Skip to main content

Oregon State Flag An official website of the State of Oregon »

Oregon Judicial Department Logo

Meeting Archives: October 8, 2026

October 8, 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

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

Public Notice and Meeting Agenda

Website (opens link to new page)

Email: sca.esd.tftsbh@ojd.state.or.us

Contact: Channa Newell

Membership and Support
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, MSW
  • 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
Additional Agency Support
  • Angie Butler, Siletz, Med, Senior Tribal Policy & Program Analyst, Tribal Behavioral Health Continuum of Care Advisor, Oregon Health Authority
Staff Support 
  • Channa Newell, Senior Staff Counsel for Government Relations, Office of the State Court Administrator
  • Kiely Lyons, Analyst, Office of the State Court Administrator
Meeting Information

Date: Thursday, October 8, 2026

Time: 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Remote Location: Public Webex Link (opens Webex meeting)

Welcome and Roll Call
Work Session 
  • Include recommendation for Indian Law Section Full Faith and Credit Proposal within Task Force Report (Due December 15, 2026)
Discussion on Task Force Report Structure
  • Review of House Bill (HB) 2005 reporting requirements: data, services/barriers, models and recommendations
  • Review of National Center for State Courts Report
  • Outline of Task Force Report
HB 2005 Data Report Review
  • Review of HB 2005 Data Report
  • Channa Newell 
  • Possible recommendations from HB 2005 Data Report
Recommendations from Commitment to Change Work Group
  • Recommendation # 40: Require the state to seek input from Tribal governments and treatment providers on the civil commitment system, including assisted outpatient treatment (AOT).
    • Questions: Does this already happen?  Does this need a statutory addition or change? Are there other ways to make sure this happens?
  • Recommendation # 41: Amend statute to require the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Judicial Department to consult with the mental health authority of the Tribe of a member who is subject to civil commitment proceedings, upon consent of the person if legally required, to ensure compliance with relevant laws and coordination of resources.
    • Questions: Does this already happen before a person is committed?  After a person is committed? What is the extent of this recommendation?
  • How would the Task Force like to address these recommendations in its report?
Public Comment
Homework, Next Steps, and Final Meeting Dates
  • Community Mental Health Providers & Hospitals: What’s working and what needs adjustment to serve tribal court orders?
  • Recognition of Court Orders – and Implementation Success
    • Registration of Foreign Orders, Vice Chair Keppinger
    • Administrative Burden and Hospital Processes, To Be Determined
    • Other Practical Issues, Group Discussion
  • Court to Court: Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs)/Protocols
  • Education & Training: professionals/providers/governance/courts
  • Meeting Recap, with identification of section and timeframe (near/long term)
Adjourn

