Six years ago, Oregon quietly started sending children in foster care to locked residential treatment facilities in other states.

When they got to those facilities, many kids were abused.

At one facility where Oregon children were sent, a child from another state was restrained for so long that he died. Staff restrained him after he threw a sandwich in the cafeteria. At another, a SWAT team arrived to break up a riot at the converted hotel in Utah where the majority of Oregon’s out-of-state foster kids were sent. The Oregon foster kids had semi-automatic rifles pointed at them. The stories of mistreatment were widespread. After intense scrutiny, Oregon eventually stopped the practice.

Now, the state’s Department of Human Services would like the ability to send children across state borders once again.

This time, they say, will be different.

Oregon lawmakers are considering a wide-ranging measure, House Bill 3835, that would simplify what is investigated as child abuse in both schools and foster homes. The measure would also give the state’s child welfare officials the ability to send kids across state lines. It has prompted intense debate between lawmakers, nonprofit advocates for children and health providers.

Some advocates have warned that the bill limits what is considered abuse at a time when the state is under intense scrutiny for its high rates of maltreatment of children in state custody. Others have noted that too many kids are lingering in emergency rooms and hotel rooms because there is a lack of appropriate health and foster care in Oregon. They blame the systemic failures on government overreach. They argue too many regulations have created a “culture of fear” among caretakers.

State Rep. Rob Nosse, a Portland Democrat, is sponsoring the bill. He testified Thursday to the House Committee on Early Childhood and Human Services that the current regulatory environment in Oregon is making it hard for providers to serve children. The state continually ranks poorly for its ability to provide behavioral health treatment to kids. Oregon has about 4,450 kids placed in child welfare custody.

“We must vehemently advocate for children to get the care they need wherever it is available, including having to go out of state if the care that is needed by the child is better provided in the facility that is located out of state,” Nosse said.

He called the measure “one of the most important bills” state legislators will deal with this legislative session.

Emily Cooper, an attorney with Disability Rights Oregon who was part of the class-action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Human Services that was recently settled, also said the measure is worrisome.

“There aren’t sufficient guardrails in this bill to prevent us from going back in time,” Cooper said.

Less transparency than before

At the urging of Gov. Kate Brown in 2019, in the wake of the out-of-state and hoteling crisis, the state Legislature created what is called the “system of care advisory council.” The idea was to get a group of people together from child welfare, juvenile justice and education to plan for more children’s services outside of institutional settings.

That council is now suggesting Oregon needs the ability to send kids out of state with more ease. State law currently does allow officials to send kids out of state, but the facility where they are being sent must first go through a licensing process and meet certain standards.

“I want to be clear, we don’t want to go back to the bad old days where caseworkers were pushing kids out of state because cases were too high and it was an easy way to, ‘oh get this kid off my caseload,’” Anna Williams, the executive director of the council and a former Democratic lawmaker, said in a legislative hearing.

But a side-by-side comparison of what happened six years ago and what is being proposed today doesn’t offer much clarity over how the current legislation would ensure the same mistakes are not repeated.

Williams told lawmakers during a legislative hearing there would be “significant oversight and accountability” this time.

Six years ago, before a kid was sent to an out-of-state facility, a team at the state child welfare’s central office had to sign off. A judge had to also give the go-ahead. The state hired a third-party consultant to visit the kids in the facilities. Sometimes, the state would send its own staff to inspect a facility.

Once, Oregon child welfare officials visited a facility over a period of three days and wrote a glowing review of the yoga and meditation possibilities at the Red Rock Canyon School. A day later, the state of Utah published its own report citing a list of violations, including staff degrading residents and one youth being put in a chokehold until they were unconscious. It was the same facility where A SWAT team showed up to break up a riot.

Oregon’s new proposal says the child welfare director must personally approve child movements out of state, along with approval from the Oregon Health Plan Medicaid director. The bill was recently amended to also require court approval before sending a kid out of state.

“We aren’t just basing it on other state’s much lower standards,” Williams said. “We want to go see it ourselves and make sure the kid is safe.”

