Meeting Archives: August 5, 2026

August 5, 2026

Index

To go to a specific meeting material, click one of the links below to be taken to where the text begins on this page. 

• Agenda
  
• Revised Agenda (revised 8/4/26)
  
• Prior Meeting Minutes
  
• Oregon State Bar Indian Law Section Legislative Proposal Re: Supporting Amendments to ORS 24.105
  
• Oreogn Health Authority Civil Commitment and Aid and Assist Overview PPT 
  
• Oregon Health Authority Office of Tribal Affairs PPT
  

Agenda

Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health

• Website (opens new page)
• Email: sca.esd.tftsbh@ojd.state.or.us
• Contact: Channa Newell

Public Notice and Meeting Agenda

• Task  Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health
• Wednesday, August 5th
• 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm
• Remote Location: Public Webex Link
• In-Person Location: OJD Education and Training Center (Room 529), Justice Building 5th Floor, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301
• Welcome and Roll Call
• Review and Adoption of Minutes
• Review and Discussion of State Behavioral Health Systems
• 1. Processes for Civil Commitment
• 2. Processes for Aid and Assist/Competency
  
• 3. Payment and Reimbursement Pathways
• Overview of Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Tribal Engagement Efforts
• 1. Development of process to engage tribes when tribal member is within state aid and assist or civil commitment process
• 2. Goals for engagement
• 3. OHA engagement in rulemaking process
• Review and Discussion on Indian Law Proposal-Full Faith and Credit
• Discussion on Ways to Involve Persons with Lived Experiences
• Public Comment
• Homework and Next Steps
• Adjourn

Chair

• Hon. Naomi Stacy, Judge, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Vice Chair

• Hon. Denise Keppinger, Judge, Columbia County Circuit Court

Members

• First Lady Aimee Kotek Wilson
• Lisa Nichols, Manager, Intensive Forensic Services, Oregon Health Authority, Behavioral Health Division
• Leslie Wu, Policy Advisor, Department of Justice
• Kimberly Lindsay, Executive Director, Community Counseling Solutions
• Hon. Karen Costello, Chief Judge, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
• Hon. Gayleen Adams, Chief Judge, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
• Hon. Melissa Cribbins, Chief Judge, Coquille Indian Tribe
• Hon. Ronald Yockim, Chief Judge, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
• Hon. Patrick Melendy, Chief Judge, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde
• Sharon Stanphill, Chief Health Officer, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
• Cindy Cecil, Clinical Director of Behavioral Health, Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center
• Adrea Korthase, Indian Child Welfare Act Analyst, Office of the State Court Administrator

Staff

• Channa Newell, Senior Staff Counsel for Government Relations, Office of the State Court Administrator
• Kiely Lyons, Analyst, Office of the State Court Administrator

Revised Agenda (revised 8/4/26)

Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health

Public Notice and Meeting Agenda

REVISED 08 04 2026

Chair 

Vice Chair 

Members

Meeting Materials

Draft - Meeting Minutes (to be voted on at the next meeting)

Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health

Date: June 25, 2026

Time: 1:00-4:00 p.m.

Location: Hybrid

• In-Person Location:
• OJD Education and Training Center (Room 529)
• Justice Building, 5th Floor
• 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301
• Remote Location: WebEx Webinar

Members in Attendance: Lisa Nichols, Chief Judge Melissa Cribbins, First Lady of Oregon Aimee Kotek Wilson, Sharon Stanphill, Judge Denise Keppinger (Vice Chair), Chief Judge Gayleen Adams, Judge Naomi Stacy (Chair), Chief Judge Ronald Yockim, Chief Judge Karen Costello, Adrea Korthase, Chief Judge Patrick Melendy

Members Not in Attendance: Leslie Wu, Kimberly Lindsay, Cindy Cecil

Quorum: Yes (9)

