2011-3088-Minutes for Meeting October 03,2011 Recorded 11/21/2011COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS 4J 7411.3488
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
111111111 11/21/2011 08:11:43 AM
I I IIII it IIIIII 1111111 III
2011-3088
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
QGV~ JTES CO`Z<
MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011
Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR
MINUTES OF MEETING
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioner Anthony DeBone; Interim
County Administrator Erik Kropp; District Attorney Patrick Flaherty; Beth
Bagley, District Attorney's Office; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Donna
McClung, Oregon Youth Authority; Shelly Smith, KIDS Center; Dave Tarbet,
Redmond Police Chief; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Mike Espinoza, Sheriff's Office; and
Scott Johnson and Kathy Drew, Health Services.
Also present were Carl Rhodes, OSP, Denney Kelley, Black Butte Ranch Police
Department; Roger Olson, NAMI, Rob Poirier, 911; Jeff Sale, Bend Police
Department; Jacques DeKalb, defense attorney; citizen member Dave Cook, and
Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. No other citizens were present.
1. Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan opened the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
Jeff Sale, the new Bend Police Chief, introduced himself and said that he has
been trying to get acclimated over the past couple of months, learning,
listening and watching. Previously he was Chief in Cheney, Washington for
seven years.
New citizen member Dave Cook also introduced himself. He said he was a
resident of Benton County until five years ago. He was involved in law
enforcement there, as the elected Sheriff from 1989 to 1995, and Director of
the Oregon Department of Corrections from 1995 to 2002, at which time he
retired.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 1 of 6 Pages
The other attendees then introduced themselves.
2. August Minutes
Ernie Mazorol moved approval of the minutes; Eileen Stein seconded, and the
minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Public Comment
Roger Olson, representing NAMI, spoke about the crisis intervention team
program, which is moving ahead. The crisis intervention team helps officers in
the field with appropriate training so they can properly deal with individuals
experiencing mental health issues.
4. Sex Offender Services
Kathy Drew of Health Services/Behavioral Health explained the need for
services to treat sex offenders. It is a struggle to assess and treat sex offenders,
especially those with developmental disabilities. It is hard to make good
decisions when dealing with this population. Many are underage and in those
cases, the parents control much of what happens.
A program in the valley, a professional community therapeutic network, deals
primarily with youth in a residential setting. This provides a tight program
with individual treatment from families that have received a lot of training.
The consequences of behavior are strictly enforced. She had two clients go
through this program who are now living well independently.
She would like to see this program developed on a local level, but there needs
to be an economy of scale to be able to operate in this area. Two to four beds
would have to be available. Having just two would mean that they would have
to bring in seven others from other places, and community support for this type
of residential care is difficult to get.
She asked if there are some ways to collaborate on this, with assessment and
treatment occurring on a local level. They need to have the expertise here.
They already do some adult treatment, but the focus on the young adults. The
agency is a private nonprofit but her clients are handled through State funding,
and are funded per individual.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 2 of 6 Pages
Scott Johnson said that his department has the responsibility of vetting this
before other agencies and groups. There is not enough need for local people,
but it would require the County to assume responsibility for people from other
areas. At this point, he is not convinced there is enough need locally.
This is viewed as a State program, but the State just wants to make sure the
beds are full wherever they are.
Ms. Drew said they have placed people in the valley in the past, but it would
be nice if they could stay closer to home. In regard to siting, it would be a
battle, but the places where the programs are located in the valley could
support these efforts. The housing selected is based on Fair Housing laws.
Ernie Mazorol asked who decides which location is best. Ms. Drew stated she
has helped site a dozen residential facilities for people with developmental
disabilities, and they try to be as transparent as possible, and offer support and
answers to concerns.
Eileen Stein said she has a hard time believing there are only two people here
who would fit into this program. Others agreed. Ms. Drew stated that she has
400 clients, some of whom have already been identified and placed. Ken
Hales feels there are many more who have not been identified.
Dave Cook said about one-third of the population in prison are sex offenders.
Ms. Drew stated that this program is for very specific needs. The group also
works with developing independent living skills.