Under the past guidelines, when kids were sent out of state, the child welfare agency initially tried to cite child privacy laws for keeping the information secret. Eventually, more information emerged, and so did the terrible stories. Ultimately, the agency started sharing a public dashboard that showed in real-time where kids were.

The current bill would require the agency to alert the governor’s office, the foster care ombudsman (who works inside the agency), and the systems of advisory care panel as soon as possible when a child is moved. It would require quarterly and annual reports sent to the Legislature, but does not require a dashboard. Essentially, a child could be moved to a facility for weeks or months without the public’s knowledge.

There are some instances where kids benefit from care that Oregon can’t provide. Recently, a youth with an eating disorder who also needed care in a gender-affirming placement received care in Arizona.

But Cooper, the disability rights attorney, said it should be evident that the facility where the kids are being sent meets Oregon standards and offers therapeutic care.

“We will (once again) end up sending kids to out-of-state facilities regardless of how good they are,” Cooper said.

Cooper, who also sits on the state’s system of care advisory council with Williams, said the state’s focus should be on finding solutions where children can stay in their communities.

But, she noted, state child welfare officials have struggled to have adequate oversight over providers in their own backyard. For example, they recently placed kids in foster care in unlicensed short-term rentals with people who failed to background check. After an OPB investigation, Oregon canceled the contract with the provider.

Two years ago, a U.S. District Court appointed a special master to help the agency steer toward creating more placements in Oregon. This was in response to the state’s continued reliance on placing children in hotels, which cost upwards of $25 million. At the time, Judge Michael McShane wrote that Oregon’s defense of its practices had “become nothing more than a stale mantra and the Court has lost faith in ODHS’ ability to end this entrenched policy on its own.”

Riley Thomas, a former kid placed in foster care, submitted testimony to the Legislature on the current bill. Restrictions on out-of-state placements came after someone finally listened to the kids who shared their stories, she said.

“It was stated that only youth that would be sent out of state were kids who were rare exceptions and were children that were hard to control,” Riley wrote. “That didn’t last long before a large amount of kids were being shipped out of state and placed in for-profit facilities, kids as young as nine years old.”

Restraints and seclusions

Another large component of this wide-ranging measure aims to clarify what is considered wrongful use of restraint and seclusion for children, both in public schools and child welfare settings.

The measure would narrow the definitions of both to say that any restraint or seclusion for discipline, punishment, retaliation or convenience purposes is “wrongful.”

Jamie Vandergon, the CEO of Trillium Family Services, which provides care for kids ages 5-24 throughout the state, wrote in testimony that past laws had “unintended consequences” that created a culture of fear and constant reporting.

Some school district officials applauded the efforts to clarify rules around restraint.

“We have had multiple occurrences where staff members have been accused of child abuse as they work with students,” Charan Cline, the superintendent of the Redmond School District, wrote to lawmakers. Cline said most investigations don’t confirm the abuse allegations. “During the investigation, our people are put on administrative leave, thus causing students to be served by less qualified substitute teachers.”

But a parent, Eriko Ono, who has a disabled child in the public school system, felt very differently.

“I do not support a more relaxed definition of restraints and isolation. I also do not support less oversight when either of these strategies are used,” Ono said. “Oversight is already difficult in many school settings.”

The Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association noted they also strongly opposed the bill, saying it would lower the standards for keeping kids safe in numerous ways.

“Oregon’s kids need better protections from abuse, not worse,” Mae Lee Browning, the legislative director for the group, wrote.

The bill is scheduled for another public hearing on Tuesday.

The No. 5 seed Oregon Ducks men’s basketball team are facing off against the No. 4 Arizona Wildcats in the second round of the NCAA Tournament on Sunday night. The winner of Oregon vs. Arizona will face the Duke Blue Devils in the Sweet 16 in Newark, New Jersey.

The Ducks and Wildcats are scheduled to tip off at approximately 6:50 p.m. PT from Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle, Washington. This article will be updated live throughout the game.

Oregon 38, Arizona 42: Jackson Shelstad has the ball stolen in the final seconds of the half. Arizona’s Jaden Bradley makes a half-court shot at the buzzer, but he did not get it off before the buzzer. The Ducks enter halftime down four points.

