VOLUME 20, ISSUE 2, PAGES 59–85 (2019) Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society

E-ISSN 2332-886X Available online at https://scholasticahq.com/criminology-criminal-justice-law-society/

Crisis-flagged Misdemeanors in Seattle: Arrests, Referrals, Charges, and Case Dispositions

Jacqueline B. Helfgott,a William S. Parkin,b & Christopher Fisherc a, b Seattle University c Seattle Police Department

A B S T R A C T A N D A R T I C L E I N F O R M A T I O N

Misdemeanor offenses often involve individuals experiencing behavioral crises such as mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and homelessness. Little is known about how individuals in behavioral crisis arrested for misdemeanors are processed through the criminal justice system. In 2015, the Seattle Police Department implemented a Crisis Intervention Policy that employed a crisis template enabling systematic identification of incidents flagged by law enforcement as involving “behavioral crisis” to improve data collection and police response to incidents involving individuals in behavioral crisis. This study employs a quasi-experimental design to examine misdemeanor arrests, charges, referrals, and case dispositions of behavioral crisis-flagged incidents to better understand how individuals who are experiencing behavioral crisis are processed through the misdemeanor justice system. A sample of 505 cases of behavioral-crisis flagged incidents in Seattle from 2016-2018 are compared with a matched random sample of 1053 non-crisis cases examining similarities and differences in arrest, referral, charges, and case disposition. Results show that individuals involved in crisis-flagged incidents are arrested at a consistently higher rate; are more likely to be charged, taken into custody, and incarcerated; and are more likely to be female. Implications for crisis intervention, case processing, and managing individuals who commit misdemeanors while in behavioral crisis are discussed.

Article History: Keywords:

Received May 19, 2019 misdemeanor justice, crisis intervention, behavioral crisis, case processing Received in revised form June 03, 2019 Accepted June 03, 2019

© 2019 Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society and The Western Society of Criminology Hosting by Scholastica. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author: Jacqueline B. Helfgott, Seattle University Department of Criminal Justice, 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA 98115, USA Email: [email protected]

60 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Every year, there are over 13 million substance use disorders. The deinstitutionalization and misdemeanor cases filed in the United States dismantling of community resources for individuals (Natapoff, 2018). Misdemeanor crimes far exceed the with mental illness in the 1960s shifted the number of more serious felony crimes.1 Misdemeanor responsibility for addressing mental illness from social crimes are often referred to as “quality of life crimes” services to the criminal justice system. Individuals that threaten public order including a broad range of who suffer from mental illness are over-represented in offenses from jaywalking to assault including the criminal justice system and cycle through the substance abuse-related offences, disorderly conduct, criminal justice and mental health systems at vagrancy, trespassing, and violation of city disproportionally high rates (Alaraid & Rubin, 2018). ordinances. These lower-level offenses are largely a Even jurisdictions where jail populations are declining product of “everyday problems in living” experienced are seeing an increase in the number of individuals by individuals with mental health illness, drug and incarcerated with a serious mental illness (Mack, alcohol addiction, severe poverty, and homelessness 2017). Estimates of the numbers of individuals (Helfgott, 2008, p.6). Despite the lower level nature of experiencing mental health conditions in the criminal misdemeanors, the negative impact on individuals justice system range from 10-27% in jail and prison arrested for misdemeanor crime is far-reaching and populations with over half of individuals with mental can end in punishment more taxing than criminal illness in jails suffering from co-occurring substance penalties leading to housing difficulties, lack of abuse problems with particularly pronounced stability in employment, financial loss, and overrepresentation in jails and lower level courts deportation. Individuals arrested, referred, and (Schug & Fradella, 2015). Individuals with mental charged for misdemeanors are stigmatized, punished, illness experience discrimination and differential and burdened in similar ways to those charged for treatment and are held longer in jails than individuals felonies. The trend of mass misdemeanor processing who do not have a mental illness (Harris & Dagadakis, and prosecution nationwide impedes the criminal 2004). justice system and justice for the individuals directly The Impact of Misdemeanor Process on impacted (Natapoff, 2017, 2018; Roberts, 2011). Vulnerable Groups There has been a steady decline in misdemeanor arrests nationwide over the past two decades, with a Misdemeanor arrests have historically been used marked decline in recent years. Despite this decline, by communities and law enforcement agencies as a research has uncovered systematic racial disparity in form of “broken windows policing,” “quality of life the misdemeanor justice system that has been policing” (Beck, 2019; Johnson, Golub, & McCabe, consistent over time with Blacks disproportionately 2010; Katz, Webb, & Schaefer, 2001; Vitale, 2005), represented in the misdemeanor justice system2 and “hot spot policing” (Weisburd, 2018; Weisburd, (Stevenson & Mayson, 2018). In recent years, Groff, & Yang, 2012) in response to and in researchers have drawn attention to the complex issues interpretation of Wilson and Kelling’s (1992) broken involved in policing lower-level misdemeanor windows theory. While research has shown that offenses with focus on the impact on vulnerable quality of life policing has a deterrent effect for about populations (such as policing loitering ordinances that half of individuals (Golub, Johnson, & Taylor, 2003), disproportionately affect people who do not have there has been growing attention to the “dark side” of permanent homes) that create situational and spatial broken windows policing (Bellafonte, 2015), how barriers with the ultimate effect of excluding misdemeanor arrests operate as a criminal gateway individuals who belong to vulnerable populations (Levine, 2011), harm caused to communities of color (Beckett & Herbert, 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Midtveit, and the poor (Beck, 2019; Zhao, Lai, Ren, & Lawton, 2005). Individuals arrested for misdemeanors 2015), the ways in which quality of life policing processed through the criminal justice system tend to displaces low-level drug offenses to out-of-sight be socially disadvantaged so much so that the outdoor areas known in street argot as “the cut” (Elliot, misdemeanor process itself has been referred to as “a Golub, & Dunlap, 2012), and disproportionately feature of disadvantage” that disproportionately harms individuals who do not have access to private impacts “the poor and the working class, African spaces (Beckett & Herbert, 2010). Americans and Latinos, immigrants, the young, the Misdemeanor arrests disproportionally impact homeless, the mentally ill, and the addicted” vulnerable groups such as individuals with mental (Natapoff, 2018, p. 11). illness and/or suffering from drug and alcohol One of the most vulnerable groups entering the addiction and severe poverty. The odds of persons criminal justice system are individuals suffering from with persistent mental illness experiencing an arrest mental illness and/or drug and alcohol addiction and are significantly higher than the general population

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 61

(Fisher et al., 2011). Beckett and Herbert (2010) prediction of dangerousness and involuntary suggest that sanctions for misdemeanor offenses commitment are complex in terms of balancing civil reflect criminal justice overreach that is a modern-day rights with public safety (Evans & Salekin, 2014; form of banishment as a method of restoring order. Stone, 2018). To reduce the risk of arrest faced by City civility codes (e.g., parks exclusion and members of vulnerable groups such as individuals trespassing laws and off-limits orders that require with mental illness, it is important to understand what individuals convicted of certain types of offenses to differentiates persons with mental illness with stay out of certain areas) are used to criminalize intensive justice involvement from those with little or behaviors associated with homelessness such as sitting no such involvement (Fisher et al., 2011). For on sidewalks, panhandling, and camping. These example, on March 11, 2019, a 34 year-old man named methods of exclusion resulting from quality of life Jonathan James Wilson, who was reported as policing disproportionately impact individuals homeless and suffering from mental illness with a long deemed socially undesirable with little evidence that history of drug use and misdemeanor offenses, was these practices reduce the harm associated with charged in Seattle with attempted assault for grabbing addiction, homelessness, and mental illness. a woman he had never met at 9am in the morning and Researchers have only recently begun to attempting to throw her off a 40-foot Interstate-5 systematically examine misdemeanor arrest trends and overpass in the middle of rush hour traffic. As the the misdemeanor process. The Misdemeanor Justice woman hung onto the railing with both hands, Wilson Project (MJP) out of John Jay College of Criminal said "Do you want to go over the edge?" A passerby Justice in New York City, part of the Data came to her rescue and pulled 6-foot-3, 270-pound Collaborative for Justice,3 has produced a series of Wilson off of the woman who was of small build. This, reports on misdemeanor trends in New York City, as it turned out, was one of a long series of similar Upstate Cities, and the rest of New York State over the attempted misdemeanor assaults all of which were last three decades that present objective data to inform dismissed by reason of incompetency after Wilson policymakers, criminal justice professionals, and the received a competency evaluation (Grande, 2019). public (Chauhan, Fera, Welsh, Balazon, & Misshula , The case of Jonathan Wilson exemplifies the 2014). The most recent reports examine trends in challenge presented by individuals experiencing marijuana enforcement in New York State (Patten et homelessness and mental illness in the community. In al., 2019) and arrests for misdemeanor charges in New three of Wilson’s prior offenses committed in the six York City from 1993 to 2016 (Chauhan, Tomascak, months before the overpass incident, Wilson was Cuevas, Hood, & Lu, 2018). This work has been determined to be incompetent, the Seattle City expanded nationwide through the Research Network Attorney did not request competency restoration, and on Misdemeanor Justice (RNMJ), which extended the the Seattle Municipal Court judge ordered Wilson to MJN work in the form of a research network be evaluated by a Designated Crisis Responder to comprised of seven jurisdictions to perform similar assess his need for civil commitment (MYNorthwest analyses to replicate the New York City study Staff. (March 21, 2019).4 Understanding how including Durham, North Carolina; Los Angeles, individuals like Wilson and others experience mental California; Louisville, Kentucky; Meridian, illness and behavioral crisis has important Mississippi; Prince George’s County, Maryland; implications for policy and practice. Understanding Seattle, Washington; and St. Louis, Missouri. These the ways in which individuals in behavioral crisis are sites have produced reports on aspects of misdemeanor processed through the misdemeanor system can arrest, prosecution, and case processing in the different inform criminal justice decisions that maximize jurisdictions including the Seattle Helfgott, Parkin, opportunities within the bounds of the law to help the Fisher, Morgan, and Kaur (2018) report, “Trends in behaviorally distressed individual while protecting Misdemeanor Arrests, Referrals, & Charges in public safety. Seattle.” It has long been recognized that significant Little is known about individuals arrested for disparity exists in the lower-level misdemeanor courts misdemeanor crimes who are experiencing behavioral because judges lack alternatives for sanctioning crisis and are processed through the criminal justice individuals with prior criminal histories and who lack system. Misdemeanors involving individuals who resources to pay fines (Feely, 1992; Nelson, 1994). commit minor crimes during an episode of mental Researchers have directed increasing attention to and/or emotional distress present unique challenges gender (Muñoz & Freng, 2007) and racial disparities for law enforcement and the criminal justice system. in the misdemeanor process (Berdejó, 2018, Brennan, Most individuals suffering from mental illness and/or 2006; Muñoz & McMorris, 2002; Muñoz & Sapp, substance addiction do not present serious public 2003). However, much less is known about the role of safety risks, and the legal requirements that involve the behavioral crisis in misdemeanor crime and the

