Saved analyses
Deaths at housing service sites by manner of death, 2025
Question: How many deaths did the King County Medical Examiner investigate in 2025 among people living at housing service sites, and by what manner?
Result: 379 deaths in 2025: 200 accidental (not traffic), 164 natural, 8 suicides, 3 homicides, 3 traffic, 1 undetermined. Countywide only; no breakdown by building or provider.
Operation: Counts by manner of death from the dashboard; share = deaths / 379
Scope: King County, countywide, 2025
View this analysis
- Only deaths the Medical Examiner investigated; natural deaths are undercounted.
- Housing service site mixes supportive, income-restricted and recovery housing.
- Countywide only.
Deaths at housing service sites by year and manner, 2021-2025
Question: How many deaths at housing service sites did the Medical Examiner investigate each year, and of what kind?
Result: Totals: 309 (2021), 389 (2022), 487 (2023), 433 (2024), 379 (2025). Accidents other than traffic rose from 129 to 200; natural deaths stayed between 164 and 170 a year.
Operation: Counts by year from table deaths-by-year, grouping suicide, homicide, traffic and undetermined deaths as Other
Scope: King County, countywide, full years 2021-2025
View this analysis
- Only deaths the Medical Examiner investigated; natural deaths are undercounted.
- Housing service site mixes supportive, income-restricted and recovery housing.
- Counts, not rates: no resident count is published.
Deaths at housing service sites, January 1 to October 29, 2026
Question: How many deaths at housing service sites has the Medical Examiner counted so far in 2026?
Result: 290 deaths through October 29, 2026, 19 fewer than the 309 in all of 2021.
Operation: Sum of 2026 rows in table deaths-by-year
Scope: King County, countywide, 2026 to October 29
View this analysis
- Partial year; cases are still being added and 13 had a pending manner.
Change from 2021 to 2025: housing site deaths, county deaths and housing beds
Question: How did deaths at housing service sites change from 2021 to 2025 compared with county deaths and the supply of permanent housing?
Result: 2021 to 2025: overdose deaths at housing sites +68% (114 to 192); all deaths at housing sites +23% (309 to 379); county overdose deaths +28%; permanent housing beds +25%; other Medical Examiner deaths countywide, excluding COVID-19 surveillance, -3%.
Operation: (2025 value / 2021 value) - 1 for each series in table context-by-year; 'Other investigated deaths' = me_deaths_excluding_covid_surveillance - housing_site_deaths_all_causes
Scope: King County, full years 2021 and 2025
View this analysis
- Beds are not residents and leave out most income-restricted and recovery housing.
- Descriptive comparison; it does not show why deaths changed.
Robustness checks
Housing site deaths per 1,000 HUD permanent housing beds, 2021-2025
Question: Did deaths at housing service sites grow faster than the federally counted supply of permanent housing?
Result: Per 1,000 permanent housing beds, 2021 to 2025: all deaths 39.3 to 38.7 (flat); accidental deaths other than traffic 16.4 to 20.4 (+24%); overdose deaths 14.5 to 19.6 (+35%).
Operation: 1000 x deaths / hud_permanent_beds_total, rounded to one decimal, for all deaths, accidental deaths other than traffic (table deaths-by-year) and overdose deaths
Scope: King County, full years 2021-2025
View this analysis
- Not a death rate: beds are not residents, and HUD's count leaves out most income-restricted and recovery housing in the Medical Examiner's category.
- HUD's other permanent housing count jumped in 2022 and 2023 and fell in 2024, which moves the middle years.
Housing site deaths as a share of Medical Examiner cases, 2021-2025
Question: What share of the deaths the Medical Examiner investigated were at housing service sites?
Result: Excluding COVID-19 surveillance cases, housing service sites accounted for 9.1% of Medical Examiner deaths in 2021 and 11.2% in 2025, peaking at 12.5% in 2023.
Operation: housing_site_deaths_all_causes / me_deaths_excluding_covid_surveillance
Scope: King County, full years 2021-2025
View this analysis
- The Medical Examiner's caseload is not all county deaths.
Does fewer 'unknown' living situations explain the rise?
Question: Could the 2021-2025 rise in housing-site deaths come from fewer deaths being recorded with an unknown living situation?
Result: All deaths at housing sites: +23% as reported, +23% with unknowns split proportionally, +16% (309 to 360) if every death that left the unknown group was a resident. Overdose deaths: +68% as reported, +60% split proportionally, +39% (114 to 159) under the bound, still above the countywide +28%.
Operation: Two tests for 2021 and 2025. Proportional: add unknown deaths to housing sites in proportion to housing sites' share of deaths with a known living situation, then recompute the change. Bound: assume every death that left the unknown group between 2021 and 2025 (19 all-cause, 33 overdose) was a housing-site resident in 2025, subtract them from 2025, and recompute the change.
