You can read Sam Levin's reporting for The Guardian here:
Revealed: Oregon spent funds meant for addiction services on prosecutors and police gadgets
The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I’m Michael Dunne. Perhaps no ballot measure has been more contentious in Oregon's recent history than Measure 110 - passed a few years ago that decriminalized certain types of drug possession. Of course, it was so controversial that even measure supporters in the legislature voted to overturn it after only a few years of implementation. And all that played out very, very publicly. What hasn't been so public, however, has been the way that money left intact from the ballot measure has been spent today on the show you'll hear from a national reporter at The Guardian who uncovered some troubling aspects of the measure. 110 story specifically that many municipalities in Oregon that were supposed to spend money on drug interdiction programs are instead spending it on gadgets and equipment for law enforcement. That story is next on Oregon on the record. Sam Levin, a reporter with The Guardian. Thanks so much for coming on and talking to us.
SAM LEVIN: Thanks so much for having me.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I enjoyed your story from a few days back, titled: Revealed Oregon Spent Funds Meant For Addiction Services On Prosecutors And Police Gadgets. Why don't you give us sort of the high level take on what your article was about?
SAM LEVIN: So, advocates in Oregon for people with addiction and providers who offer treatment have been increasingly concerned about how the state is spending its money meant to help people get into treatment, and so last year, the state announced $20 million in grants meant to help get folks who desperately need treatment into treatment services, into the care they need. But records from different county budgets show that in fact, much of that fund funding went to police and prosecutors and to law enforcement needs. And so, there was growing concern about how these funds were being spent, and whether the money was actually going to help people or going to more sort of traditional approaches and criminalization of people with addiction.
MICHAEL DUNNE: In your reporting, it is pretty easy for county leaders to basically reroute the money from its intended purposes. Talk about buying gadgets and things like that.
SAM LEVIN: So, the law that created this fund was quite broad and allowed these counties to spend money with wide discretion in many ways that they wanted. And so, the way that these counties proposed some of their budgets was meant to beef up law enforcement, and the counties argued that they were doing it in service of helping get people into treatment. So, funding a district attorney position that would be focused on, you know, getting people into treatment, and kind of deflecting people from the criminal system into treatment. However, we've seen that the numbers are quite low, and that, you know, few people are getting treatment through these programs. And so in some of the counties that I looked at you have prosecutors essentially being funded to do their traditional jobs, prosecutors who were already serving the office getting their entire salary covered through these funds and continuing with some of their traditional work of prosecuting people, which advocates would argue is the opposite intent of getting people into treatment, and in some cases, we've seen how prosecution can make life harder for people who have addiction and people who are struggling and that, you know, the going through the criminal system makes things worse and doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't help someone get out of homelessness. It doesn't help someone get services, and certainly, when you're funding police and prosecutors, you're going to get more of a traditional approach.
MICHAEL DUNNE: As I was reading your article, I'm thinking of that classic phrase: if you're a hammer, you only see a nail. And I'm wondering, yes, some of these leaders, you know, thinking, okay, maybe I don't necessarily believe in the power of interdiction, but I know law enforcement is, is where it's at. Was that kind of a case of this?
SAM LEVIN: Yeah, I think there's a lot of frustration. In communities about the addiction crisis and about homelessness, which are obviously two intertwined issues. And so, there are people after decriminalization who feel like it's time to get tough again and it's time to really push for what they call accountability, which in many cases ends up being punishment of people who are using on the streets, or who are living outside and struggling through poverty and disease, and so there is this feeling from some that we need this kind of traditional approach where we are getting tough on people who are in these circumstances. But the reality is, we've seen for years, and really decades, in the war on drugs that this doesn't work. It doesn't get people the help they need, and so we are seeing a return to a sort of traditional approach, as Oregon, once again, gets tough on drug use, and we're not seeing people get into treatment as was promised by the state.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Your story was quite exhaustive, and I know you talk to a lot of folks on various sides of this. Can you tell our audience, kind of what the people who actually are in drug interdiction nonprofits and organizations? What were they talking to you about? What were they telling you?
