-Good evening. I'm Ellen.
I'm the executive director
of the First Hill Improvement Association.
And we are a neighborhood group doing work
to create a welcoming, vibrant,
and safe neighborhood for everyone.
And our work includes connecting, communicating,
and convening like we are here tonight.
We're honored to be partnering with Town Hall
to bring this event to you
and grateful for our speakers to take time tonight to talk.
So to introduce the discussion,
in our conversations with those who live, work,
and visit the First Hill neighborhood,
one topic consistently rises to the top,
and that is the overlapping crises
that we are experiencing in First Hill and beyond.
And some people frame these issues of homelessness,
mental health issues,
and addiction in terms of public safety,
and others term them as public health issues.
So really, it's both.
So as we're talking tonight, we're going to talk
in interconnected terms about these issues
that are complex and multi-layered, for sure.
But our goal tonight is to better understand
how our system is responding to these crises,
where the challenges lie,
and what solutions are being advanced.
So to do that, we've convened this panel of public officials.
Each will represent a point along the continuum of response.
So Amy, as the chief of the CARE department,
she oversees 911 and dispatches first responders.
And these are often preliminary points of contact
when someone's having a crisis
and they come to the attention of the system.
And then we have Natalie,
who leads coordination efforts across multiple departments,
including the Seattle Police Department
and the care department,
and is shaping strategy around how the city of Seattle
responds to urgent and ongoing safety concerns.
And lastly, Leesa,
who as our King County prosecuting attorney,
addresses the legal and accountability
aspects of public safety, particularly as they intersect
with behavioral health and system reform.
So welcome, all of you, little slices of the system.
Let's begin the conversation just by trying
to understand where we are.
So drug crises are not new,
nor is a lack of access to mental healthcare.
In Seattle,
the lack of affordable housing isn't all that new either.
So what's different about where we are right now
and why these crises are so visible and challenging?
Amy, do you want to start?
-Yeah. Good evening, everyone.
So it's true, these are not new crises.
Most of my career, I was working in mental health,
especially for kids, child welfare.
And I have spoken for years
about our divestment in institutional mental health
in the '60s, that we knew asylums were bad.
There was often abuse and they were ineffective.
And so we closed them and politicians made a plan,
a proposal that we should have community-based resources.
And we never invested in those in any kind of meaningful way
in any community I'm aware of. And so we have, at this point,
you know, we're 50, 60 years later, a lot of neglect.
When I think about first response,
I think about the 911 calls for service.
And if you go back and look at data,
by the '60s,
it was evident that about half the calls were
really social work calls.
Think about PTSD in the space of Vietnam,
escalating rates of addiction.
You have domestic violence, things like that.
But we never set up a response to it.
We didn't set up the new first responder.
And then, again, we did not invest in a system
that was rehabilitative.
We really focused on, I think, more jails and prisons,
relied more heavily on law enforcement
to address problems of human suffering.
And so I think at this point,
it's just proliferated and perpetuated
and it's an enormous problem now.
And then you couple it with drugs like fentanyl,
which are unprecedented.
We've never seen anything like that.
These are lethal drugs.
And so I think that's why it's so much worse today.
-You know, I would agree --
I agree with everything that Amy just shared.
I think what I would add to it is that we are at,
you know, coming off of a worldwide pandemic
where the entire world felt different and looked different.
And the things we saw playing out
on the street during the pandemic
were very much like right here and present.
And there were reasons for that.
I mean, we had to restrict bookings at the King County Jail
to keep individuals who were incarcerated safe,
but also our corrections officers who were demanding
that we not overfill our jails during a worldwide pandemic.
Also, you know, lots of laws get changed within our community
and sometimes there's very little focus on what happens.
But we had a change in the law
where the Blake decision,
our Washington State Supreme Court ruled that possession
of small amounts of drugs was unconstitutional.
And it very much grabbed the attention of our community,
of law enforcement, of court system.
And then there was a debate here in city of Seattle about --
well, not just city of Seattle,
but statewide,
about what to do post-Blake to ensure
that there was both accountability,
but also access to treatment.
And sometimes those things are in tension with one another
when, in an ideal world, they work in collaboration.
So those things played out in very real
like visible ways in our community.
-I think just to add to some of the things
that have already been said by my amazing panelist,
I think first of all, just highlighting fentanyl.
We've had different iterations of certain drugs
throughout the last several decades.
And each of them have taken a toll in terms of the community.
But fentanyl, in particular,
has been realistically is something
that we have not seen before.
I think, first of all, it is cheap.
It is easily accessible, and it changes.
It changes people; it changes their brain chemistry.
And I think we are seeing people that are in the most need.
And all of that does intersect with our public health response,
with our public safety response
because when people are desperate to obtain a drug
that they feel that they need to --
and actually their body is telling them that they need,
it causes them to engage in behavior
that they wouldn't ordinarily do.
So the approach to all of this has to be holistic.
It has to be a public health response.
It has to be a public safety response.
