Tag: Councilmember Burgess

UW Harborview Doctors Link Gun-Related Hospitalizations to Future Injuries, Crime and Death


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 7/7/2014

Council President Tim Burgess

UW Harborview Doctors Link Gun-Related Hospitalizations
to Future Injuries, Crime and Death

Study Funded by City Council Pinpoints Where to Focus Violence Prevention Efforts

SEATTLE – Researchers from the University of Washington’s Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center presented findings this morning to the City Council from a first-of-its-kind study of who is most at risk of harm from firearms in King County and Washington State.

In June 2013, Seattle became the first city in the nation to provide direct funding for basic research into the effects of gun violence, according to previous news reports.

“The evidence shows gun violence begets gun violence. If you are harmed by a gun, you are much more likely to be harmed again or to harm others,” said Council President Tim Burgess. “It is unfortunate that the National Rifle Association has blocked this type of research at the national level because it provides valuable information for policymakers and the public.”

Last year, the City Council asked UW Medicine researchers from Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center to evaluate and report on the interrelationships between hospitalizations due to gun violence, substance abuse, mental health diagnoses, arrest records and deaths.

“Data from this study resoundingly confirms proactive interventions can prevent subsequent gun injuries and crime,” said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, chair of the Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. “What we are asking to do is to help people and not infringe on an individual’s second amendment rights. These are common sense programs and laws we can enact to keep guns out of the hands of people at the greatest risk of causing further harm.”

The research findings also pinpoint where public health officials, law enforcement and social service providers should focus their efforts to prevent future harm from guns.


“Early intervention efforts should include not only the medical professionals, but also stronger partnerships among public health, law enforcement, the courts, social service providers and others. By working more closely together we can prevent subsequent injury, death and crime,” says Dr. Fred Rivara, a UW professor of pediatrics, and researcher at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center.

The research demonstrated that hospitalizations due to firearm-related injury are strongly correlated with poor outcomes after discharge from the hospital, including future injuries, criminal involvement and death. The research also demonstrated a greater risk of subsequent violent or firearm-related crime, hospitalizations and death among those with a prior history of firearm injuries or crimes compared to those with psychiatric disorders.

The researchers looked at hospitalization records in 2006-2007 and data from the previous and subsequent five years. Key findings from the study include:

  • Twenty-five percent of people hospitalized for a firearm-related injury were arrested for violent or firearm-related crime within the next 5 years.
  • Individuals hospitalized with an injury and previously arrested for firearms or violence were 13 times more likely to be arrested again within the next 5 years.
  • Individuals hospitalized for a firearm injury were 30 times more likely to be re-hospitalized for another firearm injury than people admitted to the hospital for non-injury reasons.
  • Individuals hospitalized with a firearm injury were 11 times more likely to die from gun violence within the next 5 years than people admitted for non-injury reasons.
  • Individuals hospitalized with an injury and with a prior arrest for a gun-related or violent crime were 43 times more likely to be murdered within the next 5 years after being discharged from the hospital compared to people without such a history.

Since this research was started in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the U.S. Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that more than 30,000 Americans have been killed by firearms.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Public Campaign Finance Statement

CoinsConsistent with my earlier blog post on this topic, I shared the following statement at the Full Council meeting this afternoon explaining my vote to not move forward a public campaign finance system this year:

We face a tough choice today as we consider this motion, but that’s what we are called to do.

We gather facts. We listen to various perspectives. We weigh the pros and cons of various arguments and then we decide. Sometimes our decisions are simple. Other times, like today, they are not easy; they’re complicated and require a balancing of various interests.

In the end, we make our decisions based on what’s best for the common good; what will benefit our city and region; and, in Seattle, with a special emphasis on what’s best for the most vulnerable among us.

Seattle has a strong and well-regulated campaign finance system, with individual contribution limits less than half those for King County and the State of Washington. Public financing of elections is a solid, progressive and important policy to pursue. We studied this issue extensively last year and asked the voters of Seattle to approve public financing of City Council campaigns. The voters said “no.”

Now we’re being asked to do a repeat this year. The easiest decision would be to put it back on the ballot and say, “let the voters decide again.” But, at what cost and at what risk? That’s where the decision gets difficult.