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 62 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER misdemeanor process to answer relevant questions: further action, the suspect is arrested or not arrested What percentage of misdemeanors involve individuals and is identified and issued a summons to appear in in some form of behavioral crisis such as mental court (this process is done by Seattle Municipal illness, addiction, and/or other forms of behavioral Court). By law, probable cause determination is distress? What is the most prevalent type of crime required on warrantless arrests within 48 hours. If the committed by individuals in behavioral crisis? What suspect is arrested, the suspect is booked at King happens to individuals who are in behavioral crisis County Jail, and multiple possibilities can occur when they enter, process through, and exit the during the prerelease screener phase -- Release on misdemeanor justice process? The current study personal recognizance, Deny release on personal attempts to answer these questions by examining recognizance, Hold defendant for arraignment, crisis-flagged misdemeanor case processing in Seattle. Default bail posted. If the matter involves the commission of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, The Misdemeanor Process in Seattle the case is referred to Seattle City Attorney's Office (SCAO). Felonies are referred to King County Misdemeanors in Seattle are processed through Prosecutor’s Office (KCPO). Some misdemeanors the criminal justice system from initial contact with may go to KCPO as a part of a felony. The Seattle City the Seattle Police Department to referral and charges Attorney’s Office (SCAO) then reviews the matter and by the Seattle City Attorney’s Office to case decides what, if any, charges should be filed for disposition by the Seattle Municipal Court. Seattle prosecution. SCAO can also decline to file, divert a Municipal Court (SMC) is responsible for case ‘pre-filing, or a conditional plea can be made adjudicating misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and (idea is that the defendant does the probation first and infractions contained in the Seattle Municipal Code. then case will potentially be declined or dismissed SMC is a branch of government separate from the upon successful completion). If SCAO files for Legislative and Executive Departments including prosecution, the defendant is arraigned and pre-trial/ seven elected judges who serve four-year terms. The initial hearings at Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) are city utilizes municipality resources or contract set. Arraignment follows within 14 days of filing a agreements for prosecution, public defense, and jail case unless an exception applies; many cases are services (Lindsay, 2016). Jail services are provided resolved at either pre-trial or initial hearings. through contracts with King and Snohomish Counties, The SCAO began its Pre-Filing Diversion prosecutions by the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, and Program in 2017. If cases are not resolved at pre-trial public defense through a contract with King County or initial hearings, SMC holds resolution hearings, Department of Public Defense. SMC also provides trials, and even post-resolution hearings if needed. If four courts for defendants with special needs: mental the case goes to trial, either a judge or a six-member health court, domestic violence court, veteran’s jury will hear it. If the defendant is found guilty, treatment court, and community court.5 These courts sentencing will occur right after the guilty finding or aim to help the community at large by minimizing at a later hearing. If the defendant fails to appear at any potential costs, re-arrests, and further victimization. point, a bench warrant may be issued and the next Typically, a misdemeanor case enters the system hearing date will be canceled until the defendant is one of four ways: (1) SPD Dispatched call - A call to rearrested; continuances and other delays may also 911 in which an officer(s) is sent; (2) SPD On-View: occur during any case. Trials can end with a variety of An officer initiated incident or contact that is logged outcomes including the following: Sentence entered, into the computer dispatch system; (3) SPD Probation jurisdiction (If the defendant is eligible, Traffic/Pedestrian Stop - Vehicle stops for traffic he/she is assigned a public defender and a post- violations and/or suspected DUI; and 4) Online resolution probation hearing is set), Services provided, Reporting. Traffic and pedestrian stops can also be or Fee/ fine imposed (See Figure 1 - The Seattle seizures that do not lead to arrest. If the matter requires Misdemeanor Case Process).

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 63

Figure 1. The Seattle Misdemeanor Case Process

number of arrests of individuals with mental illness Policing Behavioral Crisis and Reforms in the with attempt to provide appropriate resources to Seattle Police Department individuals through the health care system. CIT Over the past several decades, law enforcement programs involve 40 hours of training, with the goal agencies have established and improved crisis of training officers to better understand the intervention policies and data collection approaches to relationship between people with mental illness and better identify and respond to incidents involving the criminal justice field and to prepare them to handle individuals in various forms of behavioral crisis crises, in hopes of directing individuals to treatment including individuals suffering from mental illness, services instead of incarceration (Compton et al., substance use disorders, and/or other forms of 2008). diminished capacity and/or emotional distress As has been the case in many cities, including (Chappel, 2013; Compton, Bahora, Watson, & Oliva, Albuquerque, Chicago, Ferguson, Portland, Miami, 2008; Compton, Esterberg, McGee, Kotwicki, & and Baltimore,6 in 2011, the United States Department Oliva, 2006; Compton et al., 2009; Davidson, 2016; of Justice found that the Seattle Police Department had Dupont, Cochran, & Pillsbury, 2007; Lurigio & engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force in Watson, 2010; Reuland, Schwarzfeld, & Draper, violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, 2009). It is estimated that 6-10% of police-public law including unnecessary or excessive force in the course enforcement contacts involve persons with mental of arresting individuals for minor misdemeanor illnesses, and use of force incidents involving offenses such as open container violations, individuals with mental illness have spurred excessive jaywalking, and shoplifting including incidents force investigations by the Department of Justice involving individuals experiencing mental health around the country. Additionally, individuals with crises and/or behavioral effects of drugs and/or mental illness are overrepresented in jails and prisons alcohol. One case cited in the DOJ investigation (Watson, Compton, & Draine, 2017), and persons with involved a man in apparent behavioral distress mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by standing in the street holding a stuffed animal yelling law enforcement (Treatment Advocacy Center, n.d.). at traffic lights who was pepper sprayed and beaten by The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model, police when the man attempted to get away. Other founded in Memphis, Tennessee in the 1988, known cases cited in DOJ investigation report involved as the “Memphis Model,” has been widely incidents in which officers used excessive force in implemented in the United States to address the interactions with individuals experiencing mental communication gap between criminal justice and health issues and SPD’s CIT unit was not called. mental health systems with recognition that police According to the DOJ, “the erratic nature of these officers are frequently the first responders for individuals makes de-escalation techniques even more circumstances involving people with mental illnesses important. Assessing the appropriate force is not just (Dupont et al., 2007; McKean & Hendricks, 1997; smart policing, it is required. Officers must take into Teller, Munetz, Gil, & Ritter, 2006; Watson & account the subject’s mental state in determining the Fulambarker, 2012). The primary goal of CIT is to reasonableness of use of force” (United States improve officer and public safety by reducing the Department of Justice, 2011, p. 10).7

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 64 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

The Seattle Police Department had long been contacts, 1.7% involved use of force (277 incidents developing and implementing innovative crisis across 557 reported uses of force). Of the total intervention practices prior to the consent decree 638,984 calls for service during the data collection (Lightfoot, 2012; Neidhart, 2008, 2013). SPD period, 14, 199 (2.2%) resulted in documentation of at implemented a Crisis Response Unit in 1998 to least one crisis contact, that a CIT-Certified officer improve the police response to individuals in was on scene nearly 80% of these events, and on behavioral crisis and in 2010 launched a Crisis 48.75% of the calls, a CIT-Certified officer was the Response Team pilot program pairing members of the primary on the contact. In terms of case disposition, Crisis Response Unit with a licensed mental health the report shows a 5.3% increase in emergent professional trained in crisis assessment, intervention, detentions from 2016 to 2017 and an increase of 32.9% and resource referral for individuals in behavioral in 2018. Arrests increased 24.1% from 2016 to 2017 crisis (Helfgott, Hickman, & Labossiere, 2016). and 30.1% over the first six months of 2018. Referrals However, the DOJ consent decree outlined specific to designated crisis responders (DCR) increased by reforms to improve the department’s existing crisis 103% in the first six months of 2018 in comparison intervention policy and practices. As a component of with 2017 (Seattle Police Department, 2018). the reforms, the Seattle Police Department Mental Health Court and Diversion for Individuals implemented a Crisis Intervention Policy (Seattle in Crisis in Seattle Police Department Manual, 2018) to provide officers with resources to deal with subjects who are in Seattle has a long history of community-based behavioral crisis. SPD’s crisis intervention activities initiatives that were in place before and after the and data are available in the annual SPD Crisis Department of Justice investigation and consent Intervention Reports published since 20158. The decree. Seattle has been categorized as a “Middle policy set forth guidelines on transparency, Stable” city in terms of the approach to misdemeanor accountability, and data-driven practices involving crimes (Lum & Vovak, 2018).9 This categorization is crisis intervention including implementation of a crisis consistent with the attempts since the 1990s to template to collect data on crisis incidents. The implement alternative programs in Seattle to address implementation of the crisis template made it possible civil rights and social issues that arise from quality of to systematically identify all incidents flagged by law life policing that has shown disproportionate negative enforcement as “behavioral crisis” incidents. impact on communities of color and vulnerable The federal monitor found the Seattle Police groups. Department’s crisis intervention efforts in initial Mental health court. Mental health courts have compliance with the consent decree requirements in been established nationwide to provide a mechanism 2016 (United States Department of Justice, 2016). to relieve the criminal justice system of the burdens SPD was commended for embracing crisis placed by deinstitutionalization of individuals with intervention training with reports showing that less mental illness and to provide appropriate treatment than two percent of incidents involving individuals in and resources for individuals suffering from mental behavioral crisis involved use of force, and of the total illness and substance use disorders (Kondo, 2000). incidents involving someone in crisis, only 32 The Seattle Mental Health Court was the fourth mental involved Type 2 force such as pepper spraying and two health court nationwide and the first to be undertaken involved Type 3 force, which can include deadly force by a municipal court system, following King County, and bodily harm. In 2018, the Seattle Police Washington, mental health court, which was the Department achieved “full and effective compliance” second in the country. Both the Seattle and King with court ordered reforms imposed on the department County Mental Health Courts were launched by the Department of Justice (Miletich & Carter, 2018) following a task force that was created after a Seattle and Merrick Bob, who oversaw the federal monitor firefighter was fatally stabbed in 1997 by a man with said, “There has been a real, tangible, and objective mental illness who was released from jail. The change in the way Seattle police are interacting, objective of the court is to engage the judge, compassionately and with an eye toward treatment, prosecutor, defense attorney, social workers, and crisis with those in crisis” (Lee, 2016). intervention-trained police officers in a collaborative The most recent Seattle Police Crisis Intervention process to treat the defendant and protect public safety. Program Report reporting data from January 1, 2017, Eligible defendants agree to be closely monitored in to June 30, 2018, shows a 9% increase in police an intensive treatment and housing program contacts with individuals believed to be in behavioral (Gutierrez, 2009). crisis from 2016 to 2017 and a 20% increase during Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD). the first six-months of 2018 in comparison with the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) is a same six-month period in 2018. Of the 15,995 crisis pre-booking diversion program in Seattle and Skyway,