Welcome

• Judge Stacy thanked everyone for attending and reviewed the purpose and goals of this Task Force
• Identified the concern of balancing protecting a tribal court defendant’s right to not be treated as a criminal when it’s not the appropriate avenue for addressing the real issue of behavioral health with the goal of community safety
• Judge Stacy noted that there have been multiple instances where there have not been available options outside of accessing the state criminal courts
• Cases involving behavioral health have many intersections between tribal courts, providers, and state agencies
• There is a disconnect between a tribal court ordering a defendant to receive services and state licensed providers being available/coordinated to do so
• The Task Force will be looking at the current intersection of tribal court orders and accessing the behavioral health system in Oregon and asking how meaningful/effective it is, whether it is providing justice, and if/how it should be changed
• This includes looking into existing relationships between tribes and states

Introductions and Goals from Representatives of Tribes

• Each member representing a tribe was asked to share:
• 1. The key issues for their tribe in behavioral health;
• 2. Their insight and experiences with accessing behavioral health services for tribal members; and
• 3. The goals and hopes they have for this group.
• Chief Judge Yockim, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (CCBUTI)
• CCBUTI has had a tribal court since the early 1990s and has always had tribal justice systems embedded in CCBUTI’s peacemaking process
• CCBUTI is developing criminal, juvenile delinquency, and child welfare codes, which has brought up the question of when CCBUTI has jurisdiction over a tribal member and people living on trust lands
• We need to always be aware of the unintended consequences of laws/rules that make it harder for the tribes to address these issues
• Discussed a couple examples in which unintended consequences impacted the authority of the tribes
• Goals: 
• Quickly identify the problems and services needed
• Restore persons to being viable/contributing members of the community
• Share services between the state and the tribes
• Chief Judge Karen Costello, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI)
• The Tribal Court was created in 2001, the peace giving court in 2005, and a wellness court in 2017
• CTCLUSI encompasses four communities, none of which currently exercise their criminal jurisdiction
• CTCLUSI is involved in a deflection program that involves a wellness court which depends on multi-jurisdictional relationships
  
• Goals: 
• To know when tribal citizens are involved in court processes in foreign jurisdictions to be able to appropriately reach out for them to participate in wellness and peacekeeping court and in-clinic behavioral health programs
• CTCLUSI established an agreement with community corrections to ask people if they are a member of a tribe
• Multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary collaboration and education to eliminate barriers for tribal citizens to have their full citizenship recognized in their tribe, the state, and this country
• Learn from everyone as CTCLUSI prepares to expand its jurisdictional reach
• Support and strengthen collaboration and contribute something useful to the Task Force
• Chief Judge Patrick Melendy, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (CTGR)
• CTGR has many resources available for tribal members (e.g., behavioral health and community health programs)
• Experience with behavioral health is ancillary to civil cases
• Example: getting teenage tribal youth to engage in available services and triage/crisis intervention issues for youth that are in care (i.e., residential facility treatment requires traveling far)
• Goals: 
• Improve resources for residential facility treatment
• Resource sharing, educational information, learning from the Task Force
• Expanding some of CTGR’s jurisdiction
• Chief Judge Gayleen Adams, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Warm Springs)
• Tribal Court has existed since prior to 1969
• The main issue is resource availability
• The few times Warm Springs has placed a community member on civil commitment, the agency/hospital did not honor their court orders
• Ended up partnering with Judge Hillman in Jefferson County to have Best Care in Madras provide help
• Behavioral health center has appropriate staffing but did not previously have all the required certifications
• Behavioral health cases are uncommon, but more and more people need mental health assistance
• Goals: Continue partnering with other jurisdictions and assisting one another with building awareness and partnerships in case Warm Springs needs assistance in the future
• Chief Judge Melissa Cribbins, Coquille Indian Tribe
• Mental health treatment is a challenge in Oregon, but the tribes feel it most acutely
• Have not had to do a behavioral health hearing yet, but have been preparing for if one is needed
• Tribal Council has asked what would happen and what they can do, but answers are unclear
• Goals: 
• Develop concrete action steps on what can be done/achieved
• Identify areas for collaboration between the state and tribes
• Chair Judge Stacy, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
• The main issues revolve around legislative, governance, and resource-based issues
• Goals: 
• Offer better and more appropriate services
• Have Full Faith and Credit for tribal court orders in behavioral health matters
• The Oregon State Bar (OSB) has a legislative proposal specific to this piece that will be circulated so the Task Force can review it for concerns
• Encourage tribal courts to have MOAs when possible
• Recognition for the mental health authority of tribal providers
• Offer culturally appropriate services
• Improve continuum care and wrap-around services
• Explore the resources offered by federal partners offering to help fill gaps in justice specific to mental and behavioral health
• Look into what the federal government does in behavioral health cases
• In the Task Force’s final report, acknowledge the issues, show we’ve considered them, show where we’re at, and outline the concrete steps we’re aiming for
  

