The Washington Policy Center (WPC) has uncovered “widespread and systematic factual errors” in the outcomes reporting of the Seattle based drug diversion program, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD).
In August the WPC published its comprehensive findings in a two-part brief found here and here.
“Inaccurate or misleading claims across the entirety of LEAD literature span recidivism, felony rates, employment, and cost savings. These claims typically more than double LEAD’s possible effectiveness.”
Washington Policy Center, National Retraction Brief Part 1
The false data has been used repeatedly across the country by decriminalization advocates to garner support and funding for LEAD from major philanthropic organizations, state and local governments, and even Congress.
The absence of challenges to LEAD’s claims of success has allowed LEAD to expand into 70 cities across the nation, including Minneapolis, promising reductions in recidivism, unemployment, and homelessness.
It’s a wonder why any city would look to Seattle – a city with massive problems associated with open air drug use and homeless encampments – and choose to replicate its policies.
Fortunately, WPC’s efforts have exposed the misrepresentations about LEAD’s purported success – misrepresentations that should now give pause to the philanthropic organizations and government entities that have supported its proliferation across the country.
LEAD National
LEAD is a pre-arrest diversion program which originated in Seattle in 2015. In the 11 years since its inception, supporters of LEAD have repeatedly claimed the program has led to reduced recidivism, increased employment, and reductions in homelessness. WPC’s analysis determined these claims have been consistently misrepresented and inaccurate.
LEAD claims to be an “evidence based” effort that helps those struggling with drug addiction and homelessness by decriminalizing the behavior and offering participants “harm reduction” supports.
Over time, LEAD has garnered support from major philanthropic organizations who have provided seed money for the program to proliferate. Once established, routinely in partnership government entities, the long term “sustainability funding” often falls to taxpayers.
One of the philanthropic organizations supporting LEAD is the GreenLight Fund (GLF).
LEAD Minneapolis
In April 2022 the GLF announced that it was awarding a $1.4 million grant to fund a LEAD program in Minneapolis – based largely on the outcomes reporting about LEAD which the WPC has now shown to be inaccurate and misleading.
The Minneapolis program is “housed” within Pillsbury United Communities (PUC), a Minneapolis based non-profit. The Minneapolis effort quickly changed the underlying name of its program to Let Everyone Advance with Dignity (LEAD).
LEAD Minneapolis is focused on a relatively small geographical area along the East Lake Street corridor in South Minneapolis – an area beseeched by street level drug addiction, homeless encampments and dysfunction.
In addition to GLF and PUC, LEAD Minneapolis has partnered with the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Health, US Bank, Thompson Reuters, and Mortenson Construction for support and funding.
LEAD Minneapolis has followed the roadmap of similar programs that have been started with private seed money, only to later be picked up and “sustained” by taxpayers. In Minneapolis this process is playing out with recent public funding allocations reportedly now coming from the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Health.
LEAD Minneapolis “results”
Data to evaluate the results of LEAD Minneapolis is lacking.
PUC’s LEAD Minneapolis website makes the following assertions about LEAD:
“LEAD is a proven strategy to reduce harm and increase safety and equity by reorienting response to some low-level illegal behavior. With LEAD, stakeholders collectively ensure that long-term, community-based care and coordination is the primary response for people who commit, or are at high risk of committing, law violations due to their behavioral health challenges and income instability–rather than jail and prosecution.”
“Independent evaluations show that LEAD reduces recidivism, reduces prison and jail usage, increases rates of shelter and housing, and improves outcomes for participants and communities.”
LEAD’s National Support Bureau director, Naija Morris-Frazier offered this assertion in the GLF Twin Cities press release announcing the roll out of LEAD Minneapolis:
“In Seattle, where LEAD began, 58% of participants were less likely to be arrested and twice as likely to be sheltered. We are excited to support the launch of LEAD Minneapolis during such a critical time.”
The problem with these assertions is they represent the same oft repeated claims of LEAD’s success that have now been discredited through WPC’s analysis – chief among them, the discredited claim of a 58% reduction in recidivism for LEAD “clients.”
Despite being operational since 2022, and heralding a new “data tracking system,” the LEAD Minneapolis website contains virtually no data to support its claims of success.