And it also has to be an investment in the resources
that we've already talked about here.
And the biggest thing that I think we really need to focus on
is the coordination of all of those efforts.
And realistically, you're looking at a panel
right now of panelists who do coordinate
and are interested in making sure
that we are not working in silos,
that we are working together,
and that we have not just a one-size-fits-all solution,
but we need to be planning for the actual person
in terms of that.
And I think that's the key piece as well.
-Okay. Thank you.
Can you -- just in terms of crime and accountability,
can you each share a little bit
about your philosophy and approach,
so the why and when of arrests, and bookings, and incarceration?
-Sure. I will start on this.
I know that we've had
some previous conversations and one of the things
I get asked about a lot is whether arrest or booking
into jail serves as a deterrent to crime.
And from where I stand, I don't believe that it is a deterrent.
I think most of the individuals
who find themselves facing incarceration, one,
never believe that they're going to be incarcerated,
or don't think that they're going to get caught,
or they're so heavy into the throes of a crisis
that they aren't thinking about the next steps.
I do think that arrest and booking
can serve as a really important intervention
and an interruption to behavior. I think it's a point
where we can start to take that holistic approach
that Natalie talked about,
but we have to, one, be coordinated in our response.
We have to be really clear on what our goals are.
And we also have to make the investments necessary
to change the behavior in the ways that we want.
-Yeah, I'm smiling because I just argued with my husband
about whether or not bookings are a deterrent,
so thank you for that.
But the reason I agree with that is
because in the mind of the person, again,
if I have a dependency on a drug,
I believe the first arrest that we made
after the Open Use Ordinance passed,
a person was holding a flyer that basically advertised,
as of the state, you can be arrested.
So it was sad.
It was kind of funny, but dark and sad.
I just don't think it's a meaningful deterrent.
However, I do think if we use that opportunity,
if you've interrupted a cycle that's destructive
and self-destructive,
if then you could help the person, right,
if we had detox on the front end of jails and prisons
and comprehensive -- Leesa and I have talked about this,
if that reentry planning was sincere and comprehensive
and started from the jump, then you might see a difference.
But I think the idea
that the timeout fundamentally is going to change,
especially a decades-long pattern,
I just don't see evidence that that's true.
-I think to add to it, it's really complicated and nuanced,
but essentially a jail booking,
and if we're just talking about that specifically,
I wouldn't say a deterrent.
It acts as an interruption.
And that interruption can take many different forms.
I think, again, just emphasizing some of the things
that were already said is, you know,
how much do we actually invest in jail release planning?
If somebody is booked for three days,
do they have the opportunity to have a full assessment
of what they need?
Do they actually have release planning?
And jail health does do release planning,
but do they do it for the mass of people
that are actually booked?
When we have a plan for anything,
and we communicate that plan well,
and there are steps in place for that,
usually, any person would do better
than just our kind of recurring door-to-door that happens.
I think jail bookings is just one piece of that.
The key piece, if we're having jail, or courts,
or any of that be part of the resource,
is what -- is that holistic? We talk about accountability.
And accountability is really important.
I use accountability and responsibility
for the behavior interchangeably.
But the other piece to think about, too, is,
how are we utilizing our current criminal legal system?
Do we have a holistic model?
I've had the great fortune to be part of expansion
of mental health court in King County, Veterans Court,
where we are actually addressing some
of the underlying mental health challenges
that had been unaddressed,
either based on diagnosis, based on medication,
but also not having a framework in which to really be
able to provide those immediate access to services.
If we're looking, again,
at a model that includes jail and the courts,
drug court is another one
where they are looking at the whole person
from start to finish, what do they need in order to succeed.
And when we've looked at those programs,
both mental health court and drug court,
you will look at the recidivism data
and see that because there is a plan,
it is much more effective and holistic.
Even going to our prisons who have our prison drug offender
or sentencing alternative plan or a residential DOSA plan,
those are a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative as well,
those are programs that, again, look at the whole person
and just say,
what do we need to actually help get this person
out of this cycle?
And so if we're not looking at the whole person,
if we're not looking at what actually is
the underlying issues in terms of
why people are criminal legally involved, it won't work.
And so it is not as simply put
as just looking at jail bookings on the whole.
What is the key piece of that?
So it is definitely more nuanced than just a jail booking.
But it is an interruption that could serve a purpose
if we fund that correctly and invest in that correctly.
And that we also pair that with community-based services
that are ready to receive that individual
once they are out of jail and/or out of prison.
-Thank you.
So aside from the King County Drug Court,
there are some other upstream programs
that can help address substance abuse disorders
and mental health issues to help improve public safety.
So one of those is CARE.
Amy, can you tell us a little bit about how CARE operates?
-Yeah.
So the CARE department has three divisions.
The biggest is Seattle 911.
The second, the one that's, I think,
the public is most well aware of,
are the community crisis responders.
I'm always stressing that these are first responders.
That is the design.