Judge Sullivan asked if there is any statistical information on how this
treatment has impacted law enforcement. Ms. Drew stated that while the
individuals are in the program, they are tightly controlled and there are fewer
contacts with law enforcement. Judge Sullivan said that giving people the
proper skills makes a big difference. Ms. Drew stated they do constant testing.
Sheriff Blanton asked who does not want to move forward on this. Scott
Johnson stated that the County needs to make the decision. Ms. Drew said that
the need is yet to be assessed. Chair Baney asked if this is similar to Telecare,
with a private provider who could contract with the State or others direct and
bypass the County. Ms. Drew said this is new, and she understands they have
to have local approval to proceed.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 3 of 6 Pages
5. Court Business Operations
Ernie Mazorol briefed everyone on the Court's reduction in services. There
were several service reductions and they are now down about 18% on staffing.
He has tried to come up with some kind of analogy to explain the problem.
There are holes in service everywhere.
Traffic school is an important program that is staff-intense and has been
eliminated. Also, phone calls are being handled only before 2 p.m. They are
also taking State furlough days.
The impact is a significant data entry backlog, and it is hard to staff even the
Courtrooms. They continue to reorganize to meet the level of cuts.
The legislature is going into the February session and the Courts have been
asked to reduce their budgets even more. They will not be able to sustain these
cuts and remain open, so will have to close the doors one day a week to get the
work done if they are cut another 10%.
Judge Sullivan said they had six courtrooms with one court reporter, with the
rest being handled by a judicial assistant. There used to be two pages for
special programs; now they have one, at least for now. Filings are down from
last year; but they are still processing about as many. This creates difficulties
for law enforcement since the phones aren't answered between 2 and 5 p.m.
He is concerned that they will end up being only a criminal courthouse. There
are other necessary services, such as 700 dissolutions, handled by the pro-se
clerk. They will try to be open every day, but there have to be some tough
decisions made and soon. The impact on corrections will be known by about
the end of November.
6. Early Disposition Program.
District Attorney Flaherty said that the fast track program was dispensed with,
as it was not functioning well. OPBS has asked to look at it again. Beth
Bagley researched this, and found that ORS says PSCC shall establish an early
disposition program. There need to be appropriate guidelines established in
cooperation with courts and defense so that the cost can be determined.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Ms. Bagley said the non-violent crime unit would fall under the umbrella for
early disposition. She has drafted guidelines for review. The purpose of fast
track is to balance resources all around, for certain crimes or to minimize court
appearances. This is applicable for non-violent crimes such as criminal
trespass, driving was suspended, and so on.
She tried to draft guidelines that might be implemented in the future, but they
are probably not workable for an attorney who has a client in jail. There needs
to be no criminal history or a limited criminal history. Sheriff Blanton said he
would like to see some consideration of people in jail beds; Mr. Flaherty
replied that most of the time they probably would not qualify. Sheriff Blanton
said that people get lost in the shuffle and then there are issues. He would like
to see this enhanced or at least those who might benefit protected. Judge
Sullivan stated that he wants to be sure it meets requirements to avoid
reversals.
Eileen Stein asked if this would work like a plea bargain. Mr. Flaherty said
yes; it would be significant to do this before the second court appearance.
They are only eligible for this program once. It was not working at first
because cases were not getting resolved fast enough.
Judge Sullivan said it is important to law enforcement agencies. If they have
to appear on a day off, this results in overtime. A simple trespass case could
cost $300 by the time you figure in the time spent. He would like to present
this to the judges and the indigent defense group.
Sheriff Blanton noted that this should not be a quick track for people to not be
held responsible for their actions. He wants the victims to have their day as
well. Ms. Stein added that public perception could be that this is a `get out of
jail free' card. There need to be consequences to their actions.
Judge Sullivan observed that the voters said what they want. No more jail
space. Sheriff Blanton added that this leaves law enforcement and the courts
having to figure something out while not giving up the farm.
This may be addressed further at the November 7 PSCC meeting.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 5 of 6 Pages
7. Other Business
Mr. Mazorol asked if the legislative delegation should be invited again to come
to a PSCC meeting. Chair Baney suggested he check out a couple of dates to
give them a choice, and see what works for them.
Judge Sullivan noted that everyone is facing significant problems, and their
support is needed.