One of the only data points the website shares is that “As of August 2025” LEAD Minneapolis had made 763 “client contacts.” This sounds promising until learning the program has “enrolled” just 59 of those contacts. No information is available on what “enrolled” represents or what the outcomes of those “enrolled” have been.
The fact that LEAD Minneapolis does not share substantive data on the program’s outcomes is problematic – and representative of too many social justice programs whose effectiveness is rarely scrutinized properly.
Minnesota legislative task force recommends expanding LEAD funding
In 2024, the Democrat led Minnesota Legislature created and funded the State Task Force on Holistic and Effective Responses to Illicit Drug Use. The task force worked to create a report that focused heavily on recommending policies that decriminalize drug use.
The task force’s report recommended that public policy makers support and expand funding for programs like LEAD Minneapolis. (Note: the recommendation to support LEAD only received 75% backing within the task force following “no” votes from the task force’s law enforcement representatives).
The takeaway
The Washington Policy Center has analyzed data relevant to Seattle’s LEAD program and discredited assertions of success that advocates have repeatedly used to support expanding the program nationally.
These false assertions amount to circular validation in support of increased funding for LEAD. The funding, which often begins as seed money from philanthropic organizations, routinely transitions over time to “sustainability funding” borne by taxpayers.
No one is arguing against efforts to address the social dysfunction brought on by drug addiction. However, utilizing a decriminalization program with a now discredited record of success only prolongs the dysfunction, while directing support and funding away from proven strategies and methods. One such strategy, the Drug Market Initiative (DMI), is a targeted enforcement-based effort that has shown success in cities like Nashville, verified by US Department of Justice research.
As in Seattle, it would be silly to argue that conditions along the East Lake Street corridor have improved since LEAD Minneapolis began operating there in 2022. The area has visibly deteriorated, with open-air drug use, homeless encampments, and related social dysfunction becoming commonplace.
Minneapolis must reject the permissive policies that enable open-air drug markets, homeless encampments, and social dysfunction. Decriminalization efforts – particularly those with discredited records such as LEAD – only prolong human suffering and accelerate the decline of communities such as the East Lake Street corridor.
Minneapolis communities, and those who languish in drug addiction, would benefit from sustained, high-visibility enforcement. Couple this with a drug court system that is willing and able to differentiate between addicts and dealers, and a robust secure treatment system that compels recovery through sustained support, and things would improve – for everyone.
Policy recommendations
The Washington Policy Center has offered these policy recommendations for jurisdictions involved with or considering future involvement with LEAD.
1) Jurisdictions where LEAD has been adopted should
a. Pause the expansion of such programs.
b. Place programs into external audit by an independent program auditor.
c. Evaluate the use of alternatives including baseline criminal justice, and compliance-dependent and residential-treatment diversion case-by-case.
d. Plan for increased investment in rehabilitative jail programs and post release support, including vocational, financial literacy, and life-skills training, and community-, peer-, and accountability-based support programs.
e. Collaborate with legislative and judicial entities to develop, strengthen, or restore frameworks which increase the certainty of arrest, prosecution and jailing for drug crimes while offering compliance-based pathways for reduced sentences, early release, or intermittent confinement / weekend jailing.
f. Where LEAD can be appropriately transitioned to frameworks described in 1c, 1d, and 1e, this transition should be undertaken.
2) Jurisdictions considering adoption of LEAD should suspend this process pending rigorous LEAD evidence generation for real-world individual outcomes.
3) Published secondary scholarship which inadvertently repeat inaccurate LEAD claims as citations of evidence should be annotated.
4) LEAD, LEAD-like, and diversion-focused public programs should ensure the presence of robust design, monitoring, and evaluation practices which establish clear goals for participant outcomes and ensure progress towards those outcomes will be transparently and regularly reported to government and to the public.
5) Reported LEAD outcomes should include “Participant mortality rate”, “Participant loss to follow-up”, “Reduced frequency of drug-use”, “Rate of abstinence from drug-use”, “Employment rate”, “Income growth”, “Housing independence rate”, and “Permanent Supportive Housing longevity”.
