About 10% of Shasta County’s Opioid Settlement Funds are Going to Prevent Youth Substance Use
The decision to allocate $4 million of overall opioid funds to two organizations occurred without an overall strategic plan for opioid fund use. Here’s what you need to know.
A committee that was formed by the Board of Supervisors late last year, formerly known as the “Youth Prevention Council,” was rechristened to CORE (Community Opioid Response and Education).
CORE includes four members: Jenna Coulter, Executive Director of Shasta Youth Options; Jenna Berry, Executive Director of Raising Shasta, Superintendent of Columbia Elementary School District Clay Ross, and Amanda Faith, a local mother who lost her teenaged son to substance use.
During the May 27 Board of Supervisors meeting, the County officially allocated a collective $4 million over four years toward the two nonprofits at the heart of CORE, setting into motion the board’s hope of preventing substance use among Shasta’s children and teens. The decision came two months after a tentative agreement by the board to fund CORE’s four-year plan on March 19.
Under the two contracts Youth Options will receive $1 million, and Raising Shasta, $3 million. That amount equals about 10% of Shasta County’s approximately $40 million in opioid restitution funds.
Why Start with Youth Prevention?
In comments to supervisors over the last six months Board Chair Kevin Crye has repeatedly insisted that spending money on preventing youth substance use is the most important and most urgent issue when it comes to the opioid crisis. National guidance for how to spend opioid funds indicates he’s largely on track, saying preventing youth substance use should be a key goal of any opioid settlement fund spending plan.
The same guidance also emphasizes the need for developing a fair and transparent process for the use of all opioid settlement funds, something that has not yet occurred in Shasta County.
How were the Organizations in CORE Chosen?
According to CORE member and parent Amanda Faith last month, “putting together four random community members to write a substance proposal, however unconventional, has already made an incredible change in Shasta County.”
Faith’s use of the words “random” and “unconventional” were references to the group’s unique genesis. The four individuals and organizations at the heart of CORE were spontaneously cobbled together by Crye towards the end of a special meeting last fall about how to spend opioid litigation funds.
Out of the twenty agencies that presented to the Board at that time, Raising Shasta and Youth Options are the only ones to have received funding thus far.
Raising Shasta is an organization focused on preventing child abuse through community outreach, youth development, and family support. Youth Options provides education and other services to local young people through programs like Youth Peer Court, a diversion program that utilizes a restorative justice process.
The Board’s decision to fund just these two nonprofits so far leaves out eighteen other agencies that requested funds, including two that already have a focus on youth substance prevention, the Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) and Shasta County Chemical People. On November 8, 2024, SCOE sent the Board a letter signed by Shasta County’s school district superintendents asking Supervisors to set aside 10% of the County’s opioid settlement funds for school-based prevention and intervention projects. Supervisors chose another approach.
What is CORE’s Plan to Prevent Youth Substance Use?
CORE’s stated goal is to reduce substance use among youth by 50% over the next four years. Progress towards that goal will be difficult to track as the group’s presentation did not include data about current rates of substance use among Shasta County teens, something CORE’s leaders said is hard to find.
CORE will begin their work with an awareness campaign, curriculum development, and data collection. These services will be provided by Raising Shasta, which will also coordinate the efforts of the ongoing CORE team.
Moving forward, the group hopes to reduce substance use among youth primarily through programs that Youth Options and Raising Shasta are already running, including one-to-one mentoring, a youth boxing program, peer courts, and drug education for families.
CORE leaders haven’t said how they decided those programs would be the most effective approach to preventing youth substance use other than sharing their personal beliefs that they work. Neither organization agreed to speak with Shasta Scout for this story despite multiple attempts over many weeks.
Is Mentoring an Effective Approach to Youth Substance Use?
Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development (Blueprints) is a project of the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder that works to identify programs that are scientifically proven to be effective for youth, families and communities.
The agency provides a national registry of programs that are working with youth, organizing those programs by success rate. Programs focused on aggression reduction and substance use prevention, which are within the services that will be offered by Youth Options and Raising Shasta under their opioid settlement contracts, fall within the model and model plus categories which include programs that have shown verified success.
Three mentoring programs, such as those provided by Raising Shasta, are included in Blueprints “promising” category, indicating that they experimentally yield some signs of success, none are listed in the “model” or “model plus” designation, as outlined in the Blueprints data.
During the Board’s discussion, Supervisor Matt Plummer noted that “when we’re considering giving out $4 million, it’s important that we… are confident that money will be spent well.” Shasta Scout emailed Plummer to ask what data led him to support CORE’s plan, which is largely mentorship-focused.