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 65

King County (Collins, Nytrop, Clifasefi, Lonczak, & Seattle is unique to other jurisdictions because the Daugaard, 2016). LEAD allows law enforcement Seattle Police Department has implemented ongoing officers to redirect individuals arrested for low-level initiatives relevant to understanding misdemeanors drug and prostitution to community services rather and misdemeanor arrests and processing -- initiatives than jail and prosecution. LEAD involves such as the Crisis response team officer/mental health collaboration between the King County Prosecuting professional partnership pilot program partnership Attorney’s Office, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, (Helfgott et al., 2016), Law Enforcement Assisted the Seattle Police Department, the King County Diversion (LEAD; Clifasefi et al., 2017; Collins et al., Sheriff’s Office, the King County Executive, the 2017), the SPD Micro-Community Policing Plans Mayor’s Office, The Washington State Department of (MCPP; Helfgott et al., 2018), and Seattle Mental Corrections, The Defender Association, the ACLU of Health Court and LINC are in many respects the Washington, and community members. LEAD is antithesis to zero tolerance policing. Examination of privately funded by multiple private foundations.10 the misdemeanor arrest, referral, and charge trends in Evaluation research on LEAD has shown significant Seattle within the context of these local initiatives and within-subject improvement for LEAD participants in comparison with findings from the other RNMJ and has found that obtaining housing is associated sites, can help to understand local policy decisions with 17% fewer arrests and obtaining employment is around policing and prosecuting quality of life associated with 33% fewer arrests (Clifasefi, Lonczak, offenses and the individual and community impact of & Collins, 2017; Collins, Lonczak, & Clifasefi, 2017). these decisions. Legal Intervention and Network of Care (LINC). LINC provides services to individuals with The Current Study mental health needs who have committed misdemeanors. The LINC program provides Individuals experiencing mental health behavioral health treatment in lieu of prosecution for conditions, drug and alcohol addiction, severe poverty, individuals with substance use and mental health and homelessness are vulnerable to arrest for lower- conditions who have been booked into jail for level offenses such as public urination, open-air drug misdemeanors and low-level felonies. The LINC activity, and loitering -- largely a result of their program serves adults with behavioral health conditions and the fact that many of them live and/or conditions who are referred by the prosecuting move about their lives in open-air spaces. These attorney’s office when prosecutors are willing to conditions can manifest in the form of behavioral refrain from filing or dismiss the charge if the crisis events that come to the attention to law individual agrees to participate in the LINC program. enforcement in the form of lower-level misdemeanor LINC is a short-term program that links individuals crimes. However, little is known regarding how many with resources and long-term supports such as misdemeanor crimes involve individuals in behavioral treatment and social services. Enrollment in Medicaid crisis or about how these individuals are processed is not required for eligibility for services from LINC. through the criminal justice system. LINC is funded by the State of Washington Office of There has been little empirical research Forensic Mental Health and a Trueblood Phase I Grant specifically focusing on the number and nature of from the Seattle Foundation on behalf of the Federal misdemeanors involving behavioral crisis. A study of Court Monitor for Trueblood et al. v. Washington misdemeanors and mental illness in the Bronx, New 11 State DSHS. York, found that 23% of cases screened in a These alternatives to traditional criminal justice community alternative sentencing program for processing in Seattle offer opportunities to connect individuals arrested for misdemeanors were flagged individuals in need with appropriate services to reroute for a possible need for mental illness intervention people who come into contact with the police who are (Pooler, 2015). Analyses of misdemeanor cases in suffering from mental health conditions and/or alcohol Seattle show that when the arrest, referral, and and drug addiction. Research on jail diversion charging data are aggregated to the most serious programs for persons with mental illness and misdemeanor offense that an individual allegedly substance use disorders has shown promising results committed during an incident, 5.4% of individuals with significant reduction of recidivism (Case, who were referred to the Seattle City Attorney's office Steadman, Dupuis, & Morris, 2009; Steadman & for a misdemeanor offense were identified as being in Naples, 2005). On the other hand, situations in which behavioral crisis when contacted by the Seattle Police individuals suffering from mental illness are released Department (Helfgott et al., 2018). However, there has from custody as a result of competency determinations been little to no systematic examination or empirical who do not receive treatment present potential public research focusing on the subset of misdemeanor cases safety risks. that involve individuals in behavioral crisis.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 66 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Examining the percentage of misdemeanor arrests that alternative sanctions. This information has the involve behavioral crisis in Seattle as well as the potential to assist criminal justice practitioners and demographic characteristics of this subset of policymakers in decisions regarding this subset of misdemeanor arrests and the nature of these incidents individuals arrested for misdemeanor offenses to can provide important information to inform policy balance the needs and rights of individuals in and practice. behavioral distress who are arrested with the interests This study employs a quasi-experimental design of public safety. to examine misdemeanor arrests, charges, referrals, and case dispositions of behavioral crisis-flagged Method incidents in Seattle from 2016-2018 comparing these cases with a matched sample of non-crisis flagged Sample and Data misdemeanor cases. The purpose of this study is to better understand how individuals who are The data for this research originated from three experiencing behavioral crisis are processed through separate datasets, one each from the Seattle Police the misdemeanor justice system to better understand Department, The Seattle City Attorney’s Office, and how the misdemeanor process involving individuals the Seattle Municipal Court. Each dataset was who are experiencing behavioral crisis differs from the collected by the respective agencies for administrative misdemeanor process for the general population of purposes. For this research, data from the police individuals processed through the misdemeanor department were used to identify the initial population system who are not in behavioral crisis. Research of interest, those whose first arrest for a misdemeanor questions include the following: What percentage of offense occurred during the 2016 calendar year. This misdemeanors involve individuals in some form of included two groups of persons arrested by the police behavioral crisis such as mental illness, addiction, department, those who had a crisis template filled out and/or other forms of behavioral distress? What is the during the time of their arrest and those who did not. most prevalent type of crime committed by individuals The “crisis” sample included 505 individuals who in behavioral crisis? What happens to individuals who were involved in crisis-flagged incidents at arrest. Of are in behavioral crisis when they enter, process these 505 individuals, 69.5% were identified as male, through, and exit the misdemeanor justice process? and 30.5% were identified as female. The racial/ethnic The current study attempts to answer these questions composition of the crisis-flagged sample was 61.4% by examining crisis-flagged misdemeanor case White, 29.1% Black, 5.3% Asian, 2.6% unknown, and processing in Seattle. 1.6% Indigenous. The “non-crisis” sample included Understanding the ways in which individuals in 1055 individuals who were involved in non-crisis- behavioral crisis enter and move through the flagged incidents at arrest. Of these 1055 individuals, misdemeanor justice process is important in 78.4% were male, and 21.6% were female. The determining what proportion of misdemeanor arrests racial/ethnic composition of the non-crisis-flagged involve individuals in crisis, what types of crimes they sample was 55.8% White, 30.2% Black, 6.5% Asian, commit, and whether they receive traditional or 4.5% unknown, and 2.9% Indigenous (See Table 1).

Table 1. Individuals Involved in Crisis-Flagged and Non-Crisis-Flagged Cases Demographics across Administrative Data Sources

Police Arrested Referrals to City Attorney Filed by City Attorney Court Cases Crisis Non-Crisis Crisis Non-Crisis Crisis Non-Crisis Crisis Non-Crisis n=505 n=1055 n=479 n=973 n=395 n=779 n=394 n=777 Sexa Female 30.5% 21.6%*** 30.5% 21.7%*** 28.9% 20.4%** 29.2% 20.7%** Male 69.5% 78.4% 69.5% 78.3% 71.1% 79.6% 70.8% 79.3% Racea Asian 5.3% 6.5%+ 5.2% 7.2%* 4.8% 7.2%** 5.3% 6.9%** Black 29.1% 30.2% 29.6% 28.7% 30.9% 28.1% 31.0% 27.9% Indigenous 1.6% 2.9% 1.3% 3.1% 1.3% 3.3% 1.5% 2.6% White 61.4% 55.8% 60.5% 55.6% 61.0% 56.0% 61.2% 57.9% Unknown 2.6% 4.5% 3.3% 5.4% 2.0% 5.4% 1.0% 4.6% Ageb Average 36.7 35.9 36.6 35.9 36.8 35.7 36.8 35.8 + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-test

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 67

To appear in the 2016 data, a person must have From all three datasets, demographic information been arrested between January 1 and December 31, on sex, race, and age was collected. Possible responses 2016. Selecting 2016 allowed for a minimum of two for all variables were uniform across each dataset: sex years to elapse for the misdemeanor case to reach its (female, male); race (Asian, black, Indigenous, white, conclusion as it moved through the system. It also unknown); and age at arrest (18-73). Age, specifically, allowed for data on prior and subsequent arrests to be was calculated using the arrest data and the person’s captured. The arrest that brought an individual and his date of birth from the police data, and this age was then or her offense/case into the current dataset had to be used for the age at each point in the case process. the first arrest that occurred for the misdemeanor For the police dataset, specifically, information on offense. For example, an individual who was initially the first offense arrest type, first offense arrest charge arrested for a misdemeanor offense in 2015 but was count, all offense arrest charge count, and arrest count rearrested for that same offense in 2016 because of an for offense was collected. For the first offense arrest outstanding warrant on the case, would not be eligible type, whether the individual was arrested, issued a to be included within our sampling frame. Once the citation or a summons, or was arrested by an outside 2016 arrestees were identified, they were separated agency, was captured, but only for the first arrest of a into two categories, those whose arrest offense was specific offense. If a person was arrested multiple connected to a crisis report being filed and those times for the same offense, subsequent arrests, such as whose arrest offense was not connected to a crisis an arrest for an open warrant connected to the offense, report being filed. After this, all individuals involved were not captured. Also collected was the number of in crisis-flagged cases were kept for the analysis (n = misdemeanor charges for which the person was 505), and a random sample of approximately 10% of arrested for both the first offense arrest and all offenses individuals involved in non-crisis-flagged cases were arrests. The total number of times a person was drawn from the rest of the population (n = 1055). Next, arrested for a specific offense was also captured. all individuals selected for the analysis were connected Finally, the police data were used to determine the to their corresponding data in both the city attorney number of times a person was arrested prior, and and the court datasets using unique identifiers that subsequent, to the arrest of interest for this research. were created using the police offense number and the Using the date of first arrest for an offense in the police last name of the person arrested. data, the number of times a person was arrested for a Although a single person could be connected to new offense was counted for one month, three months, multiple offenses, and multiple persons could be six months, one year, and two years prior to and after connected to one offense, the unit of analysis is the the arrest of interest. Importantly, subsequent arrests individual connected to an offense report. For for the same offense, such as for an open warrant, were example, if three connected people are arrested for not counted. trespassing in the same location at the same time, the Many of the variables in the city attorney’s data police department will create one offense record for set, especially those representing charges, were this misdemeanor, and all three persons will be aggregated and presented in two different ways. The connected to this charge. For this research, the three first way was to capture the top charge, or the most individuals were separated from each other and severe charge. In order from most severe to least counted separately. If one of those individuals was severe, charges were assigned to the following arrested for three unique offenses in 2016, then they categories: person; property and theft related; vehicle had the opportunity to be sampled for the analysis and driving related; weapon, trespassing, prostitution; three times. Importantly, the information connected to public order; and other. If a person was charged with any subsequent arrests that were recorded by the both a trespassing and a person charge, such as assault, police department as connected to the original arrest the assault charge was coded as the top charge. In were aggregated to the person offense level. An addition to examining top charge categories, the data example of this would be an individual who did not were also aggregated to capture all charge counts. In show up on their court date and was later arrested on a this case, the total number of referred and filed charges bench warrant connected to the original offense. were captured across all categories. Not only does this Although they are in the police data for two separate allow for an understanding of the distribution of the arrests, both arrests are recorded as connected to the most severe charge category for persons referred to, original offense. The 505 individuals involved in and charges filed by, the city attorney’s office, but it crisis-flagged cases accounted for 4.6% of the total also provides information on the total number of persons arrested in 2016 for an original misdemeanor referred and filed charges connected to each person offense (N = 11067). and his or her misdemeanor offense. The difference in the number of referred and filed charges was also

