What could get in the way

Naming the hard parts early is how we plan around them.

Before publishing these strategies we asked three kinds of skeptics to try to break them: a rural gun owner who assumes a new group formed after a shooting is a campaign for new firearm laws, a school district administrator and lawyer who has to protect students’ records and the district’s liability, and a county funder who knows how thin clinician hours and grant dollars are here. Their objections were specific, and most of them were right.

The list below gathers the obstacles that cut across every pillar, with our honest response to each. Some responses are rules we propose to adopt in writing. Some are limits we accept, like the pace of district counsel or a tribal partnership that moves on the tribe’s timeline. None of them is solved by good intentions. We would report against these obstacles each October alongside the measures on every strategy page, and say plainly where an answer did not hold.

The Advocate pillar decides everything else
Why it matters: Hunters will judge the group by the first bill it supports, not by the lockboxes it hands out, and one bill that gun owners read as aimed at them empties the Oregon Hunters Association chapters, the ranges and the gun shops the Lock It Up pillar depends on. Oregon gun owners already split about evenly on stricter laws, so half the room is primed to leave.
How we would meet it: We propose to publish the full year-one Advocate agenda before the first lock table and limit it to things a hunter can sign: funding for the school safety and prevention system, a liability shield for ranges and gun shops that temporarily hold a neighbor's firearms, the tip line and youth care access. No positions on acquisition, carry, hardware, dealers, district campus policies or Measure 114. Protective order work limited to explaining the existing law from both sides. A written firewall between Advocate and everything else, enforced by the Lock It Up council.
Source: Oregon Values and Beliefs Center release via FlashAlert: Guns and Regulations (survey J...
The pattern after other tragedies is the burden of proof
Why it matters: The gun owners we listened to expect the pattern they have seen elsewhere: school safety funding paired with new firearm restrictions after one tragedy. A new nonprofit formed after a shooting is assumed to be on that path until it proves otherwise.
How we would meet it: The identity statement says what the group would not do and is signed by people with something to lose, hunters and a range operator, by day 60, with the three sheriffs' offices invited to sign.
Source: Florida Senate 2018 Summary of Legislation Passed: CS/SB 7026 Public Safety
The founders are the wrong messengers for Lock It Up
Why it matters: A counselor and an educator founded this. In focus groups with 32 rural Iowa farm and ranch parents who keep firearms, the sheriff's office was the favored safety messenger, while health care workers, school staff and politically backed sources were seen as less credible. Every clinic logo and every public health phrase on a lock card costs reach.
How we would meet it: Ask gun owners, sheriffs and hunters to front every Lock It Up material and event; clinicians design, fund and evaluate from behind. Use the message built with 39 rural Central Oregon gun owners and the state's own gun-owner-written brochure. Recruit roster clinicians who hunt and say so.
Source: Beyond Locks and Lectures: What Rural Parents Think Would Be Effective Firearm Safety M...
Every form looks like a registry
Why it matters: Baseline cards, follow-up phone numbers, request forms routed to a school district, vendor tags, a capacity board, protective order counts by county. Each is a reasonable program tool, and each one, to a rural gun owner, is a list of gun-owning households held by a group with a policy arm.
How we would meet it: One published data policy: anonymous cards, optional contact kept separate and destroyed after use, no-questions pickup, no youth names held by the nonprofit, written retention limits, sharing of counts only and local ownership of every dataset. Oregon's privacy law already binds the group, so say so and go further. Hunters hold the clipboards.
Source: Enrolled Senate Bill 619 (2023) and ORS 646A.572
Two incompatible data promises must be resolved in one direction
Why it matters: The care strategies need a coordinator holding names, ages, towns and screening results of referred minors; the technology policy promises the nonprofit holds no youth-identifying records. A district cannot refer into an organization whose data status is unresolved: the coordinator is not a school official under the federal student records law (FERPA) without direct district control and is not an organization already bound by the federal health privacy law (HIPAA).
How we would meet it: Intake would live inside an organization already bound by the health privacy law (the county's Access Team, the front door to county behavioral health; BestCare Treatment Services, the nonprofit provider serving Jefferson and Crook counties; or Mosaic Community Health, the region's community health center) or at the High Desert Education Service District (the regional agency that supports all six school districts) as a designated school official; the group would fund the hours and hold only counts with no names. This is said in the first meeting with any superintendent.
The protective order pipeline fear is grounded, not paranoid
Why it matters: Deschutes County has been reported as among the state's most frequent users of the law, and national advocacy groups hold it up as a model. A care network attached to threat assessment records held by law enforcement, clinicians trained to see the order as a clinical tool, and scorecards that count petitions look, from a gun owner's side of the fence, like a pipeline from a school flag to a court order that removes firearms.
How we would meet it: No petition would count as a success measure anywhere. The Care Network would not be a petitioner and would supply no information for petitions, written into every agreement. Education would cover respondent rights, the hearing and the return of firearms. RAND's limited rating would be printed beside any protective order number the group publishes, and those numbers would appear only in the Advocate report.
Source: The Bulletin, July 2022
Who pays tells people what it is
Why it matters: The research names a national gun policy funder collaborative, city sponsorship reads as Bend money outside Bend, and donor-advised fund gifts are anonymous. If the money is national policy money or Bend money, the identity statement is a fig leaf.
How we would meet it: A gift acceptance policy that refuses funds from organizations whose primary purpose is firearm policy on either side, names donors above a threshold, and keeps Bend sponsorship for Bend events only. Health funders that exclude advocacy keep the care money clean, and a fiscal sponsor hunters know, such as the Oregon Wildlife Foundation, is interviewed alongside the others.