Introductions from Non-Tribal Representatives

• Each non-tribal representative was asked to share the below:
• 1. Your experience in behavioral health; and
• 2. The goals and hopes held for this group.
• Lisa Nichols, Oregon Health Authority (OHA), Behavioral Health Division
• Currently works with OHA civil and forensic programs
• Previously worked:
• As an Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) treatment court coordinator in Deschutes County
• In a co-occurring residential treatment setting, corrections, and treatment court in Washington County
• With people challenged with addictions and mental illness who entered the criminal legal system that way
• Engaging with Warm Springs on rule changes in civil commitment
• Helping coordinate work between CMHPs and the tribes and with tribal clients in dependency cases
• Goals: Learn more about the tribal courts, their processes, and the intersections with tribal behavioral health and CMHPs and how the state can better partner with the tribes
• First Lady of Oregon Aimee Kotek Wilson, MSW
• Worked in community based practice, sometimes providing director’s custody
• Visited the tribes with the Governor and had conversations about the intersection of law and healthcare, tribal sovereignty, and cultural competency
• Helped organize the Behavioral Health Talent Council
• Adrea Korthase, Office of the State Court Administrator
• Currently an Indian Child Welfare Act Analyst for OJD
• Previously worked at the Grand Ronde Tribal Court, Oregon Department of Human Services, National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National Judicial College with tribal and state courts, predominantly with child welfare
• Goal: Improving resource availability 
• Sharon Stanphill, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
• Currently the Chief Health Officer of Government Affairs for CCBUTI, but has worked with CCBUTI for around 30 years
• Previously a healthcare provider helping to create the health care system and public health/behavioral health/prevention programs CCBUTI has today
• Previously served on the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
• Current behavioral health challenges/barriers/impacts:
• CCBUTI has seven county service areas that overlap with fellow tribal governments
• It's about caring for the whole community, not just CCBUTI tribal members
• There aren’t any youth regional centers in the immediate area and few inpatient residential facilities
• It's not culturally appropriate to send tribal members far away from their homes and families for large amounts of time for treatment
• Goals 
• Provide tribal members with good care that’s culturally sensitive
• Have funding not only go to the state, but directly to the Tribe too
• More MOUs with community partners
• Have deflection programs be just as successful as the IMPACTS grant
• Eliminate barriers and difficulty getting funds to be able to provide wrap-around care and focus on the social determinants of health
• Vice Chair Judge Keppinger, Columbia County Circuit Court
• Experience: 
• Currently handles the aid-and-assist docket and works on the Behavioral Health Advisory Committee for OJD and interacts with its subcommittees
• Previously
• Deputy District Attorney to the Columbia County mental health court, other specialty courts, and for aid and assist
• Interacted with the tribes mostly through specialty courts and the dependency docket
• Worked with NARA and medicine in Columbia County
• Prosecutor for Columbia County’s Justice Reinvestment Program
• Goals: 
• Gain wisdom to bring into her courtroom and share with colleagues
• Develop concrete solutions to the issues discussed in the Task Force
• Share with state courts how the courts can be a partner to the tribes
• Non-Task Force Members Introductions 
• Channa Newell, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
• Kiely Lyons, Analyst, OJD
• Kari Ramseyer, Journeys A Center for Your Soul
• Works with some Grand Ronde tribal members through their mental health center

Rule Adoption

• Newell reviewed the draft proposed rules (included in the meeting materials)
• Chief Judge Yockim asked if there could be a situation where there may be a conflict of interest that a member would need to disclose?
• Newell deferred that question to Sam Dupree
• Vice Chair Judge Keppinger moved for the adoption of the draft proposed rules dated June 25, 2026 and Chief Judge Yockim seconded the motion
• Upon Chair Judge Stacy calling for a vote no “Nays” or “Abstentions” were heard, only “Ayes”

