Mayor Katie Wilson is expected to release her gun violence reduction plan, and possibly her overall public safety plan, sometime this week.
She will act amid increasing public discontent over safety, street disorder, and public drug use in our city. Though recent gun violence at events like Bite of Seattle and Labor Day weekend shootings in Belltown have worsened fears, the core issue is the persistent and growing presence of tents, trash, dilapidated RVs, and drug users slumped over or passed out on our sidewalks. These public space conditions are the true foundation of public outrage.
When the public routinely sees open drug use in broad daylight without consequences, it erodes trust in Seattle’s social contract. While it may not make people feel unsafe, it fosters a disturbing sense that anything goes on the streets, and danger could happen at any time. This unease has persisted for years as city government has struggled to find solutions. I admit I was part of those struggles at City Hall and didn’t always have good answers.
Let’s acknowledge that our approach over the past dozen years or so has failed, and the best evidence is what we see with our own eyes and the angry complaints we hear from the people of Seattle. It’s time we do something different.
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, we should look to San Francisco for guidance. Under Mayor Daniel Lurie, our politically progressive West Coast neighbor has abandoned the laissez-faire approach to public drug use and the associated crime and disorder. Mayor Lurie has increased police hiring and said the city will no longer tolerate illicit drug sales or public use. He even wants to experiment with mandatory drug recovery treatment. And, just as important, he has increased shelter capacity and consolidated social services into a more integrated, per-person focus.
Today, unlike in Seattle, 69% of San Franciscans tell pollsters that their city is headed in the right direction and give their mayor a remarkably high 74% approval rating.
The question for us is whether we’re prepared to take bold steps to end drug-related street crime and disorder that is causing significant harm to neighborhoods and our city’s reputation (see, for example, here). As the mayor prepares to announce her plans, here are research-based strategies to help us address the crime and disorder people are begging us to end.
Compassionate Care and Results
The key word here is results: clear, measurable outcomes at the per-person level that demonstrate our efforts are making a real difference.
Consider the debate about “harm reduction,” such as providing clean needles, foil for smoking fentanyl, or setting up supervised injection sites. The academic literature is full of research and opinion on the efficacy of this approach, much of it conflicting.
Harm reduction has a place, and I generally favor these efforts, with one important caveat. It works best when paired with strong, assertive pushes toward treatment, and yes, in some cases, with mandated treatment, such as for frequent offenders who refuse multiple offers of help. Without effective treatment options, “harm reduction” can perpetuate the status quo, breed public distrust and anger, and cause real harm to neighborhoods and to the individuals it’s meant to help.
Many will recoil at mandated treatment. The “personal autonomy” advocates (“we need to wait until they request our help”) will object to requiring anyone to enter recovery treatment, while ignoring how thoroughly addiction destroys personal autonomy in the first place.
Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University psychiatry professor and one of our nation’s leading addiction authorities, has a clear-eyed perspective on this issue.
“It is well established that the government can provide care to seriously mentally ill people even if they refuse . . . such civil commitment has existed for a century in the United States, and all 50 states have laws governing the practice . . . Mandatory treatment that gives people their good judgment back is a restoration of their autonomy, not a violation of it.” (Listen to Humphreys explain his approach on this Blue City Blues podcast.)
The same need for measurable results applies to the “Housing First” concept, which holds that getting people indoors is the first step toward stability. As with harm reduction, Housing First has a place if it’s more than simply providing indoor living space. It must be more than “Housing Only.” It needs to assertively move people toward treatment and self-sufficiency.
City government should fund both low-barrier housing, where drug and alcohol use is allowed (a Housing First strategy), and safe, sober housing, where it isn’t. Both are needed. Low-barrier spaces alone put people trying to escape addiction in constant proximity to active drug dealers and users, a temptation that’s very hard to resist.
Currently, the city’s funding primarily supports low-barrier housing, meaning there are no restrictions or conditions to meet to move in. We should also fund safe, sober housing for those serious about overcoming addiction and encourage low-barrier residents to move in. The current near-exclusive focus on low-barrier housing shows little progress in self-sufficiency or in drug treatment. Now that effective opioid treatments exist, let’s use them to improve this.