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 68 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER captured per person to examine whether there were Analytic Strategy more or fewer charges filed in each of the charge type The data collected were analyzed comparing categories compared to the number of charges that individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases to were referred. In the state of Washington, law individuals involved in non-crisis-flagged cases, enforcement officers merely suggest charges to file examining arrest, prosecution, and court outcomes against an individual, while the prosecutor's office throughout the case process. For count variables, such makes the actual determination about what is being as the number of referred or filed charges, comparison referred and what should be filed. Therefore, for the of means tests were conducted to determine whether purposes of this research, it is more appropriate to rely there is a statistically significant difference in the on the city attorney's data, as the referred charged is means between the two groups. As our main variable reviewed and finalized after the city attorney's office of interest is dichotomous, t-tests will be conducted receives the information on the case provide by the and t-statistics, as well as the averages of each group, police department, and this final determination is will be reported. Non-count data, such as race, sex, or reflected in their data. Other information captured on the top charge type, will be analyzed to determine these persons included the number of days between the whether there is a statistically significant relationship date the charges were referred and the date the case between the two categorical variables. In this situation, had a disposition, case type (criminal non-traffic, the X2 statistic, as well as the distribution of the cases criminal traffic, domestic violence related), whether between the two variables, will be calculated and the person was booked during his or her arrest (yes, presented. These analyses will provide bivariate no), and the case disposition of the referred charges information on whether there are any statistically (filed, declined, other). In addition, the charges significant differences between individuals involved actually filed against the person also included the top in crisis-flagged cases and individuals involved in charge disposition (dismissed, found guilty, pled non-crisis-flagged cases. guilty, other, none) and the number of charges that fell into the aforementioned disposition categories. The last set of data, which originates from the Results municipal court, captures variables related to the charges filed with the court and their outcomes. First, Table 1 presents the demographic information for the counts for charge pleas changed to guilty or not the persons in the combined dataset at four different guilty and the charge findings changed to guilty or not points in the case process – arrests, referrals, charges, guilt were captured. This provides information on the and the court cases. For all significant chi-square number of charges whose pleas were changed to guilty statistics where both variables were dichotomous, or not guilty, as well as the number of charges whose Cramer’s V, an effect size statistic, was calculated and findings were changed to guilty or not guilty. The case reported. For all other significant chi-squares, Phi was type (criminal, traffic), case specialization (domestic calculated and reported, and for significant violence, driving under the influence, other), and comparison of means tests, Cohen’s d was calculated whether the person was booked or issued a summons and reported to capture the effect size. Chi-square at his or her arrest for the case were also captured. statistics were calculated for the distribution of sex and Specific to behavioral crisis, whether the person had at race for individuals involved in crisis-flagged and non- least one hearing in mental health court (yes, no), or crisis flagged cases at each of these points. There is a his or her competency was questioned (yes, no), also statistically significant relationship between came from the court data. A variable was also individuals involved in crisis-flagged and non-crisis 2 collected that recorded the number of times a charge flagged cases and sex for the police arrested (X (1, N disposition was changed to certain status (no charge = 1560) = 14.50, p < 0.001, ϕ = -0.10), referrals to 2 filed, dismissed with prejudice, dismissed without prosecutors (X (1, N = 1452) = 13.27, p < 0.001, ϕ = - 2 prejudice, finding entered, pending, suspended 0.10), prosecutor charges (X (1, N = 1174) = 10.60, p 2 sentence, other). If dismissed, a count that measured = 0.001, ϕ = -0.10), and court case data (X (1, N = the reason for dismissal was also used (negotiated 1171) = 10.33, p = 0.001, ϕ = -0.10). In all cases, plea, not competent, proof problems, no witness, females comprised a larger percentage of individuals other). Finally, variables were included on the total involved in crisis-flagged cases when compared to the number of warrants opened for each case and the count distribution of sex in individuals involved in non-crisis for reasons a warrant was closed (booked, cancelled, flagged cases. In other words, females arrested for a bail or bond, quashed, released own recognizance). misdemeanor offense were more often flagged as being in crisis when compared to males. Also of note, although there were slight differences in these percentages across the four process points, the

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 69 distributions were mostly consistent. The relationship compared to the distribution of individuals involved in of race by crisis-flagged status was only statistically non-crisis flagged cases, while Black and White significant for the referrals to prosecutor (X2(4, N = persons made up a larger percent. This pattern 1452) = 10.53, p = 0.032, Cramer’s V = 0.09), demonstrates that when compared to our baseline, prosecutor charges (X2(4, N = 1174) = 15.52, p = individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases, 0.004, Cramer’s V = 0.12), and court cases data (X2(4, persons who are Black or White were more often N = 1171) = 13.69, p = 0.008, Cramer’s V = 0.11). flagged as being in crisis than persons of other races Consistent across these three points in the process was during three points in the case process. Finally, there the fact that Asians, Indigenous, and persons with an was no significant difference in the age of individuals unknown race made up a smaller percentage of involved in crisis-flagged cases versus individuals individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases when involved in non-crisis flagged cases.

Table 2. Police Offense Arrest Data for Crisis and Non-Crisis Suspects

Crisis Non-Crisis n=505 n=1055 First Offense Arrest Typea Arrested 90.3% 73.5%*** Citation 1.8% 9.8% Summons 7.1% 16.3% Outside Agency 0.8% 0.5% First Offense Arrest Chargesb Average Misdemeanor Count 1.44 1.26*** Average Felony Count 0.08 0.09 All Offense Arrest Chargesb Average Misdemeanor Count 1.95 1.49*** Average Felony Count 0.09 0.10 All Arrests per Offenseb Average Arrest Count 1.48 1.22*** + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-tests

In Table 2, results specific to the police offense crisis-flagged cases had, on average, higher charge arrest data are presented. The results for the type of counts. In addition, individuals involved in crisis- arrest connected to the first time an individual was flagged cases had a higher average number of arrests arrested for an offense show that an individual connected to an offense than individuals involved in involved in a crisis-flagged case was more likely to be non-crisis flagged cases (t(686) = -5.48, p < 0.001, d = arrested, as opposed to being issued a citation or a 0.32). In other words, on average, individuals involved summons when compared to individuals involved in in crisis-flagged cases were arrested more times per non-crisis flagged cases (X2(3, N = 1560) = 64.73, p < offense, and for those offenses, law enforcement 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.20). Specifically, an individual identified more potential misdemeanor charges. Also, involved in a crisis-flagged case was taken into there were no significant differences in the average custody 16.8% more often than an individual involved number of felony charge counts for either first offense in a non-crisis flagged case. Next, when comparing the arrest or all offense arrests between individuals mean charge counts, the results indicate that there is a involved in crisis-flagged and non-crisis flagged cases. statistically significant difference in the mean number The data from the city attorney’s office are split of misdemeanor charges connected to the first arrest into two tables that represent information about the (t(809) = -4.19, p < 0.001, d = 0.24) as well as all charges referred to the office by the police department charges connected to an offense (t(707) = -6.73, p < (Table 3) and the charges filed by the office (Table 4). 0.001, d = 0.39). In both tests, individuals involved in

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 70 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Table 3. Suspect Referred Misdemeanor Charges to City Attorney

Non- Crisis Crisis n=479 n=973 Total Referredb Average 1.3 1.3 Days between Referral & Dispositionb Average 19.0 55.5*** Referral Case Typea Criminal Non-Traffic 75.8% 59.5%*** Criminal Traffic 3.5% 16.9% Domestic Violence Related 20.7% 23.6% Referral Bookeda Yes 91.9% 73.2%*** No 8.1% 26.8% Top Referral Categorya Person 58.7% 41.6%*** Property & Theft Related 14.8% 26.4% Vehicle & Driving-Related 3.8% 17.5% Weapon 3.5% 1.4% Trespassing 15.4% 5.0% Prostitution 0.0% 4.4% Public Order 2.9% 1.4% Other 0.8% 2.2% Referral Category Count Averageb Person 0.65 0.47*** Property & Theft Related 0.24 0.33** Vehicle & Driving-Related 0.05 0.23*** Weapon 0.06 0.04+ Trespassing 0.21 0.11*** Prostitution 0.00 0.04*** Public Order 0.06 0.04+ Other 0.04 0.04 Referral Case Dispositiona Filed 82.3% 80.0% Declined 16.3% 17.9%

Other 1.5% 2.2% + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-test

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 71

Table 4. Suspect Filed Misdemeanor Charges by City Attorney

Crisis Non-Crisis n=395 n=779 Total Chargedb Average 1.6 1.5* Days between Referral & Average 13.4 53.9*** Dispositionb Charged Case Typea Criminal Non-Traffic 79.5% 58.5%*** Criminal Traffic 4.1% 19.6% Domestic Violence Related 16.5% 21.6% Bookeda Yes 91.9% 68.3%*** No 8.1% 31.7% Top Charge Categorya Person 57.7% 39.7%*** Property & Theft Related 13.7% 21.7% Vehicle & Driving-Related 4.3% 19.9% Weapon 3.8% 1.7% Trespassing 16.2% 3.9% Prostitution 0.0% 5.3% Public Order 3.5% 1.0% Other 0.8% 1.5% Charge Category Count Person 0.81 0.52*** Averageb Property & Theft Related 0.27 0.36* Vehicle & Driving-Related 0.07 0.30*** Weapon 0.07 0.04+ Trespassing 0.23 0.11*** Prostitution 0.00 0.05*** Public Order 0.08 0.04+ Other 0.04 0.04 Top Charge Dispositiona Dismissed 54.2% 34.5%*** Found Guilty 0.5% 1.0% Pled Guilty 28.6% 34.9% Other 8.1% 11.0% None 8.6% 18.5% Charge Disposition Count Dismissed 0.84 0.52*** Averageb Found Guilty 0.01 0.01 Pled Guilty 0.46 0.49 Other 0.12 0.15 + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-test

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 72 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

The difference in the average number of charges related, vehicle and driving related, prostitution, and referred to the prosecutor’s office between individuals other. involved in crisis-flagged and non-crisis flagged cases For the filed misdemeanor charges the patterns was not significant. The mean difference in the days are similar. Specifically, for the t-test results, the mean between when the charges were referred to the difference between the total charges filed (t(714) = - prosecutor’s office and when an initial case disposition 2.26, p = 0.019, d = 0.14), the days between referral was decided was significantly different (t(1376) = and disposition (t(1172) = 9.88, p < 0.001, d = 0.55), 9.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.47), with a decision on whether and five of the eight average number of charges per an individual involved in a crisis-flagged case’s category (person (t(652) = -5.46, p < 0.001, d = 0.35), charges were filed or declined occurring in an average property and theft related (t(787) = 2.48, p = 0.013, d of 18 days and an individual involved in a non-crisis = 0.16), vehicle and driver-related (t(1172) = 7.24, p < flagged case’s occurring in 55.5 days. In addition, the 0.001, d = 0.41), trespassing (t(600) = -4.99, p < 0.001, chi-square statistic results were significant for referral d = 0.31), prostitution (t(778) = 6.57, p < 0.001, d = case type (X2(2, N =1452) =59.95, p < 0.001, Cramer’s 0.32)), were all significant. Also significant were the V = 0.20), whether the individual was booked (X2(1, N charged case type (X2(2, N = 1174) = 64.78, p < 0.001, = 1452) = 68.34, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.22), and the top Cramer’s V = 0.26), booked (X2(1, N = 1174) = 80.62, referral charge (X2(7, N = 1452) = 161.32, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.26), and top charge categories (X2(7, Cramer’s V = 0.33). There was no significant N = 1174) = 168.9, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.38). For difference in the distribution of whether a case was the additional variables not found in the referral data, filed or not between individuals involved in crisis- the distribution of the top charge disposition and the flagged and non-crisis flagged cases. For referral case mean difference in how many of the charges were type, individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases were dismissed were significant (X2(4, N = 1174) = 47.72, p more likely to be connected to a criminal non-traffic < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.20; and t(1172) = -6.4, p < offense and less likely to be connected to a criminal 0.001, d = 0.38; respectively). Individuals involved in traffic offense, when compared to individuals involved crisis-flagged cases more often had their top charge in non-crisis flagged cases. Similarly, individuals dismissed and, on average, had more charges involved in crisis-flagged cases were also much more dismissed when compared to individuals involved in likely to be booked for the charges referred to the city non-crisis flagged cases. attorney’s office. Finally, when examining the Table 5 compares the average number of charges distribution of the top referral charge category, per charge type across individuals involved in crisis- individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases more often flagged and non-crisis flagged cases, as well as the had a top charge of a person related offense, weapon, difference in the number of charges per charge type for trespassing, and public order offense, and less often those that were referred compared to the number filed. had a top referral category of property and theft