Citing multiple sources such as the National Institute of Justice, the National Mentoring Resource Center, and the Chronicle of Evidence Based Mentoring, Plummer wrote that one should exercise “cautious optimism” about the effects of mentoring on youth substance use prevention, as the data isn’t conclusive.
Here’s What Else You Should Know
Last fall, when Crye selected Youth Options as one of the two organizations to move forward in the opioid funding process, he was serving on the board of the nonprofit. Since then, Crye said, he’s left the board as Youth Options conducts a reorganization of its board structure. Information about the organization’s board members is not available online and Youth Options has not responded to Shasta Scout’s request for an interview.
The county’s policy manual forbids any director of a nonprofit corporation from involvement in “establishing or influencing any contractual relationship between the County and the corporation.” State conflict of interest law also forbids directors of nonprofits to participate in the making of contracts related to the organization whose board they serve on, with certain exceptions, but even then the connection must be formally cited during the process.
Shasta County CEO David Rickert and County Counsel Joseph Larmour did not respond to requests for comment on why Crye was able to be involved with the making of the Youth Options contracts, given both county policy and conflict of interest law. Neither did Crye.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Authors
Comments (26)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
The Doug LaMalfa I covered: Authentic, cranky and deeply caring
After the sudden death of U.S. Rep Doug LaMalfa, a CalMatters reporter who covered him for 20 years reflects on his life and legacy.
When I moved to Shasta County in 1978, I was informed by relatives who were well established in this community, that to get anywhere or anything done, it was based on who you knew and not what you knew. They emphasized that connections were vital and “skills” were not. I painfully discovered these lessons in the beginning. I was also told this was a “good ol’ boys” town and this was said not in a good way. I grew up in a republican home, and for many years attended one of the “big” conservative churches. I was a mentor for many a young person and a volunteer crisis intervention lay counselor/advocate. I am a strong believer in mentoring and sponsorship programs. HOWEVER, accountability, transparency, integrity, data, stats and clear goals/plans are ESSENTIAL for something as critical and complex as substance abuse rehabilitation and prevention. As usual, Herr Crye and his cronies are flying by the seat of their pants, handing out favors to those they favor and will probably personally benefit from. While I hold no grievances against these groups, it is NOT wrong to demand accountability and reasonable answers, especially when SO MUCH IS AT STAKE! But once again Crye and company are ignoring common sense and their followers are being led blindly as sheep led by a false shepherd.
IMHO, this is deeply personal and vindictive. Also, I keep reading about how “it just works” with zero data. I challenge the members of this community to stand up for the YOUTH who are already here and struggling. This is about replacing people already doing the “job” and stripping them of years of experience and public service… only to REPLACE them with friends, family or church pew neighbors. And, yes this is a conspiracy, questionable and disappointing, sadly nothing new to our beautiful area.
Again we see the same pattern of behavior with Crye. Always handing our county dollars to his friends and colleagues and he completely ignored the organizations who have a solid track record for providing services that are working with those who are currently dealing with addiction . As a former supervisor, this was one of the efforts I focused on as a supervisor. Former county counsel Jim Ross worked very hard to obtain these funds to be spent in Shasta County and I believe we are neglecting to focus on what the funds were intended for. The bulk of these dollars should be spent for treatment of those suffering from addiction NOW. If you want to slow crime and homelessness in this county and help those addicted, that’s where the majority of this money should be allocated. Not to fund a group who has no real track record of providing results. The public should be following closely how these dollars are being spent and call out any cronyism that exists. We want to save lives now in addition to working with youths for prevention measures. To date, this board has not addressed the current crisis and how to truly provide the much needed services to those desperately needing treatment. I am truly disappointed on how this has been handled after I spent much time and effort to secure funding to help those most in need. Please Shasta County speak out and demand accountability.
Mary Rickert,
Shasta County did speak out and demand accountability. That is why you were voted out of office in the last election.
No Paul. As a fiscal conservative I would say that it is more like Shasta county got taken on a ride by a bunch of grifters.
You are saying the voters are stupid? That is really insulting. Maybe the voters did not care for Mary Rickert’s left leaning politics.
Anyone that knows me, knows I am conservative Republican who preached fiscal conservatism from the dais. There has been so much waste inthe last few years in Shasta County decisions made by the board majority, in addition to taking care of their friends with large settlements on the back of the taxpayers. The tribal agreement alone has been predicated to cost the taxpayers $200m over the span of the 30 year contract. I was the conservative on the board and my record proves it. The lies that I was a Democrat were not true. I listened to all my constituents and was mislabeled a liberal because the supervisor’s job is to be non-partisan. So continue to follow this board majority with the corruption and the cronyism. Time will tell that this approach will lead to financial disaster for the county’s residents.