Introduction of the Tribes

• Chair Judge Stacy noted there will be a process for including the input, perspectives, and recommendations of urban tribal people who are not on reservations or tribal lands that have a significant relationship with state services
• Chair Judge Stacy asked if there was anything specific in the context of this Task Force’s work that anyone wanted to mention about their tribe?
• Chair Judge Stacy noted CTUIR holds enhanced jurisdiction under the offenses listed in the federal Violence Against Women act to prosecute non-tribal members who live in tribal communities
• She has seen issues, particularly at casinos and truck stops, where people don’t know they are on a reservation
• Due to federal-tribal relationships and, likely, resource allocation issues, major crimes are often picked up by the federal government
• Chief Judge Yockim asked if the federal government should be involved in the Task Force’s discussions?
• Chief Judge Yockim noted that the tribes have jurisdiction over tribal members in general, not just their own tribal members
• Chair Judge Stacy noted that, if members know anyone that has been through the mental health system (on or off reservation) or has engaged with the system, those are important perspectives to hear from
• Stanphill noted that, from the healthcare side, CCBUTI is trying to move towards expanding the behavioral health workforce, particularly for tribal members

Housekeeping

• Chair Judge Stacy asked how the Task Force can incorporate the perspectives of persons with lived experience into the discussions?
  
• Nichols asked how those persons would be involved in the Task Force?
• Chair Judge Stacy replied that it would most likely be a tribal person, living on or off a reservation, who is engaged in a mental health system
• Newell noted the intent behind the legislation was to have Task Force members act as liaisons to connect with those with lived experience so the person(s) would not necessarily need to speak directly to the Task Force
• Chief Judge Melendy asked if those with lived experience would attend future meetings?
• He noted it would be good to have someone from their defense bar who works with clients that have behavioral health struggles speak to the Task Force
• Chair Judge Stacy noted there will be time for public comment at each meeting for them to speak, or they could submit written comment
• Chief Judge Costello asked if there was a way for someone to submit a comment without attending a meeting or writing?
• Newell suggested we may be able to create a process for sharing a video clip in the future
• Korthase noted she works with Painted Horse Recovery Center in Portland (connected to the Oregon Department of Human Services), which provides peer members through the ICWA courts in Marion and Multnomah counties
• Those peer members have lived experience and work with families outside of court as well; talking to them may be helpful
• Newell walked the Task Force through the public website and noted there will be a separate internal website members will have access to (being set-up)
• Information on the internal and public sites are subject to public records and public meetings laws
• Contact Us submissions are public, so, if someone wants to share sensitive information, tell them to let us know so we can contact them in a way that is not public
• Chief Judge Melendy asked if there were trainings Task Force members needed to complete?
• Newell will look into that and let the members know
• Sam Dupree, Senior Assistant General Counsel for OJD presented a PowerPoint on public records and public meetings law
• Chief Judge Melendy asked if members are talking at a non-Task Force gathering and the discussion crosses over with Task Force topics, is it okay to have that discussion?
• Dupree recommended being cautious
• Factual information is fine to discuss, but discussing what direction the Task Force should go in or potential options for where it may go, should be avoided
• A Task Force member could instead ask to put the topic on the agenda so it can be discussed at an official meeting
• Newell asked, when voting on recommendations, how may a conflict of interest (perceived or actual) be declared?
• Dupree recommended members err on the side of caution in disclosing something that could potentially be a conflict
• Stating on the record, making sure people are aware, and, if you think it’s needed, recusing oneself from a particular vote
• For the next meeting we can have some analysis of actual vs. perceived conflicts and how it works in Oregon law (advice from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission)
• Chief Judge Yockim noted that speaking on behalf of one’s tribe wouldn’t create a personal conflict and Dupree agreed
• Chair Judge Stacy disclosed that she sits on the Indian Law Section of the OSB and was assigned to the subcommittee for legislative matters where there is a proposal being worked on that may have some overlap with the Task Force’s work
• She noted this could be discussed further if it becomes an issue

Public Comment 

• There was no public comment
• Chair Judge Stacy reviewed proposed processes for collecting public comment
• Judge Costello and Vice Chair Judge Keppinger thought they sounded good

