American policing stands at a pivotal moment. Every patrol officer, detective and front-line supervisor has encountered the drug crisis firsthand — during traffic stops, domestic disturbances driven by addiction or while standing over the scene of a fatal overdose. These encounters are no longer confined to large metropolitan areas or known trafficking corridors. From Los Angeles to rural Appalachia to the rural heartland of America, addiction has become a public safety challenge we cannot arrest our way out of.

Yet, we still have a responsibility — rooted in law, duty and community expectation — to enforce drug laws, disrupt criminal distribution networks and maintain public order. The question facing modern policing is not whether we enforce the law, but how we do so in a way that enhances public safety, reduces recidivism and increases officer effectiveness.

Today’s best practices point toward an integrated strategy: targeted enforcement paired with evidence-based treatment and prevention. Far from being “soft on crime,” this approach is proving to be a force multiplier for police agencies that want to reduce call loads, improve community stability and cut down the revolving door of drug-related arrests.

This is what officers and supervisors across America need to know.

The drug crisis has shifted — and so must we

The nature of the drug crisis itself has changed, and policing must change with it. For decades, departments relied primarily on enforcement-centric drug strategies, achieving real successes through seizures, arrests and the dismantling of trafficking organizations. However, the opioid and stimulant epidemics have exposed the limitations of those approaches when used in isolation. National data reflects the scale of the problem. More than 107,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2022, a figure described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as historically unprecedented. Synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl, now account for the majority of overdose deaths, while methamphetamine use continues to rise across rural and suburban communities, creating a dual epidemic that strains law enforcement resources nationwide.

These shifts have placed extraordinary pressure on officers, who are now expected to manage addiction-driven mental health crises, violent crime linked to drug markets and the dangers associated with fentanyl exposure and contaminated environments. The lesson is increasingly clear: enforcement alone cannot reverse the trajectory of the crisis. When enforcement is combined with treatment and prevention strategies, however, agencies see measurable improvements in both public safety outcomes and officer workload.

Lessons learned: Successes, failures and what’s working now

Across the country, police departments, public health systems and community organizations have experimented with integrated enforcement and treatment models, with varying degrees of success. Certain approaches have consistently demonstrated value. Prearrest diversion programs, such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), redirect low-level drug offenders into case management and treatment rather than jail. Evaluations of LEAD programs show participants are significantly less likely to be rearrested and consume fewer criminal justice resources. From an operational standpoint, officers experience fewer repeat encounters with the same individuals and gain more time to focus on serious threats.

Similarly, many agencies have adopted police-embedded behavioral health or co-responder models, pairing officers with clinicians on addiction-related or behavioral health calls. Programs such as Denver’s STAR initiative have demonstrated dramatic reductions in arrests and repeat calls for service. In fact, there was a 56% lower rate of being arrested at least once.

Many agencies now embed clinicians with patrol units or co-respond using a mental health professional to handle addiction or crisis calls, and that’s not just in metropolitan areas. Many of these programs involve not just mental health professionals, but firefighter/EMTs and paramedics — further reducing the drain on law enforcement needing to be a primary responder, (this is referred to as the firehouse model).

In rural jurisdictions where clinicians are scarce, telehealth partnerships have provided an effective alternative. One example is that the South Dakota Department of Social Services has implemented virtual crisis care, which equips law enforcement with tablets to connect individuals in real time to licensed behavioral health professionals who assist with de-escalation, safety assessments and follow-up recommendations. Officers consistently report that these models make volatile calls safer, faster and more predictable to resolve.

Even traditionally enforcement-focused initiatives have evolved. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, long associated with interdiction and prosecution, increasingly incorporates public health partnerships and real-time overdose surveillance. In several regions, HIDTA-funded collaborations provide officers with actionable intelligence on overdose clusters, emerging drug trends and particularly dangerous batches of narcotics. This information allows agencies to intervene earlier and more precisely, preventing fatal outbreaks rather than responding after the fact.

Not every approach has proven effective. Arrest-driven enforcement focused on low-level drug possession has historically increased caseloads, filled jails and diverted resources away from trafficking organizations without reducing drug use or overdose deaths. On the opposite end of the spectrum, treatment initiatives that operate without accountability or law enforcement involvement often struggle to retain high-risk individuals or deter associated criminal behavior. Communities that allow police, courts, treatment providers and social services to operate in silos tend to experience higher recidivism and poorer outcomes overall. The consistent takeaway is that integration — not isolation — is essential.

Promising trends with national replication potential

A growing national consensus is emerging around several promising, scalable trends. Integrated public health and public safety data systems allow agencies to share overdose, EMS, arrest and laboratory data in near-real time, improving officer situational awareness and guiding enforcement toward trafficking networks rather than users. Community-level treatment navigation initiatives, including post-overdose outreach teams that pair officers with health professionals, have shown consistent reductions in repeat overdoses and increased entry into treatment. Many departments are also embedding social workers or peer recovery coaches directly within police agencies to manage follow-ups, coordinate with courts and probation, and support long-term stabilization efforts. At the investigative level, agencies that concentrate resources on offenders who combine drug trafficking with violence are seeing meaningful reductions in violent crime.

The role of opioid settlement funds — a new funding frontier

The expansion of opioid litigation settlement funds has created a new and unprecedented funding opportunity to support these integrated approaches. Nationwide, more than $50 billion has been allocated for prevention, treatment and mitigation efforts. These funds can support community education, treatment navigation, recovery housing, co-responder models and trauma-informed training for officers. In Parsons, Kansas, the Opioid Settlement Education Initiative was launched to coordinate public messaging, education and resources across agencies and community partners. Similar models can be adapted by jurisdictions of any size when law enforcement, health providers, courts and treatment organizations align under a unified strategy.

For patrol officers and supervisors, the value of these approaches is not abstract. Agencies that successfully integrate enforcement with treatment consistently report fewer repeat calls involving the same individuals, improved officer safety during high-risk encounters, and more time for proactive policing focused on traffickers and violent offenders. Community trust also improves when residents see police as problem solvers rather than solely as enforcers, which, in turn, enhances cooperation during investigations. Departments that adopt these strategies often gain greater access to training, technology and competitive federal funding opportunities. Most importantly, long-term outcomes improve, with reductions in overdose fatalities, recidivism and neighborhood instability.

Every agency, regardless of size or budget, can take steps to align enforcement with treatment. Building partnerships with behavioral health providers, focusing enforcement on high-impact offenders, deploying diversion strategies for low-level users, leveraging real-time data and investing in officer training all move departments toward a more effective response to the drug crisis. Policing is evolving, and our strategies must evolve with it.

Conclusion

The drug crisis demands more from American policing than traditional enforcement alone. Integrating treatment into enforcement is not a philosophical debate for officers on the street; it is an operational necessity. Law enforcement is not responsible for providing clinical care, but officers are often the first professionals on scene when addiction, chaos and crime intersect. By embracing integrated strategies, agencies enhance officer safety, improve community stability and reduce the chronic problems that drain patrol resources.

Even more important is leveraging resources linking mental health professionals with firefighter EMTs/paramedics, who are truly the first rung in the health care system, diverting many crisis calls away from law enforcement. This model can move us closer to the outcome every officer values: fewer victims, fewer repeat calls, fewer use-of-force incidents, safer neighborhoods and stronger communities.