There being no other issues discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A:
Agenda
Exhibit B:
Sign-in Sheets
Exhibit C:
PTCN Development Proposal
Exhibit D:
PSA regarding Reduce Court Hours
Exhibit E:
Early Disposition Program
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 6 of 6 Pages
Board of County Commissioners Department Update and Facility Tour
November 9, 2011; 1:30 PM, LaCombe Room,
2nd Floor Denis Maloney Juvenile Community Justice Building
1:30 - 2:20 Quarterly Update
Detention Gym Floor Project
2. Digital Finger Print Laptops
3. Choices Program
4. Lane County IT Project
5. North County Building
6. Oregon Youth Authority Parole & Probation Concept
2:30 - 3:15 Juvenile Detention Facility Tour
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
~G~vies co`
o
October 3, 2011; 3:30 pm
Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR
Agenda
I Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan
II August Minutes Attachment 1
Judge Sullivan
Action: Approve August minutes
III Public Comment
Judge Sullivan
IV Sex Offender Services Attachment 2
Kathy Drew
Confer with Council members on sex offender service needs
V Court Business Operations
Ernie Mazorol
Brief Council on changes in operations
VI Early Disposition Program Attachment 3
Patrick Flaherty
Brief Council members on
VII Other Business
Judge Sullivan
z
z
t^
W
4
W
J
a
N
J
M
N
C
O
H
O
L
M
0117
O
- cn
j
_
7~
c_A
v
1
z
QJ
-F
c
cu
E
of
c
_
O
m
v
co
a,
CL
z
z
a
H
W
to
.Q
W
J
a
r--
N
w
L
N
J3
Q
V
C
*r_
~
e
ft'~~~.
V_
0
`
ql
O
vn~,
~
N
Q
3
v
v
0
m
0
SS~psAl THERgAFG~
O~MUNITY NE114
June 7, 2011
Kathy Drew
Deschutes County SPD
1340 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR
RE: PTCN Development Proposal
2905 River Road South
Salem, OR. 97302
503.391.7175
Fax: 503.585.3303
Professional Therapeutic Community Network (PTCN) is a community-based organization
committed to meeting the needs of individuals who have range of serious mal-adaptive
behaviors. PTCN utilizes a Residential 24 hr Care and Intensive Therapeutic Proctor Home
model supported by a comprehensive Master Service & Treatment Plan and a team of
highly-trained Residential Counselors, Proctor Parents, Skills Trainers and Therapists. In
addition to these placement models, PTCN also provides out-patient services.
PTCN is a licensed child care agency through Child Welfare DHS and licensed 24 hr Facility
through Seniors and Peoples with Disabilities. PTCN has been providing services in the
Salem and Portland area since 1997. PTCN was founded by Jesse L. Watson, MA CCSOT who
is the Chief Executive Officer.
PTCN specializes in working with youth and adults who have a blend of mental health,
mental retardation-developmental disability, and criminal behaviors. PTCN provided
intensive clinical services in a community based setting that is systematically woven into
the structure and routines of individuals placed in a PTCN program. PTCN also provides
out-patient services to youth and adults in the community.
PTCN's treatment programs use a proprietary tracking system to monitor the youth's
movement through trauma informed Neuro-Developmental Stages. Daily tracking enables
the targeting of specific developmental tasks which need to be addressed to ensure client
progress and resolve ineffective coping strategies. PTCN believes that people with even the
most severe mal-adaptive behaviors can be integrated into positive community settings,
and that the levels of support should balance individual needs with community safety.
PTCN's highly-trained Residential Counselors, Therapists, Skills Trainers and Proctor
Parents accomplish this by actively integrating the individual and their supporting family,
culture, level of development, and learning style. The members of PTCN's therapeutic
community work to support each other and to insure the best outcomes for the individual
and families they serve. We network with the community to provide continuity of care in all
domains of person's life to enhance treatment and motivate change. We strive for integrity
in all domains of the person's growth and development.
PTCN's primary mission is the "Prevention of Sexual Abuse". We have found the most
effective way to achieve this mission is to intervene with youth and adults who have already
sexually offended or persons' who are on a trajectory to offend if not properly interrupted.
PTCN does this through comprehensive Assessment/Evaluation, Treatment, High Structure,
Supervision & Management strategies.