Oregon 38, Arizona 42: Oregon forward Mookie Cook blocks the shot from Caleb Love. Arizona forces a jump ball, but the possession arrow is in the Ducks favor.

Oregon 38, Arizona 42: TIMEOUT Arizona with 33.5 seconds to go in the first half.

Oregon 38, Arizona 42: TJ Bamba drives in the lane and draws a foul on Arizona’s Jaden Bradley. Bamba misses the first free throw but makes the second.

Oregon 37, Arizona 42: Brandon Angel commits his second foul, and Arizona’s Henri Veesaar makes one of two free throws.

Oregon 37, Arizona 41: The Wildcats are called for a goaltending on a layup by Oregon guard Jadrian Tracey.

Oregon 35, Arizona 41: Wildcats guard KJ Lewis makes both free throws after a foul on Nate Bittle. With two fouls, Altman subs Bittle out of the game with 1:37 to go in the half.

Oregon 35, Arizona 39: Arizona’s Jaden Bradley makes a 15-footer, and then lays it in on the fast break after blocking a shot by TJ Bamba.

Oregon 35, Arizona 35: The Ducks tie it up with a put back from Bittle

Oregon 33, Arizona 35: Oregon center Nate Bittle draws the offensive foul on Awaka, his second of the game. TV timeout with 3:43 remaining in the first half.

Oregon 33, Arizona 35: The Wildcats reclaim the lead with a three-pointer from Arizona guard Anthony Dell’orso.

Oregon 33, Arizona 32: TJ Bamba responds and makes the bucket from the paint.

Oregon 31, Arizona 32: After TJ Bamba misses a three-pointer, the Wildcats take their first lead of the game on layup by Jaden Bradley.

Oregon 31, Arizona 30: Arizona gets three offensive rebounds on one possession and eventually makes the put back.

Oregon 31, Arizona 28: Foul on Kwame Evans Jr., and Arizona’s KJ lewis makes one of two free throws.

Oregon 31, Arizona 27: After a missed jumper from Jackson Shelstad, Tobe Awaka dunks it on the other end.

Oregon 31, Arizona 25: Arizona’s Jaden Bradley responds and makes a mid-range shot.

Oregon 31, Arizona 23: Oregon guard TJ Bamba drills the three-pointer late in the shot clock and ends a 9-0 run for Arizona.

Oregon 28, Arizona 23: Arizona commits a foul with 7:46 remaining in the half. TV timeout.

Oregon 28, Arizona 23: Jackson Shelstad responds for the Ducks with a long two-point shot.

Oregon 26, Arizona 23: Arizona’s defense forces another turnover, but Arizona misses the three-point shot.

Oregon 26, Arizona 23: Oregon commits two consecutive turnovers out of the break, and Arizona is able to capitalize with a three-pointer from Caleb Love.

Oregon 26, Arizona 20: Caleb Love scores another basket, leading Oregon coach Dana Altman to call his first timeout of the game with 9:36 remaining in the first half.

Oregon 26, Arizona 18: Tobe Awaka grabs the offensive rebound and makes the put back. Arizona is on an 8-2 run.

Oregon 26, Arizona 16: The Wildcats force a jump ball in the paint. Arizona gains possession as a result.

Oregon 26, Arizona 16: Arizona’s Tobe Awaka fights through contact and banks in the shot to cut Oregon’s lead to 10 points.

Oregon 26, Arizona 14: TV timeout with 11:35 remaining in the half. Arizona guard Caleb Love makes another mid-range jumper, and Oregon’s Keeshawn Barthelemy responds with a layup.

Oregon 24, Arizona 12: Shelstad makes another three-point shot followed by a layup from Arizona’s KJ Lewis.

Oregon 21, Arizona 10: Wildcats forward Tobe Awaka misses both free throws after a foul on Bittle.

Oregon 21, Arizona 10: Arizona’s Carter Bryant makes a three-pointer followed by a turnover on Bittle.