This August and November, Seattle voters will be asked to decide four tax measures…five if we add public financing to the ballot. There are different theories out there about how these measures affect each other’s chances, but we simply won’t know for sure until the results are in.

The stakes are high and the risks of adding a fifth tax measure are just too great, in my opinion.

Voters expect their elected officials to prioritize. Providing high quality preschool to families that can’t afford it and changing those kids' lives forever is a higher priority for me.  That’s especially true because we know that preschool can reverse decades of injustice. If our preschool initiative is not approved this fall, what we will tell the several thousand children who could have enrolled in high-quality preschool? What will we tell them when we know for certain that preschool could change their lives forever?

And, what about Metro transit funding? We know that preserving service and expanding those services is essential for the economic stability of our region and as we have discussed many times public transit is especially vital to those on the lower end of the economic ladder. Shouldn’t we prioritize in favor of these members of our community? I think we should.

For these reasons, I do not favor placing public campaign financing on this year’s ballot again and will vote against this motion.

City Council to Vote on Seattle Preschool Program

Mayor Murray in preschoolThe following article was sent out in my City View Newsletter, which you can sign up to receive here.

It’s not very often that local elected officials get to advance public policy with the potential to change our society so fundamentally…let alone twice inside 30 days.

On June 2nd the City Council voted unanimously to adopt Mayor Murray’s minimum wage legislation to reverse years and years of stagnant wages. That was a historic milestone designed to help workers at the bottom of the economic ladder.

This afternoon, just three weeks later, we are about to make another monumental decision that has the potential to reverse decades of lost academic opportunities. We will vote this afternoon to send the Seattle Preschool Program to voters in November.

The plan the City Council will vote on today is based on what works. It was developed through a strong partnership with Mayor Murray. We have followed the evidence and, if we implement it right, we will achieve the same results being celebrated in Boston, Jersey City, Tulsa, Denver, and elsewhere.

If done right, the benefits are very clear. Children enrolled in high-quality preschool outperform their peers in other types of preschool: they enter kindergarten ready to learn; they are much more likely to be reading at grade level in the third grade; they have higher high school graduation rates, lower teen pregnancies, higher college entrance and graduation rates, higher earning power as adults, lower levels of criminal behavior, and better health. Who wouldn’t want these positive outcomes for Seattle’s children?

High-quality preschool is a sound investment. The long-term economic benefits are strong. Every dollar invested in high-quality preschool could produce a return-on-investment of $5 in lower government costs and economic benefit.

The Seattle Preschool Program focuses on what’s best for children, our most valuable asset.

Our Program promotes social justice and will help create a stronger and more equitable education system.

Our Program follows the scientific evidence of what works: full-day instruction, 180 days per year, highly qualified and credentialed teachers, play-based purposeful curricula, and outcome measurements to make certain we are doing it right.

Our Program honors teachers, raising compensation to be in line with K-12 teachers and offering tuition support for acquiring early learning credentials and creating long-term career pathways.

Our Program adds new funding and doesn’t take funding away from existing preschool providers; it’s voluntary and it’s designed to reach more children – 2,000 more by the end of the first four years.

Our Program fosters classroom diversity because the evidence shows that classrooms that are economically mixed and culturally diverse are best for all children, especially those who are the furthest behind in social and academic development.

Over the past six months, I’ve visited 18 preschool classrooms across Seattle. I’ve spoken with teachers and directors, parents and kids. The children made the greatest impact as I watched them play, complete projects in their little workgroups, and talk with their teachers. They were having a blast.

These kids, and the thousands who aren’t in a high quality preschool today, deserve the best from us. It’s not too late to call your councilmembers and urge them to move the Seattle Preschool Program forward.

All our children deserve a strong and fair start in school. Let’s do what it takes to give them one.

City Council to Vote on Seattle Preschool Program

Mayor Murray in preschoolThe following article was sent out in my City View Newsletter, which you can sign up to receive here.

It’s not very often that local elected officials get to advance public policy with the potential to change our society so fundamentally…let alone twice inside 30 days.

