Rep. Jennifer Williamson talks about new public safety initiatives and the potential for real reform
By Joanne Zuhl, Staff Writer
In the past 10 years, Oregon’s
prison population has grown by nearly 50 percent, and while it remains lower
than that national average, it has grown four times faster than that average
since 2000.
According to a recent report by the Pew Center on the
States, Oregon offenders are staying in prison longer today, even though their
offenses are less serious than those from 2000, thanks in large part to
so-called tough-on-crime initiatives such as Measures 11 and 57. Budgets are
swelling, and the governor’s office projects a costly $600 million road ahead
if these trends continue. Which has lawmakers scrambling for the brakes.
Among the most fervent of them is Rep. Jennifer Williamson,
D-Portland, the Co-Chair of the Ways and Means Public Safety Subcommittee. This
committee sets the budget for Oregon's Public Safety System - everything from
State Police to the Department of Corrections...
This session, the legislature is considering public safety
reforms to make our communities safer while also saving money. These policy
reforms have been introduced in House Bill 3194. But this is not just about the
state’s policies around corrections. The bill could have widespread
implications for how we address community-oriented corrections, mental health,
drug and alcohol addiction and reconnecting felons with society.
In a recent conversation with Williamson, it’s clear that
if all goes her way, this is the year she thinks the legislature will finally
get it right.
Joanne Zuhl: Are these new approaches? Is
there really a new attitude here?
Jennifer Williamson: This could be a watershed
legislative session for public safety. We are developing data-driven policy
packages and analyzing the responses to public safety pilot projects that we’ve
seen in other states. We are building
upon work that has already been done, so House Bill 3194 is not new in that
sense, but it does reflect a shift in
attitude around where we focus our public safety resources. We have the ability
to create a different kind of infrastructure in public safety - one that
emphasizes community corrections, promotes appropriate use of parole and
probation, and creates different ways of supervising offenders so that we
aren't working on a one-size-fits-all approach. We know that the one-size-fits-all
approach to public safety doesn’t work.
J.Z.: You’re no fan of Measure 11. Is
this an anti-Measure 11 legislation?
J.W.: No. One of the recommendations in House
Bill 3194 is to take some second-degree crimes out of Measure 11 in order to
allow some judicial discretion, but it doesn’t have a huge impact on Measure 11.
This legislation recognizes that Measure 11 is appropriate for certain crimes,
but when you’re talking about an Assault II, there is a wide range of
appropriate sentences based on the individual situation. Mandatory minimums are
inappropriate in such cases, and HB 3194 gives the judge power to use more
discretion when crafting a sentence for the types of crimes that have seen the
most egregious one-size-fits-all approach under Measure 11.
J.Z.: You’ve also said you think the
public safety legislation has been misrepresented.
J.W.: The implication that we’re soft on crime is a misrepresentation. The
legislation we're working on is anything but soft on crime. Look at the data
and you'll see that our communities are actually safer when we employ these
policies than they would be if we put everybody in the Department of
Corrections for long sentences.
I think leaving the system the way it is would be a “soft-on-crime
approach” because our communities would be safer if we implemented this
legislation.
J.Z.: You’ve argued that Measure 11
hasn’t made us safer. Why do you think that?
J.W.: We simply know more than we did when
Measure 11 passed. Our understanding of criminology and addiction has grown,
brain science has evolved - it's time to revisit our policies based on the most
recent data and the best science. . It would be unconscionable in any other
profession to avoid revisiting our practices on a continual basis to make sure
we’re making the best decisions based on the best science. We need to be
willing to do that in public safety. As policy makers, we need to revisit Measure
11.
J.Z.: Property and violent crime
statistics are going down in your district, and across the city. However, the
police say their resources are still being consumed by dealing with mental
health and related issues.
J.W.: When I was at the downtown neighborhood
association, I asked a police officer which of these proposals he thought would
make our community safer. He said mental health funding. Those are the opinions
I’m going on. We need to have safe places to take people with mental health
problems other than jails. We need to recognize that our police are dealing
with a mental health crisis.
J.Z.: Do we have funding?
J.W.: Senate President Peter Courtney has said
we are going to fund mental health in a way that we haven’t done before in
Oregon. He’s committed to that. So if the Senate President is committed to
investing in mental health, then I'm confident it will happen. There is a lot
of support in the Capitol for greater mental health funding.
