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
HB 2005 Data Report Review Presentation
Task Force Report Outline Presentation
Public Comment
Meeting Minutes

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

Unique 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: Treatment 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

Task Force Report Outline Presentation

Slide 1: Task Force Report

Slide 2: Task Force Report Details

Report Due December 15, 2026
Report to include:

Task Force’s examinations
Identifications
Determinations
Recommendations on subjects

Report may include:

Recommendations for legislation

Slide 3: HB 2005 Language

The task force shall examine tribal and state interactions relating to involuntary hospitalization and mental or behavioral health treatment of tribal members in the state civil and criminal systems and:

Identify data sharing needs between tribal service providers, tribal courts and non tribal service providers, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and Oregon courts, and identify methods for resolving barriers to data sharing;
Examine mental and behavioral health care services provided within tribal lands and to tribal members and identify barriers to providing care to tribal individuals;
Determine barriers to tribal members receiving care at the Oregon State Hospital pursuant to competency restoration orders or civil commitment;
Examine models for tribal and state interactions relating to mental or behavioral health;
Examine the results of the study described in section 38 of this 2025 Act; and
Develop recommendations concerning tribal court needs that intersect with state services and barriers to services.

Slide 4: Data Sharing Needs and Resolving Barriers

Identify data sharing needs between tribal service providers, tribal courts and non tribal service providers, the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon courts, and identify methods for resolving barriers to data sharing;
What further information would be helpful on data sharing to make recommendations?
Examples:

Privacy laws (state, federal, tribal)
Security structures
Non-tribal entities maintaining tribal member data

Slide 5: Data Sharing Needs and Resolving Barriers

Recommendations:

Data Report: Recommend OHA, OJD, and CMHPs 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.
Data Report: 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.

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 6: Tribal Behavioral Health and Mental Health Services

Examine mental and behavioral health care services provided within tribal lands and to tribal members and identify barriers to providing care to tribal individuals;
What further information would be helpful on tribe-based services to make recommendations?
Examples:

Funding pass-through with state
Interactions with federal government
Learning more about tribes operating as CMHP

Slide 7: Tribal Behavioral Health and Mental Health Services

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 8: Access to Oregon State Hospital (OSH)

Determine barriers to tribal members receiving care at the Oregon State Hospital pursuant to competency restoration orders or civil commitment;
What further information would be helpful on accessing OSH to make recommendations?
Examples:

Mink/Bowman litigation restrictions
Other state structures
Process for foreign orders in state courts

Slide 9: Access to Oregon State Hospital (OSH)

Recommendations:

Recommend advancing full faith and credit for tribal court orders related to civil commitment or restoration services.
Data Report: 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.

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 10: Models for Interaction Between Tribes and State

Examine models for tribal and state interactions relating to mental or behavioral health;
What further information would be helpful on potential models to make recommendations?
Examples:

Specifics from Washington State presentation
Other states
Particular processes in other areas of law or behavioral health services

Slide 11: Models for Interaction Between Tribes and State

Recommendations:

Collaboration, Education, and Communication
Data Report: Coordinating data-reporting fields across OHA systems for the purpose of coordinating services to individuals who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native.
Data Report: 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.
Data Report: 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.
Data Report: 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 12: Models for Interaction Between Tribes and State

Recommendations:

Data Report: 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.
Data Report: 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.

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 13: Data Report Recommendations

Examine the results of the study described in section 38 of this 2025 Act; (Data Report)
What further information would be helpful from the Data Report to make recommendations?
Examples:

Barriers to race data
Helpfulness of that data
Legal and practical challenges to information sharing

Slide 14: Data Report Recommendations

Recommendations:

Continue advocating for change of racial terms within the Odyssey platform.
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.
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.

Slide 15: Data Report Recommendations

Recommendations:

NCSC Task Force Report: “Courts should actively collect and review race and ethnicity data in order to identify inequitable practices and to monitor progress in achieving equity. This analysis should extend to diversion to treatment placements.”
Coordinating data-reporting fields across OHA systems for the purpose of coordinating services to individuals who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native.