PTCN has seen the need for this type of service in the Bend area for many years, as a
number of our clients are from this area but due the severity of need for services the
individual is moved out of the community and placed in the Willamette Valley. Many youth
who become adults in PTCN programs never return to their families or natural support
environments. PTCN would like to provide another alternative for individuals in the Bend
area and be a resource for the State/County in Prevention Sexual Abuse.
PTCN is proposing the following in brief:
1. PTCN would like to purchase/lease 2-3 residential homes of 3 placement beds for
individuals who are MR/DD. The age range of the homes would be focused on
meeting the needs of the area under Kathy Drew. Initially, we would propose
starting with an 18-27 yr old home (3 beds) and develop from this point.
2. PTCN would provide clinical services for all its clients except medication
management as we are not able to provide this at this time. This intervention is
provided under the individual's OHP.
3. PTCN would have an out-patient office to provide out-patient services to children,
adolescents, and adults with sexually aggressive behavior problems. Services would
range from Risk Assessment to Multifamily Group, Peer Group, and Individual
Treatment Sessions. We would also have the ability to provide skills training and
mentoring to designated youth and adults.
4. PTCN would also be exploring options for providing intensive therapeutic proctor
care for youth in the Child Welfare and MR/DD systems.
5. PTCN is not asking for any start-up funds from the county or state. PTCN would be
self funded for start-up.
PTCN is looking forward to exploring the opportunity to develop a meaningful resource in
Bend. You can contact me at (503) 391-7175 x103.
Changing Lives for Life,
Jesse L. Watson, MA CCSOT
CEO
Proposal for a Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program
Starting in July of 2011 the State office of Senior's and People with Disabilities (SPD) will begin a new
contracting process. The State will have a direct contract with provider agencies which means that
Counties will no longer have the funds contracted to them and then have to turn around and
subcontract those funds to our local providers. The State will be responsible for assuring that providers
meet all the qualifications to provide the named services within the State. The Counties will have the
responsibility to determine the providers and services that are needed with in their County. Counties
will authorize the services and rates for each client and the providers will then be able to bill the State
for the services provided to those individuals.
We have been approached by Professional Therapeutic Community Network's (PTCN) director Jesse
Watson regarding their interest in opening two or three homes for three adults each. These would be
individuals with sexual behavior problems and eligible for services as persons with developmental
disabilities. In the past individuals needing these services had to be placed at programs in Portland or
Salem to receive the treatment needed. One young man from our County was placed in a PTCN
program several years ago and has graduated from that program and continues to live successfully in
the community. We currently have several individuals over or close to the age of 18 who are placed in
programs outside the County who could return to their home community and family if the resources
were available here. We also have placed 7 younger children in programs outside of the area because
we could not meet their needs here.
The presence of this program in our community would b also bring in resources for other adults and
children needing out-patient sex therapy. Mental Health and Adult and Juvenile Correction programs
have clients in need of both the assessment and treatment services that could be provided by PTCN.
One dilemma is that while we definitely have a need for these residential treatment services in our
County the need will not necessarily be equal to the number of beds needed to provide the funding to
support the program. There will likely be a need to fill some of those beds with clients from out of the
area. I'm sure the program would need to be very close to full to be able to continue operating. The
State covers the costs of the residential program but Deschutes DD program would be responsible for
providing the case management and crisis intervention services if needed. Over time there would be
some additional funding based on the number of people we serve but it is not generated on a per case
basis.
The other difficulty may be the citing of these homes. In the DD program we have always worked with
the neighbors to tell them about the program prior to opening new homes. We have opened over 15
five bed homes for people with developmental disabilities in the County and have only had difficulties
with one neighbor. Although the added concerns about these people with developmental disabilities
also having sexual issues could make this a much more difficult process.
The plan is to discuss the possibility of having a PTCN residential program in Deschutes County with the
County Administration, the Mental Health Advisory Board, the Developmental Disabilities Planning
Committee and other service providers and agencies in the community to determine if having these
services would be an overall benefit for the County.
Proposal for a Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program
Response from the Local DD Planning Committee
The Planning Committee met on June 21 and their agenda included a discussion of the proposal from
PTCN. They identified the following positive aspects and concerns.
Positives:
The Program would bring needed resources and expertise to our community.