Meeting Materials

HB 2005 Data Report Review Presentation

Slide 1: HB 2005 Data Report Review
  • Channa Newell
  • Senior Counsel for Government Relations
  • Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health
  • October 8, 2026
Slide 2: House Bill 2005
  • Section 38 - Report Due December 15, 2025
    • The Judicial Department shall study tribal and state interactions relating to the involuntary hospitalization and mental or behavioral health treatment of tribal members in the state civil or criminal justice systems.
    • The department shall include in the report a descriptive analysis of the barriers, if any, the department encounters collecting or analyzing the data described in this subsection.
Slide 3: House Bill 2005
  • The department shall collect existing data on:
    • Competency proceedings (Aid and Assist) for defendants who are members of one or more tribes.
    • Guilty Except for Insanity proceedings for defendants who are members of one or more tribes.
    • Civil Commitment for individuals who are members of one or more tribes
    • Specialty Courts participants who are members of one or more tribes
Slide 4: Four Areas in State Courts for Data Analysis
  • Civil Commitment
  • Competency (Aid and Assist)
  • Guilty Except for Insanity (GEI)
  • Treatment Court Participants
Slide 5: Terms
  • American Indian or Alaska Native
  • Native American
  • Member of a Tribe
  • Indian 
Slide 6: Terms
  • US Census uses “American Indian or Alaska Native”
  • Odyssey uses “Indian”
  • Oregon Health Authority (OHA) uses “American Indian or Alaska Native”
  • Criminal Justice Commission uses “Native American” as race perceived by officer in Statistical Transparency of Policing Program (STOP) Data Report. 
Slide 7: How Does Race Data Get Into the State Court System?
Slide 8: GEI & A&A
  • If information is provided in filings from prosecutors, court staff may be entering it into Odyssey
  • Information from the prosecutor is relayed based on perception of the police officer
  • No verification by court
  • 80% of criminal cases have reported race data
Slide 9: Civil Commitment
  • For civil commitments, if race information is provided by medical staff or precommitment investigator in filings and reports, then it may be entered by court staff
  • May be self reported or may be based on perception
  • No verification by court
  • 6% of civil commitment cases have reported race data
Slide 10: Treatment Courts
  • New separate treatment court database system that is open to system partners (caseworkers, therapists, treatment providers, probation officers, etc.)
  • Not cross referenced to Odyssey data
  • Significantly more oversight of data put into system, can be modified
  • Most race data is self-reported
  • Can include membership in a tribe
Slide 11: Individuals Identified as "Indian" in Court System
  • As found in Odyssey reports in 2024
  • Alt. Text: Table
    • Event: A&A (Fitness Concerns Raised)
      • Unique Individuals: 2, 324
      • Individuals with Race or Ethnicity Data in Odyssey (%): 2,027 (87%)
      • Individuals Identified as "Indian" (%): 31 (1.5%)
    • Event: GEI
      • Unqiue Individuals: 40
      • Individuals with Race or Ethnicity Data in Odyssey (%): 33 (82%)
      • Individuals Identified as "Indian" (%): 0
    • Event: Civil Commitment (Committed)
      • Unique Individuals: 468
      • Individuals with Race or Ethnicity Data in Odyssey (%): 89 (19%)
      • Individuals Identified as "Indian" (%): 1
    • Event: Treatmetn Court Participation
      • Unique Individuals: NA
      • Individuals with Race or Ethnicity Data in Odyssey (%): NA
      • Individuals Identified as "Indian" (%): NA
Slide 12: Individuals Identified as “American Indian/Alaska Native” or “Native American” by CMHP to OHA in Civil Commitment
  • As reported by Community Mental Health Providers (CMHPs) in 2024
  • Alt. Text: Table
    • Event: Precommitment Investigations
      • Individuals: 3,751
      • Individuals Identified as "American Indian/Alaska Native" or "Native American" (%): 138 (3.7%)
    • Event: Civilly Committed 
      • Individuals: 276
      • Individuals Identified as "American Indian/Alaska Native" or "Native American" (%): 16 (5.8%)
    • Event: 14 Day Diversion
      • Individuals: 645
      • Individuals Identified as "American Indian/Alaska Native" or "Native American" (%): 32 (5.0%)
Slide 13: Individuals Identified as “American Indian/Alaska Native” or “Native American” in OHA and Oregon Judicial Department Data
Slide 14: Aid and Assist
  • OHA and OJD are able to link data about defendants found unable to aid and assist in their own defense.
  • 1,481 defendants were found to be unable to A&A in 2024.
    • Of those, 1,329 had race or ethnicity data reported in Odyssey.
      • Of those 1,329 defendants, 121 self-identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native American.  (9.1%).
  • OHA reports that of those 121 defendants:
    • 31 were committed to the Oregon State Hospital (OSH) for restoration (25%)
    • 20 went to OSH then to community restoration (16%)
    • 25 went to community restoration (21%)
  • Tribal membership is not known.
Slide 15: Guilty Except for Insanity
  • OHA and OJD are able to link data about defendants found Guilty Except for Insanity (GEI).
  • 140 defendants were found GEI in 2024.
    • Of those, 33 defendants had race or ethnicity data reported in Odyssey.
      • None of those defendants self-identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native American.
Slide 16: Conclusion
  • "It is clear that OJD and OHA are not currently collecting information to adequately identify tribal members who are in the state court systems.”
  • "No known data exists to identify the number of tribal members who are in state civil commitment, aid-and-assist proceedings, or under the jurisdiction of the PSRB [Psychiatric Security Review Board], with limited availability of this information for participants in treatment courts….”
  • "This lack of information leads to significant missed opportunities to connect tribal members receiving involuntary treatment in the state court systems with the resources and guidance of their tribe.”
Slide 17: Recommendations
  • Continue advocating for change of racial terms within the Odyssey platform. May require statutory change.
  • Considering methods for securely gathering and reporting a tribal member’s status as a tribal member when the person is receiving involuntary treatment or services in the state court systems.
  • Increasing awareness and training for CMHPs to accurately report whether a client identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, and whether that individual is a member of a tribe, when a person is receiving involuntary treatment or services in the state court systems.
Slide 18: Recommendations
  • Establishing special designation on filing documents when a person, such as an attorney representing the state, a defense attorney, or CMHP, has reason to believe a person is American Indian or Alaska Native, or a member of a specific tribe.
  • Coordinating data-reporting fields across OHA systems for the purpose of coordinating services to individuals who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native.
  • Providing a mechanism for tribal courts/tribal behavioral health providers to be heard on issues related to treatment of individuals in mandated behavioral health systems.
Slide 19: Recommendations
  • Providing a notice mechanism for tribes inside or outside of Oregon, similar to the notification of a consulate when a person subject to civil commitment is a foreign national.
  • Exploring methods for strengthening relationships between OHA, CMHPs, treatment courts, and tribes so that state providers contact tribes for support, guidance, and extension of resources to tribal members who are in the state court systems.
Slide 20: Questions & Discussion