SAM LEVIN: Yes, I've done a series of stories on the crisis in Oregon, as well as on decriminalization of drugs that has happened in the state, and providers are very concerned about the lack of funds. There just aren't enough funds to help people in need. Oregon has historically had one of the worst rates of addiction treatment access in the state, just meaning it's really hard for people to get the care they need. There's long waiting lists, and so we're actually seeing reductions in funds right now for programs that desperately need the funds and want to help people who want to get this care and who want to get off the street, who want to tackle their addiction, who want to get healthier and better. And so those organizations are constantly struggling with budget cuts and budget shortfalls, and so for them to see and learn that some of these countries are using this badly needed money to expand law enforcement or to just beef up law enforcement spending, as you noted, in some cases, buying gadgets or buying new police cars or just funding a sheriff's position or funding a DAs office, it's very frustrating because they know what is needed to Help people, which is housing, treatment services, connections to programs that get people off the street, connections to programs that help people tackle their addiction, detox programs, et cetera.
MICHAEL DUNNE: This is happening in the shadow of massive cuts at the federal level for all sorts of programs as we're speaking. I think the federal government just basically got rid of various oversight for troubled police forces around the country, specifically, like Minnesota and the whole George Floyd episode. I’m wondering if you talked about this. You know, this cyclical idea of, okay, we're going to get tough on crime now is, I mean, this isn't happening in a vacuum, and I know Oregon has had real problems, but it seems like, you know, our local jurisdictions just saying now is this opportunity for us to grab a bunch of money for law enforcement, because we're really going to get tough on this problem.
SAM LEVIN: Of course. We see a pendulum swing back and forth on police reform and on police budgets. And, you know, Oregon attempted this, you know, radical initiative to decriminalize drugs. And the idea was that instead of treating drug addiction as a crime to be punished and prosecuted, we're going to treat it as a public health issue and a disease. And there were a lot of reasons that didn't work, but decriminalization was blamed for all sorts of social crises in the state, and so Oregon has now re-criminalized drugs, and you've seen counties across the state get tough on arresting people again, and really doing the same thing that we have been doing in this country for years. And so, you know, since Oregon re criminalized drugs last year, there have been nearly 7000 arrests for possession. So this is the smallest level of crime you could commit, is just having a tiny amount of drugs, you know, in your pocket. Your Pocket, but we've only had, you know, 700 or so people even referred to treatment through this new law. And so, the idea was that instead of cracking down, we're going to still refer people to treatment before they're charged. But what you're seeing in reality is mass arrests and very few treatment referrals.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of different experts about the drug problem in the state of Oregon and certainly many, especially in the law enforcement community, have said something along these lines - because fentanyl is such a an addictive, powerful, deadly drug, I just wondering in your reporting, was fentanyl held up as sort of this, you know, kind of, for lack of a better phrase, boogeyman for all of the ills in terms of the drug problem, especially for the law enforcement community?
SAM LEVIN: Absolutely. The rollout of decriminalization was very badly timed with the arrival and surge of fentanyl on the West Coast. And so, you had this policy and this effort to treat addiction as a crime really, you know, treat addiction as a public health issue and not as a crime really, blamed for, you know, the Fentanyl crisis. And so, the Fentanyl crisis is so severe, it's horrific. It's claiming lives every day, and it's a major problem in our society. But we just there's no there's not a ton of evidence suggesting that this police crackdown and using prosecutions is going to help save people. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary, that, you know, putting people in jail can actually make their addiction worse. You know, you spend a couple days in jail, and then you come out and you are in a worse position, and then you use more and you overdose and you die, you know. So, there's tons of evidence that criminalization can actually make things worse and can exacerbate the Fentanyl crisis. And that's a real challenging issue.
