By Liz Steen

No one likes what we’re doing, but we’re doing it anyway — that about sums up the City Council Public Safety Committee meeting Tuesday, where committee members unanimously approved three amendments they hope will make Seattle’s controlled‑substance ordinance more effective in encouraging treatment rather than jail.

LEAD sponsored dozens of speakers who have graduated from the program at the most recent council meeting earlier in July. Tuesday’s meeting, held the day after the mass shooting at Seattle Center, featured mostly opponents. There was general agreement that the program isn’t reducing crime or its effects on neighborhoods, including Aurora Avenue and Belltown, both of which had representatives at the meeting. Citizens cried and gestured thumbs‑down while describing a cycle of their complaints being ignored while human traffickers, drive‑by shootings, and other crimes impact their neighborhoods.

The vote was unanimous, but the council members’ statements ranged from frustration to lukewarm support for the 2023 law, which lowered possession of a controlled substance to a misdemeanor and encouraged officers to send individuals to treatment in lieu of jail. Arrests in the three years since the law was passed have risen 47%, as police reported logistical difficulties in implementing the program. City staff’s fiscal summary notes, “SPD Chief Shon Barnes and leaders from PDA have indicated that a lack of capacity in PDA’s (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) program may have contributed to the reduction in the use of LEAD diversions between 2024 and 2025.”

Council Member Maritza Rivera described years of budget overruns paired with a lack of data and other program safeguards. She sponsored two amendments to require LEAD to give the City Council more specific information before she said she would be comfortable approving “another request to double, triple their budget.”

“I do want you to succeed. I’m not here to be a naysayer. I hope it works. And I hope we get the data,” she said to Seattle–King County Policy Director Sam Wolff and other city leaders there to explain the program. Rivera said she wants to know what’s happening with the people who are diverted instead of arrested — do they go to treatment? Do they need more specific support? Most important: “How many of these are the same folks over and over?” Rivera said the council has been given quarterly reports listing the total number of diversions, around 990 in the last report. She said she hasn’t been told whether the total numbers represent separate individuals or the same person diverted multiple times, due to privacy protections for people referred to treatment. It’s also unclear what follow‑up is happening for people who are given a date to report. Do these people show up, or is there other follow‑up? The lack of information makes it difficult for lawmakers to evaluate the program’s effectiveness, she said.

Repeat offenders and recidivism were the focus Tuesday. Neighbors described waiting hours for help from LEAD teams that work limited hours, or never show, and seeing people who immediately reoffend after being referred to substance‑abuse treatment without any follow‑up. Supporters, including Wolff, said that the nature of addiction requires solutions to take time, describing one man who continued to reoffend for six years before finally accepting treatment (the law has only been in place three years; presumably this success story happened under an earlier version of the program).

Council Member Deborah Juarez, a former public defender and judge, threatened to scrap in‑field diversion entirely, returning decisions about diversion to a court proceeding in front of a judge rather than an on‑site decision made by police or nonprofit agencies.

“Part of recovery is relapse, and we know that,” Juarez said in a nod toward supporters of the program. As a former judge, however, she said accountability matters. “The courts stay on you… to hold you accountable” and to make sure “you’re doing the things you’re supposed to be doing” as part of the program, she said.

West Seattle’s Rob Saka appeared remotely and did not make a substantive contribution to the meeting discussion.

The three amendments will make technical changes that supporters hope will solve the logistical difficulties, including offering police the option for an in‑person handoff at the police precinct rather than trying to connect with team members in the field. More specific information will be sought from the reports, including: “Any attempt to contact diversion service providers for a field‑based diversion and indicate whether such providers were available timely for the in‑person transfer of an individual.” Staffer Greg Doss said that the general timeline used for “timely” transfer is 30 minutes.

The amendments and fiscal impact report for CB 121248 are here: https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=1429961&GUID=64504DE2-CFB7-4989-B643-F53190F162F6

Video of the meeting, including the members of the public who spoke, is available here: https://seattlechannel.org/mayor-and-council/city-council/city-council-all-videos-index?videoid=x188976

The next Public Safety Committee meeting is 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at Council Chambers, 600 4th Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.