Table 5. Crisis and Non-Crisis Suspect Comparison of Average Referral and Filed Counts by Charge Type

City Attorney Referrals City Attorney Filed Referral-Filed Difference Crisis Non-Crisis Crisis Non-Crisis Crisis Non-Crisis n=479 n=973 n=395 n=779 n=395 n=779 Person 0.65 0.47*** 0.81 0.52*** 0.15 0.05***

Property & Theft Related 0.24 0.33** 0.27 0.36* 0.03 0.01

Vehicle & Driving-Related 0.05 0.23*** 0.07 0.30*** 0.02 0.03

Weapon 0.06 0.04+ 0.07 0.04+ 0.00 0.00

Trespassing 0.21 0.11*** 0.23 0.11*** 0.00 0.01

Prostitution 0.00 0.04*** 0.00 0.05*** 0.00 0.00

Public Order 0.06 0.04+ 0.08 0.04* 0.01 0.00

Other 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2

73 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

For context, the city attorney referrals and charges crisis flagged cases. Also, this table provides insight found in prior tables are repeated, while the new into the number of persons whose charges were not information, referral-charge difference, is presented in filed after referral. Only 82.5% of individuals involved the last two rows of data. Across all of the charge in crisis-flagged cases had their referred charges filed, types, there was only a significant difference in the compared to 80.1% of individuals involved in non- number of referrals and charges for the person crime crisis flagged cases. category (t(501) = -3.53, p < 0.001, d = 0.24). The court data for misdemeanor charges and Specifically, on average, individuals involved in outcomes (Table 6) presents the distribution of data for crisis-flagged cases had .15 person charges added to cases that made it to the court for adjudication. the charges referred by the police department by the city attorney, compared to an increase of only .05 person crime charges individuals involved in non-

Table 6. Suspect Misdemeanor Court Charges and Outcomes

Crisis Non-Crisis n=370 n=695 Count of Charge Pleas Changed tob Not Guilty 0.75 0.79 Guilty 0.65 0.86** Count of Charge Finding Changed tob Guilty 0.52 0.61* Not Guilty 0.00 0.03*** Case Typea Criminal 95.4% 78.8%*** Traffic 4.6% 21.2% Case Specializationa DV 17.8% 22.9%*** DUI 4.3% 19.3% Other 77.8% 57.8% Action at Arresta Booked 89.7% 60.0%*** Summons 10.3% 40.0% n=394 n=778 Mental Health Courta Yes 51.0% 10.0%*** Competencya Yes 41.1% 6.6%*** n=366 n=684 Count of Charge Disposition Changed tob No charge filed 0.15 0.15 Dismissed w/ Prejudice 0.25 0.36 Dismissed w/o Prejudice 0.56 0.25*** Finding entered 0.11 0.25*** Pending 0.11 0.19** Suspended Sentence 0.42 0.44 Other 0.10 0.15+ n=239 n=334 Count of Dismissal Reasonb Negotiated Plea 0.46 0.50 Not Competent 0.65 0.12*** Proof Problems or No Witness 0.18 0.45*** Other 0.12 0.30***

Total Warrant Countb Average 0.59 0.66

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2

74 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

n=140 n=301 Warrant Close Countb Booked 1.41 1.33 Cancelled 0.02 0.06+ Bail or Bond 0.01 0.04 Quashed 0.15 0.21 Released Own Recognizance 0.06 0.06 + <0.10; * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-test

Unlike the prior tables, the sample size is not one hearing in the mental health court at a rate more consistent across all of the variables presented, so the than five times that of individuals involved in non- n for the individuals involved in crisis-flagged and crisis flagged cases (51% and 10%, respectively (X2(1, non-crisis flagged cases is provided when the sample N =1172) = 242.27, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.46)), and size changes. Three of the first four differences in competency issues arose for individuals involved in means tests are significant. First, the average number crisis-flagged cases more than six times as often than of times a person changed their charge plea to guilty for individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases was significant (t(1063) = 3.1, p = 0.002, d = 0.20), (41.1% and 6.6%, respectively(X2(1, N =1172) = with individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases 209.75, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.42)). having a higher rate of changing their pleas to guilty. The final variables represent the results for 17 In addition, individuals involved in non-crisis flagged difference-in-means tests, only six of which were cases also more often had a charge finding changed to significant. For the count of charge dispositions that guilty or not guilty (t(1063) = 2.18, p = 0.030, d = 0.14; were changed, dismissed without prejudice (t(582) = - and t(694) = 4.13, p < 0.001, d = 0.23; respectively). 5.94, p < 0.001, d = 0.39), finding entered (t(997) = For the next five variables, all of which were 5.11, p < 0.001, d = 0.31), and pending were significant, chi-squares were calculated to determine significant (t(894) = 2.94, p = 0.003, d = 0.19). whether there was a significant relationship between Specifically, individuals involved in crisis-flagged each variable’s responses and whether the case was cases had, on average, more charges dismissed without connected to a crisis or individual involved in a non- prejudice compared to individuals involved in non- crisis flagged case. Similar to the other datasets, crisis flagged cases, and fewer charges coded as individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases were more finding entered or pending. For the specific dismissal often connected to a criminal case and less often reason, individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases, on connected to a traffic case when compared to average, had more dismissals because they were found individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases (X2(1, not competent (t(314) = -7.89, p < 0.001, d = 0.70) and N = 1065) = 50.81, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.22). For the case fewer dismissals because there were proof problems or specialization, individuals involved in crisis-flagged no witness (t(555) = 4.62, p < 0.001, d = 0.38), or other cases much less often had a DUI related case and reasons (t(556) = 4.18, p < 0.001, d = 0.35). slightly less often had a domestic violence related case Interestingly, there were no significant differences in (X2(2, N =1065) = 56.15, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = the average number of warrants, or how those warrants 0.23). Also similar to the other datasets, individuals were closed, between individuals involved in crisis- involved in crisis-flagged cases whose charges made flagged and non-crisis flagged cases. it through the case process to the courts were more An examination of each person’s prior often booked and less often given a summons misdemeanor arrest history (Table 7) shows a compared to individuals involved in non-crisis flagged consistently higher rate of arrests for individuals cases (X2(1, N =1065) = 102.27, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.31). involved in crisis-flagged cases compared to Important to the substantive topic of this research, individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases. individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases had at least

Table 7. Percent of Persons with Arrests at Specific Times before and after Arrest of Interest

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 75

Crisis Non-Crisis n=505 n=1053 Prior Arrests for Non-Related 2 Years 51.1% 40.4%*** Offensea 1 Year 42.4% 32.4%*** 6 Months 32.7% 24.8%** 3 Months 23.8% 17.1%** 1 Month 11.3% 8.0%* Subsequent Arrests for Non- 1 Month 11.7% 6.0%*** Related Offensea 3 Months 24.0% 14.9%*** 6 Months 35.6% 23.6%*** 1 Year 45.3% 33.3%*** 2 Years 52.1% 41.0%*** Arrest Count 2 Years Priorb Average 1.5 1.2** Arrest Count 2 Years Afterb Average 1.6 1.2*** * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 achi-square; bt-test

When coded as whether the person was arrested = 0.005, d = 0.15; and t(855) = -3.58, p < 0.001, d = or not within a specific period of time prior to, or 0.20; respectively). subsequent to, the arrest of interest for this study, the results show a significant difference at two years, one Discussion year, six months, three months, and one month prior (X2(1, N = 1558) = 15.96, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.10; X2(1, N The findings presented contribute to the scant but = 1558) = 14.86, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.10; X2(1, N = 1558) growing literature on misdemeanor case processing = 10.69, p = 0.001, ϕ = 0.08; X2(1, N = 1558) = 9.76, with attention to the differences between crisis and p = 0.002, ϕ = 0.08; and X2(1, N = 1558) = 4.54, p = non-crisis-flagged misdemeanor cases. Our findings 0.033, ϕ = 0.05; respectively), as well as one month, provide data on how individuals in crisis are processed three months, six months, one year, and two years after through the misdemeanor system in Seattle. These (X2(1, N = 1558) = 15.37, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.10; X2(1, N findings contribute to the literature on misdemeanor = 1558) = 19.07, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.12; X2(1, N = 1558) justice case processing and can potentially inform = 24.62, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.13; X2(1, N = 1558) = 21.08, public discourse around the degree to which p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.11; and X2(1, N = 1558) = 16.88, p < individuals experiencing mental health conditions and 0.001, ϕ = 0.10; respectively). For example, 51.1% of drug and alcohol addiction present a public safety risk individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases had at least as well as questions raised regarding the public safety one arrest within the two year period prior to the arrest benefits (for the individual in crisis and society at of interest in this study, compared to only 40.4% of large) of processing these individuals through the individuals involved in non-crisis flagged cases. misdemeanor justice system calls for a better Similarly, 52.1% of individuals involved in crisis- understanding of how persons in crisis are processed flagged cases had at least one arrest for an offense not through the misdemeanor system. related to the arrest of interest in the subsequent two There are a number of key findings that provide years, compared to only 41% of the individuals important information to inform criminal justice involved in non-crisis flagged cases. The average practice regarding persons in behavioral crisis arrested number of arrests was also significantly different, with for misdemeanor offences. Our findings provide individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases being analyses for the City of Seattle during the study period arrested more often than individuals involved in non- of 2014-2018 that shed light on the demographic crisis flagged cases for new offenses both prior to, and characteristics of persons most likely to be arrested for subsequent to, the arrest of interest (t(885) = -2.81, p crisis-flagged misdemeanors; how often persons in behavioral crisis are arrested, taken into custody,

