Oregon’s approach to solving addiction services is being called “absurd.” From Sept. 2019 until the first week of May 2020, more than 1,000 misdemeanor drug possession cases were initiated. Counties all over the state are struggling with an epidemic of addiction and death caused largely by opioids. In return, they’ve poured large portions of these budgets into law enforcement personnel and equipment, stealing critical funds from addiction rehabilitation services.
Washington County has phased in $1.5 million annually for deflection programs. All of these efforts are intended to redirect people from our criminal justice system. Close to $700,000 of these dollars were spent on new police officer salaries. Other counties have followed suit, prioritizing prosecutorial and law enforcement needs over addiction services, raising questions about the effectiveness of this strategy in combating drug addiction.
The money tells a predictable story. Resources that should be going toward treatment are being funneled to militarize law enforcement agencies. Yet this shift has caused panic among advocates and officials alike. They advocate for a more humane response to addiction, one that emphasizes treatment over criminalization.
Budget Allocations Reveal Prioritization of Law Enforcement
Looking through the budget allocations for various counties across Oregon, it tells a different story, one that highlights a heavy focus on expanding patrolling functions. Washington County has spent millions setting up the infrastructure for their district attorney’s office. They budgeted $283,487 to hire a high level deputy district attorney and $116,664 for a legal specialist. They set aside $257,335 for an additional sheriff’s lieutenant. This decision further illustrates their ongoing commitment to doing more to simply bolster law enforcement, rather than addressing the core issues driving addiction.
In Clackamas County, officials set aside $259,200 funding for one new senior district attorney. Harney County budgeted $83,052 for its district attorney’s office and sheriff to respond to the occupation. Nearby Yamhill County pledged $124,304 to fund a new district attorney and Union County set aside $70,000 to pay for a similar position. Crook County’s budget reflects an even higher prioritization of law enforcement. Its allocation of $129,000 for a sheriff’s position constitutes 86% of the county’s entire budget.
Marion County followed suit in this trend with plans to spend $81,000 on one new sheriff’s patrol vehicle. Clatsop County has already taken that brave step, investing $71,000 in two TruNarc spectrometers. This action underscores their focus on expanding and improving policing infrastructure rather than investing in treatment services.
“These funds are limited. It’s a zero-sum game,” – Grant Hartley
Hartley’s remark points to the deeper consequences of these budget decisions. He noted that funding a new district attorney position would likely mean eliminating two or three case managers. Without notifying them, this would put make-or-break contracts for addiction treatment—which are necessary for supporting recovery—at risk.
The Need for Alternative Approaches
Addiction treatment advocates say moving money to law enforcement defeats the initiative’s purpose of tackling addiction head-on. Parosa emphasized that establishing programs to deflect individuals from the criminal justice system requires strategic positioning outside traditional law enforcement frameworks.
“If we were going to do a program deflecting people away from the criminal justice system, it didn’t make a lot of sense to house it in the sheriff’s office or DA’s office,” – Parosa
We need to prioritize matching people up with peer navigators and intervention programs that can really meet them where they’re at in their situation.
“We wanted to get people to our peer navigators and from there to programming they need to address their personalized issues,” – Parosa
Advocates like Andy Ko highlight that the current model must change to prevent further loss of life due to addiction. He added that without a change in behavior, the outcomes will not change.
“To keep more people alive, we have to act differently,” – Andy Ko
Even Bill Stewart, who planted most of those trees, agrees. The proper intervention, he emphasizes, is usually centered on housing and pathways to treatment.
“The most cost-effective thing we can do is get people housed and treated,” – Bill Stewart
Such statements further evidence a vibrant coalition of stakeholders—including treatment providers, local politicians, and constituents—calling for a shift in funding priorities at the nexus of Oregon’s addiction services landscape.
A Call for Comprehensive Change
Critics say that moving funds takes away resources needed to fight addiction. They think it pours gasoline on existing systemic issues in policing. Grant Hartley describes the situation as the “epitome of the funds being used to supplement law enforcement dollars,” warning that without strict guidelines on grant allocations, the intended purpose of these funds becomes diluted.
“This is the epitome of the funds being used to supplement law enforcement dollars. When you put out a grant without any meaningful restrictions…this is what you end up with,” – Grant Hartley
The recent purchase of TruNarc spectrometers has raised some eyebrows. People are rightfully concerned that it will further entrench misconceptions about fentanyl exposure and its risks. Hartley argues that funding for such tools supports harmful myths instead of confronting reality.
“TruNarc was requested because of a myth about the dangers of fentanyl exposure. And by paying for it, you’re endorsing the myth,” – Grant Hartley
Despite these criticisms, some officials argue that tools like TruNarc can serve as harm reduction measures rather than instruments of criminalization.
“We view TruNarc not as a tool of criminalization, but as one of harm reduction and service connection,” – Kristen Hanthorn
As discussions continue around Oregon’s approach to addiction services and funding allocations, many stakeholders stress the necessity for a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes rehabilitation over prosecution.