How are other cities responding to public drug use?

One of the major reasons we started BBF was so residents of Burlington could more easily advocate for practical changes that improve community safety and well-being for everyone in our city.

Like many communities, Burlington is grappling with a difficult question: how do we respond to neighbors using drugs in public and connect them with needed care while protecting shared spaces for other community members?

Burlington cannot simply copy and paste another city’s approach, but we can learn how to respond to crises, take focused action, and measure results based on what has worked elsewhere.

Here are three examples:

High Point, North Carolina: Focus response on those driving violence and open-air drug markets

What they did: The city prosecuted serious cases against the small number of people driving violence and open-air drug markets, while offering those involved in lower-level, nonviolent dealing services and notice of the consequences if the activity continued.

What happened: Violent incidents fell 7.9 percent in the targeted blocks while rising 7.8 percent in comparable blocks.

Read the federal evaluation: https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/high-point-drug-market-intervention

Oakland, California: Address the places with persistent drug activity

What they did: The city brought public-safety teams, inspectors, and property owners together to clean up problem locations, fix code violations, and improve security.

What happened: In a randomized study, drug-related calls around residential sites fell 16.2 percent while rising 5.4 percent at comparable sites receiving regular patrol.

Read the Justice Department’s research brief: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/175051.pdf

Seattle, Washington: Connect people directly to support

What they did: Eligible people accused of low-level drug offenses were connected directly to a case manager instead of being booked, giving them help with treatment, housing, and other needs.

What happened: Participants had 56 percent lower odds of arrest and 39 percent lower odds of a felony charge than people who went through the usual system.

Read the federal evaluation: https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/law-enforcement-assisted-diversion-lead-program-seattle-washington

The bottom line? None of these approaches solved addiction, but each produced a measurable result: less violence, fewer drug-related calls, and lower odds of arrest or a felony charge.

These results strike a balance between focusing public-safety resources on the people and places causing the most harm, while making sure people struggling with addiction or mental-health challenges can quickly reach treatment and care. We believe Burlington can do the same.

Thank you for being engaged,

Sam