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 76 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER referred to the prosecutor’s office, and charged with of officers are 40-hour CIT trained (Seattle Police misdemeanor crimes; how much time persons in crisis Manual Crisis Intervention Policy, 2018). This ensures spend in jail as compared to individuals involved in that responding officers have mental health training on non-crisis-flagged cases who are charged with how to identify behaviors associated with a mental misdemeanors; and the nature of case disposition for health crisis. However, cultural stereotypes can persons involved in crisis-flagged incidents as inadvertently make their way into the crisis-flagging compared with persons involved in non-crisis-flagged process. Future research is needed to examine whether incidents. gender differences found in this study are the result of Analyses of demographic characteristics show sex-typed crisis flagging or a true overrepresentation that the racial/ethnic composition of crisis-flagged of crisis-incidents involving females. Either way, incidents is largely comprised of Whites and Blacks whether the overrepresentation of females in crisis- with fewer Asian and Indigenous individuals involved flagged misdemeanor offenses in our sample is the in crisis-flagged cases compared to individuals result of women being disproportionally identified as involved in non-crisis-flagged cases when counted as in crisis based on sex-based stereotypes12 or because a % of the total number of individuals involved in are truly more women involved in crisis-induced law- crisis-flagged/non-crisis-flagged cases. Whites make violating behaviors, females are in fact up a larger portion of individuals involved in crisis- disproportionately represented in crisis-flagged flagged cases compared to individuals involved in incidents in Seattle, and this calls for attention to non-crisis-flagged cases (approximately 3-5% more gender-informed and gender-responsive misdemeanor across all data sets). The results regarding sex case processing (Caudy, Tillyer, & Tillyer, 2018; differences in crisis-flagged versus non-crisis-flagged Fogg & Ney, 2016; Kubiak & Arfken, 2007; misdemeanor cases are notable. The finding that Salisbury, 2015). females comprise a significantly larger percentage of The findings suggest that crisis-flagged cases that individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases as are processed through the misdemeanor system are compared with individuals involved in non-crisis- more serious person-related incidents that are more flagged cases in our sample raises issues to consider. likely than non-crisis cases to be processed through the Prior research has found that males receive harsher system. The finding that crisis-flagged cases were sentences in the misdemeanor justice system than significantly more likely than non-crisis-flagged cases females (Muñoz & Freng, 2007). However, females to include person- and weapon-related offenses,, who are arrested are more likely than their male trespassing, public order offenses and non-traffic- counterparts to be arrested for lower-level offenses related offenses. that individuals involved in crisis- such as property crimes (Steffensmeier, Harris, & flagged cases were much more likely to be arrested at Painter-Davis, 2015) and drug offenses, and to be their first offense and were significantly more likely to poor, undereducated, and unskilled; have higher rates be booked, arrested, charged, have more charges of mental illness, substance abuse, and backgrounds added, to be taken into custody, and to have a higher involving physical and sexual abuse and trauma; and prior arrest history compared to individuals involved to be the primary caretakers of minor children, whose in non-crisis-flagged cases suggests that crisis-flagged low risk and high needs are more appropriately incidents are taken seriously. This finding is consistent addressed through community rather than criminal with prior research that has found that individuals with justice services (Taxman & Cropsey, 2007). Thus, it mental illness are dealt with differently in the criminal makes sense that females would be disproportionally justice system and that individuals with mental illness represented in crisis-flagged incidents at the arrested for misdemeanor offenses spend on average misdemeanor level. On the other hand, there has long eight days more in confinement than individuals been sex-typing of law-violating behaviors with male without mental illness (Harris & Dagadakis, 2004). In behavior more likely to be attributed to choice while addition, this finding suggests that crisis-flagged the female behavior more likely to be attributed to misdemeanor cases are the more serious person-based deterministic factors and forces such as mental illness offenses and that these offenses result in formal (Allen, 1987). Incidents are flagged for crisis by criminal justice processing. This offers some responding officers. Prior research has found that assurance to address community concerns regarding crisis-flagging can depend on information from the capacity of the criminal justice system to protect dispatch, the presence or absence of drugs, the location public safety in the aftermath of anecdotal cases in in which the incident occurs (such as locations with which individuals with lengthy person-based high density of homelessness), or other factors misdemeanor offense histories escalate to more (Bohrman, Wilson, Watson, & Draine, 2018). In serious violent offenses. Seattle, all sworn officers are required to complete The significant difference found in the number of basic training on crisis intervention, and the majority days to disposition for individuals involved in crisis-

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 77

flagged cases as compared to individuals involved in through LINC or LEAD for example), future research non-crisis-flagged cases (18 days for individuals that involves a mixed method research design that involved in crisis-flagged cases and 55.5 days for follows individuals in crisis through the system is individuals involved in non-crisis-flagged cases) needed to better understand how specific alternatives suggests that individuals involved in crisis-flagged to incarceration impact public safety, whether they cases are processed through the misdemeanor system reduce recidivism, and enhance reentry success for from arrest to final disposition at a much quicker time individuals with a history of crisis-flagged frame than are individuals involved in non-crisis- misdemeanor offenses. flagged cases. The root of this difference is unclear. The findings presented have the potential to assist Future research examining individual cases may offer criminal justice practitioners and policymakers in explanation for this significant difference. One decisions regarding the subset of individuals arrested potential explanation is that because crisis-flagged for misdemeanor offenses who are experiencing some cases are more often person-based crimes that either form of behavioral crisis. The findings contribute to meet dispositional criteria for competency the current dialogue in Seattle and nationwide showing determination, diversion, or charge and conviction, that individuals involved in behavioral crisis-flagged these cases involve probable cause to move the case to misdemeanors are arrested, charged, convicted, and charge and adjudication on the one hand, and given incarcerated at a higher rate than are individuals that these cases are crisis-flagged, there are also more involved in non-crisis-flagged incidents, particularly alternatives for resolution such as mental health court, when it comes to person-crimes. For those who LEAD, and LINC. question whether individuals who are mentally ill and With respect to case disposition, our findings dangerous are being dealt with seriously in the show that individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases criminal justice system, the findings show that they more often had their top charge dismissed and, on are. On the other hand, ultimately individuals in average, had more charges dismissed, when compared behavioral crisis need help to manage their mental to individuals involved in non-crisis-flagged cases. illness. The degree to which individuals involved in Not surprisingly, individuals involved in crisis- crisis-flagged cases are able to get the help they need flagged cases were five-times more likely than as they process through the system in Seattle with the individuals involved in non-crisis-flagged cases to resources available (e.g., mental health court, LINC, have a mental health court hearing and six times more LEAD) is unclear. Future research is needed to likely to have a competency hearing and their empirically investigate the costs and benefits of dismissals were more likely to be due to being found processing through the criminal justice system for not competent rather than due to proof problems or individuals involved in behavioral crisis-flagged lack of a witness. In addition, the finding that cases. In other words, are they better able to get the individuals involved in crisis-flagged cases had, on help they need if they process through the system or if average, more charges dismissed without prejudice their case is dismissed and they return to the compared to individuals involved in non-crisis- community? flagged cases, and fewer charges coded as finding There are several limitations of the current study entered or pending opens the possibility that the case that deserve note. First, the sample of cases used for can potentially be filed later with additional this analysis is relatively small spanning from 2014 to information. The significantly higher charge dismissal 2018 because, prior to this, there was not a systematic rate for crisis misdemeanor cases as compared to non- method of flagging crisis cases. Second, this study is crisis misdemeanor cases suggests that the history of focused on Seattle misdemeanor cases involving collaboration in Seattle around responding behavioral crisis, and the results may not generalize to appropriately to incidents involving behavioral crisis other jurisdictions. Seattle is particularly unique when through innovative programs such as mental health it comes to the implementation and development of court, LEAD, and LINC has provided a mechanism criminal justice response to individuals experiencing through which more serious misdemeanor cases mental health crises and drug and alcohol addiction involving person-related crimes are processed through given the number of innovative programs that have the system while there are mechanisms for dismissal been established and the history of law enforcement and diversion that can direct persons in crisis with reform. Additional research is needed to examine the appropriate services in cases where an individual in misdemeanor process in other jurisdictions. Finally, crisis is determined to be not legally competent to the findings presented here are limited to quantitative move forward in the misdemeanor system. While the data available through the Seattle Police Department, data we examined in the current study does not allow the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, and the Seattle us to determine the specific case disposition (e.g., Municipal Court. Future mixed method research is whether the individual in crisis received services needed to capture qualitative data that can provide a

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 78 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER more nuanced picture of the case processing of Theoretical Criminology, 12(5), 5–30. doi: persons in crisis who are arrested for misdemeanor and 10.1177/1362480607085792 their trajectory as they process through the Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2010a). Penal boundaries: misdemeanor system. Banishment and the expansion of punishment. Finally, more research is needed to better Law & Social Inquiry, 35(1), 1–38. doi: understand the relationship between mental illness, 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01176.x drug and alcohol addiction, and homelessness and misdemeanor crime and misdemeanor processing and Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2010b). Banished: The new the ways in which diversion programs increase public social control in urban America. New York, NY: safety, reduce recidivism, and enhance reentry success Oxford University Press. of individuals with histories of low-level offenses Bellafonte, G. (January 16, 2015). The dark side of rooted in mental health and substance abuse. Prior ‘broken windows’ policing. The New York Times. research has shown that diversion programs for Retrieved from individuals arrested for misdemeanors who have https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/nyregion/t mental health and substance abuse issues successfully he-dark-side-of-broken-windows-policing.html reduce recidivism (Alaraid & Rubin, 2016, 2018; Loveland & Boyel, 2007; Sirotich, 2009; Steadman, Berdejó, C. (2018). Criminalizing race: Racial Cocozza, & Veysey, 1999; Swaminath, Mendonca, disparities in plea-bargaining. Boston College Vidal, & Chapman, 2002) with promising results Law Review, 59(4), 1188–1249. showing the effectiveness of diversion programs in Seattle such as LEAD (Clifasefi et al., 2017; Collins et Bohrman, C., Wilson, A. B., Watson, A., & Draine, J. al., 2016; Collins et al., 2017) as well as police-based (2018). How police officers assess for mental collaborative CIT models that increase opportunities illnesses. Victims & Offenders: An International for diversion and disposition to appropriate resources Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and for individuals in crisis (e.g., Helfgott et al., 2016). In Practice, 13(8), 1077–1092. doi: addition, involuntary outpatient commitment has been 10.1080/15564886.2018.1527737 found to reduce arrests among persons with mental Brennan, P. K. (2006) Sentencing female illness (Swanson et al., 2001) as have services misdemeanants: An examination of the direct and provided through mental health court (Hiday, Wales, indirect effects of race/ethnicity. Justice & Ray, 2013; Moore & Hiday, 2006). Our findings Quarterly, 23(1), 60–95. doi: provide information about what happens to individuals 10.1080/07418820600552477 involved in crisis-flagged cases to help balance the needs and rights of these individuals with the interests Case, B., Steadman, H. J., Dupuis, S. A., & Morris, L. of public safety to inform policy and practice S. (2009). Who succeeds in jail diversion regarding the processing of misdemeanor cases programs for persons with mental illness? A Multi- involving individuals experiencing crisis in Seattle Site Study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, and in other jurisdictions. 27(5), 661–674. doi: 10.1002/bsl.883.

References Caudy, M. S., Tillyer, M. S., & Tillyer, R. (2018). Jail vs probation: A gender-specific test of differential Alaraid, L.F., & Rubin, M. (2018). Misdemeanor effectiveness and moderators of sanction effects. arrestees with mental health needs: Diversion and Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(7), 949–968. outpatient services as a recidivism reduction doi: 10.1177/0093854818766375 strategy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(3), Chappel, D. (Ed.) (2013). Policing and the mentally 575–590. doi: 10.1177/0306624X16652892 ill: International perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Allen, H. (1987). Justice unbalanced: Gender, psychiatry and judicial decisions. Philadelphia, Chauhan, P., Fera, A. G., Welsh, M. B., Balazon, E., PA: Open University Press. & Misshula, E. (2014, October). Trends in misdemeanor arrest rates in New York. Retrieved Beck, B. (2019). Broken windows in the cul-de-sac? from Data Collaborative for Justice website: Race/ethnicity and quality-of-life policing in the http://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/wp- changing suburbs. Crime & Delinquency, 65(2), content/uploads/2016/08/Misdemeanor- 270–292. doi: 10.1177/0011128717739568 Report.pdf Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2008). Dealing with Chauhan, P., Tomascak, S., Cuevas, C., Hood, Q. O., disorder: Social control in the post-industrial city. & Lu, O. (2018, February). Trends in Arrests for

