What Seattle Needs in its Next Police Chief

Last week, Mayor Katie Wilson sought and accepted the resignation of Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes. The chief serves “at will,” so the decision was hers to make. It was also controversial, particularly within the Black community and among City Council members.

I won’t weigh in on whether she was right; I don’t have all the facts. But the timing, days after a mass shooting at Seattle Center, was not ideal. Either way, the decision is made. What the mayor does next will define her stewardship of public safety.

She needs a new chief, and fast. Someone who can build confidence inside the department, win the backing of officers and professional staff, and earn the trust of the people of Seattle, especially those communities that rely most on good policing yet understandably have a conflicted history with the police. The longer this drags on, the more confusion and turmoil. Seattle has had four chiefs in less than three years. Instability at the top is itself a public safety problem.

Here are a few thoughts on the new chief’s job description, informed by my experience as an officer and detective many years ago, my time on the City Council, my 71 days as interim mayor, and my work as deputy mayor to Bruce Harrell:

• First, the mayor owes us a transparent process. She should say now who will be at the table helping with the selection: the Community Police Commission, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Police Accountability, the officers themselves, residents of the neighborhoods hit hardest by violence, the business community, policing experts, to name a few. And she should commit to a target date for naming a permanent chief. An interim leader can steady a department. Only a permanent chief can change it.
• Second, and most important, the next chief should have done this work, not just read about it. Plenty of police executives can talk fluently about the science of policing. Far fewer have run a focused deterrence call-in, sat across from a grieving family, wrestled with what seems like an intractable crime problem, or held precinct commanders accountable when community trust is violated. Seattle doesn’t need a scholar; we need an experienced practitioner who’s been on the street when things go bad and when they go well. Ask the candidates for proof of deep and effective experience.

This is crucial because the science of policing is well documented but poorly practiced. Take focused deterrence. It means identifying the people causing the most harm, crime’s version of the 80-20 rule, then building a specific plan for each one to get them to stop. Seattle did this in August 2009 along 23rd Avenue in the Central District. The open-air drug market that thrived there for years was shut down and hasn’t come back. David Kennedy of John Jay College in New York helped design it. He is one of the country’s most influential practitioners of focused deterrence, through the National Network for Safe Communities. I wrote about that 2009 strategy here. The new chief should embrace focused deterrence.

Another proven practice is problem-oriented policing. Police and community members identify a specific problem, usually tied to a specific place, then work side by side on the fix. When I joined the Harrell administration in 2022, I inherited a big problem: City Hall Park, just south of the King County Courthouse. Crime, drug use, robberies, encampments, trash, disorder. It got so bad the city fenced the park off and closed it. We pulled together staff from multiple city departments, courthouse employees including Superior Court judges, neighborhood business owners, and social service providers. We added lighting, improved the landscaping, fenced off the broken Prefontaine Fountain across the street where dealers worked, scheduled activation events, and increased police and private security patrols. It worked. The park reopened and has stayed open. The new chief should embrace problem-oriented policing.

Two places need this now: 12th and Jackson in Little Saigon, and Aurora Avenue North. Both have been plagued by gun violence, human trafficking, and persistent felony crime for years, despite well-intentioned efforts to stop it. Make no mistake, offenders concentrate at these places because they believe they can get away with it. Their customers concentrate there because that’s where the drugs and stolen property are. The new chief should understand the law of crime concentration and distinguish between those causing the most harm, who should be arrested, and those who need social services, mental health care, or addiction treatment.

Doing any of this right takes planning, data analysis, integrated information systems, measurable outcomes, close community partnerships, and the understanding that some people need to be arrested. It takes officers and professional staff who know the science and stay focused on results. And it takes a leader who embraces a diversified response system, including the city’s CARE Crisis Response Teams made up of mental health specialists. But none of it happens without enough officers, because priority 911 calls always come first. Seattle is still several hundred officers short.

Technology has made policing far more effective, and we’ve seen it here through the modernized Real Time Crime Center and the limited use of public-space cameras where gun violence, human trafficking, and felony crime concentrate. I wrote about these tools last month. Officers do better when police databases, 911 call details, and camera feeds are integrated and pushed to them in the field. Since the upgraded center opened in April 2025, hundreds of cases have been strengthened to hold offenders accountable. State and city laws tightly regulate how all of it is used. The new chief should embrace technology wisely.

Last year, Seattle reached the end of its federal consent decree. Federal Judge James Robart terminated the case on September 3, 2025, ruling that the department had achieved and sustained full and effective compliance. It took 13 years. The changes to the police department were real: better management, stronger accountability, improved data systems, and far less use of force than before the case began in 2012. The new chief should embrace these changes and seek even greater achievements.

Judge Robart closed the final consent decree hearing by tasking the mayor and the chief to be mindful that “it’s not the end, but it could be the beginning of the end.” That task now belongs to Mayor Wilson and the next chief. Let’s watch carefully what they do.