From 911,
I should be able to send someone instead of law enforcement
and instead of the fire department when appropriate.
But they're not meant to be case managers.
They're meant to go out like police or fire to triage
and then to hand off to the appropriate system.
So we've been to about 4,200 calls at this point.
We piloted Downtown initially.
No incident, really.
Most of the time,
what we're doing is getting somebody to
where they need to go.
So sometimes connecting people to services.
Sometimes people want detox.
We take folks to Connections.
About 10% of the time,
we're referring to the Crisis Solution Center.
This is a vital piece of the puzzle.
There's Judge McHale, who presides over drug court,
has said several times, you know, CARE,
that diversion first responder,
that is a missing piece of the puzzle
because if you're trying to divert away
from the criminal justice system,
you shouldn't be using police, right, to divert.
That's a contradiction.
However, no matter how many first responders I have
and no matter how good they are, police can be staffed up.
I can have all the firefighters in the world in EMS,
and CARE, and if we don't have the appropriate system
to receive the person and address the issue,
I do not believe the city is going to look different.
So I'm proud of the work that we're doing,
but I'm very quick to say. And then what? What's next?
-And if it's a voluntary system,
what if people who are substance abuse folks,
whose brains are dramatically affected
and really are not interested in opting in --
-Right. --- how effective is it?
-Right.
I think an ideal design, especially in the case
if we think that somebody is using fentanyl,
we think that, again, their days are likely numbered, you know?
If we can see that in the data,
sometimes I know we've already reversed overdose
a number of times.
My preference would be to be able to deploy CARE first,
ideally to also have someone with lived experience
perhaps appear on the scene.
And then if that diversion strategy isn't effective,
you know, you can use motivational interviewing tools
like that to try to incent someone into services
to address their fears and their issues.
Buprenorphine, especially this injectable form,
is really hopeful.
And I find that folks on the street are hearing about it,
that there might be a path into recovery
that does not involve these horrible withdrawals.
But if that doesn't work,
I think it would be appropriate then to call in SPD.
And, again, it's a designated crisis responder is the person
who can refer involuntarily, can use Ricky's Law.
And so I talk about this a lot.
I think ethically it's so complex.
The civil liberties conversation is so crucial.
But I think we've been very intellectually lazy to just go,
no, autonomy, civil liberties, good luck.
And we had -- my first year on the job,
we lost 1,400 neighbors to overdose.
About half of them were under the age of 45.
That is not okay. We can do better than that.
-And how about LEAD?
Natalie, do you want to talk to us
a little bit about that program? -Sure.
I will -- I'll just share that I started with LEAD
when I was working back
at the King County Prosecutor's Office in 2014.
And so I think LEAD started in 2011.
LEAD has changed and morphed over time.
Initially, we were --
the LEAD program was trying to engage those
that were engaged in public use,
low level and also lower-level or substance use, drug dealing,
or drug trafficking.
It's evolved to address a number of different challenges.
But the LEAD program's goal is to,
again, be a diversionary model for both police and
also for the community to provide referrals
of those individuals they know that are in need.
They do that through, again, a harm reduction model.
And in addition to that,
they have outreach services, case workers,
they work with our communities,
they work with other community providers,
and they also work with law enforcement to be someone
to be able to do a warm handoff to in terms of that.
I think even LEAD has been challenged
by the current fentanyl crisis
and also, again, the need to invest
and have on-demand resources.
So there's a lot of people to help
and I think LEAD is doing the best
it can with its current capacity.
And we're also trying to understand, you know,
what is the best model for every one person.
But LEAD is also something
that the city contracts with in terms of a program.
It's actually under the public safety lens at this point.
And eventually, we'll be working on transferring,
I think, the LEAD operational piece
to CARE because we want to have more community providers
for CARE to divert to.
We need to build out that system.
If the mayor were sitting here right now, he would say
that not every response needs a badge and gun or fire.
And we definitely want to build out another system
to be able to refer people to services as a first step.
We still need our police department
and our fire department,
but we definitely need to continue to build
and expand our current third public safety department
in terms of CARE
and make sure that they have the resources
that are needed for that.
-You know, one thing I would add to what Amy and Natalie
have said, and it's relating to LEAD,
so there are currently just over 1,500 LEAD participants.
So those are 1,500 individuals
that are getting services every day.
I think the model that Natalie spoke to
and the hard work ahead of us
is being very specific about what a LEAD participant needs.
There are category of individuals
who really just need help with housing placement
and case management.
There are others who are really in the heart --
in the very heavy throes of addiction
and have criminal legal involvement.
And then there are the individuals who are there
because of maybe behavioral issues
or co-occurring disorders.
And how we treat those populations are not the same.
And I think, you know,
doing the important work of always being more clear,
and what kind of services are needed,
how those services are differentiated,
how those services are delivered in the holistic manner
that Amy and Natalie both speak to, it's ongoing work.
It's not a one-size-fits-all model
and it's not a one-and-done model.