Scope: King County, full years 2021 and 2025
View this analysis
- The bound assumes the worst case for the finding, not a likely one.
- Unknown counts for 2024 and 2025 overdoses are derived by subtraction.
Robustness check for:
Change from 2021 to 2025: housing site deaths, county deaths and housing beds
Did deaths move from the shelter group into the housing group?
Question: Could the rise in housing-site deaths come from deaths being coded as housing that would earlier have been coded as outdoors, shelter or vehicle?
Result: Deaths among people living outdoors, in shelters or in vehicles rose 66% (188 to 312) from 2021 to 2025, while housing-site deaths rose 23%. The shelter group grew rather than shrank, so recoding from it into housing can't explain the housing rise.
Operation: Compare 2021 and 2025 all-cause deaths in the outdoors, shelter or vehicle group with housing service site deaths; (2025 / 2021) - 1
Scope: King County, full years 2021 and 2025
View this analysis
- Only the outdoors, shelter or vehicle group was checked; 'other temporary arrangement' (which can include hotels) was not read for all causes.
- A rise in both groups doesn't rule out some recoding; it shows recoding wasn't large enough to shrink the shelter group.
Did deaths move from private homes into the housing group?
Question: Could the 2021-2025 rise in housing-site deaths come from deaths being coded as housing service site that would earlier have been coded as a private home, for example because subsidized addresses were identified more often?
Result: Private-home deaths didn't rise with the county: accidental deaths 925 to 918 (-1%), overdoses 439 to 469 (+7%, vs +28% countywide). Housing sites' share of deaths among housed people rose from 12% to 18% (accidents) and 21% to 29% (overdoses). The dashboard can't tell a real shift from better identification of subsidized addresses. If the housing share had stayed at its 2021 level, housing-site deaths would be up 2% (309 to 316) and overdoses 19% (114 to 136), about as fast as housing beds (+25%).
Operation: Housed = housing service site + privately owned or rented residence. Housing share = housing deaths / housed deaths, for accidental deaths other than traffic and for overdoses, 2021 and 2025. Bound: hold the 2021 housing share fixed, apply it to 2025 housed deaths, and recompute the housing-site change (all causes = 379 minus the accidental deaths removed).
Scope: King County, full years 2021 and 2025
View this analysis
- The bound is a worst case for the finding: it treats the whole rise in housing sites' share as recoding, although housing beds grew 25%, which by itself would raise that share unless other housing grew as fast.
- Private-home all-cause deaths in 2021 include most of that year's 620 COVID-19 surveillance cases, so the all-cause private-home change is not comparable; the check uses accidents and overdoses.
- No published record shows whether or when the Medical Examiner changed how it identifies housing service sites.
Did natural deaths shift toward the housing group the way overdoses did?
Question: If the Medical Examiner got better at recognizing subsidized addresses, deaths of every kind would move from the private-home group to the housing group, not only overdoses. Did the housing group's natural deaths grow relative to private homes as much as its overdose deaths did?
Result: Overdose ratio (housing to private homes): 0.26 in 2021, 0.41 in 2025 (+58%). Natural-death ratio: 0.095 to 0.167 (+76%) as published, or 0.148 to 0.167 (+13%) if all 2021 COVID-19 surveillance cases were private homes. From 2023, when surveillance had ended, to 2025 both ratios held steady or fell. The test can't settle whether coding changed between 2021 and 2023, because the dashboard doesn't say where the surveillance cases lived.
Operation: For each year: housing-site natural deaths / private-home natural deaths, and housing-site overdose deaths / private-home overdose deaths. A second natural ratio subtracts the year's COVID-19 surveillance cases (620 in 2021, 322 in 2022) from private-home natural deaths, as if all were private homes.
Scope: King County, full years 2021 to 2025
View this analysis
- The Medical Examiner doesn't take all natural deaths, and it investigated extra natural deaths for COVID-19 surveillance in 2021 and 2022; their living situations aren't published.
- Natural deaths depend on residents' ages and health, which may differ between the two groups and change over time.
Overdose deaths per bed with rapid rehousing counted
Question: Does the finding hold if rapid rehousing beds, which grew fastest, are added to the bed count?
Result: Counting only permanent supportive and other permanent housing, beds rose 25% and overdose deaths per 1,000 beds 35% (14.5 to 19.6). Adding rapid rehousing, beds rose 34% and overdose deaths per 1,000 beds 25% (12.6 to 15.8). Overdose deaths outgrew the housing either way.
Operation: 1000 x housing-site overdose deaths / (HUD permanent supportive + other permanent + rapid rehousing beds), 2021 and 2025
Scope: Seattle/King County CoC (WA-500)
View this analysis
- Rapid rehousing tenants mostly rent private-market apartments with a time-limited subsidy, so the Medical Examiner may record them as living in private homes; counting their beds probably understates the rate.
- HUD counts leave out most income-restricted and recovery housing, which the Medical Examiner's group includes.