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 79

Misdemeanor Charges in New York City, 1993- of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and Public 2016. Retrieved from Misdemeanor Justice Policy, Dept. of Criminology and Criminal Project website: Justice, CIT Center. Retrieved from http://misdemeanorjustice.org/wp- http://cit.memphis.edu/CoreElements.pdf. content/uploads/2018/01/2018_01_24_MJP.Char Elliot, L., Golub, A., & Dunlap. E. (2012). Off the ges.FINAL_.pdf street and into “the cut”: Deterrence and Clifasefi, S. L., Lonczak, H. S., & Collins, S. E. displacement in NYC’s quality of life marijuana (2017). Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted policing. International Journal of Drug Policy, Diversion (LEAD) program: Within-subjects 23(3), 210–219. doi: changes on housing, employment, and 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.08.006 income/benefits outcomes and associations with Evans, S. A. & Salekin, K. I. (2014). Involuntary civil recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 63(4), 429–44. commitment: Communicating with the court Collins, S. E., Lonczak, H. S., & Clifasefi, S. L. regarding “danger to other.” Law and Human (2017). Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Behavior, 38(4), 325–336. doi: Diversion (LEAD): Program effects on 10.1037/lhb0000068 recidivism outcomes. Evaluation and Program Feely, M. M. (1992). The process is punishment: Planning, 64(1), 49–56. Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New Collins, S. E., Nytrop, K., Clifasefi, S. L., Lonczak, H. York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. S., & Daugaard, L. (2016). Seattle Law Fisher, W. H., Simon, L., Roy-Bujnowski, K., Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) Grudzinskas, A., Wolff, N., Crockett, E., & Program. Police Chief, 83(8), 36–40. doi: Banks, S. (2011). Risk of arrest among public 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.05.008 mental health services recipients and the general Compton, M. T., Bahora, M., Watson, A. C., & Oliva, public. Psychiatric Services, 62(1), 67–72. doi: J. R. (2008). A comprehensive review of extant 10.1176/ps.62.1.pss6201_0067. research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Fogg, S., & Ney, B. (2016). Building gender informed programs. Journal of the American Academy of practices at the pretrial stage: Lessons learned Psychiatry and the Law Online, 36(1), 47–55. about implementing the Inventory of Needs (ION) Compton, M. T., Esterberg, M. L., McGee, R., in Dutchess County, New York. Retrieved from Kotwicki, R. J., & Oliva, J. R. (2006). Brief National Resource Center on Justice Involved reports: Crisis intervention team training: Women website: Changes in knowledge, attitudes, and stigma https://cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp- related to schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, content/uploads/2016/05/Pretrial-Monograph- 57(8), 1199–1202. doi: Final-Designed.pdf 10.1176/ps.2006.57.8.1199 Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Taylor, A. (2003). Compton, M. T., Neubert, B. N. D., Broussard, B., Quality of life policing: Do offenders get the McGriff, J. A., Morgan, R., & Oliva, J. R. (2009). message? Policing, 26(4), 690–707. doi: Use of force preferences and perceived 10.1108/13639510310503578 effectiveness of actions among Crisis Intervention Grande, A. (2019, March 19). Man arrested for trying Team (CIT) police officers and non-CIT officers to throw woman off Seattle overpass. Retrieved in an escalating psychiatric crisis involving a from https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/man- subject with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia arrested-for-trying-to-throw-woman-off-seattle- bulletin, 37(4), 737–745. doi: overpass/931766654 10.1093/schbul/sbp146 Gunnison, E., Bernat, F. P., & Goodstein, L. (2016). Davidson, M. L. (2016). A criminal justice system– Women, crime, and justice: Balancing the scales. wide response to mental illness: Evaluating the Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. effectiveness of the Memphis crisis intervention team training curriculum among law enforcement Gutierrez, S. (2009, June 16). Seattle's Mental Health and correctional officers. Criminal Justice Policy Court celebrates 10 years. Seattle Post- Review, 27(1), 46–75. doi: Intelligencer. Retrieved from 10.1177/0887403414554997 https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-s- Mental-Health-Court-celebrates-10-years- Dupont R, Cochran S, Pillsbury S. (2007). Crisis 1304568.php Intervention Team core elements. The University

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 80 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Harris, V., & Dagadakis, C. (2004). Length of abuse/diversion-reentry-services/legal- incarceration: Was there parity for mentally ill competency.aspx offenders? International Journal of Law and Kondo, L. L. (2000). Advocacy of the establishment Psychiatry, 27(4), 387–393. doi: of mental health specialty courts in the provision 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.04.001 of therapeutic justice for mentally ill offenders. Helfgott, J. B. (2008). Criminal behavior: Theories, Seattle University Law Review, 24(2), 373–465. typologies, and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, Kubiak, S. P., & Arfken, C. L. (2007). Beyond gender CA: Sage. responsivity: Considering differences among Helfgott, J. B., Hickman, M. J., & Labossiere, A. community dwelling women involved in the (2016) A descriptive evaluation of the Seattle criminal justice system and those involved in Police Department’s Crisis response team treatment. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2), 75– officer/mental health professional partnership 94. doi: pilot program. International Journal of Law and Lee, J. (August 17, 2016). Seattle police have Psychiatry, 44(1), 109–122. doi: ‘embraced’ crisis-intervention training, report 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.038. says. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from Helfgott, J,B., Parkin, W.S., Danner, J. Goodwin, G., https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle- Bray, B., Schuur, K., Chandler, J. Thomas, M. news/crime/seattle-police-have-embraced-crisis- Ro, S., Kachurina, Z., Yap, C., & Singer, J. intervention-training-report-says/ (2018). Seattle Police Department’s Micro Levine, H. (October 3, 2011). Marijuana arrests: Community Policing Plans:Implementation Gateway into the Criminal Justice System. The Evaluation. Seattle, WA: Seattle Brooklyn Rail. Retrieved from UniversityRetrieved from https://brooklynrail.org/2011/10/local/marijuana- https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments arrests-gateway-into-the-criminal-justice-system /Police/Reports/2018_Seattle_PD_MicroCommu nities.pdf Lightfoot, J. (2012, January 12). Seattle police: What they're doing right with troubled people. Helfgott, J. B., Parkin, W. S., Fisher, C., Morgan, L., Retrieved from & Kaur, S. (2018). Tends in misdemeanor arrests, https://crosscut.com/2012/01/seattle-police- referrals, and charges in Seattle. Retrieved from what-theyre-doing-right-with-troubl Data Collaborative for Justice website: https://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/wp- Lindsay, P. (2016). Seattle Municipal Court. Retrieved content/uploads/2018/10/Trends_in_Misdemean from ors_Seattle.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments /Council/Committees/CentralStaff/TopicPapers/6 Hiday, V., Wales, H., & Ray, B. (2013). Effectiveness b.-Seattle-Municipal-Court.pdf of a short-term mental health court: Criminal recidivism one year postexit. Law and Human Loveland, D., & Boyle, M. (2007). Intensive case Behavior, 37(6), 401–411. management as a jail diversion program for people with a serious mental illness: A review of Johnson, B. D., Golub, A., & McCabe, J. (2010). The the literature. International Journal of Offender international implications of quality-of-life Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(2), policing as practiced in New York City. Public 130–150. Practice and Research, 11(1), 17–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06287645 10.1080/15614260802586368 Lum, C., & Vovak, H. (2018). Variability in the use of Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., & Schaefer, D. R. (2001). misdemeanor arrests by police agencies from An assessment of the impact of quality-of-life 1990 to 2013: An application of group-based policing on crime and disorder. Justice Quarterly, trajectory modeling. Criminal Justice Policy 18(4), 825–876. doi: Review, 29(6–7), 536–560. doi: 10.1080/07418820100095111 10.1177/0887403417731598 King County. (n.d.). Diversion from legal services: Lurigio, A. J., & Watson, A. (2010). The police and LINC prosecutorial diversion program. Retrieved people with mental illness: New approaches to a from longstanding problem. Journal of Police Crisis https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/community- Negotiations, 10 (1/2), 3–14. doi: human-services/mental-health-substance- 10.1080/15332586.2010.481895

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 81

Mack, Jr., M. L. (2017). Decriminalization of mental Natapoff, A. (2017). Misdemeanors. Southern illness: Fixing a broken system. Retrieved from California Law Review, 85, 1313–1376. Conference of State Court Administrators Natapoff, A. (2018). Punishment without crime: How website: our massive misdemeanor system traps the https://cosca.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/ innocent and makes America more unequal. New COSCA/Policy%20Papers/2016-2017- York, NY: Basic Books. Decriminalization-of-Mental-Illness-Fixing-a- Broken-System.ashx Neidhart, E. (2008). Managing those in crisis: A yearlong analysis of incidents handled by the McKean, J., & Hendricks, J. E. (1997). The role of Seattle Police Department (Unpublished master’s crisis intervention in the police response to thesis). Seattle University, Seattle, WA. domestic disturbances. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(2/3), 269–294. Neidhart, E. (2013). Crisis intervention and police https://doi.org/10.1177/088740349700800207 interactions with individuals with mental illness. In J. B. Helfgott (Ed.), Criminal psychology (Vol. Midtveit, E. (2005). Crime prevention and exclusion: 3; pp. 139–168). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. From walls to opera music. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Nelson, J. (1994). A dollar or a day: Sentencing Prevention, 6, 23–38. doi: misdemeanants in New York State. Journal of 10.1080/14043850510035137 Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(2), 183– 201. doi: 10.1177/0022427894031002006 Miletich, S., & Carter, M. (January 10, 2018). Seattle police found in ‘full and effective compliance’ Patten, M., Bond, E., Low-Weiner, C., Hood, Q. O., with court-ordered reforms. The Seattle Times. Lu, O., Tomascak, S., . . . Chauhan, P. (2019). Retrieved from Trends in marijuana enforcement in New York https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle- State, 1990–2017. Retrieved from Data news/crime/seattle-police-found-in-full-and- Collaborative for Justice website: effective-compliance-with-court-ordered- https://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/wp- reforms/ content/uploads/2019/02/MARIJUANA.REPOR T.FINAL_.NEW_.APPENDIX.pdf Moore, M. E., & Hiday, V. (2006). Mental health court outcomes: A comparison of re-arrest and re-arrest Pooler, T. (2015). Mental health needs of severity between mental health court and misdemeanor defendants: An impact evaluation traditional court participants. Law and Human of the Bronx Mental Health Initiative. Retrieved Behavior, 30(6), 659–674. doi: 10.1007/s10979- from Center for Court Innovation website: 006-9061-9 http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/file s/documents/TargetingTheMentalHealthNeedsOf Muñoz, E. A., & Freng, A. B. (2007). Age, MisdemeanorDefendants.pdf racial/ethnic minority status, gender and misdemeanor sentencing. Journal of Ethnicity Reuland, M., Schwarzfeld, M., & Draper, L. (2009). and Criminal Justice, 5(4), 29–57. doi: Law enforcement responses to people with mental 10.1300/J222v05n04_02 illnesses: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. Retrieved from Council of State Muñoz, E. A., & McMorris, B. J. (2002). Governments Justice Center website: Misdemeanor sentencing decisions: The cost of https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp- being Native American. The Justice Professional, content/uploads/2012/12/le-research.pdf 15(3), 239–259. doi: 10.1080/08884310215664 Roberts, J. (2011). Why misdemeanors matter: Muñoz, E. A., & Sapp, S. G. (2003). Racial/ethnic defining effective advocacy in the lower criminal misdemeanor sentencing disparities: Additional courts. University of California-Davis Law evidence for contextual discrimination. Journal of Review, 45(2), 277–372. Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 1(2), 27–46. doi: 10.1300/J222v01n02_02 Salisbury, E. J. (2015). Program integrity and the principles of gender-responsive interventions: MYNorthwest Staff. (March 21, 2019). Seattle suspect Assessing the context for sustainable change. has long history with police, state mental health. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 329–338. Retrieved from doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12131 https://mynorthwest.com/1315319/seattle- jonathan-james-wilson-history/? Schug, R. A., & Fradella, H. F. (2015). Mental illness and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 82 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Seattle Police Department. (2018). Crisis intervention Taxman, F. S., & Cropsey, K. L. (2007). Women and program report. Retrieved from the criminal justice system: Improving outcomes https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments through criminal justice and non-criminal justice /Police/Publications/Crisis-Intervention- responses. Women and Criminal Justice, 17(2/3), Outcome-Report-101818.pdf 5–26. doi: 10.1300/J012v17n02_02 Seattle Police Manual Crisis Intervention Policy. (July Treatment Advocacy Center. (n.d.). People with 16, 2018). Retrieved from untreated mental illness 16 times more likely to be https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-16--- killed by law enforcement. Retrieved from patrol-operations/16110---crisis-intervention https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key- issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976- Sirotich, F. (2009). The criminal justice outcomes of people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times- jail diversion programs for persons with mental more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement- illness: A review of the evidence. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Teller, J. L., Munetz, M. R., Gil, K. M., & Ritter, C. Law, 37(4), 461–72. (2006). Crisis intervention team training for police officers responding to mental disturbance Steadman, H., Cocozza, J., & Veysey, B. (1999). calls. Psychiatric Services, 57(2), 232–237. doi: Comparing outcomes for diverted and 10.1176/appi.ps.57.2.232 nondiverted jail detainees with mental illnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), 615–627. doi: United States Department of Justice. (2011). 10.1023/A:102238520 Investigation of the Seattle Police Department. Retrieved from Steadman, H. J., & Naples, M. (2005). Assessing the https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/leg effectiveness of jail diversion programs for acy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf persons with serious mental illness and co- occurring substance use disorders. Behavioral United States Department of Justice. (2016). Federal Sciences and the Law, 23(2), 163–170. doi: monitor finds Seattle Police Department’s crisis 10.1002/bsl.640 intervention efforts in initial compliance with consent decree requirements. Retrieved from Steffensmeier, D., Harris, C. T., & Painter-Davis, N. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federa+l- (2015). Gender and arrests for larceny, fraud, monitor-finds-seattle-police-department-s-crisis- forgery, and embezzlement: Conventional or intervention-efforts-initial occupational property crime offenders? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 205–217. doi: United States Department of Justice. (2017). 2017 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.03.004 crime in the United States. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime- Stevenson, M., & Mayson, S. (2018). The scale of in-the-u.s.-2017/home misdemeanor justice. Boston University Law Review, 98(3), 731–777. Vitale, A. S. (2005). Innovation and institutionalization: Factors in the development of Stone, D. (2018). Dangerous minds: Myths and ‘‘quality of life’’ policing in New York City. realities behind the violent behavior of the Policing & Society, 15(2), 99-124. doi: mentally ill, public perceptions, and the judicial 10.1080/10439460500071754 response through involuntary civil commitment. Law & Psychology Review, 42, 59–83. Washington State Legislature. (n.d.). Revised code of Washington 71.05. Retrieved from Swaminath, R. S., Mendonca, J. D., Vidal, C., & https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=71. Chapman, P. (2002). Experiments in change: 05 Pretrial diversion of offenders with mental illness. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47(5), 450– Watson, A. C., Compton, M. T., & Draine, J. N. 458. (2017). The crisis intervention team (CIT) model: https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370204700506 An evidence‐based policing practice? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 35(5-6), 431–441. doi: Swanson, J. W., Borum, R., Swartz, M. S., Hiday, V. 10.1002/bsl.2304 A., Ryan Wagner, H., & Burns, B. J. (2001). Can involuntary outpatient commitment reduce arrests Watson, A. C., & Fulambarker, A. J. (2012). The crisis among persons with severe mental illness? intervention team model of police response to Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(2), 156–189. mental health crises: A primer for mental health https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854801028002002