-The city auditor's report from last summer
acknowledged that we lack a system
of coordinating departments, programs,
and agencies focused on overdose and crime prevention.
So I think we've touched on it a bit,
but what's the status of this overall
and what efforts have been made to coordinate
and really employ a problem-solving strategy?
-I can speak to, you know,
one effort among many in terms of coordination.
And I think that's key.
It's not just coordination
around city departments or city-contracted
community providers.
It's coordination between the city and the county,
our state resources.
And so I think one thing that the auditor's report highlighted
is just the need for coordination at a local level,
at a national level and making sure
that we're utilizing all the resources that are necessary.
So I'll just give in the purpose -- in the interest of time,
one example of that.
One example that the city is involved in right now
that includes SPD and CARE
as some of our partners is the Downtown Activation Team.
In end of October of this last year,
we officially launched the Downtown Activation Team pilot.
And essentially,
it was a led effort by both the mayor's office and SPD
in terms of trying to address, first of all,
the visual disorder that was Downtown.
It does include enforcement efforts.
It also includes a holistic approach,
so coordinating essentially our city contracted providers
such as REACH, and LEAD, and We Deliver Care.
And then it also championed our Office of Economic Development
and some of our private partnerships
with the Downtown Seattle Association to say,
how can we partner to address these areas as well?
So in terms of coordination,
we looked at three different locations,
I think, Third, Pike, and Pine, Little Saigon
in the CID neighborhood.
And we're looking currently at Third Avenue
into Pioneer Square.
There were three -- these are three of the 10 areas
that the city auditor noted were places within the city
that had a huge intersection of overdoses
and also where crime is concentrated.
So in that,
Mayor Harrell championed in his executive order
the need to address those areas,
first, the visual disorder with cleaning in the area
and the ability for city departments to do
their routine maintenance.
The second piece of that,
again, is coordinating our holistic partners in terms of
where they are in the city,
what their resources are, the capacity, and making sure
that we have presence and activation in that area.
And the third is the economic recovery of Downtown.
Once we have a handle on those areas,
ensuring that we are bringing back short-term and long active,
like long-term activations, pro-social activities,
things that draw crowds into be able to walk that area.
And hopefully also bring back businesses as well
because when we know that when we have
those businesses and foot traffic, crime does go down.
And so I think those are -- that's one example of
how we're trying to coordinate both city departments,
our holistic response,
and also our private-public partnerships
with Downtown Seattle Association
and the MID ambassadors being a partner.
-You know,
one thing I would add to that
is just the enforcement piece of it.
So the coordination doesn't just end with like public health
and public safety. Since I took office,
I have struck up a partnership
with the Seattle City attorney's office,
and while Ann Davison isn't here,
I will say that the collaboration
between our offices has never been stronger.
And same, our coordination with SPD,
there are areas
where we have had to address the open-air drug markets.
Drug dealing is a crime. It is a felony crime.
And it's a crime that we prosecute.
So far in 2025, we've charged 159 drug-dealing cases.
This is just stuff that our office does every week
because those who are dealing drugs in our community
are causing public disorder.
They're preying upon vulnerable individuals
and they're breaking the law.
And that's an area where we just need necessary accountability.
Also, you know, there are individuals
who are selling fenced items
and we also are prosecuting those crimes
and coordinating with city attorney's office
and, in some cases,
the attorney general's office to address those behaviors.
-Okay, great.
Do you have any other diversion strategies
that we didn't talk about that you think are effective?
-You know, I do want to talk a little bit about drug court.
Natalie talked about it,
but I will say one of the things
that makes drug court so successful
is that there are dedicated resources.
There are dedicated case managers.
There's dedicated housing.
There are designated treatment spots,
and allocations, and partners.
But also, it's the drug court team.
They understand that the cycle to recovery
is not a linear path,
that it looks different for each individual.
And sometimes there is relapse.
And allowing for that relapse,
but still like coordinating efforts,
but being practical about what individual challenges
people face is what makes drug courts so successful.
And sometimes it takes a while to get others caught up to speed
and what that recovery path looks like.
-Yeah, I'll just validate,
if you don't know what that is, Google it.
King County Drug Diversion Court,
I think that's what the whole
criminal justice system should look like, truly.
It's comprehensive. It's holistic.
I think sometimes people think there's not accountability.
There is profound accountability in that process.
There's restitution. There's restorative practice.
And I know many, many, many people who are graduates,
who are successfully raising families now,
and running businesses,
and they're leaders in our community.
And they have to live with a lot of remorse,
and regret, and sorrow for the crimes
that they have committed and somehow find a way
to reconcile that,
and to press forward, and to try to break the cycle for others.
And it is the most inspiring thing going on.
And I'm always bemoaning the fact
that we restrict that opportunity to a few people.
It's about 110 people at a time.
We've got a very prescriptive idea
of what connotes a drug crime.
But a lot of the crimes in our community
are associated with drug use, drug dependency.
And so I know there's talk right now of community court
at the misdemeanor level.