Homework and Next Steps

• What do tribes need to know about state processes?
• Learn about the state’s civil commitment and aid and assist processes
• During June legislative days, OHA had a presentation with updated graphics on how those processes work
• It would be helpful for the Task Force to review those to help tribes determine how much they are currently equipped to engage with those processes
• The state has been working on engaging tribes and bringing them into the state system when there’s opportunities
• How has that work been going? What are the goals?
• It's less about the tribes wanting to recreate Oregon’s processes, and more about figuring out where the state and tribes are currently aligned
• Oregon state agencies should think about what they need to know about tribes
• OHA should talk about some of the rule making and coordination efforts they have been charged to do
• How far does that go? Where are some of the limits? What are they hoping to hear from tribes, particularly from tribal courts?
• Judge Yockim noted it’s important to remember and respect that the different entities and agencies have a separation of powers and to recognize the different focuses and goals of each
• Chair Judge Stacy noted that a draft agenda would be sent to members for comment
• The next meeting should include discussion about the full faith and credit concept
• We will see if someone from the Bar can attend the meeting
• After discussing state activities, we can move on to discussing collaboration
• Moving forward we will discuss what collaborative meeting time may look like and models and what that looks like in relation to the current tools available in Oregon
• Chair Judge Stacy asked members and others to feel free to provide comments and feedback on what the Task Force will discuss and focus on moving forward
• Newell noted that the meeting materials include documents discussing how court systems can interact with people who are experiencing mental health issues and recommended taking a look at those
• Newell will send a survey of potential future meeting dates to members

Adjourn

Oregon State Bar Indian Law Section Legislative Proposal Re: Supporting Amendments to ORS 24.105

Oregon State Bar Legislative Proposal Instructions

Oregon State bar Legislative Proposal Part I - Legislative Summary

• Re: Supporting amendments to ORS 24.105
• Section Submitting: Indian Law Section
• Legislative Liaison(s)
• Name: Naomi Stacy, Anne Norloff, Amanda Marshall, Gage Hansen
• Phone: (541) 975-8344
• Email: naomistacy@ctuir.org

1. Does Proposal amend current law?

• Yes - Checked; No - Unchecked
• Additional Notes: Blank

2. Problem that Proposals Seeks to Address

Please describe the effect in practice of the statutory error or ambiguity. Include any situational examples that may be helpful and include references to specific legal and/or statutory language that is relevant.

• ORS 24.105, through its reference to ORS 426.180, disallows tribal members in Oregon (who are also State of Oregon citizens) from direct access to an appropriate level of service when they are subject to tribal court orders for involuntary civil commitments, or who are unable to aid and assist in their own defense. Amending the language recognizes that tribes are the best mental health authority for their jurisdiction. It also has the ability to increase cross-jurisdictional cooperation between Tribes and neighboring counties to better address mental health issues affecting residents.

3. Proposed Solution

Please detail the proposed amendment to statutory or administrative language (or other proposed solution) that may adequately address the problem. It may be helpful to reference where in statute the proposed change might be incorporated, and the way in which proposed amendment avoided unintended consequences. Also include any alternative solutions that may be considered as well (i.e., changes in procedural or administrative rules). 

• Strike the language after ORS 24.105 (2) "or as provided in ORS 426.180" and replace with language that specifically allows for recognition of tribal court orders related to civil commitments and defendant restoration services. Move language regarding the other exception listed at ORS 24.105 to ORS 24.105 (3), with a reference to an opt-in deference for tribes to recognize these other statutory exceptions (such as for child support enforcement). Tribes can still choose to use the affidavit method under ORS 426.180, if they so choose. 

4. Alternative Solutions

If it is possible that a non-legislative solutions (such as changes in procedural or administrative rules or an education or awareness effort) exists, please detail any such alternatives.

• Blank

5. History of Activity Relating to Proposal

Please detail to the best of the section’s knowledge any prior discussion (within section or section subcommittee, with the Court or other agencies, with policymakers or other stakeholder groups), workgroup activity, or prior introduced legislation or rulemaking efforts around this policy concept and/or the proposed solution.

