Staff Reports
A new policy brief from the Washington Policy Center just pulled the curtain back on the LEAD program — and the curtain did not look good. The brief, written by Eric Zimmerman, argues that the evidence touted for Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) has been misread, overstated, or simply wrong. For cities and states that used those claims to justify soft-on-crime reforms, this is more than embarrassment. It’s a warning light flashing “pause and check the math.”
What the Washington Policy Center found
Zimmerman’s brief says the famous “58% less likely to be arrested” line came from a confusing odds‑ratio claim that got translated into a big-sounding percentage. That translation, Zimmerman writes, is misleading. The brief points out the original evaluation shows very small absolute changes in employment and housing for the 176 LEAD participants studied — roughly 13 employed at entry versus about 16 during follow-up — while estimating about nine deaths in the same period. In plain English: the happy headlines promised big wins, the raw numbers show tiny ones, and people died more than the program created steady jobs.
Why the study’s methods matter
Beyond headline math, Zimmerman flags real design problems: the LEAD evaluation wasn’t randomized, groups were recruited differently, and prosecutors weren’t blind to who was in the program. Those are not minor footnotes. They mean the study can’t reliably prove LEAD caused the results it claims. Other rollouts didn’t help the pitch either — one replication in another city reported more arrests, not fewer. If a program’s claim to fame rests on shaky stats and inconsistent replication, policymakers should stop treating it as gospel.
Policy consequences: taxpayer money and public safety
Cities and states spent millions expanding diversion programs and reshaping pretrial policy based on this “evidence.” That investment deserves real proof — not statistical sleight of hand. Zimmerman urges jurisdictions to pause expansion, order independent audits, and demand transparent reporting of arrests, charges, housing, employment, and deaths tied to diversion programs. That’s common-sense oversight. Taxpayers should not underwrite experiments whose benefits are promoted on press releases rather than on solid, repeatable data.
What should happen next
Call for independent audits. Require full public reporting. Hold program leaders accountable for the outcomes they promise. LEAD was sold as an evidence-based solution to recidivism and homelessness. If the evidence is weak, it’s time to stop selling it like a miracle cure. Soft-on-crime policies have real costs in safety and dollars. Policymakers who care about both should demand hard data before letting the next feel-good experiment continue on the public dime.