On June 2nd the City Council voted unanimously to adopt Mayor Murray’s minimum wage legislation to reverse years and years of stagnant wages. That was a historic milestone designed to help workers at the bottom of the economic ladder.

This afternoon, just three weeks later, we are about to make another monumental decision that has the potential to reverse decades of lost academic opportunities. We will vote this afternoon to send the Seattle Preschool Program to voters in November.

The plan the City Council will vote on today is based on what works. It was developed through a strong partnership with Mayor Murray. We have followed the evidence and, if we implement it right, we will achieve the same results being celebrated in Boston, Jersey City, Tulsa, Denver, and elsewhere.

If done right, the benefits are very clear. Children enrolled in high-quality preschool outperform their peers in other types of preschool: they enter kindergarten ready to learn; they are much more likely to be reading at grade level in the third grade; they have higher high school graduation rates, lower teen pregnancies, higher college entrance and graduation rates, higher earning power as adults, lower levels of criminal behavior, and better health. Who wouldn’t want these positive outcomes for Seattle’s children?

High-quality preschool is a sound investment. The long-term economic benefits are strong. Every dollar invested in high-quality preschool could produce a return-on-investment of $5 in lower government costs and economic benefit.

The Seattle Preschool Program focuses on what’s best for children, our most valuable asset.

Our Program promotes social justice and will help create a stronger and more equitable education system.

Our Program follows the scientific evidence of what works: full-day instruction, 180 days per year, highly qualified and credentialed teachers, play-based purposeful curricula, and outcome measurements to make certain we are doing it right.

Our Program honors teachers, raising compensation to be in line with K-12 teachers and offering tuition support for acquiring early learning credentials and creating long-term career pathways.

Our Program adds new funding and doesn’t take funding away from existing preschool providers; it’s voluntary and it’s designed to reach more children – 2,000 more by the end of the first four years.

Our Program fosters classroom diversity because the evidence shows that classrooms that are economically mixed and culturally diverse are best for all children, especially those who are the furthest behind in social and academic development.

Over the past six months, I’ve visited 18 preschool classrooms across Seattle. I’ve spoken with teachers and directors, parents and kids. The children made the greatest impact as I watched them play, complete projects in their little workgroups, and talk with their teachers. They were having a blast.

These kids, and the thousands who aren’t in a high quality preschool today, deserve the best from us. It’s not too late to call your councilmembers and urge them to move the Seattle Preschool Program forward.

All our children deserve a strong and fair start in school. Let’s do what it takes to give them one.

Public Campaign Finance: Right Idea, Wrong Time

CoinsThere has been news coverage recently about how as City Council President I won’t introduce legislation that would send a measure to establish public financing of political campaigns back again to the voters in November.* The Stranger has a story about this in this week’s edition.

Public financing of campaigns is a good idea. Seattle established a system for partial public financing of campaigns in 1978. I helped oversee the later years of that program as a commissioner on the City’s Ethics and Elections Commission. In 1992 a statewide initiative put an end to this practice, but in 2008 the State Legislature allowed local jurisdictions to establish programs through a public vote.

Last year I voted to let Seattle decide if they wanted public campaign financing. The proposed system would have incentivized candidates to reach out to a wider segment of the population by providing matching public funds to small campaign donations; a property tax provided the funds. The voters said “no” by a narrow margin.

This November’s election ballot will have many candidates, issues, and multiple tax measures (including a resurrection of a tax for the monorail!). There’s always risk, however slight, that voters will experience “tax fatigue” and overreact by voting no on measures they might have otherwise supported, such as universal preschool or public transit funding.

At a time when frustration with government is running so high, I want the City to show voters that local government is focused on what’s most important. Maintaining and improving transit service and expanding high-quality preschool for our children top my list of priorities.

*In case you’re wondering, the Council President decides what legislation will be put before the Council and when, but this power is by no means absolute. Any councilmember can make a motion to introduce legislation during a Full Council meeting; councilmembers who favor placing a public finance tax measure on this November’s ballot have not done so. If a majority of the Council wanted to hold further discussions on public campaign finance legislation, that motion would succeed and the legislation would be introduced and referred to committee.