentencing court under the rules of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission and applicable laws, when the supervisory authority receives a report
from a parole and probation officer showing good cause why the inactive probation
supervision status is no longer in the offender's best interest or in the best interest or safety
of the community.
(3) If the supervisory authority has good cause to return an offender to active probation
supervision, and the whereabouts of the offender is unknown, the supervising parole and
probation officer may request that the supervisory authority or the court issue a warrant for
the offender's arrest.
(4) After reviewing the report submitted under subsection (2) of this rule, the supervisory
authority may return the offender to active probation supervision status not to exceed the
supervision term imposed by the sentencing court under the rules of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission and applicable laws, if the supervisory authority finds that returning the
offender to active probation supervision inactive status is no longer in the offender's best
interest of the offender and or the best interest or safety of the community.
(5) When an offender is returned to active probation supervision status, all general conditions
and plus all previously imposed special conditions shall be in effect.
(6) Once returned to active probation supervision after a period of inactive probation
supervision, the supervisory authority parole and probation officer may a gin lace the
offender on inactive probation supervision upon request of the supervising officer if the
supervisory authority determines that the Temporary Adoption Effective 3123110 Div 206
- Page 5 of 5 NOI to Amend 3123110 offender has subsequently come into compliance
with the conditions of probation and any applicable supervision plan, and that inactive
probation supervision for the offender is when the offender has substantially complied
with the conditions of probation, their supervision plan, or active supervision is no longer in
the best interest of the offender and the community.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
291-206-0030 Sentence Expiration
(1) During the pendency of any violation proceedings, the running of the supervision period
and the sentence is stayed, and the court has jurisdiction over the offender until the
proceedings are resolved.
(2) These rules shall not preclude more than one renewal of active probation supervision;
however, a renewal of active probation supervision may not exceed the supervision term
imposed by the sentencing court under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
and applicable laws.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030, 423.075, Or Laws 2009 Ch 660
4