This could allow people to remain in their community and get their needs met.
This could allow people who have been placed away from the community to get their needs met may be
able to return home and still receive the services they need.
Community Safety-the program would have 24 hour monitoring of residents.
The Program would raise awareness and provide information on Sex offending populations
The program would also provide outpatient services for other individuals in the area in need of services.
Concerns:
There would be Community resistance due to fear and questions about bringing in sex offenders who
have no connection with our community.
Questions-could we grow these services locally, more incrementally. (There are no current providers
in our area willing to add this service at this time. We will continue to work with them on what it would
take to provide this service.)
Availability of work force
Availability of medical (Medicaid) services
What is PTCN going to do about educating the community/public?
Concerns about the negative impact on the community's perception of individuals with DD.
Response from Regional Partners
Our region consists of Crook, Jefferson, Lane and Deschutes Counties and Warm Springs. There was
agreement that it would be a benefit to the region to have these resources available locally for many
individuals needing treatment. These would be individuals with and without Developmental Disabilities.
Our regional partners were not able to identify any current clients who were in need of this residential
service. Lane County has the programs available in their county already through another provider.
Jefferson County identified one individual who could benefit from the counseling services but did not
need the residential service.
Proposal for a Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program
RESPONSE FROM THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD
The proposal and the notes on the responses from the other groups were presented to the Behavioral
Health Advisory Board on July 20, 2011. There was a discussion of the various ways this program would
bring needed services to the area. They too expressed concerns that we could not demonstrate the
need locally for the service at this time and to be viable the program would need to house 9 individuals
who would then need to come from other areas of the State. Members of the group did ask that we
take this proposal to other groups who provide services to individuals with sex offender issues to see if
there was any way we could identify a combined need to justify the program and to discuss any other
ways we could collaborate to bring additional services for this population to the community.
Media Contact: Ernest J. Mazorol, III
Phone: 541-388-5300 Ext. 2690
Public Service Announcement
Prepared by the Deschutes County Circuit Court
Effective August 15, 2011, telephone services and the public file viewing room at the Deschutes
County Courthouse are closed daily from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. During this period, the public
may not dial extensions, leave phone messages, fax documents or view case files. Public service
counters will remain fully open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily at the Deschutes County
Justice Building.
These steps must be taken due to on-going budget reductions since July 1, 2009. The Court has
lost 8.78 positions when mandatory furloughs (unpaid time off) are included (15.7% of its total
workforce). Mandatory furloughs are expected to continue. Positions were cut from
administration, programs and operations. Unfortunately, due to the most recent loss of positions
the Court can no longer remain fully open in two separate buildings and still meet the
community's service needs and statutory requirements.
The Deschutes County Circuit Court conducts services in the Justice Building (1100 NW Bond)
and the Courthouse (1164 NW Bond). The Justice Building contains seven circuit courtrooms;
public service counters to file documents, make payments and obtain information; and operations
to schedule cases, process traffic violations, financial record keeping, etc. The Courthouse
contains a public file viewing room; operations to manage active court records, a 30 line
telephone switchboard, mail processing/photo copy center, judgments/data entry, and support
services.
-o-preserve legal requirements, courtrooriris -must continue to operate at near capacity. In
addition, fully accessible service counters must remain open for those who attend court, file
documents and make payments. To maintain these essential services, staff adjustments were
required. These adjustments caused resource imbalances that compromised routine business
operations and threatened the normal and timely flow of financial and case records. Service
reductions were imposed to rebalance resources, so the community's legal matters could be
processed and sustained. These steps were taken to minimize backlogs that threaten the
administration of justice. If further reductions are imposed, adjustments beyond those noted
above may be required.
August i. 2011
The graph below depicts case filings trends for the past six years. Civil is up 51 domestic
relations is up 10%, and criminal is flat. To sustain this growth with less resources and aging
technology, service reductions are required.