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 16: Tribal Court Needs and Barriers to Service

Develop recommendations concerning tribal court needs that intersect with state services and barriers to services.
What further information would be helpful on tribal court needs and barriers to service to make recommendations?
Examples:

Specific processes that are barriers to cross jurisdictional services
Funding streams and adequacy
Notice and information processes

Slide 17: Tribal Court Needs and Barriers to Service

Recommendations:

C2CWG Rec #40: Require the state to seek input from Tribal governments and treatment providers on the civil commitment system, including assisted outpatient treatment (AOT).
C2CWG Rec #41: Amend statute to require the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) 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.

What recommendations can be explored now?

Slide 18: What Other Recommendations?

Extension of Task Force?
What else?

Slide 19: Format of Report

Must comply with ORS 192.245

Executive summary
Sent to committee + legislative reports page
Potential for December or early session presentations

Slide 20: Questions?

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.”

Meeting Minutes

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

Date: October 8, 2026

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

Location: Webex Webinar

Members in Attendance: Chair Judge Naomi Stacy, Vice Chair Judge Denise Keppinger, Lisa Nichols, Leslie Wu, Judge Ronald Yockim, Cindy Cecil, Sharon Stanphill, First Lady Aimee Kotek Wilson, Judge Gayleen Adams, Judge Melissa Cribbins

Members Not in Attendance: Judge Patrick Melendy, Judge Karen Costello, Adrea Korthase, Kimberly Lindsay

Quorum: Yes (9)

Welcome and Roll Call

Chair Judge Stacy announced that Judge Melendy is no longer with the Grand Ronde Tribal Court

Newell noted that his replacement is still being determined

Newell stated that the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians submitted a letter to appoint a member to represent their Tribe

The letter put forth two names; Newell is waiting to see which person they would like to appoint since there is only one position available

Newell provided a brief overview of the meeting agenda

Work Session

Chair Judge Stacy opened a work session on whether to include the recommendation from the Indian Law Section that full faith and credit be extended to tribal court orders related to behavioral health in the Task Force’s report
Vice Chair Judge Keppinger moved that the Task Force recommend in its report to the Legislature that full faith and credit be extended to tribal court orders related to behavioral health

Judge Cribbins seconded the motion

Chair Judge Stacy: Did anyone have anything to discuss on the motion?

No one had any discussion

Chair Judge Stacy called for a vote on the motion

Ayes: Cindy Cecil, Judge Yockim, Judge Cribbins, Judge Adams, Sharon Stanphill, Lisa Nichols, Leslie Wu, Chair Judge Stacy
Nays: None
Absent: Judge Costello, Judge Melendy, Kimberly Lindsay, First Lady Aimee Kotek Wilson (she had technical issues joining the meeting)

Chair Judge Stacy stated that the motion passed with a majority of the voting members voting “Aye”
Chair Judge Stacy closed the work session
Due to technical difficulties, First Lady Kotek Wilson joined after the vote but voted “Aye” for the record

Discussion on Task Force Report Structure

Newell presented an overview of the structure of the Task Force report that is due December 15, 2026, per HB 2005 (2025) and what needs to be included

Identify data sharing needs between tribal service providers, tribal courts, and non-tribal service providers, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and Oregon courts

The HB 2005 Data Report (Data Report) included several recommendations:

Consider 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
Increase 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 of services in the state court systems

Nichols: Were the recommendations from the Data Report about sharing or reporting information?

Newell: For the first recommendation it’s about gathering and reporting, but the question is to whom? If it’s the state, there should be a duty to hold it securely and a reason to hold that information in the first place

Nichols: In favor of information sharing, collaboration with the tribes, and ensuring data privacy for the individual
First Lady Kotek Wilson: When someone is on a notice of mental illness (NMI), who is that information communicated to at the tribe? And, if the person is not in a state to self-report their tribal status, how are they connected to a tribal liaison?

Butler: If someone comes to the Oregon State Hospital (OSH), Oregon Health Authority (OHA) notifies the mental health department at the tribe(s) for care coordination, even without consent from the individual (HIPPA exceptions apply)

This process is not in statute or an administrative rule, it’s an internal process within OHA

Butler: When the individual is an unreliable narrator OSH reaches out to the each tribe’s contact person to ask if the individual is a tribal member

Chair Judge Stacy: Does OHA do the notification, in partnership with the hospital, when they get notice of a NMI?

