06 — Motion to Amend the Budget to Support the Small Donor Elections Program (Vote Passed)

Source: PDF pp. 46-51 ↗ · raw: 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51

Breadcrumb: Councilor Morillo > 06 — Motion to Amend the Budget to Support the Small Donor Elections Program (Vote Passed)

June 11, 2025 Morillo 04 – Motion to Amend the Budget for Golf Fund Reduction to Support Parks Services (Amended on the Dais - Vote Passed) Motion to allocate one-time resources from the Golf Fund by $14,000,000 to fund parks maintenance within Portland Parks and Recreation. If the parks maintenance deficit is filled by other measures, these funds shall be used to offset Morillo Amendments 5 and 8. • Increase one-time cash transfer expense in the Golf Fund to the General Fund by $14,000,000. • Decrease Golf Fund contingency resources within Portland Parks and Recreation by $41,000,000 to balance. • Increase cash transfer revenue in Portland Parks and Recreation in the Parks Maintenance program. • Update Attachments A-H as needed to reflect this change. Morillo 05 - Motion to Amend the Budget to Support Rental Assistance and Eviction Legal Defense (Withdrawn) Motion to allocate $1,000,000 in one-time General Fund Discretionary resources to Portland Housing Bureau to fund rental assistance and eviction legal defense program expenses. • Increase one-time General Fund Discretionary resources to the Portland Housing Bureau program expense by $1,000,000 to increase rental assistance and eviction legal defense programming. • Decrease one-time General Fund Discretionary contingency resources by $1,000,000. • Update Attachments A-H as needed to reflect this change. Morillo 06 – Motion to Amend the Budget to Support the Small Donor Elections Program (Vote Passed) Motion to allocate $825,525 of one-time resources to Small Donor Elections from the Golf Fund so that it can meet demand in upcoming election cycles. • Increase one-time program expense resources in Small Donor Elections Public Elections Fund by $825,525. • Increase Cash Transfer Expense from the Parks & Recreation Golf Fund to the Public Elections Fund by $825,525. • To offset, decrease Golf Fund resources within Portland Parks and Recreation by $825,525. • Update Attachments A-H as needed to reflect this change. 46

June 11, 2025 Morillo 07: Motion to Add a Budget Note Leveraging the Police Special Revenue Fund to Advance Evidence-Based Policing (Vote Passed) Motion to Amend Attachment D and add a budget note to direct the Portland Police Bureau to allocate $1,000,000 in one-time program expense resources from the Portland Police Bureau’s Special Revenue Fund to launch a program evaluation initiative in partnership with external research experts and overseen by the City’s performance team and the independent police oversight body. Part 1. Purpose and Applicability In order to strengthen the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of policing strategies, ensure responsible use of asset forfeiture proceeds, and improve the accountability of public safety interventions, a portion of the “Police Special Revenue Fund” shall be directed toward evaluation research supporting the implementation of crime prevention/reduction strategies that are evidence-based or innovative. The Portland Police Bureau is directed to use funds from the “Police Special Revenue Fund” to develop research-practice partnerships that incorporate principles of implementation science and participatory- action research. • The asset forfeiture funds dedicated to this research-practice partnership program will be referred to as the “Evidence-Based Policing Initiative” or EBPI. • “Crime prevention/reduction strategies” include interventions, practices, or policies that seek to prevent or reduce crime, enhance public perceptions of safety, improve police-community relations, or increase the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system. • “Evidence-based” refers to strategies, practice, or policies that have been tested with randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluations, and evidence from a systematic review demonstrates sustained effectiveness, cost efficiency, and/or equitable treatment of different groups. • “Innovative” refers to novel crime prevention/reduction strategies that are largely untested but are supported by a well-designed theory of change. • “Implementation science,” in the context of action research, involves structured collaboration between researchers and practitioners to understand and improve the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based practices. It emphasizes iterative learning, joint problem-solving, and adapting interventions based on real-world feedback and contextual knowledge. Any law enforcement agency receiving forfeiture funds from the “Police Special Revenue Fund” must partner with an evaluator to co-develop research questions, design the study, and interpret findings for an evaluation relevant to their strategies, programs, or operations. 47

June 11, 2025 Part 2. Evaluation Scope and Collaboration Requirements A minimum of $1 million of funds currently contained within the “Police Special Revenue Fund” shall be allocated to support external evaluation research on the efficacy and effectiveness of law enforcement strategies, programs, practices, or specialized units operating within the jurisdiction. The evaluation research supported by the Special Revenue Fund must rely on rigorous evaluation research carried out by qualified external research institutions. Each funded evaluation must:

1. Be approved by a detailed proposal to an Application Review Committee (ARC) before the study begins. The ARC shall be appointed by the City Auditor and administered by the City Council Operations Team. The ARC shall include three representatives from the City Council, at least two representatives from academic institutions with expertise in the subject matter and experimental/quasi- experimental methods discussed in this note, one representative from law enforcement, at least two representatives from the City’s performance management team, one representative from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s Community Technology Team, and one community stakeholder. No study may proceed without written approval from the ARC. The ARC shall provide a public summary of its decision for each proposal reviewed. . Proposals must not exceed 15 double-spaced pages and must include: . A clearly defined public safety problem being addressed; . A clear description of the proposed strategy, program, practice, or unit; . Supporting evidence or a theory of change, which is a clear, logical explanation of how and why a specific strategy or intervention is expected to achieve its intended outcomes, outlining the steps, assumptions, and conditions required for success; . A rigorous evaluation plan aligned with principles of implementation science, including an ethical review plan, which include the principles of respect (e.g., informed consent, voluntary participation, protection of vulnerable populations), beneficence (e.g., do no harm, maximize benefits), justice (e.g., fair selection and treatment of participants), confidentiality (e.g., protect information, data security), and research integrity (e.g., report findings truthfully, disclose conflicts of interest). Under normal circumstances the agency’s evaluation proposal should be reviewed and approved by an independent ethics review 48

