Odds estimates as the evaluators reported them

What this dataset measures

Built to check the widely repeated claim that LEAD participants were '58% less likely' to be arrested, and the Washington Policy Center's 2026 critique of it. Every number comes from the evaluators' own published report (March 2015) and peer-reviewed paper (2017), so the comparison uses the study's own figures rather than either side's summary.

Geography

Seattle, Washington, King County, Washington

Unit of observation

Evaluation group (LEAD or control) and period (before or after entry)

Update cadence

None planned; the evaluation is closed. Statements may be added.

Curator

FactHub Research Team

Saved analyses

Sources

1. Collins, Lonczak and Clifasefi, Evaluation and Program Planning 64 (2017) 49-56 Peer-reviewed paper reporting LEAD versus control arrest and charge outcomes, odds ratios and Figure 2 arrest percentages. Free copy

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Copyright Elsevier; figures quoted for commentary. Values quoted with attribution; the paper itself is not redistributed.

   Reliability: Peer-reviewed study. Has a stake in this finding. Written by the University of Washington team that evaluated LEAD, funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts; LEAD program staff sat on the evaluation advisory committee.

2. UW LEAD Evaluation Team, LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report (March 27, 2015) Full evaluation report, including the analyses with and without warrant arrests (Figure 4, Table 4) that the 2017 paper does not show.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public report; figures quoted for commentary. Values quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Academic. Has a stake in this finding. The same UW evaluators' report to LEAD's policy group, before peer review. Copy hosted by IssueLab (Candid).

3. LEAD press release and UW evaluation summary (April 8, 2015) Press release by LEAD's coalition (contacts at the ACLU of Washington and Public Defender Association) with the evaluators' one-page summary attached.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public press release. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Party to the dispute. Has a stake in this finding. Issued by the program's backers to announce the evaluation; hosted on the UW evaluators' lab website.

4. Seattle Police Department, SPD Blotter (April 8, 2015) The police department's announcement of the evaluation, still online.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public government web page. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Government. Has a stake in this finding. SPD is a LEAD partner and sits on its policy coordinating group.

5. LEAD Seattle-King County evaluation page, archived April 29, 2026 The program's own website wording before the 2026 dispute.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public web page (Internet Archive copy). Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Party to the dispute. Has a stake in this finding. Website of the LEAD program run by Purpose Dignity Action (formerly the Public Defender Association).

6. LEAD Seattle-King County evaluation page (current) The same page after the program revised its wording.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public web page. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Party to the dispute. Has a stake in this finding. Website of the LEAD program; the page changed between April and November 2026.

7. LEAD presentation, Seattle City Council Public Safety Committee (April 28, 2026) Slides titled 'Diversion & LEAD utilization since Seattle drug ordinance adoption' in the committee's agenda materials.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public record. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Party to the dispute. Has a stake in this finding. Presented by LEAD's operator, Purpose Dignity Action, while the council considered LEAD funding and expansion.

8. Washington Policy Center, National Retraction Brief, Part 1 (version 1.3, August 16, 2026) The critique of LEAD's evidence claims by Eric Zimmerman.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public document. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: Advocacy group. Has a stake in this finding. Free-market think tank; the brief recommends pausing LEAD expansion and restoring arrest and jail for drug crimes.

9. MyNorthwest / KIRO Newsradio, The John Curley Show (August 12, 2026) Radio interview article quoting Eric Zimmerman.

   Retrieved November 3, 2026. News article; quoted for commentary. Quoted with attribution.

   Reliability: News report. Talk-radio station article reporting Zimmerman's on-air remarks.

10. The Center Square, 'Creator defends drug diversion program amid conflicting success claims' (August 12, 2026), as republished by News-Shield Interview with LEAD co-creator Lisa Daugaard.

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. News article; quoted for commentary. Quoted with attribution.

    Reliability: News report. Wire story by Carleen Johnson of The Center Square, a nonprofit news service, republished by a member paper.

11. Congressional Record, May 12, 2016, p. H2307 (Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, DelBene amendment) Floor statement by Rep. Suzan DelBene citing LEAD's results.

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public domain (U.S. government work). Public domain.

    Reliability: Government. Official record of House floor proceedings, published by the Government Publishing Office.

12. Washington Policy Center, LEAD brief Part 2 web summary (September 9, 2026) WPC's claim about federal LEAD funding.

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public web page. Quoted with attribution.

    Reliability: Advocacy group. Has a stake in this finding. Summary by David Boze of Part 2 of the WPC brief; the linked PDF lists set-asides by year but shows no total.

13. Explanatory statement, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Congressional Record, Feb. 13, 2019, p. H1811) Enacted 2019 LEAD set-aside ($5 million).

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public domain (U.S. government work). Public domain.

    Reliability: Government. Joint explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriations law.

14. Explanatory statement, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Congressional Record, Dec. 17, 2019, p. H10966) Enacted 2020 LEAD set-aside ($10 million).

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public domain (U.S. government work). Public domain.

    Reliability: Government. Joint explanatory statement accompanying the enacted appropriations law.

15. Senate Report 119-44, Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations, 2026 2026 LEAD set-aside ($11 million), made binding by the enacted explanatory statement.

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public domain (U.S. government work). Public domain.

    Reliability: Government. Senate Appropriations Committee report; the January 2026 explanatory statement gives it the same weight as its own text.

16. Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119-4) Shows the 2025 budget year ran on a full-year continuing resolution, with no new LEAD directive.

    Retrieved November 3, 2026. Public domain (U.S. government work). Public domain.

    Reliability: Government. Enacted public law, published by the Government Publishing Office.

Limitations and reproducibility

Reproducible from public sources: Arrest percentages are read from Figures 1-4 and Table 4 of the March 2015 UW report and Figure 2 of Collins et al. (2017); label order was checked against the PDF's text stream. The post-entry gap and odds-to-probability conversions are arithmetic on those published values, shown in each analysis's operation.

• The evaluation was not randomized. Groups were balanced with propensity score weights, but unmeasured differences between LEAD and control participants may remain.
• Arrest percentages are unadjusted raw values read from published figures, rounded to whole percents by the evaluators.
• One evaluation of one program in one city (318 people, 2009-2014); results may not carry over to LEAD programs elsewhere or today.
• Control-group deaths were not systematically recorded, and the study did not measure crimes that did not lead to arrest.