Case Filings
22,784
23,486
23,
22,94
3
25000
,740
21,740
20,284
20,411
20000
CIVIL
we
15000
2
2
359
Z,381
2,437
2,5-'2
452
2
DOMESTIC
REL
,
,
ATIONS
Y
10000
.7 049
`
6,660
7,114
6;863
7847'
;154
-
VIOLATIONS
5000
- CRIMINAL
°~96
1,040 :
1,Li 1
; 1,157 -
1,151 '
OTHER
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
The Court recognizes the inconvenience this causes but the orderly pace of criminal, civil and
domestic relations cases is essential to the well being of society. Keeping legal matters moving
as efficiently as possible through the Court system addresses ever pressing public safety,
children, family and business issues for the community. For this to remain possible, staff require
dedicated time to process the significant volume of new and current filings so matters can be
scheduled and court records properly maintained.
Questions regarding court services may be directed to:
Deschutes County Circuit Court
541-388-5300
August 3. 2011
9/30/11
Early Disposition Program ("EDP") draft guidelines:
Purpose: To hold offenders accountable for their crimes, ensure prompt resolution of criminal
matters, protect the rights of the public and offender, and maximize the use of community
resources to provide alternative sanctions to criminal behavior in an effort to reduce costs to
the criminal justice system. ORS 135.942
Scope: First-time, nonviolent offenders and violators of probation, in addition to other eligible
entrants as described below, may be considered for the EDP. Nonviolent offenses include non-
person Class C felonies as defined by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and Class A, B
and. C non-person misdemeanors.
Eligible entrants:
• Defendants who are NOT in custody.
• Defendants with no prior criminal history:,.
• The DA has discretion to recommend defendants with limited criminal history into EDP,
if the circumstances of the case indicate it would be in the best interest of justice or for
the community.
• Defendants will not receive an EDP offer on a pending case if the case wasn't initially
filed as an EDP.
• Defendants with any pending non-EDP cases may not be considered for EDP unless the
proposed EDP case is a DUII for which the Defendant is otherwise diversion eligible by
statute and the`DA is recommending a DUll diversion.
• Defendants accepting the EDP offer must expressly waive any right to file motions
related to the criminal matter (e:g.'demurrers, suppression motions), in the plea
petition.
• The, decision to file a criminal'case as an EDP case is solely within the discretion of the
District Attorney's Office, and not all nonviolent crimes cases or probation violations
will be filed as EDP cases. The decision to file an EDP case will take into consideration
community safety, offender accountability, prior criminal history, likelihood of success
or re-offense, record of arrests, whether the offenses are predicate offenses for ORS
137.717, and whether doing so is consistent with public safety, the interest of justice,
the goals and purposes of ORS 135.942, and the policies and guidelines of the District
Attorney's Office.
Cases eligible for EDP:
• Non-person Class C felonies as and Class A misdemeanors as defined by the OCJC and
OAR 213-003-001(14), (15), Class B and C misdemeanors and probation violations.
NOTE: The DA's office will not be filing Class C felonies as EDP cases, at least initially.
The DA's office may offer early resolution incentives on felony cases through traditional
criminal case filings. The DA's office may decide at a later date to include Class C
felonies in the EDP.
• Cases that do not involve a substantial amount of restitution.
• Cases involving restitution are not appropriate for EDP unless the amount of restitution
has been determined prior to filing and can be paid in full by the date of EDP sentencing.
In these cases, the restitution amount should be clearly stated in the EDP offer, and
payment of restitution in full will be a condition of receiving the EDP recommended
sentence.
• Cases involving substantial amounts of restitution are not suitable for EDP, even if the
DA recommends civil compromise as a resolution, when it is unlikely that compromise
can be completed within 30 days.
• Cases involving probation violation(s) when the defendant is on supervised probation
with Deschutes County Parole & Probation should not be filed as EDP if the probation
department is recommending revocation and/or imposition of a jail sanction.
• Cases involving probation violation(s) for the commission. of new criminal offenses, law
violations, contact with a victim, or use/possession/consumption of alcohol or
controlled substances will not be filed in EDP.
• Cases in which the DA is recommending a jail sanction are not appropriate for EDP
unless the jail sanction/sentence is clearly stated as the recommended sentence in the
event that the Defendant fails to satisfy the terms of the EDP offer.
EDP offers:
• EDP cases shall include the EDP sentencing recommendation and the sentencing
recommendation. if the defendant fails to satisfy the terms of the EDP offer.
• The EDP offer must be accepted at the first appearance (arraignment).