Butler: For OSH, they send the notice to the tribe and cc OHA when that is sent, but that process is only for OSH

Cecil: In the past it has been hard when a hospital calls the tribe and the person is not a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) but they live on the Tribe’s land. If the hospital contacts the tribe where the person lives or the tribe they’re enrolled in? What if they haven’t lived with the Tribe they’re enrolled in for a long time?

Newell: Coordination on this process could be included as a recommendation in the Task Force’s report

Chair Judge Stacy: As to CTUIR, there may be, through special jurisdiction, non-Indian defendants that CTUIR has exercised jurisdiction over and sentenced, but the person is not eligible for tribal services since they are not tribally enrolled nor otherwise eligible
Mike Johnson (Interim Manager for the Civil Commitment Unit, OHA): Pre-commitment investigators can contact anyone they deem necessary to complete their investigation, but even if the person is struggling with symptoms, asking them for consent still seems like the best practice.
Johnson: The Task Force should look at creating guidelines for what investigators are allowed to tell the tribal health authority if an individual is under investigation

Newell: This could be addressed in the Task Force’s report

Cecil: Examine language in the administrative rules which refers to “enrolled tribal members” (there are many members who are not enrolled but are descendants and receive tribal services and live on tribal lands). Specifically calling out “enrolled tribal members” is a barrier
Judge Yockim: The HIPPA issues surrounding data sharing and the importance of why the tribes need to be contacted should be included in the Task Force’s report.

Examine mental and behavioral health care services provided within tribal lands and to tribal members and identify barriers to providing care to tribal individuals

Cecil: CTUIR currently has no intention of developing a residential facility, but, for those being investigated for a potential hold who need supportive services during that investigation, what is available for them while keeping them in the community? There are limited community-based resources for those who need a higher level of security
Chair Judge Stacy: Confirm with both OHA and the tribes that they know who their mental health professionals are, that they’re exercising their behavioral health authority, and what designations the tribes have made

How many tribes use their neighboring CMHP, rather than a tribal CMHP?
Which tribes are CHMPs? How did they get that designation? Does that align with OHA’s understanding?

Julie Johnson (OHA) and Butler: Currently, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs is the only tribal CMHP, but they aren’t doing civil commitments or aid and assists

If a tribe isn’t a CMHP, who are they working with to provide behavioral health services? How do they work together?

Vice Chair Judge Keppinger: Look into what happens if individuals are involved in both the tribal and state judicial systems to identifying trigger points for communicating with the tribes if a commitment order is made in state court

Determine barriers to tribal members receiving care at OSH pursuant to competency restoration orders or civil commitment

The full faith and credit recommendation addresses some of this
The Data Report recommended 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
Butler: Going through the system with the CMHP and circuit court would be helpful for the tribes. Tribes want to be notified when a person is at OSH and to be more involved in the process
Cecil: Focusing only on OSH is too narrow, the Task Force needs to look at the relationship between tribes and their CMHPs and identify who’s involved in the process

Examine models for tribal and state interactions relating to mental or behavioral health

Information on other state models is being put together for the next meeting. Send suggestions on models you are aware of that are working well to Newell

Examine the results of the Data Report

The Data Report includes several recommendations around increasing collaboration, education, and communication with tribes
Advocate for change of racial terms within Odyssey
Increase awareness and training for CMHPs to accurately report whether an individual identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, and whether they are a member of a tribe, when receiving involuntary treatment or services in the state court system
Establish special designation on filing documents when a person has reason to believe an individual is American Indian or Alaska Native, or a member of a specific tribe

Develop recommendations concerning tribal court needs that intersect with state services and barriers to service

Commitment to Change Workgroup Recommendations:

Require the state to seek input from tribal governments and treatment providers on the civil commitment system, including assisted outpatient treatment
Amend statute to require OHA and OJD to consult with the mental of authority of the tribe of a member who is subject to civil commitment proceedings

Chair Judge Stacy: A mechanism for notifying tribal courts would be helpful for promoting coordination between state and tribal courts

Additional recommendations to include in the Task Force report?