• In 2017-2019, there was an effort to propose legislation that would resolve this issue but those efforts were not successful. In 2021, full faith and credit was extended, through amendment to ORS 24.105, to all tribal court orders, judgments and decrees but ORS 24.105 also listed an exception for orders for involuntary civil commitments and for those unable to aid and assist in their own defense, through its reference to the process at ORS 426.180

6. Impacted Constituencies

Please discuss those constituencies that would be most impacted by this change and in what ways those groups would be impacted. Which stakeholders might support the proposal, and which stakeholders might oppose it?

• Proponents' Main Arguments
• This amendment would impact citizens needing serious mental health illness levels of care who are subject to a tribal court order for civil committment or defendants found unable to aid and assist in their own defense. Tribal governments, courts and reservation communities bear the public safety risk of untreated serious mental illness when denied access to those levels of services under the state law.
• Opponents' Main Arguments
• Oregon's services are under-resourced and remain under timelines imposed by the Oregon Advocacy Center v. Oregon (Mink/Bowman) 2025 order issued by Judge Mossman, Federal District Court of Oregon.

7. Impact of Proposal

Please detail any broader positive impacts the proposed change would bring about- related, for example, to improved client service in the relevant practice area, enhanced consumer and/or access to justice features, court efficiency, etc. Please also include any potential negative impacts of proposed change. Please list the primary positive and negative impacts below.

• Positive Impacts
• Direct recognition of tribal court orders will allow better access to levels of care and a contiuum of care and services for Tribal members residing in the State of Oregon.
• Negative Impacts
• Blank

Oregon State Bar Legislative Proposal Part II - Legislative Language

Please provide your legislative language below:

Slide 1: Oregon Health Authority 

• Civil Commitment and Aid and Assist Overview
• Behavioral Health Division
• Adult Behavioral Health

Slide 2: Oregon Health Authority

• Civil Commitment

Slide 3: The Path to Civil Commitment

Slide 4: Notice of Mental Illness - 4 Types

• ORS 426.070
• Two-party Petition
• Completed by any two citizens in the community
• Must be notarized and submitted to the CMHP who notifies the circuit court
• Hearing required within 15 calendar days (5 days with Warrant of Detention)
• Magistrate or County Health Officer
• Completed by judge/magistrate or County Health Officer
• Submitted directly to CMHP
• Hearing required within 15 calendar days (5 days with Warrant of Detention)
• ORS 426.234
• Hospital Hold
• Completed by a Licensed Independent Practitioner
• Submitted directly to the circuit court who notifies the CMHP
• Hearing required within 5 judicial days
• Nonhospital Hold
• Completed by a LIP and CMHP Director/designee
• Submitted directly to the circuit court
• Hearing required within 5 judicial days

Slide 6: Community Mental Health Programs and Tribes

Slide 7: Investigation Outcome

Slide 8: Civil Commitment Hearing Outcome

Slide 9: Oregon Health Authority

• Aid and Assist

Slide 10: What is Aid and Assist?

• Is:
• A defendant is unable to aid and assist if, as a result of a “qualifying mental disorder,” the
• defendant is unable to:
• Understand the nature of the proceedings;
• Assist and cooperate with their counsel; or
• Participate in their defense
• Common terms are:
• Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST)
• Unfit to Proceed
  
• Unable to Aid and Assist
• Aid and Assist
• .370
• Is not:
• Dangerousness is not a reason for incompetence even if dangerousness is due to a qualifying
• mental disorder
• Severe symptoms do not automatically render a person incompetent to proceed
• Lack of factual knowledge does not mean incompetence and must be due to qualifying
• mental disorder
• Commitment for incompetency is not the same as Guilty Except for Insanity commitment

Slide 11: Aid and Assist process

• Alt. Text: Image of a flowchart starting at Step 1 below and continuing 
  
• 1. Charges
• 2. Court questions fitness
• 3. Court may consider the following to determine fitness:
• Forensic Evaluation (.365)
• Prior examination (.309, .315, .365, .370, or .371)
• Prior judicial determination that defendant lacks fitness
• Prior commitment (427.235 or 427.292)
• Conduct observed by court
• Prior record of mental health diagnosis
• Mental health diagnosis information (local supervisory authority)
• Any information the court deems relevant
• 4. Is the motion contested?
• Yes 
• Court holds a hearing (flowchart then continues to #5)
  