And I'm a huge fan of that
because I see that as an opportunity to,
again, prevent people from getting so far downstream
to the felony space.
-And so a lot of these programs are voluntary.
Leesa, can you talk to us a little bit about Ricky's Law
and when that might come into effect?
-Sure. So, you know, under Ricky's Law,
we have to have the secure withdrawal management
and stabilization facility opine that a person's
recurrent drug use or alcohol use
causes a clinically significant impairment,
including health problems, disability,
or a failure to meet major responsibilities
at work, school, or home.
You know, a referral can be made
and a person can be held for up to 120 hours.
And during that time,
it can be an important interruption point
where we can get someone stabilized enough
or detoxed enough to voluntarily enter into treatment.
But the 120-hour marker is important
because by the end of that 120 hours,
a person is entitled to a full trial
because their civil liberties are at bay or at stake.
My challenge with our involuntary treatment,
both in terms of Ricky's Law
and also as it relates to mental health and behavioral health
where someone is a harm to self, others,
or gravely disabled, is that in King County,
it's a very adversarial system
because someone's civil liberties are at stake.
I take that very seriously,
but I have always wondered what would it look like
if we could rewrite our state law
so that we had a more collaborative process
where we had designated crisis responders,
prosecutors, public defenders, judges,
first responders working together
to ensure someone gets help
in the least restrictive means possible
at the earliest point in time. And to this end,
I am leading a statewide Involuntary Treatment
Act listening tour.
We are going to do this listening tour
in eight counties in our state.
And we have completed our listening tour
in Whatcom County.
And we're in the process of completing our listening tour
in the Spokane Valley and surrounding area.
And there are some themes emerging as it relates to
where there are breakdowns in our system
and where there is a lack of coordination.
This is a project that I started back in 2023
when I first took office.
I spent all of 2023 reminding all of the lawmakers
that I talked to in 2022
that I was going to lead this listening session
because I know at some point,
someone is going to tell me
that I'm not the subject matter expert, which I will own.
But I built a team of individuals,
someone from law enforcement, Steve Strachan,
the Executive Director of Washington Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs, someone from Disability Rights Washington,
our public defender from Snohomish County,
retired council member Sally Bagshaw,
the elected prosecutor in Whatcom County,
someone with lived experience
who's also a direct service provider from Spokane,
and someone from NAMI.
And together, we're conducting this
in collaboration and partnership.
And the reason that we're doing this is
because we all think that there can be a better model,
that we can have a combination of treatment upon demand
that works in collaboration,
in coordination with an involuntary system with lots
of places to avoid the involuntary treatment process,
but also jump off places
so that if someone starts out as involuntary,
they have access to voluntary services.
This project is going slower
than I would like simply because it's unfunded.
It's something that my office has invested in
and everyone who comes to the table
is coming in addition to their already heavy responsibilities.
But we do plan to issue a report
and we do plan to share our findings with lawmakers
at the midpoint level.
-So from dispatch to prosecution,
where do you each feel it's just to intervene,
balancing people's civil liberties
and our responsibility as a community
to ensure these folks are safe as well as
the communities around them?
-I can share a couple examples from 911.
Unfortunately, I would say most days,
if I'm on the floor,
I observe our failure to intervene in a way
that saves somebody's life.
So often,
you probably would've seen people muttering in traffic,
people appear to be high.
We've had folks who think they can fly.
And it is interesting because sometimes I'll walk --
you know, I always stay on the floor,
but 911 dispatchers, all the different stations,
and I can palpably feel grief, or sorrow, or frustration.
And often I'll go to the supervisor and say,
"What's going on?
What just happened?"
Because it gets very quiet sometimes.
And there was an account recently
where for a couple hours on the Ballard Bridge,
we were getting all these calls
that somebody was wandering in traffic.
And it was interesting jurisdictionally too
because it was kind of in between two precincts.
And so we're trying to --
and there was a lot going on in the cities.
We didn't have a lot of officers available.
So eventually, a patrol officer goes
and intervenes with this man.
I don't know if he was under the influence,
I don't know if he was having a psychotic break
or what was happening, just that a lot of calls had come in,
the officer talks to him,
calms him down, and moves him back onto the sidewalk,
and stresses he needs to remain on the sidewalk,
and then goes onto another call.
All these calls are coming in.
My folks were distraught in 911
because they know full well he's not going to stay
on that sidewalk.
And two hours later, he is deceased.
His head is split open.
And so that is what I'm challenging people.
It is not, again, correct to just say,
"We're going to let him make a choice.
He has his autonomy."
To me, that would've been an appropriate moment to intervene,
to make sure that we are bringing him inside somewhere,
and having him evaluated.
When I talk to patrol officers,
I go around and do law enforcement roll calls
sometimes, and I'm trying to simplify it and say,
"Yes, I know the law.
I understand." Again, that officer did his job.
He made sure there was no law was being broken.
He did his job. He intervened.
At this point, CARE responders weren't in north precinct.