Oregon 21, Arizona 7: After Arizona guard Jaden Bradley makes a three-pointer, Shelstad hits the floater on the other end to keep Oregon’s lead at 14 points.

Oregon 19, Arizona 4: Evans Jr. backs down his defender for the lay-in.

Oregon 17, Arizona 4: Out of the timeout, Kwame Evans Jr. misses the free throw, but Jackson Shelstad steals a possession on the offensive boards.

Oregon 17, Arizona 4: After another turnover on Arizona, the Ducks score again in transition. Oregon forward Kwame Evans Jr. grabs the offensive rebound and was fouled as he made the put back. Evans Jr. will shoot one free throw after the TV timeout. 15:11 remaining in the first half.

Oregon 15, Arizona 4: Shelstad gets the steal and lays it in on the fast break.

Oregon 13, Arizona 4: After a few scoreless possessions from both teams, Oregon center Nate Bittle drains a three-pointer.

Oregon 10, Arizona 4: Oregon guard TJ Bamba drives through the lane and finishes strong with a dunk.

Oregon 8, Arizona 4: Foul on Brandon Angel. Arizona forward Trey Townsend makes both free throws.

Oregon 8, Arizona 2: Another three-pointer from the Ducks, made by Oregon guard Jackson Shelstad.

Oregon 5, Arizona 2: After a travel on Arizona, Angel drains a three-pointer on the other end, followed by a midrange jump shot from Wildcats guard Caleb Love.

Oregon 2, Arizona 0: The Ducks start the game with a dunk from Oregon forward Brandon Angel.

In the first round, Oregon Ducks coach Dana Altman led his team to another March victory over the Liberty Flames. The Ducks won by a convincing 29 points, led by guard Jackson Shelstad’s 17 points. Oregon center Nate Bittle finished with 14 points and 10 rebounds.

After the win, Altman praised the energy that his team brought to the game.

“I thought the fellas came out with a lot of energy. The early threes kind of got us going, but I thought our defensive activity was really, really good. We moved the ball. We made some plays for each other there. Jackson (Shelstad) and (guard Keeshawn Barthelemy), Nate (Bittle) hit some threes,” Altman said.

MORE: 5-Star Quarterback Jared Curtis Committing After Oregon Ducks, Georgia Bulldogs Visits?

MORE: New England Patriots Visit Oregon Ducks Running Back Jordan James Ahead Of NFL Draft

MORE: 5-Star Tight End Recruit Mark Bowman Leaning Oregon Ducks, Georgia Bulldogs?

With a large lead, Altman was able to give some of his starters some rest while allowing other Ducks a chance to see the floor in the NCAA Tournament. Will Oregon’s first-round blowout help them at all against Arizona?

“When we had the game in hand there, I didn’t want to play anybody too many minutes. We got a game on Sunday, and the transition that Arizona exhibited today, you know, we’re going to have a lot of running,” said Altman. “I mean, they were pushing the tempo. We’ve played them a number of times over the last 14 years, so we know the pressure they’re going to put on in transition. And so we’re a little fortunate there that we didn’t have to play guys 35 minutes.”

The Wildcats’ matchup with Akron in the first round resembled Oregon’s win over Liberty. Arizona won by 28 points, and 15 Wildcats earned playing time. Guard Jaden Bradley led all scorers with 19 points in the first-round matchup. Arizona also saw valuable contributions from forward Trey Townsend and guard Caleb Love. Off of the bench, Wildcats forward Carter Bryant finished with 12 points and five rebounds.

Oregon and Arizona’s meeting in the NCAA Tournament resembles the numerous battles between the Ducks and the Wildcats when both teams were part of the Pac-12. Arizona coach Tommy Lloyd spoke about the history between the two programs before Sunday night’s matchup.

“It is a little weird playing them in the second round of the tournament because it’s a team that you’re used to being a conference rival, and usually you wouldn’t see that until later in the NCAA Tournament,” said Lloyd.

Oregon’s first-in-the-nation statewide rent control legislation didn’t chase away new housing construction after the Legislature adopted the controversial policy in 2019. But one of the biggest worries for rent-control skeptics has always been if lawmakers would leave well enough alone.