• No (flowchart continues to #5)
  
• 5. CMHP conducts a community consultation (Unless charge excluded by .365(1(b))
  
• 6. CMHP provides recommendation on availability of community restoration services
• 7. Able to A&A?
• Yes
• Criminal Case Resumes (flowchart ends after this)
  
• No
• Criminal Case Suspended (flowchart continues to #8)
  
• 8. Court considers appropriate action (.370)
  
• 9. Do parties agree?
• Yes (flowchart points to the three options below)
  
• Court orders restoration at OSH 
• Court orders Community Restoration
• Civil commitment, protective proceedings, or dismissal of charges
• No 
• Court holds a hearing (flowchart points to the three options below)
  
• Court orders restoration at OSH
• Court orders Community Restoration 
• Civil commitment, protective proceedings, or dismissal of charges

Slide 12: Consultation vs. Evaluation

• Community Consultation
• Completed by CMHP staff who are QMHPs to inform the court of appropriate and available community restoration services.
• Provides specific services necessary to safely allow the person to gain or regain fitness to proceed in the community
• Identifies whether those services are present and available in the community
• Forensic Evaluation
• Can be ordered by the court to provide an opinion on whether a defendant is able to aid and assist in their defense
• Completed by a Certified Forensic Evaluator who is a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist
• Provides information on what treatment and services the individual may need to be able to Aid and Assist and if a hospital level of care is required
• * House Bill 2005, Section 45(5)(c)-(d)2, requires competency reevaluations for individuals on community restoration at specified intervals, including 90-day re-evaluations for certain charge categories and at least every 180 days for all community restoration defendants, effective for applicable cases beginning September 29, 2025.

Slide 15: Funding Overview

• General funds are the primary funding for OHA Behavioral Health's Civil and Aid & Assist programs
• County Financial Assistance Agreements (CFAA) with Community Mental Health Programs (CMHP)
• Direct contracts with residential providers for individuals that are not Medicaid eligible and/or do not meet medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement

Slide 16: Questions

• Civil Commitment: Michael.W.Johnson@oha.oregon.gov
• Aid & Assist, Community Restoration: Lisa.M.Nichols2@oha.oregon.gov
• Oregon Health Authority
• Behavioral Health Division
• 500 Summer Street NE
• Salem, Oregon 97301
  

Oregon Health Authority Office of Tribal Affairs PPT

Slide 1: Oregon Health Authority

• Office of Tribal Affairs

Slide 2: Overview of Oregon Health Authority Government to Government relationship

Slide 3: Office of Tribal Affairs - where do we start?

Slide 4: The People

• Alt. Text: Images of tribal members. 

Slide 5: Office of Tribal Affairs

• Office of Tribal Affairs
• Julie Johnson
• OHA Tribal Affairs Director
• Michael Stickler
• Tribal Affairs Policy Analyst
• Margarit Westfall
• Tribal Affairs Director
• Executive Assistant
  
• Tribal Liaisons
• Medicaid Division 
• Jason Stiener,  Tribal Medicaid Senior Policy Analyst
• Laneya Smith, Tribal Medicaid Policy Analyst 
• Public Health Division
• Liz Hunt*, Acting Local and Tribal Public Health Manager
• Andrew Epstein*, Local and Tribal Public Health Policy Lead
• Jula Krewson, Public Health Tribal Liaison 
• Carey Palm, ESF 8 Tribal  Preparedness Liaison
• Oregon State Hospital
• Kqalsanmayuk, OSH Native Services Coordinator
• Behavioral Health Division
• Carisa Dwyer, Tribal Behavioral Health Specialist
• Angie Butler, Tribal BH Continuum of Care Advisor 
• My'kee (Michael) Martinez, Tribal Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Specialist
• Equity & Inclusion Division
• Natalyn Begay, Tribal THW Analyst/E&I Liaison
• Health Policy & Analytics Division
• Liz Stuart*, HPA Tribal Liaison
• Marina Cassandra*, Tribal Liaison – Oregon Health Insurance Marketplace 
• *Part time liaisons