Welch: Compassion without accountability is not compassion

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, April 15, 2026

By Todd Welch / Herald Columnist

Let’s stop pretending this is working.

In Everett and across Snohomish County, we have poured public resources into a Housing First model that promises to solve homelessness by providing housing with no strings attached. It sounds compassionate. It sounds intuitive. It has failed to deliver.

If housing alone ended homelessness, we would see declining street encampments, fewer overdoses, and safer neighborhoods. Instead, we see the same individuals cycling through housing, emergency rooms, and public disorder while addiction and untreated mental illness rage unchecked. This is not compassion. It is a system that stabilizes chaos at taxpayer expense without addressing its causes.

You do not have to look far to see the results. Both the Monte Cristo Hotel and Clare’s Place in Everett are low-barrier permanent supportive housing facilities operated by Catholic Community Services of Western Washington under the Housing First approach. Residents are not required to be sober or participate in treatment to receive subsidized housing.

The Monte Cristo Hotel, a nationally historic building now used for low-income housing, has become a focal point for ongoing drug activity and surrounding public safety concerns. Conditions have deteriorated to the point that the City has imposed a ‘no sit, no lie’ zone nearby just to maintain basic order. When housing projects require special ordinances to prevent them from becoming open-air drug markets, we are not housing people successfully. We are relocating the problem.

That is not a success story. That is a warning sign.

And it is not isolated.

Consider what happened at Clare’s Place. This 65-unit low-income permanent supportive housing complex in south Everett was built to house chronically homeless and vulnerable households, including families. It operates as a low-barrier facility under the Housing First approach, meaning residents are not required to be sober or in treatment to receive subsidized housing. Drug use inside the facility escalated to the point that high levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl contamination were found in nearly three-quarters of the units. The contamination spread through the HVAC system, sickening workers and forcing the relocation of residents. The buildings required extensive remediation at a cost of roughly 1.5 million dollars or more.

Why are we allowing active drug addicts to live in taxpayer-subsidized housing alongside families and children? That question demands an honest answer. When low-barrier policies turn family-supportive housing into environments where toxic drug residue reaches levels hundreds or thousands of times above safety standards, we are not protecting the vulnerable. We are endangering them.

That is the real-world consequence of a system that provides housing without addressing the behavior that can destabilize it. It is not just ineffective. It is expensive, disruptive, and unsustainable.

Across Washington, the numbers point in the same direction. High rates of substance use, mental illness, homelessness, and overdose impacts are all occurring at the same time. Washington now leads the nation in fentanyl-related overdose visits to emergency rooms, outpacing the second-highest state by roughly 35 percent.

These outcomes are not random. They are the result of policy choices.

We have weakened consequences for drug-related offenses without building a system capable of forcing meaningful intervention. The result is predictable. Drug use continues. Dealers continue operating. And those trapped in addiction continue to decline.

At the same time, we have built a public assistance system that asks for almost nothing in return. No requirement to get clean. No requirement to work. No requirement to demonstrate progress. Benefits given to help are quickly sold for the next drug fix. And then we act surprised when nothing changes.

Here is the truth: you cannot solve homelessness for individuals in active addiction without addressing the addiction. Housing alone does not fix it. Ignoring it guarantees failure.

I recently had a one-on-one conversation with an individual who has lived experience with addiction and homelessness and has successfully rebuilt his life. His perspective was direct and grounded in that lived experience. He did not point to housing alone as the solution. He pointed to accountability, structure, and the expectation to change.

He also shared a reality that is difficult to hear but impossible to ignore: if someone does not reach a point where they choose to get clean and sober, their lives will follow one of three paths: institution, prison, or the morgue.

That is not rhetoric. That is lived experience speaking.

He also offered a practical idea that deserves serious consideration: create a working group made up of individuals with lived experience who have overcome addiction and homelessness. Let them help vet the proposed policies and programs. Let them identify what actually works and what sounds good on paper. Include not just those who succeeded through Housing First, but those who needed accountability, treatment mandates, or structured programs to rebuild. Their insight can help design models that actually help people graduate to independence rather than maintain dependency.

That is the kind of real-world insight our current system is missing.

Housing First, as it is currently practiced, is not solving the problem. It is containing it. It stabilizes where the problem exists while allowing the behavior driving it to continue. That is not a solution. That is government-funded maintenance of the status quo.

Public assistance must come with expectations.

Housing vouchers, SNAP benefits, and childcare subsidies should be directed to those who are actively working toward stability. Taxpayer-funded support should not be unconditional when it is being undermined by ongoing substance abuse.

Drug testing should be a requirement for receiving public assistance. That is not extreme. It is standard in workplaces across the country. It should be standard when public dollars are involved as well.

If someone is using, the response should not be to continue benefits with no change. The response should be mandatory entry into treatment-based programs, with a clear path to regain full assistance once they are actively engaged in recovery.

That is not punishment. That is accountability.

The same applies to employment. Work is a critical part of rebuilding stability. It creates structure, responsibility, and purpose. A system that removes any expectation to work is not helping people move forward. It is keeping them exactly where they are.

We are not helping people by lowering expectations to zero. We are enabling the conditions that keep them trapped.

Real compassion demands more. It demands that we expect more.

It means building a system that requires participation in treatment, that prioritizes those making an effort to improve their situation, and that measures success based on real outcomes, not good intentions.

Housing should remain part of the solution. But it cannot stand alone, and it cannot come without accountability.

Right now, we are spending more and achieving less. We are expanding programs without fixing results. And we are calling it compassion.

It is not.

Compassion without accountability is not compassion. It is failure. It is time for Snohomish County leaders to reject this failing model, implement accountability-based reforms that put treatment, work expectations, and measurable progress first, and then lead the way so these proven changes can be implemented across the entire state of Washington.

Todd Welch is a Herald columnist covering local and state issues.