All efforts should include ongoing assessments of effectiveness at the individual level. Is the client progressing toward independence, drug treatment, or avoiding criminal behavior? What we measure reveals what we truly value and aim for.
Seattle plans to shift social service contract management from the King County Regional Homeless Authority back to the city, offering an opportunity to reevaluate procurement for a more strategic, integrated approach and to discontinue funding what’s not working. This can reduce service duplication and boost accountability. San Francisco saw a 22% decrease in unsheltered homelessness this year compared to the previous year. We should seek the same reduction. (The city changed its method for counting to use trained city employees instead of volunteers.)
As Humphreys says, we need to “turn the dials,” experiment, and adjust our interventions to meet people’s needs while protecting the common good. Seattle spends tens of millions of dollars a year on homeless services. It’s time to make sure we are getting the results we need.
Continue Aggressive Police Officer Hiring
Cops matter, and Seattle faces a real police staffing crisis. Despite a hiring surge over the past couple of years, our police service still needs a net increase of more than 300 officers to respond effectively to calls for service and to conduct proactive policing that prevents crime in the first place. Any slowdown in hiring will continue to reduce our officers’ effectiveness and increase response times for high-priority calls.
Being so short on officers hampers our ability to implement proven strategies to reduce gun violence and other violent crime. It also hampers efforts to address the “street takeover” events we are seeing, a highly dangerous, social media-driven phenomenon that often turns violent.
Stop Tolerating Public Drug Sales and Use
Mayor Lurie said San Francisco would no longer tolerate drug use or sale in public spaces. Seattle’s political and law enforcement leaders should take the same stand.
Tolerating the public sale and use of drugs invites other crimes: shoplifting and vehicle break-ins, the fencing of stolen goods, even assault and armed robbery, not to mention harm to those involved. Crime begets crime.
Visit Little Saigon near 12th Avenue South and South Jackson Street, where you will find dozens of people high on drugs, some in a fentanyl crouch, others selling and buying stolen property. Businesses are fenced off behind razor wire to screen customers in order to stay open, while others are shut down. Despite years of attempts to restore the neighborhood, open drug use and sales, the main causes of crime and disorder, have largely been tolerated.
I understand why people, including low-income residents and seniors, as well as shop owners and workers in Little Saigon, feel abandoned, as if they don’t matter. Tolerating open drug use and sales blocks neighborhood recovery. It’s time for a new approach.
Alternatives to jail should be available to those who use drugs and want to change, with diversion services tailored to each person. Success should be measured by outcomes such as fewer arrests, treatment enrollment, and stable housing.
Diversion works for some but not for everyone. Many officers support it because jail isn’t always necessary for those seeking change. Seattle’s LEAD program exemplifies diversion. But diversion is only part of the process; monitoring and guiding recovery require effort, and LEAD clients deserve it.
Police Using Focused Deterrence
Calls to restore the police gang unit are misguided — such units focus narrowly on one aspect, assuming gangs are the main issue. Instead, police should create a dedicated, research-based focused deterrence unit staffed by motivated officers who volunteer for the work. This strategy targets the small group causing the most harm — about 80% of crime from 20% of offenders — emphasizing gun violence, human trafficking, and other violent crimes.
Sustaining focused deterrence work is hard; it requires analysts to identify the 20%, map their associations, and craft intervention strategies. (I noted Seattle’s limited success with this work last month and analyzed crime in Seattle against seven West Coast cities.)
Police Technology
Seattle’s Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) was upgraded during the Harrell administration and now consolidates police data, including 911 calls, criminal histories, and CCTV feeds from high-crime areas. Trained analysts provide officers in the field with real-time information, improving effectiveness and accountability. It has strong privacy protections—perhaps the best in any city. We should immediately hire the remaining analysts to enable 24/7 operation, install the remaining CCTV cameras, and reactivate the SODO/Pioneer Square cameras. (Read my argument on RTCC’s importance.)
These bold changes and proactive steps, combined with our non-police efforts, which are vital to success, will help create a safer city for everyone. Let’s hope our leaders acknowledge that the current conditions are intolerable and have the courage to change our approach.
What are your ideas? Share your opinions directly
with the mayor and City Council members.
Of course, you can share your comments with me
anytime using the comment section below.
Leave a Reply