J.Z.: Do you have any concerns about
the state addressing mental health in the arena of public safety rather than
the arena of health care?
J.W.: I think you’re hitting the nail on the
head. We’re dealing with a health care problem in a corrections setting, and
that’s fundamentally inappropriate. Our community is attempting to deal with
crime by forcing a square peg into a round hole., It's heartbreaking to see
what happens when we force health care issues into a system that is ill-equipped
to deal with them. So I don’t see how building a mental health wing in the
prison is a great way necessarily to deal with mental health issues. To some
extent it’s appropriate, but is that the best way to be dealing with this
issue? The data reveals that it's not
the best way, and I agree with the national experts who say that we can do
better.
J.Z.: Looking at where we are now. We
have thousands of people with felonies on their records walking out of prison
every year. They face closed doors at every turn, including employment and
housing opportunities. What is being done to help people with felonies reenter
society, get jobs and housing?
J.W.: We need to focus on fundamental
transition services;we don’t do a good job with that and we aren't investing
enough. After people have served their sentences, we’re not doing what we need
to do to make sure that they can find gainful and meaningful employment and a
place to live so they can reconnect with their community. So that’s one piece
of the work that we’re doing.
If you’re talking about the folks who are already out in
our community, one Issue is helping people get their records expunged when
appropriate.. As it stands, the expungement process is a mess
We need to consider the small things that make a huge
difference, like helping people get their drivers' licenses after they complete
their sentences. If you come out with no identification from the Department of
Corrections, how do you do anything? The Governor’s committee on transition is
looking that those issues: How do we remove these little barriers that become a
big deal.
J.Z.: The flip side is society:
Encouraging businesses to hire people with felonies or landlords to lease to
them.
J.W.: Our
attitude around redemption is a huge part of this issue. With the EEOC at the
federal level, you can’t ask whether someone has a felony on the first
application. You can ask further down the line if it’s appropriate to the job,
but I haven’t heard that the practice has changed on the front line. It’s one
of those things that is a barrier for a lot of folks.
J.Z.: Your district encompasses the
Drug Impact Areas – specific geographic boundaries that place added punitive
measures on people arrested for drug use and related crimes. Police like them,
but critics say they discriminate against specific economic and racial
populations and push the activity into other areas of the city. What is your
opinion of these efforts?
J.W.: – I am not a fan. In fact, when I was a
lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine [Portland law firm], we took on a pro bono
project challenging those exclusionary type zones. So in my legal world, I
worked to get those zones thrown out. I think they discriminate, and they don’t
take into account the fact that a lot of support services for people dealing
with addiction are in Old Town, so if you have a Drug Impact Zone or an
exclusionary zone, that takes somebody out of the place where they can get
support. It doesn’t address the fact that drug and alcohol issues permeate our
society. And so when you focus on low-income communities, it’s a real problem.
J.Z.: Do these policies reflect where
we’re failing on a larger scale, that people on the ground are just trying to
protect their own doorstep?
J.W.: Absolutely. Frankly, it’s a little like
mandatory minimums. A lot of what happens in public safety is actually
counterintuitive. Public safety is a very gut level issue for people, but what
seems like a good idea might not work well in the real world. I think that as a
community we have to be open to looking at the science and the data, and then
investing in those programs that show results as opposed to what we think would
work.
J.Z.: Likewise, the state is
considering a bill to release its preemptive rights over local sidewalks. It’s
expected that a new sit-lie proposal will follow, and one that is stricter.
Critics say it’s only penalizing the homeless and layering them with punitive
violations. These laws typically sweep up people who are homeless, or
exercising free speech rights in panhandling. How does this fit in to your
approach to improving public safety?
J.W.: I
think it needs to be dealt with at a local level because our community needs to
be engaged in those conversations. I’m not a fan of sit-lie proposals, but I
think when we’re talking about local violations, it’s appropriate for the local
community to deal with it. The Portland ordinances are violations, they don’t
rise to the level of crime. Anything that starts dealing with the criminal
justice system in a larger sense, we need to — at the state level — do
everything we can to make sure those laws are appropriate and equally applied.
And that’s where I see exclusionary zones and drug impact zones as larger
statewide equity issues.
Joanne Zuhl is the managing editor of Street Roots.
You can reach her at joanne@streetroots.org
