In the debate on May 1, both county commissioner candidates agreed that 4002 implementation is the major issue facing the county. There has also been controversy about how the county is (under)utilizing grant resources.
There is a nexus between these two things that is worth discussing and I think offers some useful context for anyone who is still trying to decide who to vote for (probably nobody at this point).
For about 6 months I worked with a group of lawyers and judges to give a presentation about M110 to the Gus J. Solomon American Inn of Court (of which I am a member). As this presentation was being developed, the legislature was negotiating a bill to repeal M110 and HM4002 was the result of that bi-partisan effort. So, I have had a chance to review the Byzantine beast that is HB4002 in more detail than most people have (and, if you value your time and sanity, more than you should ever want to). Broadly, HB4002 uses the criminal law stick to force people to accept the deflection/diversion carrot and get into treatment. (These are great goals and I hope HB4002 is successful in realizing them.) The bill contemplates the heavy lifting of implementing deflection/diversion and treatment programs being borne by the counties and the funding coming from grants. I do not think that it is unfair to say that grant funding is essential and indispensable to actually implementing this law.
At the time of writing, Yamhill County has not applied for any of the $20.7 million available grant money to implement the deflection programs (See here). However, on April 24, the CJC (in charge of grant funds for deflection programs) contacted the county to gauge interest in setting up a deflection program. The county responded on April 26. Applications for grants are due July 1, and the details of the deflection program are being worked out by the county. Yamhill’s allocation of the available $20.7 million in deflection grant monies is $485,000.
On the topic of grants more generally. I am unaware of any studies regarding the stability of grant funding, but have since learned that the practice of relying on them is widespread to the point of virtual universality. From that you can draw your own conclusions about the funding uncertainty risk they represent.
It is altogether a different question whether grants are being abused as a Trojan horse to impose other policy requirements on local governments. As is too often that case in politics, the ostensible issue is really just a proxy for a deeper and more fundamental conflict.
In closing, I am not interested in flying a rescue mission for any particular candidate, but I do hope this provides people with extra information to make a well informed choice.
Comments