One million. That’s how many Americans have died from opioid overdoses over the last 20 years. Just last year, there were over 70,000 fatal opioid overdoses — a grim new record.
Soon, pharmaceutical companies will pour billions of dollars into government coffers to address the crisis. But states and localities must spend that money wisely and for its intended purpose of combating addiction and its consequences.
While successful prevention and treatment programs are worthy priorities, those efforts cannot work if we don’t meet the addicted where they are, often on the streets, and get them help. That’s why funding proven intervention strategies by law enforcement is vital to ending this opioid epidemic.
For context, local and state governments, reeling from the ballooning costs of the opioid problem, sued the manufacturers and pharmaceutical distributors of prescription pain medications. After lawsuits against one manufacturer and three distributors, they agreed to pay $26 billion to 42 plaintiff-state governments.
A windfall of that amount could be a game changer. The states who have agreed to the settlement are already earmarking funds, and some are cajoling municipalities into joining the agreement to get access to the full amount allocated for their state. The jurisdictions that have not agreed to enter the settlement would be wise to reconsider.
But, as recent experience shows, spending this money efficiently and as intended has been a challenge. Back in 1998, 46 states signed a massive settlement with Big Tobacco to compensate for the costs of tobacco use. As of 2019, states have raked in $157 billion from direct payments from the tobacco settlement and another $300 billion from increased tobacco taxes. Meanwhile, less than $12 billion has gone to anti-tobacco programming and education campaigns. In 2019, Michigan took in $291 million from the settlement and almost $900 million in tobacco taxes. Exactly zero dollars went to the specified purpose.
The opioid settlement’s cash windfall for states and localities could be a replay if we aren’t careful. Elected leaders and policy experts need to allocate these funds on programs that curb addiction and reduce its personal, social, and economic harm. One of the best strategies is funding law enforcement intervention and diversion programs. Having spent two decades on the frontline as a police officer and later as a police leader while the opioid epidemic ramped up, I know the death and despair these drugs caused is impossible to overstate.
Illicit opioid use often intersects with sex trafficking, violence, robbery, petty theft, and vandalism. And many desperate addicts are often victims of exploitation.
Police officers are empathetic to their plight, often making personal sacrifices and using their discretion to protect these individuals. And law enforcement frequently encounters these addicts as suspects, victims, and witnesses — and is the first to the scene of an overdose.
That gives police officers a unique opportunity to open the door to recovery for many addicts. An innovative program, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, offers a model. Launched in Seattle and expanding nationwide, LEAD trains police to identify eligible substance abusers and get them help.
When police encounter an individual, potentially subject to arrest, officers assess the person’s situation. If appropriate, police detain the suspect and offer them access to services and treatment in lieu of criminal consequences. By abiding by the terms of the agreement, the suspect avoids being arrested, charged, and potentially incarcerated to seek treatment and life off the streets. But to make the “carrot” of diversion successful, officers need the “stick” of legal repercussions if eligible individuals do not fulfill their obligations and continue to break the law.
Studies have shown that the program and versions of it have reduced recidivism by 22% in Seattle, reduced heroin use by 56%, and dramatically increased connection to other social services including housing and employment. Critically, police participation in such diversion and referral programs is by far the largest source of treatment and service connections in those jurisdictions — higher even than hospitals.
But LEAD-type programs require funding, training, leadership commitment, and frontline officer buy-in. The opioid settlement funds provide a critical lifeline to cover LEAD’s implementation costs for training, opportunities for further research, and showing police that government leaders are committed to the effort. Let’s not waste this opportunity. If done right, aid directed to law enforcement can play a crucial role in preventing and treating addiction.
Jason Johnson is president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and a former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department.
