It was a debacle when Deschutes County approved the purchase of an adult parole and probation home within 1,000 feet of a park, with barely any public notice.
It was a debacle when, after hearing more complaints from neighbors, the Board of Commissioners abruptly voted to move the parole and probation home without any consideration of what the financials would look like for selling the home, buying another one and moving the residents who were already living there.
And now, in part three of the debacle that is the Adult Parole and Probation home, county commissioners have voted to end the project all together. The board voted 2-1 during executive session this week to end the program at the home. Even some of the neighbors who complained about public notice were stunned to know that instead of moving the home to somewhere not within 1,000 feet of a park, there would be no home at all.
Now, rather than attempting to house the adult parolees, some of them sex offenders, in a house where they would avoid experiencing homelessness and gain tools that might help them avoid reoffending, those offenders may very well be roaming the streets.
This is the worst possible outcome.
The whole thing got started because county staff from the Adult Parole and Probation department came forward, advocating that such a home was sorely needed in Central Oregon. It makes sense: Offer support for those who just got out of jail, rather than forcing them to remain without homes and roaming the streets. County officials agreed that this was a needed resource, but that’s where it began to fall apart. Oversight of the location appears lacking; how else do stipulations around the distances from schools and parks get ignored? What’s more, when the county commissioners had this decision before them in the late fall, they asked very few questions about notices given to neighbors. No one had yet complained, they said at a meeting in the fall, so it looked like it was OK to approve the project. From there, a litany of poor decisions and shady dealings.
If it fell on county staff from Adult Parole and Probation to ensure the process was followed to a T, why didn’t their supervisors — the county commission – check that it was?
There is a lot of blame to go around here. County staff, and the commissioners both need to do better. While the cost for poor management is not clear, it will be substantial. But more importantly, the home is still needed, and as a community we’ve failed one of our most vulnerable populations. And by the look of it, we’re a long way out from fixing this.
This article appears in Source Weekly April 4, 2024.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Good to see the Source exposing this debacle for the community’s awareness.
While there was some time, effort, and funding spent on attempting to establish this halfway house, the best thing to do when headed in the wrong direction is to make a U-turn – and sooner is better than later. Upon learning more about the program implementation issues and neighborhood concerns, it was a wise move for the County Board cancel the operation as they did, before the halfway house was fully operational.
In 2017, the Bend Bulletin reported on an incident where a sex offender attempted to kidnap a woman (and committed other sex crimes) in Bend while he was housed and under supervision of parole officers and staff at the Tom Tom Motel / Halfway House. With 40-50 cycling through per year, it would have only been a matter of time until something like this or worse would happen again, but this time in the Larkspur neighborhood. With kids, parks, and high school students walking to/from Bend High nearby, the location on Wilson Ave would have been a target-rich environment for sex offenders, compared to the Tom Tom Halfway House (3600 N Highway 97) where this sexual recidivism incident occurred.
Things could have been far worse if the sex offender halfway house continued as planned until eventually an innocent person in the neighborhood was victimized, which would then likely result in closure of the operation and re-housing of up to 15 parolee residents. Given the proximity to so many parks, kids, and passerby, this sex offender housing project was simply doomed to fail at this location.
This turn of events should be an example to all public entities that although transparency and public outreach may feel like tedious obstacles to rapid progress in the near-term, cutting corners like this can backfire painfully in the long run. If it can’t be done right, it shouldn’t be done at all.
Local news outlets, such as The Source, should definitely conduct a more thorough investigation into this matter. It is imperative to keep track of the developments in this topic, and it could be of great benefit to the community.
In response to the above article’s quote:
“If it fell on county staff from Adult Parole and Probation to ensure the process was followed to a T, why didn’t their supervisors — the county commission – check that it was?
County Commissioners aren’t NOT the supervisors for most of County employees.
To clarify, the County Commissioners are only responsible for the Legal department, while the rest of the departments are managed directly by three county administrators – Nick LeLack, Erik Kropp, and Whitney Hale. They hold the power to hire and fire staff, while the Commissioners only have the authority to approve budgets and set high-level expectations. At the public hearing held on March 20th, it was revealed that Erik Kropp oversees the homeless programs and/or Probation and Parole. However, the Commissioners are only given a few minutes to ask questions during these hearings, while county staff is responsible for packaging materials and obtaining approval from their managers/directors to present to the Commissioners.
It appears that the issues with this debacle is not solely caused by the County or inadequate outreach by the provider.
Instead, it seems that there were multiple government entities involved:
City of Bend, the County, and COIC
I can confidently state that the grant compliance issues and the lack of sufficient review by COIC are concerning. The program changes made in January 2024, which bypassed the City of Bend’s shelter codes process from inception, are also alarming. Despite this, it’s important to note that the program continues to be referred to as rapid rehousing, which has different protocols than shelter funding. Moreover, it’s worth noting that building acquisition is not allowed with rapid rehousing, according to EO 23-02.