So I didn't really have another alternative at the time,
but I'm always saying, "What if it was your brother though?
What if you love the person? Would you leave them there?
Would you?"
And every day, I see accounts like that.
And so I just -- I commend Leesa.
I am cheering that we are really evaluating this
and trying to be more thoughtful about when, and how,
and to what end do we intervene.
And it shouldn't be to punish.
But when we can save somebody's life or save the grief,
we absolutely should as public servants.
-You know, for me,
I like to tell this story from 2022
that I think highlights the way that our system can work,
that can bring accountability, interrupt behavior,
but still put someone on the path to recovery.
So we had an individual
who completed in the course of like 22 days,
27 separate thefts of alcohol from the Downtown Target.
Clearly, this person had a substance use disorder problem,
but he was also scaring employees and workers.
When that case was referred to us --
and it took a little bit of time because of resource challenges.
When the case came into us, it took a while to review it.
By the time we filed it,
this individual had finally started making contact
with his LEAD case manager.
I still authorized the filing of that case
directly into drug court.
And I got a call from the LEAD team
and they were upset about that.
But while that person was in drug court,
they still had access to their LEAD case manager.
That connection was not broken,
but they were also now in touch
with the dedicated resources of drug court.
They had a designated case manager, dedicated housing,
dedicated treatment dollars.
So while that person was on the upswing,
we made the decision to surround them with greater support
so that person could get the help that they needed,
but they were also removed from the situation,
so they were no longer scaring workers at Target.
-I would say the point of intervention,
from my perspective,
is when you know that that person is potentially a danger
to harm themselves first
and then you know that person could potentially be a danger
to harm others or others' property.
And so that is the point of intervention.
When we talk about how we intervene, that is really key.
Is it a soft touch? Whatever that means.
Or is it, "Wow, we have an opportunity here to intervene
and provide all of the resources available to try
and address that person's need."?
And that is something that,
in the 28 years that I've been involved in this work,
we have not always done that well.
And so we have an opportunity now
with diversification of response,
of actually having this forum tonight and this panel
and talking about it
is what is actually needed to properly intervene
and what's the point of that intervention.
And so for the officer that Amy spoke to,
you know, we have said, you know,
the officer's job is to make sure that the laws are followed.
And we've also tried to provide law enforcement
with some other tools to be able to connect to other resources.
In terms of our CARE department,
we want to be able to build that,
to be that diversionary response.
In terms of prosecution,
whether it's at a misdemeanor level with the city,
at a state level, with the county,
or even at the federal level,
all of those systems
should have built in some sort of therapeutic model.
And so that should be the point of intervention.
When we have waited for the gentleman
that is walking in the middle of the street,
we are too late because there were signs along the way
where we could have intervened.
And so we are in that process now
and have been for decades of, we are trying to intervene now
when people -- they're not too far gone.
Everybody can recover.
Everybody can have second and third chances for that.
But we have to invest and we have to also invest in the time
and know how many connections and times
that it make -- to make --
actually make that person have a connection point to treatment.
But we definitely have to intervene when we see people
who are absolutely posing a danger to themselves,
to others, and to others' property.
We can't look the other way.
-That brings us to a conversation
about crisis care centers.
These offer a continuum of services
from voluntary walk-in clinics to involuntary treatment.
And a couple years ago,
King County voters voted to pass a levy
that would make five new centers available across King County.
And this is a place
that anyone can go for urgent care for a wide range
of mental health and substance abuse crises.
The first one of these is now operational in Kirkland.
And very recently,
there has been talk about a second potential
crisis center site on Broadway near Union
here in this neighborhood.
And this would be the central site to serve Seattle.
And this is at top of mind for our communities, undoubtedly.
And we are waiting for more details from the county
to learn about how we can communicate around this,
and share information,
and have a larger community engagement process.
And when that's made available,
the First Hill Improvement Association will be sure
to share that information out. But tonight,
how do you see the addition of crisis centers in this mix
addressing public health and public safety needs?
-Well, I'm excited about these.
I mean, I need places to take people, right?
I've been saying that from the beginning.
I can feel in the community. I moved back here in 2022.
I was gone the six years prior and I was kind of oblivious,
I think when I lived here before anyway.
I can tell that there were...
sites that were not well managed,
that there are a lot of concerns.
There's a lot of fear in communities.
Every time we open up anything around behavioral health
or mental health, people are scared.
They think we're going to attract drug dealers,
that there's going to be crisis spilling out all over the place.
And I think that that's a valid fear based
on what has happened in the past.
I also have been to sites, Connections is one of them.
Beautifully managed.
I have not heard about any adverse impact
to the neighborhood at all.
I'm really tracking, again, 911 calls.
Are they coming in around these sites?
I've shared before that I --
primarily in South Lake Union at the west precinct,
and I had walked by many times a CoLEAD site, the Civic Hotel,
which was a stabilization, low-barrier shelter.
No idea.
I thought it was a hotel and I walked by it all the time.