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 83

practitioners. Best Practices in Mental Health, construction of criminal justice issues, and mixed 8(2), 71–81. methods research. Dr. Parkin is a co-principal investigator on the Extremist Crime Database, a Weisburd, D. (2018). Hot spots of crime and place‐ multi-institute project examining domestic based prevention. Criminology & Public Policy, extremism funded by the National Consortium for 17(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12350 the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S. (2012). The Terrorism at the University of Maryland. His criminology of place: Street segments and our research has been published in The Journal of understanding of the crime problem. Oxford, Quantitative Criminology as well as edited England: Oxford University Press. volumes such as the Handbook of European Homicide Research: Patterns, Explanations, and Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken County Studies, International Crime & Justice, windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Race, Ethnicity and Policing: New and Essential The Atlantic, 249(3), 29–38. Readings, and Terrorism and the International Zhao, J. S., Lai, Y., Ren, L., & Lawton, B. (2015). The Community. impact of race/ethnicity and quality-of-life Christopher Fisher is the Executive Director of policing on public attitudes toward racially biased Strategy to the Chief of Police. Most recently he policing and traffic stops. Crime & Delinquency, was Senior Policy Advisor at the Council of State 61(3), 350–374. doi: Governments Justice Center with a focus on law 10.1177/0011128711398028 enforcement issues. Prior to the Justice Center, Chris worked throughout the New York City About the Authors justice system. As Director of Analysis and Integrated Solutions in the New York City Jacqueline B. Helfgott is a Professor/Director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice he coordinated Seattle University Department of Criminal interagency efforts to solve criminal justice Justice Crime and Justice Research center. She challenges. Chris has served in similar capacities has a PhD and MA in Administration of Justice for other New York City criminal justice with graduate minor in psychology from agencies, including the New York City Police Pennsylvania State University and BA from the Department, the Department of Probation, the University of Washington in Psychology and Administration for Children's Services, and the Society & Justice. Her research interests include former Department of Juvenile Justice. Chris criminal behavior, psychopathy, copycat crime, holds a doctorate in criminal justice from the corrections, offender reentry, community and Graduate Center of the City University of New restorative justice/public safety, and victim York, a master's degree in criminal justice from impact in criminal justice decision-making. She is John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and a author of No Remorse: Psychopathy and Criminal Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from the Justice (Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2019), Criminal University of Virginia. Behavior: Theories, Typologies, and Criminal Justice (Sage Publications, 2008), Editor of Criminal Psychology, Volumes 1- Acknowledgments 4 (Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2013), coauthor (with E. This research utilizes data from the Research Gunnison) of Women Leading Justice: Network on Misdemeanor Justice supported by the Experiences and Insights (Routledge, 2019) Laura and John Arnold foundation through John Jay and Offender Reentry: Beyond Crime and College of Criminal Justice, The Seattle Police Punishment (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2013), Department, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, the and co-editor (with E. Gunnison) of the Journal Seattle Municipal Court, and the King County of Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. Thanks Society. to Drs. Meredith Patten, Executive Director of the William S. Parkin received his Ph.D. in criminal Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice, and Preeti justice from the City University of New York, Chauhan, Director of the Misdemeanor Justice Project Graduate Center in 2012 with specializations in at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for their ideological violence, victimization, and the media support in including Seattle as a site in the Research and criminal justice. His research interests Network on Misdemeanor Justice. Special thanks to include domestic extremism and terrorism, our community criminal justice partners, Seattle homicide victimization, the media’s social Police Chief Carmen Best, Assistant Chief Adrian

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 84 HELFGOTT, PARKIN, & FISHER

Diaz, and SPD Crisis Intervention Coordinator Sergeant Dan Nelson, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, Criminal Division Chief Kelly Harris, Criminal Division Manager Brialle Engelhardt, Seattle Municipal Court Strategic Advisor Rich Cook, and Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention Project/Program Manager Mike West. Thanks also to Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice Research Assistants Lauren Morgan, Natalie Castillo and Simran Kaur.

Endnotes

1 It is difficult to provide an actual count of misdemeanor arrests nationwide because the national data collected on arrests are Part 1 violent and property crimes, and the data on persons arrested for other types of offenses include felonies and misdemeanors (that differ from state to state). However, to give an idea of the scope of misdemeanor crime in comparison with more serious felony violent and property crimes, there were 518,617 arrests for felony violent crimes and 1,249,757 arrests for property crimes in the United States in 2017 (United States Department of Justice, 2017). 2 In their national empirical analysis of misdemeanor justice trends in the United States from 1994-2014, Stevenson and Mayson (2018) found that for some misdemeanor offense types such as DUI, public drunkenness, and liquor law violations there was parity in arrest rates between Blacks and Whites. However, there was significant disproportionality for most other misdemeanor crime types. The Black arrest rate was twice as high as the White arrest rate for disorderly conduct, drug possession, simple assault, theft, vagrancy, and vandalism; the Black arrest rate for prostitution was almost five times higher than the White arrest rate; and the Black arrest rate for gambling was almost ten times higher. 3 See https://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/project/research-network-on-misdemeanor-justice/ 4 In Washington State under RCW 71.05, a person cannot be legally prosecuted if they are determined to be incompetent because they cannot assist in their own defense. Prosecutors may move to order a competency restoration. Once a referral is made to a Designated Crisis Responder, the defendant can be held in jail for a maximum 72 hours awaiting evaluation. (See Washington State Legislature, n.d.) 5 On January 9, 2017, the Seattle community court was disbanded and was replaced by the Needs Based Sentencing (NBS) Program. The NBS program builds upon the success of Community Court by widening community service diversion and mandated social service contacts to all SMC courtrooms (See https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/17adoptedbudget/documents/SMC.pdf). 6 For a comprehensive list of cities and counties that have undergone civil rights police reforms, see https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/922456/download 7 The City of Seattle did not agree with the DOJ findings and entered into a settlement including a Consent Decree and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Consent Decree was an agreement between DOJ and the city of Seattle to eliminate unconstitutional policing, and the MOU focused primarily on the creation of a Civilian Police Commission (CPC) and a Crisis Intervention Committee. The MOU outlined the criteria for the CIC which included representation from SPD command staff, CIT units, and training, city government, the King County Prosecutor’s Office, King County Municipal Court, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, King County Sheriff’s Office, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, National; Alliance on Mental Illness, Downtown Emergency Services Center, emergency health care professionals, advocates, and others. The CIC was charged with serving as a problem-solving forum for interagency issues and with developing a data collection plan to collect data on crisis incidents. The MOU specified that the CIC was to develop a checklist of resources available to refer individuals in crisis, develop policies and procedures for case disposition, and evaluate the department’s crisis intervention training for officers and dispatchers (Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and the City of Seattle, July 27, 2012). 8 SPD has produced annual CIT reports since 2015, see https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/crisis-response-team 9 The researchers used group-based trajectory modeling to examine longitudinal patterns of arrest for low-level crimes from 1990-2013 in 105 police agencies across the United States, including Seattle, and found variability across jurisdictions regarding the approach to misdemeanor arrests. The results showed that agencies varied across jurisdictions. The researchers categorized law enforcement agencies as “High Increasers,” “Middle Increasers,” “Middle Stable,” and “Low Stable” with respect to their level of use of quality of life arrests to combat crime.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2 CRISIS-FLAGGED MISDEMEANORS IN SEATTLE 85

Seattle was categorized as “Middle Stable” representing the average of agencies that less than doubled misdemeanor arrests during the 1990-2013 time frame. 10 LEAD is funded by the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Vital Projects Fund, RiverStyx Foundation, Massena Foundation, Trueblood Phase III Grant, King County Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) Foundation, and The Social Justice Fund Northwest. 11 See King County (n.d.): https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/mental-health-substance- abuse/diversion-reentry-services/legal-competency.aspx 12 Scholars have long noted the ways in which stereotypes of women as “crazy” and men as “responsible” has resulted in a sex-typed routing of girls and women who engage in antisocial behavior through the mental health system and boys and men who engage in antisocial behavior through the criminal justice system that has the potential to infantilize women and hold men responsible for their behaviors (Allen, 1987; Gunnison, Bernat, & Goodstein, 2016) in ways that can create gender disparity and discrimination in criminal justice processing.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 20, Issue 2