Reviving community court isn’t a simple fix — pre-filing diversion programs are more effective, cost less money, and avoid the harmful consequences of prosecution.
Lately, there’s been a lot of talk about bringing back community court. But simply reviving the program in its old form — or worse, the watered-down version now being pitched in an election year by our current Republican City Attorney — won’t solve the many problems with Seattle’s criminal legal system.
Let’s start with the facts: Ann Davison unilaterally shut down Seattle’s community court in 2023, eliminating an off-ramp for people charged with crimes out of the criminal legal system and into services. Now, facing re-election, she’s proposing a new program that looks a lot like the one she eliminated, only with a narrower emphasis on drug crimes and a requirement that some participants stipulate to a Stay Out of Drug Areas (SODA) order.
This cynical move is not about public safety or criminal justice. It’s about trying to salvage failed policies and boost her abysmal poll numbers.
Davison’s proposed “alternative” court does not restore community court, it replaces it with something narrower. It excludes people most in need of diversion, reinforces displacement policies like SODA that do more harm than good, and uses a carrot-and-stick approach that is not evidence-based. And it won’t be popular; public defenders in King County are far too smart to advise their clients to sign SODA orders that could serve as the predicate for future charges.
The other candidates to replace Davison are promising to simply bring back community court. But that won’t accomplish meaningful reform. While the old version of community court was well-intentioned, it was too limited in scope, too reliant on coercion, and too dismissive of the evidence that shows forced treatment doesn’t work. In fact, research has shown that mandated treatment can increase the risk of overdose and make long-term recovery harder, not easier.
When community court worked, it wasn’t because participants were threatened with jail time or convictions — it worked because someone offered them services that met their needs.
Community court didn’t work under Davison’s predecessor, it’s not working now, and it won’t work even if someone more compassionate replaces her to implement the current proposals on the table. If we want real safety and real justice, we need to do more than recycle broken models or rebrand political failures.
Here’s what I propose instead:
1. Prioritize pre-filing diversion, not just post-filing alternatives.
The most effective and cost-efficient method of diversion doesn’t happen after someone has already been charged — it happens before they are prosecuted; before the city incurs the significant costs of paying judges, prosecutors, and public defenders for their time. Pre-filing diversion connects people to meaningful services like low-barrier housing, addiction support, and mental health services without triggering the cascading harms of a criminal charge: incarceration, job loss, homelessness, family separation, PTSD, overdose, and societal stigma, just to name a few. Not to mention, under the Trump administration, merely charging a person with shoplifting triggers automatic immigration detention under new federal laws like the Laken-Riley Act.
We all want people to overcome challenges like homelessness, addiction and mental illness, so let’s do what actually works. When an unhoused person struggling with fentanyl addiction gets arrested for low-level shoplifting, let’s not waste money on jail, prosecution, and community — instead, have the police take that person directly to a program that provides long-term case management services, so that a social worker can connect them with services that meet their needs.
Solely bringing down the hammer of prosecution has been shown to make it more likely that the cycle of low-level property crime continues instead of leading to real public safety.
At the same time, let’s not ignore the damage caused by property crime — I also support significantly increasing resources for people and small businesses to be made whole through a robust victim’s compensation fund.
We should prioritize pre-filing diversion not only because it’s the right thing to do and it’s less expensive than prosecution, but also because the evidence shows it works. When people engage with services outside the context of criminal prosecution, they are more likely to benefit from those services and less likely to remain trapped in the criminal legal system.
And, in situations where pre-filing diversion doesn’t work, we can still hold a community court option in reserve, rather than defaulting to traditional prosecution.
2. Community court should be a supportive, low-barrier option — not a trapdoor back into the system.
When needed, community court should be a safety net, not a trap door into mainstream prosecution. That means opening it up, not locking people out. Ann Davison’s high-utilizer policy — which excluded people with prior system involvement — was backward. We should be prioritizing support for those most likely to be rearrested, not writing them off. That means making more offenses presumptively eligible and maintaining case-by-case discretion for situations that require it.
Above all, community court should be centered on connection: to housing, behavioral health, vocational support, and community. We should partner directly with service providers — not only to refer people, but to co-design the process from intake to completion. The goal is not to punish; it’s to stabilize and support on the way to rehabilitation.
Too often, we punish people for experiencing poverty, behavioral health issues, or homelessness. If our goal is truly to increase safety, then the most effective thing we can do is remove the barriers to services, not build new ones.
3. Invest in long-term system change, not short-term political wins.
The version of community court Davison has proposed is not reform — it’s rebranding. And what other candidates are suggesting — just bringing back the old model without updating it — is not going to achieve meaningful results that make our city safer in the process.
What I’m offering is not just a program, but also a guiding principle: that justice must be people-centered, rooted in care, and grounded in data. We should be measuring success not by how many people complete community court, but by how many no longer need it.
This means the City Attorney’s Office must collaborate — not just with police and prosecutors, but with public health experts, community-based organizations, and the people most impacted by the system. It means tracking outcomes, publicly reporting data, and remaining accountable to the people of Seattle.
The truth is, no court program — no matter how well intentioned or designed — can fix homelessness, addiction, and poverty on its own. But we can absolutely use the system we have in a more effective, more compassionate, and less expensive way. That starts with an expansion of pre-filing diversion that offers a helping hand instead of a closed fist to our neighbors who have fallen through the many gaps in our social safety net.
We owe it to the people of Seattle to get this right — not just to feel good about reform, but to actually deliver results.
Nathan Rouse is a public defender, legal advocate, and father running to be Seattle’s next City Attorney. He has spent his public defender career standing up for people who have been failed by broken systems and fighting for fairness, accountability, and second chances. Nathan is running because our city needs a justice system that works for everyone—not just the powerful.