Newell: Extend the Task Force an additional year
Chair Judge Stacy: Identify areas where the courts work, where the providers work, and the overlap/connection between the two
Butler: Have some legal discussion at the next meeting on what tribal mental health facilities, tribal mental health, and tribal mental health providers are and what each does
Butler: There’s a good faith tribal notification process at OSH, but there’s no statute or administrative rule about it

HB 2005 Data Report Review

HB 2005 required OJD to submit a data report

Did not find any instances of a clear path for individuals going from tribal court into state court system (there was a lot of unknown information about tribal members who were in state court systems)
Found that different entities use different terms

US Census – American Indian or Alaska Native (self-reported data)
Odyssey - Indian (perceived data)
OHA - American Indian or Alaska Native (self-reported data)
CJC - Native American (perceived data)
Perceived data is not reliable or accurate

How does the above demographic information get into the state court system?

For aid and assist (A&A) and guilty except for insanity (GEI), it comes when a prosecutor is filing charges. They pull racial data from the police report (based on the perception of the person’s race)

Odyssey only uses “Indian”
80% of criminal cases have reported race data, but it’s not verified at any point

For civil commitment (CC), it comes from the CMHP or pre-commitment investigator. It may be self-reported, or it may be based on race

6% of CC cases had reported race data

For treatment courts, there’s a new system that allows race data input, which generally occurs after a person has pled guilty and they’ve gone into the treatment court system

Not cross-referenced to the criminal case
Has the option for more detail to say the person is a member of a tribe

Newell reviewed and compared data from 2024 on:

How many persons across A&A, GEI, CC, and treatment courts identified as “Indian”, as pulled from Odyssey
How many individuals in the CC system identified as “American Indian/Alaska Native” or “Native American”, as reported by CMHPs
How many individuals identified as “American Indian/Alaska Native” or “Native American” in OHA and OHD data

The data showed OJD and OHA are not collecting information to adequately identify tribal members in state court systems and that there is not currently a way to identify how many tribal members are in state CC, A&A proceedings, or under jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Review Board

Leads to missed opportunities to connect tribal members receiving involuntary treatment in the state court systems with the resources and guidance of their tribe

Johnson: Three of OHA’s 200 data collection systems collect tribal enrollment/affiliation data and they only do so for very specific reasons

OHA will never collect tribal enrollment data without a written policy, procedure, and data agreements in place with tribal government. It is tribal data that only the tribes should have and be allowed to use
Note: Tribal affiliation data is different than enrollment data

Johnson: At the federal level there are two different terms:

The census term is defined as “any people indigenous to the land of North America, South America, and anywhere in between”
The federal definition for Medicaid is “enrolled in a federally recognized tribe or descendancy to the second degree” (parent or grandparent)
OHA uses American Indian/Alaska Native because that term is written into federal law and it’s required data

Butler: The Task Force should consider Washington’s full faith and credit model and do an analysis of why that’s not working and determine what we’re doing in Oregon and how it’s different so we can make any necessary modifications

Public Comment

The Task Force received written public comment since the previous meeting (available in the meeting materials)

When a tribal court identifies a person who requires serious behavioral health treatment, what determines the appropriate level of care and who’s financially responsible for making that level of care actually available?
Asked the Task Force to consider including in its report an implementation and funding matrix for tribal court forensic behavioral health orders

Chair Judge Stacy : Put the above question and recommendation on the next agenda and include that concept, generally speaking, in the Task Force’s report

Homework, next Steps, and Final Meeting Dates

Let Newell or Kiely Lyons (Analyst, OJD) know if there are people or organizations/agencies you know that should be part of upcoming discussions
Chair Judge Stacy reviewed the draft of the upcoming agenda

Speak with CMHPs and hospitals to check what’s working and what needs adjustment to serve a tribal court order

Lindsay is a member of a CMHP, but it is currently unknown whether she will be able to attend the next meeting
Umatilla had specific inquiries with the Association of CMHPs, we would like to have someone from there present
Chair Judge Stacy asked OHA to coordinate with Newell and Lyons to prepare for the next meeting and identify who from the hospitals should be invited

Recognition of court orders and implementation success

What it looks like when they do that in state court? (Vice Chair Judge Keppinger)
The administrative burden and hospital processes (speaker TBD)
Other practical issues (group discussion)

Discussion of public comment from September 26, 2026

Court to court, how are we working on memorandums of agreement and protocols? What are the issues?
Education and training: Who’s going to know? How are they going to get ready?
Meeting recap

Continue narrowing down what the Task Force’s report will look like

Newell will send out another scheduling survey for setting the next meeting for two hours in late October or early November