Source: Fund for a Safer Future
Bend decides and the counties comply
Why it matters: Everything starts in Bend: the founders, the pickup points, the therapists, the sponsor candidates, the first meetings. Jefferson County's commissioners have said publicly that firearm rights matter to their residents, Crook County did not take part in the state student survey, and rural firearm ownership is high. A Bend group arriving with a program is an outsider until it proves otherwise.
How we would meet it: First listening session in Madras or Prineville, with the county commissioners and sheriff invited. First lock tables outside Bend. Board and council seats from outside Bend with real authority. Rural data decisions made by rural districts and counties, with the group paying and staying off the press release.
Source: Capital Press, May 2021
The year-one budget exceeds what regional funders give a new group
Why it matters: The original proposals added to well over $200,000 in year one, while the regional health foundation's grants typically run $10,000 to $50,000, the hospital system treats applicants without tax status as unlikely to be funded, and city sponsorship is event-sized.
How we would meet it: A year-one budget of roughly $100,000 to $150,000 with three funded lines: one coordinator share, lockboxes placed inside the renewal of S.A.F.E., the free lockbox program run by the Central Oregon Suicide Prevention Alliance, and a small evaluation share. Everything else is volunteer or deferred, and the first ask is a founding gift that covers the coordinator.
Source: PacificSource Foundation for Health Improvement
Volunteer clinician hours come out of a system that is already short
Why it matters: The 35 therapists are the same people the county, BestCare, St. Charles and private practices rely on. Rural Oregon has about a third of the licensed behavioral health capacity per resident that urban areas have, most counties fall below one provider per 1,000 residents with high turnover intent, and the regional Medicaid plan, PacificSource Community Solutions, has been reported to be cutting behavioral health rates.
How we would meet it: Measure net capacity added, not roster size. Never pull a licensed position from a public agency to staff the coalition; fund a share of an existing position or a retired clinician. Bill insurance where it exists, reserve volunteer slots for uninsured youth, and buy sessions from a clinic for the rest.
Source: Oregon's Health Care Workforce Needs Assessment 2025 (Oregon Health Authority)
Founder burnout
Why it matters: Two founders with full-time professions face dozens of tasks marked first 90 days, and nearly 90 percent of nonprofit leaders report concern about their own burnout.
How we would meet it: Five things in 90 days: the legal container, joining the alliances, seating the Lock It Up council, pledging the coordinator, and merging the lock program into S.A.F.E. Everything else is months 4 to 12 or year two, with a board member owning each pillar and founders doing program rather than paperwork.
Source: State of Nonprofits 2025: What Funders Need to Know (Center for Effective Philanthropy)
District bandwidth in the recovery year
Why it matters: The regional safety team is small, counselor ratios run above 300 to 1 in two districts, state funding for the school safety system is on the reduction list, schools already file the short follow-up report on what happened with each tip only 35 percent of the time, and staff turnover rises after a school shooting. Nearly every strategy adds a district-side task.
How we would meet it: One ask per district per semester, sequenced by the ESD; the group would carry paperwork, substitutes and printing; everything would route through the ESD so districts see one channel instead of a dozen volunteers; and the group would put money into the public partner, a grant for a backup point of contact or coordinator hours that the ESD controls.
Source: Meet the team, Central Oregon School Safety
Legal plumbing before the first referral takes months, not weeks
Why it matters: A school referral touches a FERPA parent release, a HIPAA authorization, the minor's own consent at 14 and older, and federal substance use confidentiality rules, plus license-specific duties; each of six districts' counsel will want its own form. Districts are also likely to require liability coverage naming them as additional insured and background checks for anyone with student contact, and volunteer immunity holds only if the charity carries insurance.
How we would meet it: Ask the ESD to commission one regional template through its counsel and present it once to all six districts; counselor-initiated referrals on parent consent would start while it is reviewed; the fiscal sponsor would be the contracting party with coverage confirmed in writing; background checks would be part of enrollment; no school-originated referral until the certificate is on file.
Source: Joint Guidance on the Application of FERPA and HIPAA to Student Health Records, Decembe...
Every escalation path ends at the county crisis system, and civic energy fades
Why it matters: The care promise, the coordinator and the referral agreement all escalate to the county's Access Team or the Stabilization Center; the status of youth mobile crisis response (MRSS) in the three counties is unconfirmed and the state audit found gaps in the crisis system. Nobody asked the county what volume it can take. Meanwhile engagement surges after public tragedies and fades between them, and programs without an institutional home end.
How we would meet it: We would ask for a written escalation agreement with Deschutes County Behavioral Health and BestCare that defines what escalation means, with volumes and hours, and would fund a share of Access Team capacity if the group generates volume. Every program would have a named institutional home (a county, the ESD, the alliance, Oregon State Police or 211info) by month 18, and the group would become a funder and convener rather than an operator by year three.
Source: Oregon Secretary of State Audit 2025-14: Oregon Faces Challenges in Addressing Gaps in...

See the strategies Join us

Last reviewed: October 20, 2026

What could get in the way

The Advocate pillar decides everything else

The pattern after other tragedies is the burden of proof

The founders are the wrong messengers for Lock It Up

Every form looks like a registry

Two incompatible data promises must be resolved in one direction

The protective order pipeline fear is grounded, not paranoid

Who pays tells people what it is

Bend decides and the counties comply

The year-one budget exceeds what regional funders give a new group

Volunteer clinician hours come out of a system that is already short

Founder burnout

District bandwidth in the recovery year

Legal plumbing before the first referral takes months, not weeks

Every escalation path ends at the county crisis system, and civic energy fades