The worry is merited. The law started off with a cap on annual rent increases of 7% plus inflation for buildings 15 years or older. But amid spiking inflation, legislators in 2023 added a proviso that such an increase could not exceed 10%.

The backsliding appears to continue this session.

House Bill 3054 would allow rent increases no greater than inflation for those living in manufactured home parks while Senate Bill 722 – largely aimed at banning algorithm-based pricing software by rental companies – includes a provision to remove the rent cap exemption for buildings older than seven years old. Although both stem from good intentions, these short-term Band-Aids carry negative long-term consequences – most notably, a message that the developers and investors needed to reverse the state’s housing deficit should just steer clear of Oregon.

To be fair, legislators are understandably trying to respond to the urgent needs of constituents, many of whom are already struggling to make rent. HB 3054 addresses a particularly vulnerable group – people who own their manufactured homes, but pay rent to the owner of the manufactured home community where they live.

They don’t have the option of easily picking up and moving when faced with the large rent hikes that corporate owners regularly pass along, said Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Southern Jackson County, one of the bill’s chief sponsors. And manufactured homes provide a vital source of affordable housing in a state that needs every bit it can get.

But clamping down on allowable rent also squeezes the mom-and-pop operations that have long tried to keep increases down but are facing soaring insurance, utility charges, maintenance costs and property tax expenses. The likely result? Many have testified that they may end up selling to those same corporate operators or to developers eager for the underlying land – but not the manufactured homes.

SB 722 is less targeted and could ultimately have a broader, negative impact on Oregon’s housing market if it goes through unamended. Currently, Oregon exempts new apartment buildings less than 15 years old from the statewide rent cap, giving investors more confidence about taking on the financial risk of new construction. The bill calls for slashing that exemption period to only seven years – a cut that could dramatically change the value of a building and, with it, the financial calculus for investors and developers.

However, rather than tailor solutions to the problems – perhaps by increasing funding for targeted rent assistance – both bills double down on a law that has received little analysis of its impact on Oregonians. The rent stabilization law, Senate Bill 608, was the first statewide rent control legislation in the country. While outside economists have looked at overall trends, the state has commissioned no review of its effects, the governor’s spokeswoman acknowledged. Such a new approach to addressing our years-old housing crisis should merit far more curiosity and scrutiny than it has.

Anecdotally, however, Oregonians have shared stories of rent hikes that now routinely match the cap, Marsh said. It’s as if the cap has simply become the default – a relatively unsurprising reaction in a market where the state controls the price someone can set, regardless of any change in underlying costs.

Both Marsh and Sen. Chris Gorsek, D-Gresham and a chief sponsor of SB 722, told the editorial board they are considering amendments to their bills to address concerns. Marsh is looking at exempting smaller manufactured home communities in an effort to direct the restrictions to larger corporate owners. Gorsek’s bill has two amendments under consideration – one that shortens the exemption period to buildings 10 years and older and a second that drops any change to the exemption. Legislators would be wise to adopt the latter option immediately.

But even if that occurs, legislators must acknowledge that they are broadcasting that Oregon is an unreliable place to do business as its lawmakers don’t grasp or don’t care about the financial considerations that go into making long-term multimillion-dollar investments. Instead, hasty legislation and the lack of any state analysis of how rent stabilization has affected rents reinforces a sense that Oregon governs by feel.

No rent cap, no matter how low, will add the hundreds of thousands of new housing units needed over the next decade. State and local government, despite devoting hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years to affordable housing construction, can barely make a dent in the hundreds of thousands of units that Oregon must add in the next decade.

Instead, legislators’ reflex is to continually clamp down on what rent stabilization allows. So far, based on comparisons to Washington state, Oregon’s existing 10% cap appears not to have chased away development, economist Mike Wilkerson said. But shifts on that front could easily change the equation.

“This slippery slope is what will actually make investors leery,” he said, adding that they will do “what every rational person is going to do – assume that’s going to continue.”

Oregon’s elected leaders should recognize that tighter rent stabilization provisions won’t lead Oregon out of our housing deficit. It will only dig the hole deeper.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board