• Defendants shall be sentenced pursuant to the EDP recommendation if all terms are
satisfied, at a sentencing hearing set by the court no later than 30 days after initial
appearance, unless upcoming court closures, holiday court schedules, or court staffing
concerns (i.e. jud'icial,conference) dictate a date no more than 37 days after the initial
appearance.
• If all terms of the EDP offer are not satisfied by the date of sentencing then the DA will
make the 'non-EDP sentencing recommendation.
• If the court determines at the time of sentencing that it is unwilling to follow the EDP or
non-EDP sentencing recommendation, then the Defendant shall be permitted to
withdraw his/her guilty plea. The case would then proceed as a non-EDP case for the
purposes of plea negotiation and court scheduling.
• Any Class C felonies that are filed as EDP will require that defendant execute a grand
jury waiver.
• In order for EDP to accomplish the goals and purpose set forth in ORS 135.942, it is
imperative that the Court commit to allowing no more than 2 appearances on EDP
cases, except under the most extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, there shall be
no more than 2 court appearances for any EDP case, unless good cause is shown to
allow for such. Good cause includes extraordinary circumstances like medical
emergency to the defendant, attorney(s), or judge, or immediate family member of that
person, or unanticipated travel delays caused by extreme weather (i.e. road closure due
to blizzard or wildfires).
• EDP offers are revoked if the Defendant fails to appear, for whatever reason, at
arraignment or sentencing.
• If an EDP offer is extended and a Defendant fails to appear at arraignment the case shall
proceed as any other non-EDP case for the purposes of negotiation and court
scheduling. The good cause exception does not apply to extend the EDP offer if the
defendant fails to appear at arraignment.
• Felonies filed as EDP cases may be reduced to a misdemeanor, but will not be dismissed
as part of an EDP sentencing recommendation except in the case of EDP offers of civil
compromise, or dismissal following successful completion of the terms of a conditional
discharge pursuant to ORS 475.245.
• EDP offers on driving offenses must also include sentencing recommendations of any
mandatory license and/or registration,suspensions.
EDP and financial obligations:
• EDP offers on cases involving restitution to a victim or injured party will require the full
payment of restitution by the date of sentencing as a condition of the EDP offer.
• All EDP offers will require the payment in ;full of mandatory court costs, fees or
assessments, in addition to any restitution or, compensatory fine.
• For EDP cases reduced to a misdemeanor upon satisfaction of the terms of the EDP offer
those financial obligations'are a $67,unitary assessment and $35 offense surcharge.
• For EDP cases reduced to a violation upon"satisfaction of the terms of the EDP offer
those financial obligations are a $37 unitary assessment and $45 offense surcharge
• EDP offers for probation violations will require payment of any delinquent supervision
or' monitoring fees if requested by the supervising or monitoring agency.
EDP and civil compromise pursuant to;ORS 135.703-135.709
• EDP offers of civil compromises may be offered at the discretion of the DA, but still
require'the payment of any court mandated costs, fees, or assessments, in addition to
amounts paid to the injured party as the civil compromise.
• If a victim orinjured party is unwilling to civilly compromise the case notwithstanding an
EDP offer of civil compromise, then the DA may still recommend a dismissal or reduction
of charge(s) if it is in the best interest of justice to do so. Alternatively, the EDP offer
may be revoked by the DA and the case shall proceed as a non-EDP case for the purpose
of negotiations and court scheduling if the DA determines that it is in the best interest
of justice to do so.
Notice to victims and other witnesses:
• The DA will provide notice to victims in EDP cases just as it would in any other non-EDP
case
• The court will not require the personal or telephonic appearance of probation officers or
monitoring agents at any EDP court appearance, although those persons may appear
voluntarily.
EDP and Discovery:
• Drug possession cases filed as EDP cases should have at least preliminary confirmation
of the nature, and/or amount of controlled substance (e.g. NIK test, weight of dried
marijuana). These cases will not be submitted to the OSP crime lab for testing unless
that testing has already been completed by OSP prior to the DA's decision to file the
case as an EDP case. A request to have official testing conducted by the OSP lab is not
good cause-for a delay or extension of the EDP proceedings.
• Discovery, including discovery of restitution and media, will be complete and available
at the time of arraignment on EDP cases.
4