It was beautifully managed even
though that was quite a vulnerable
high needs population.
So I know that this can be done well.
But we need to do it well.
We need to be very thoughtful about security.
We need to be good neighbors
and I think thoughtful about the population size
and the acuity level of patients.
-You know, I agree with everything that Amy just shared.
And I cannot speak to the King County executive's process
about this because,
as the chief legal advisor to King County
and the executive being my top counsel,
I cannot speak for him nor reveal, you know,
privileged conversations.
But I will assure this audience that we in King County
want the same thing as everyone here.
We want safety
and we also want people to get the help that they need.
I agree with Amy.
I'm excited about these facilities
because we do need a place to take someone.
I did tour the Kirkland facility
and I will tell you, it is extremely well managed.
It was like, I would say, nondescript in the sense
that it is not an outlier in the neighborhood.
I at no time felt unsafe. It was a calm environment.
And I think honestly,
if someone hadn't told me what I was seeing,
I would've thought that I was like in a group health office,
but way less crowded.
It was really, really well managed.
And I think, you know,
right now we have crisis in this community,
but what we don't have to accompany
or address the crisis is the care facility.
So I think if you want to get rid of the crisis,
we have to have places to take people.
And I can -- like Amy said,
I can totally understand why there is fear and concern
because people want assurances
that that's not going to happen again,
that this is going to be a facility
that people are managing well, but also being very open
and transparent about what is transpiring in terms
of treatment,
and whether there is an impact on the neighborhood,
and monitoring that very carefully,
and also being very open to receive any type
of complaint or concern and address
that in an appropriate and timely fashion.
-I would echo some of the same things that
both Amy and Leesa have shared.
And I know that the specific location
of this next crisis center is at the top of minds
and people have a lot of questions
and very strong feelings about it.
Setting that aside and wanting to acknowledge it,
I think one of the things to think about is
when we open up any sort of care facility,
wherever it is,
we should take into account the type of clients that are there,
the neighborhood,
and making sure the neighborhood is part of that process,
and also,
understanding what we can do from a crime prevention
through design to make sure that vulnerable clients
who may be in some of these crisis care facilities,1
that we've done everything that we can
to address the outside environment through design,
but also through management of expectations
and engaging the community.
So I think that's also really important,
but ultimately,
you know, this is a decision and process for King County.
So I'll leave that there. -Okay.
And while we're waiting for more information
about conversation around this topic,
I just want to direct you to this email.
The county is taking input,
so if you have questions or concerns,
please email this email and share your thoughts.
And then as soon as we have more information
about further conversation around this,
I'll be sure to loop everybody in.
So as we are moving forward together,
how do we ensure continuity across the system?
So I'm just curious what your philosophy or approach
is around this nexus of public health and safety
and how do we ensure that practices and programs
maintain ethical consistency across the system?
-I'm just glad it's not my email up there.
I was looking to check because I'm --
generally I'm the, yeah,
the recipient of all distressed emails in the city.
Yeah, so I think the main thing is just to coordinate.
It was really interesting.
Again, I've not been around the government.
I came into this job
and I was trying to figure out who are my collaborators,
who's doing what, and I was so confused.
I was confused about what the city does
versus the county housings in all of these different places.
Behavioral health is over here,
but then there's mental health, and then there's health,
and then there's criminal justice.
And so I just sort of ignored all of the walls,
and territories, and silos
and got to know everybody in the space pretty fast
and have been very pleased at how collaborative people are.
I do feel like I'm a member of the county --
a couple county teams, actually.
We talk all the time.
Community-based organizations and resources
are everything to me, right?
I need to have strong relationships.
We don't need a formal contract
to be able to refer to these resources.
Anybody who's been trying to help,
generally, I'm seeking those people out
so that we can coordinate.
The design isn't good. It's just not.
I like the whole framing of tonight
talking about public safety and public health as one,
because they are.
And there is intersectionality.
It shouldn't be six different teams interacting
with one person, right?
You should be able to -- if you are in --
if you're living unsheltered
and you have all of these different conditions,
and struggles, and challenges, and concerns,
you should have a person
that you can trust who can help you navigate the complexity.
And that is not how we've designed.
And so these women are two champions working
to sort of unwind a lot of the complexity
and make it simple and person-centric.
But I think in the short run,
what we control is, again, our willing to collaborate,
to absolutely put aside the territorialism,
and the ego, and who gets credit for what,
just put it down and work together.
And, again, that part has been really fun
because I find that people are very happy to work together
and relieved to have a partner. -You know, I echo that.
I think that there are lots of really good people
working in this space that are willing to be innovative,
who are willing to break down silos,
who are willing to be practical and focus on solving problems
as opposed to fighting over turf or credit.
And, you know, I give lots of credit to Natalie
and to Amy for being good partners in this work.
I am really encouraged by what we're seeing in our community.
I think that things are looking better.
And when I say that I always, you know, add to it,
that doesn't mean that we're done.