June 11, 2025 board or IRB (unaffiliated with the law enforcement institution and without law enforcement members on the board); . A complete budget justification; . A summary of the qualifications of the external research team; 9. Be directed by an external evaluator that shall be approved by the ARC. Evaluators will apply by submitting a letter of intent to the ARC in response to the ARC’s call for evaluators. In approving evaluators, the ARC shall consider whether the proposed evaluator has: . Published on this subject in peer-reviewed journals; . Successfully completed evaluations for local governments or oversight bodies; and . Maintained affiliation with institutions that have formal research ethics review processes (e.g., Institutional Review Boards) Evaluators under consideration will disclose all prior work involving policing, public safety, or justice systems, along with any affiliation with police foundations, police unions, or public safety consulting firms. 14.1. Be developed collaboratively between the law enforcement agency, the evaluator, and one or both of the City Auditor (assuming no conflict of interest) and the Application Review Committee (ARC). The ARC is empowered to identify priority areas for evaluation, using the criteria and methods described in this note; and 15.2. Be completed within a 12-to-18-month timeline with the possibility of no- cost extensions. 16.3. The proposed study must demonstrate the following elements: a. The study assesses effects via clearly defined research questions aimed at evaluating the effects of a given intervention (i.e., strategies, programs, practices, or specialized units) related to measurable law enforcement and/or public safety outcomes. b. The study must involve one of two types of evaluations: Impact evaluation or process evaluation: i. An “impact evaluation” determines the causal effect of a crime prevention strategy by examining whether observed changes in the key outcome metric is a direct result of the intervention. To be considered “scientifically valid”, an impact evaluation must include a reliable and valid measure of the key outcome variable, use appropriate statistical analyses, and employ a research design that helps rule out alternative explanations for the findings. The latter includes in order of scientific credibility experimental designs (i.e., randomized controlled trial), quasi-experimental designs with 49

June 11, 2025 equivalent comparison groups (e.g., difference-in-difference, propensity score matching, precision matching, interrupted time series), and small sample designs (e.g., pre-post with or without control units).

1. Measurable outcomes shall include at least one of the following applied to appropriate specific offense types and in defined geographic or demographic contexts: a. Clearance rates b. Crime rates c. Officer or subject injury rates d. Use of force incidents e. Officer-initiated stops f. Calls for service g. Measures of public trust or community satisfaction. ii. The study must employ a type of cost-benefit or return-on-investment analyses of the intervention. iii. Any impact evaluation study must meet accepted standards of methodological research rigor. These include the following elements:
2. Includes a power analysis demonstrating there is to be appropriate sample size to answer the research question;
3. Involves a randomly assigned or statistically controlled, comparison group that is statistically similar to the treatment/intervention group;
4. Demonstrates the utility for a pre- and post-test design to measure change within and between studied groups. . Where possible, proposals are strongly encouraged to incorporate mixed methods. This means that both quantitative (e.g., administrative and survey data) and qualitative (e.g., interview and focus group data) should be used to explain the overarching effects, provide context to findings, and demonstrate how the effects impact people who experience the strategies. . If the proposal can demonstrate that an impact evaluation is not possible, then the proposal may involve a “process evaluation”. A process evaluation systematically documents how a crime prevention or reduction strategy was implemented, including what activities were carried out, how they were delivered, to whom, and under what conditions. It examines fidelity to the original plan of the intervention, identifies deviations or adaptations, and explores factors that 50

June 11, 2025 influenced implementation. In doing so, it helps explain how and why a program operated as it did, providing critical insight into developing an impact evaluation and improving the intervention. 19.4. Funds shall not be used for internal reviews or marketing, or to justify already adopted strategies without a methodologically rigorous design to evaluate existing strategies. 20.5. Evaluators must submit at least one interim progress report at the midpoint of the evaluation period to the ARC. 20. Findings from completed evaluations must be reviewed by the City Council and the Police Bureau for consideration in future budget or programmatic decisions. The City Budget Office shall assess feasibility of scaling successful interventions. Part 3. Access to Necessary Data & Transparency Law enforcement agencies engaging in collaborative partnerships defined in this section must ensure evaluators are granted timely and appropriate access to relevant data to complete the evaluation. Relevant data includes but is not limited to arrest and booking data, cite-and-releases, officer-initiated activities, subject-level information, and demographic information (i.e., race/ethnicity, sex/gender, and age). To be granted data access, evaluators must adhere to applicable data laws and privacy safeguards, including obtaining and maintaining CJIS certification (security standards set by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, ensuring the protection of sensitive criminal justice information), agreed upon expectations for housing the data, de- identifying the data, reporting on the findings, and destroying the data once the study is complete. All relevant data and associated requirements that need to be met for such data access must be clearly explained in a data sharing agreement between the agency and the evaluator. An evaluator lacking certifications or data storage capabilities shall not be cause to refuse a data sharing arrangement if the evaluator is willing to cure that deficiency in a reasonable timeframe. Further, the ARC shall be empowered to investigate, mediate, and direct solutions to any evaluator claims of data withholding. Deliverables must include a final written report to the agency and to the City Council. A public-facing report must be produced at the conclusion of the project and made available on the City’s website within 60 days of completion. A resolution detailing the scope of this initiative will be forthcoming. The ARC shall be fully constituted within 4 months of passage of the governing resolutionby September 1, 2025, 51

Parent: Councilor Morillo · PDF: pp. 46-51 ↗