MICHAEL DUNNE: One of the things that I've learned from talking to experts is this idea that when measure 110 was passed, then people started to say, oh, it's not working, and it led to the repeal from the Oregon legislature. But there was a study done that said; yes, drug use is up in Oregon, but it's up everywhere, even in places where it wasn't made illegal. And I'm kind of thinking, you know, measure 110 has kind of been this sort of Boogeyman. See, this can't work. You tried it; it doesn't work. So, law enforcement needs to jump in. Is that kind of what a lot of people were telling you is that, you know, it was, it was, it was the wrong law, and the only way to crack down is more people in jails?
SAM LEVIN: Yeah. I mean, for service providers who supported measure 110 and people who wanted to see this radical change in how we treat the crisis, there is this feeling that the law was blamed for all sorts of incredibly complex social issues, and there's research to back that up. You know, rises in overdoses, increases in homelessness, other problems in the state have a bunch of factors that contribute to them happening, not just a single law. You know, certainly decriminalization led to more visible issues of drug use in some communities or public drug use, but, but in reality, you know, it's very, very complicated. And measure 110, the decriminalization measure, didn't have a ton of time to play out. You know, it was only a couple years before it was rescinded, and there really wasn't enough time to build up the treatment infrastructure that was necessary to make that law work. You know, if you decriminalize drugs, the whole idea is that you are getting people the help they need, and we continue to see that people aren't getting the help they need. And so now we've backtracked to the original sort of approach, and you have people continuing to really not get the help they need, as police and prosecutors beef up their criminalization.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Maybe you could also give us a little bit of a history lesson of why Oregon is so bad in this arena of drug treatment and just the overall drug problem. You know, is it ultimately a funding issue? Or why does Oregon seem to be so bad compared to maybe neighboring states?
SAM LEVIN: The problem is systemic. You know, there's decades of failure to invest in the behavioral health services that are needed for people with mental illness and addiction, you know. So, the state has a massive affordable housing shortage, and much like the whole region and the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest, they compounded the challenges the states have with overcrowded psychiatric system that is really unable to help people in need. And so, as a result, you have just the lack of services needed to meet the growing demand for addiction treatment, for mental health treatment and to get people safe and housed. And so, this crisis has really ballooned, and there is just not enough beds, there are not enough treatment, there's not enough programs to help everyone in need. And when you don't get the help you need, when you need it, you spiral out of control. And once you've been living on the street through addiction for years, it becomes harder and harder and harder to get that individual the help they need to turn their life around.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Yeah, and this may be a difficult question to answer, but I am wondering in your reporting. You know, again, I love cliches, the idea of chicken and egg thinking. Does the homelessness make the drug problem worse? Does the drug problem make the homelessness crisis worse or is it just that they're so bad that they clash together and make a really bad situation even worse?
SAM LEVIN: It's very complex, and it's different for each individual, but certainly the issues are incredibly intertwined, and I've definitely chatted with lots of unhoused folks in Oregon who say that, you know, the criminalization of homelessness exacerbates their addiction, right? And so, people who are just dealing with trying to survive every day, but the police are saying you have to move along. You have to, you know, take down your tent. This encampment is being, you know, raided or shut down just dealing with that, and the stress of that can lead to more drug use. And you know, there are certainly people who are not struggling with addiction, who end up falling into addiction because they are forced to live on the street. And I think ultimately, we know from research, you know, and just from talking to folks, that the main root cause of homelessness is the housing crisis, right? It's that people don't have a place to live, and people who, you know, grew up in Oregon are ending up on the streets. And in California, we see the exact same thing. And so I think the root cause of this issue is the housing crisis, in many ways, but each crisis makes the other one worse, and it's a real challenge.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Yeah, you also, you talk to someone we're all very familiar with here in Lane County, and that's our district attorney, Chris Parosa. Can you recount your conversation you had with him?
SAM LEVIN: Yeah, some advocates have pointed to Lane County, to me, as an example of a county that was doing a better job of investing these funds and setting proper priorities. And so, the district attorney there, as you know, felt that it was really important that the majority of the funds go towards services. And so, Lane County invested, you know, 300,000 plus in low barrier