Public Comment Submitted Via Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health Online Contact Form

Public Comment Submitted September 26, 2026 by Belindy Lynne Bonser

"Dear Members and Staff of the Tribal-State Forensic Behavioral Health Task Force, Director Clarke, Director Johnson, and Ms. Butler:

Oregon has an opportunity to answer an important public-safety, Tribal-sovereignty, and taxpayer question before the Task Force completes its work: When a Tribal court identifies a person who requires serious behavioral-health treatment, what determines the appropriate level of care, and who is financially responsible for making that level of care actually available?

The Legislature created the Task Force on the Intersection of Tribal and State Forensic Behavioral Health to examine, among other issues, how Tribal courts and Oregon systems interact when behavioral-health treatment is needed, barriers to hospital-level treatment and Oregon State Hospital access, information sharing, and the needs of Tribal courts working with state services. The Task Force’s final report is due December 15, 2026, and its next meeting is scheduled for October 8 (Oregon Judicial Department [OJD], 2026a). Oregon Courts (opens link to new page)

The September 4 meeting materials examined recognition of Tribal court orders, including a proposal involving civil-commitment and defendant-restoration services. Oregon’s current materials identify an exception involving ORS 426.180 as a central legal issue. Because ratified September 4 minutes have not yet been posted, I am not assuming the Task Force has adopted that proposal or any particular recommendation (OJD, 2026b). Oregon Courts (opens link to new page)

The fiscal and operational questions are just as important as the legal question. At the August 5 meeting, the Task Force explicitly examined payment and reimbursement pathways. OHA also reported that all nine federally recognized Oregon Tribes had elected to participate in an Oregon State Hospital care-coordination process for Tribal citizens entering the aid-and-assist or civil-commitment system (OJD, 2026c). That coordination is meaningful, but it does not by itself establish who pays for each treatment setting or whether appropriate community capacity exists in every region. Oregon Courts (opens link to new page)

Oregon is simultaneously investing in behavioral-health infrastructure. On September 4, OHA announced a new 10-bed secure residential treatment facility supported by $5 million from HB 5024 (2021). OHA reported that 1,660 licensed residential treatment beds are being added to Oregon’s continuum of care, with 1,067 already open and 593 more scheduled over the following two and a half years (Oregon Health Authority [OHA], 2026). These are behavioral-health investments—not demonstrated correctional savings—and they do not establish that a particular placement is available, clinically appropriate, or safe. Oregon (opens link to external website)

As an Oregon taxpayer and licensed clinical social worker, I want public resources used at the level of intervention actually required by law, clinical need, and public safety. A more restrictive setting should not be assumed necessary merely because coordination across systems is difficult. At the same time, recognition of a Tribal court order does not establish low community risk, guarantee treatment success, or demonstrate that community care is less expensive.

This issue is also separate from Measure 11 sentence relief. Nothing in this request asks the Task Force to shorten a mandatory sentence or authorize release from a lawful prison term. Rather, it concerns the broader system surrounding justice involvement: whether people with serious behavioral-health needs are routed to the appropriate lawful setting and whether unclear jurisdiction, financing, or coordination pushes them toward a more restrictive system than necessary.

Meaningful Tribal involvement must extend beyond representation on a task force. Oregon’s joint OHA/ODHS consultation policy defines Tribal consultation as a formal government-to-government process for program development, implementation, and policy changes affecting Tribes (Oregon Department of Human Services [ODHS], 2026). Different Tribal Nations may identify different treatment, jurisdictional, cultural, and funding needs. Oregon (opens link to external website)

My request is one concrete deliverable: Please include in the October 8 materials or the December 15 final report a public implementation-and-funding matrix for Tribal court forensic behavioral-health orders that identifies the current legal pathway; any statutory change still required; available community, residential, and hospital levels of care; the state, local, Tribal, or other payer responsible at each stage; geographic and eligibility limitations; public-safety and due-process safeguards; and the process for Tribe-specific consultation before implementation.

That matrix would not predetermine whether the proposed legal change should pass. It would allow lawmakers, Tribal governments, affected families, victims and survivors, providers, and taxpayers to understand what the policy would actually require before Oregon promises either better outcomes or financial savings.

When our fellow Oregonians are struggling for behavioral-health care and other essential services, fiscal accountability requires more than asking what a program costs. It requires asking whether government is purchasing the appropriate level of intervention, whether another payer is simply absorbing the expense, and whether the capacity being funded can actually be used by the people the policy is intended to serve.”