I’ve lived here my whole life, and I can easily say most voters are stupid, yes. You can’t go 5 minutes on a local facebook group with people trying to spread propaganda, and believing the first thing they read/hear. A lack of common sense and not trying to do any due diligence makes people stupid
I am 3rd generation north state. There has always been poor leadership for the most part in both city and county politics! Good journalism is investigating. It is a illumination of situations. Transparency and facts need to always be brought forth. The more knowledge of exactly what is happening will bring more community involvement and DISCUSSIONS. Good journalism asks hard questions to get accountability. Accountability in any society is a must!
Nevin and Anneliese, nice reporting, thanks. Unfortunately, when Crye is involved, I fear there’s always a possibility of a conflict of interest. Like the shady Chriss Street $40,000 dollar scandal this will need monitoring.
I happen to know from personal experience right here in Shasta County that mentoring young adults and teens works! It works so well that I actually did it! Every teen or young adult that I mentored now owns homes and businesses! Some of them were as young as 14 when they started with me! Actually, none of you are qualified to make comment or accusations based on the quality and excellence of mentoring! Get back to me when you’ve actually done it
Hi Jon. I’ve no doubt that mentoring is positive for many! I have more questions about how successful mentoring is in preventing youth substance use. I suspect, although the research I took time for didn’t turn up clear backing for this, that it depends on several factors – including how well trained the mentor is in substance use prevention and how intentional they are about having those conversations with the person they’re mentoring. Would have been interesting to have those kinds of specifics discussed in board meetings and/or included in the contract.
Leave it to the liberals to try and glom onto the money! They actually think that having 20 organizations funded with $40 million is going to solve a problem when everything always goes to administrative costs with liberals! Get used to a new way of doing business people
Actually, I’m a fiscal conservative and I do not think we should be having these conflict of interest in our local government.
There’s nothing ‘liberal’ about wanting accountability.
Leave it to the conservatives to whine about the left when trying to take the focus off of the actual point, of what’s going to happen to the other 90% of the money
This may not be up to date, and I don’t recognize every name, but you see representatives from the cities, the county, the DA, RPD, Probation. It was formed specifically to bring a lot of public representatives on the board.
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/68-0381728
Shasta Rocks, yes we’ve looked at this. Here’s the thing… these are reasonable questions to ask of the CEO, the attorney, Mr. Crye and the organization. We are ready and willing to share their responses and/or take them into account as we write. But without those responses we are left with uncertainty. Certainly, discussing whether Mr. Crye’s involvement with the board was or was not an obstacle to the making of the contract would have been an easy step for the county attorney, ceo or supervisor Crye himself to publicly undertake.
Unfortunately, your tactics and motives are suspect and heavily one-sided, and so not receiving answers is something that you should get used to.
Jon,
Ms. Pierce is not an unbiased or objective news reporter. those all but disappeared long ago. The only decent local reporter left is Mike Mangas.
They should talk to the local media! No argument there.
Well, hang on a sec. You’re not suggesting that it’s a conflict of interest, shady, sketchy, or otherwise non transparent? (Rhetorical question ) Or how much it will be benefit Chair Narcissus. How
convenient that board information is not available on their website. Keep after him please. He’s a ball and chain to Shasta County and utterly bereft of ethics.
ἀνάξιος!
Anaxios!
“Last fall, when Crye selected Youth Options as one of the two organizations to move forward in the opioid funding process, he was serving on the board of the nonprofit. Since then, Crye said, he’s left the board as Youth Options conducts a reorganization of its board structure. Information about the organization’s board members is not available online and Youth Options has not responded to Shasta Scout’s request for an interview.”
And nor should they!
Looking over the upcoming board meeting next week it appears Crye has assigned himself as the only member to
the Youth Violence Prevention Coordinating Council (dba Youth Options)
Without knowing if he’s removed from the Youth Options board prior to awarding contract this could be a FPPC violation. Is his private business going to be providing services to Youth Options?
Sigh.
More than a few people were aware that Crye was going to have a conflict of interest in trying to direct how this money was spent.
Come on people of Shasta county!! Wake up and see Crye for who he really is. He doesn’t care about his constituents or what’s best for them. Crye cares about Crye.
98 percent certain Supervisor Crye served on the board of Youth Options Shasta as the county’s representative, as that was how that entity was established.
It did come together a little unusually, but these are good organizations doing solid work with kids.
You’re missing the point.
There may be some good people on board doing solid work for the community, but that does not change the fact that there was a conflict of interest for Kevin Crye.
Again, not the first conflict of interest for him.