It just means that the collaboration
that we have been building
is having the right impact and things
are trending in the right direction.
So that is a sign to keep going, not to declare victory.
But the collaboration, the willingness to think
and act differently,
I feel like we are at this really sweet spot
and it feels really good.
-I want you to repeat what you said about providers
and ethical -- you say, ethical outcomes.
I want to make sure I got that question right.
-Sure.
How do we ensure practices and programs
maintain ethical consistency across the system?
-Good question.
So I'm going to try to answer that piece of it.
I think, same, I echo everything that Amy and Leesa said.
I'm really lucky to have them as partners in this work now
and even previously to that. I think,
how do we ensure I think those ethical outcomes
with practices and providers?
I think first of all,
to make sure that you understand, and name,
and define what is the outcome you're trying to achieve,
both by the practice and the providers.
I think that's the first piece. I think the continuum is,
we have to think about the continuum
in terms of the services and the system that we have
and whether that continuum is actually working
together well and right. But they -- the other continuum
is who all is working in this space.
And I want to say a couple of things.
Obviously, Seattle Police Department,
Seattle Fire Department,
our healthcare workers are key to this.
But the other thing about this is our service providers.
And I always want to make sure
to name our outreach workers and service providers
that are really engaged in this work and our residents,
some of which who are compassion fatigued,
who have faced a lot of crime and public drug use,
that we are also engaged with them
and making sure that whatever outcomes that we're trying
to achieve, that we are listening to those,
to our residents.
I also think our community organizers,
our community providers who have been in this space,
we need to be listening to them and making sure
that the fidelity of what we're looking for in terms
of our practices and our services match what outcomes
that they have also said
how they want their community to be served.
This also includes our small and large businesses
and our BIAs that are working with our neighborhoods.
So I think one thing to think about is the continuum of
how all this works together includes everyone.
And everyone's voice matters.
And we should be listening to the solutions
and also the challenges that everyone
that plays a part in this system has in order to actually get to,
I think, good outcomes.
-And these issues are big and complex, no doubt.
And understanding all the different peoples,
and programs, and resources, and responders can be a lot.
But how can we, as members of the community,
as neighbors, as business folks,
help support efforts to improve your work in
public health and safety?
-You know, I will say I think events like this
are really helpful like because what it shows our leaders
is that we have a community that is engaged.
And our community is watching.
And our community wants results. And they care.
And they care with like a big-hearted way.
I'm inspired by the fact
that the community is paying attention to these issues.
I'm also inspired by the service providers
that Natalie just spoke of who don't give up.
And they keep going even though they are fatigued,
even though that they have sometimes missteps,
or even though sometimes they lose members of our community.
They are always working.
And so those two forces together,
where we have like really inspired services and service
provision, coupled with the fact that we have a caring community
that wants accountability and results
from its leaders and its government,
I think that's a great combination.
-Yeah, I think we all have a role to play.
I mean, I'm getting really folksy these days.
I feel like in order to turn things around,
every single community member needs to take
some responsibility for contributing to solutions.
We should all be volunteering.
We should all be supporting philanthropically organizations
that we believe in.
We should be checking in on one another.
I talk a lot about rebuilding the village
because underneath a lot of this,
when people ask, you know, why is there so much anguish?
Why these rates of suicidality?
Why these rates of addiction?
And just despondence that you see correlating with the crime
and the crisis, the solution to that really is connection.
It is.
And so we need to do our part.
It is significant when you say hello to someone,
especially somebody who feels invisible or left behind.
I think, generally, even on the street as, you know,
I'm walking around just as a civilian,
I can tell if somebody is perhaps escalating,
right, and could be chaotic or violent and if somebody is not.
And generally, I am talking to anybody
that I feel is safe to approach and acknowledging them.
And so I encourage you to do that.
I love this participation.
I encourage you all to vote and vote responsibly.
Don't get your information from TikTok.
You know, like these are really complex issues.
And I think that a lot of Seattleites
bought into the idea that,
"Oh, this is the problem and this is a solution."
Nothing we're talking about is that simple.
Nothing. Homelessness is not that simple.
SUD is not that simple.
Breaking cycles of crime, this is all really complex.
But, again, this solution is to make sure
that we've got a system
that will predictably re-pattern behavior.
We shouldn't be paying for things that don't.
We shouldn't.
Any kind of intervention,
whether you're talking
about non-profit diversion intervention or, again,
a coercive one,
predictably, that person should be better off,
should be more stable, more happy,
and more healthy in a year if we're getting it right.
So let's vote for those things.
-But I just want to thank you all for coming
and thank our panelists for taking time to talk.
If you want to stay in the know about what's happening
in the neighborhood, please sign up for our newsletter.
We're also going to be starting reconvening,
a First Hill Improvement Association safety committee.
So if you're part of the newsletter,
you'll hear word of that
where we'll start convening more often around these issues
that are important to us all.
So thank you again for coming tonight,
and thank you to our panelists.
[ Applause ]