On Friday, Department of Public Defense Director Anita Khandelwal sent a letter to Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office announcing her withdrawal from the ongoing, behind-the-scenes stakeholdering process surrounding a possible contract between the City of Seattle and the regional South Correctional Entity, a jail also known as SCORE, which is located all the way down in Des Moines, WA. h said the mayor’s office did not sufficiently address concerns she raised, so it did not feel like anything she said in those meetings would influence the decision-making process.
“There isn’t a pause to answer my questions, there’s just moving forward,” Khandelwal said in an interview with The Stranger.
Her departure and her letter brings the private, allegedly unproductive conversation to the public, where the mayor’s office will either have to answer on the record or ignore concerns from those who disagree with the administration’s carceral ideology. Harrell’s office did not respond to my request for comment.
The public caught wind of the possible SCORE contract in May, but the mayor doesn’t have to do a big, public debate over contracts like the city council must do with their ordinances. Instead, the mayor’s office launched a private stakeholdering process with representatives from the Seattle Municipal Court (SMC), the Seattle Police Department (SPD), the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, Purpose, Dignity, Action (PDA), and other groups at the end of June.
After attending two stakeholdering meetings, Khandelwal decided to take the following concerns public.
Contracting with SCORE would allow SPD officers to work around the King County Jail’s booking restrictions and book low-level offenders, likely those charged with nonviolent misdemeanors. As Khandelwal cited in her letter, according to research from the Vera Institute of Justice, pretrial detention leads to longer periods of incarceration and increases the chance someone returns to jail later.
Khandelwal said the City instead argues that booking people into SCORE will help people access services for homelessness or addiction. The Department of Public Defense (DPD) has “no confidence” that will happen given the department’s experience with clients incarcerated in SCORE. With Harrell’s office and SPD insisting that they would jail people in SCORE for only a few days at a time, Khandelwal said, “There is simply no way that such jail stays will result in meaningful service connections.”
Not only will contracting with SCORE not help low-level offenders, Khandelwal argues that such a contract would “present significant burdens for all criminal legal system entities.” As she wrote, public defenders will spend more working hours traveling to meet their clients at the Des Moines facility, and DPD will bill the City for that. The City will also end up paying SPD to drive all the way to Des Moines just to book someone on a nonviolent, low-level crime such as shoplifting. Khandelwal argued it would be more cost effective to pay businesses for stolen merchandise.
The City would also have to transport inmates to appear at Seattle Municipal Court. If the City wanted to cut costs and make SCORE inmates appear via video, DPD would have to send attorneys to SCORE for those hearings anyway, Khandelwal said. DPD would probably sue over it, too, according to the letter. Earlier this year, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to force people to appear from jail cells, as it undermines the presumption of innocence.
Though Khandelwal does not feel as if she can influence the mayor’s decision in these stakeholdering meetings, she said she wouldn’t go so far as to say the SCORE contract is a “foregone conclusion.”
Other stakeholders see value in the meetings.
“We see the mayor’s workgroup as an important chance to raise questions around potential jail arrangements, to identify issues, and to suggest ways to address them in the contracting process,” said PDA Deputy Director Brandi McNeil.
McNeil said PDA draws from the experience of the people they work with who have been incarcerated at the King County Jail, SCORE, and other area jails. McNeil acknowledged that no one likes being in jail, but “there are marked differences in experiences that we want City leaders to be aware of, especially for people with substance use issues, medical needs, and mental health challenges,” McNeil said.
In contrast to the DPD’s experience, McNeil said the mayor’s office has been responsive to PDA’s concerns.
Khandelwal encouraged members of the public who share her concerns or who oppose a potential contract with SCORE to contact the mayor and their city council members.

Well the simple solution is if low level offenders want to stay out of jail then don’t break the law. Misdemeanors are not all victimless petty crimes so jail needs to be an option. Otherwise laws are toothless.
‘Khandelwal said the City instead argues that booking people into SCORE will help people access services for homelessness or addiction. The Department of Public Defense (DPD) has “no confidence” that will happen given the department’s experience with clients incarcerated in SCORE.‘
On the generous assumption this rumor, from a source totally opposed to use of SCORE, is completely correct, we can still ask if the lack of connection to services is a SCORE issue, or just yet another colossal failure of the local responses to homelessness and addiction. At this point, there is a large amount of evidence to support the latter, and nothing to support the former.
“Khandelwal argued it would be more cost effective to pay businesses for stolen merchandise.”
It would be even more cost-effective for the city if Khandelwal would pay businesses for stolen merchandise.
@2 “On the generous assumption this rumor, from a source totally opposed to use of SCORE”
The public defenders at least represent defendants incarcerated at SCORE so they presumably know what services or connections to services are available. The City (a source totally in favor of use of SCORE) has no obvious basis of knowledge. It’s possible or even likely they’re just accepting the word of representatives of this private jail, who have a vested interest in securing ever more contracts.
“It would be even more cost-effective for the city if Khandelwal would pay businesses for stolen merchandise.”
Oh shit for a second I forgot you weren’t a serious person, thanks for snapping me back to reality.
“The public defenders…”
The only one of whom quoted is Khandelwal, the aforementioned source totally opposed to use of SCORE. So that entire section of the story depends entirely upon that sole source.
“In contrast to the DPD’s experience, McNeil said the mayor’s office has been responsive to PDA’s concerns.”
So maybe, the problem actually described here is that Khandelwal refused to make any good-faith effort, due to her pre-existing, implacable opposition to use of SCORE?
“…thanks for snapping me back to reality.”
Yes, the reality of you always resorting to ad hominem attacks anyway, after every other attempt you make at argument swiftly and hilariously fails you. Glad to see you’re going directly there, instead; it saves everyone time.
@4 Khandelwal is the head of the department she speaks for all of them
@5: Yes, because no worker has ever disagreed with any official statement the boss had loudly proclaimed as true.
Do your parents know you’re here?
@6 ya I bet all the line public defenders love the conditions at the local for-profit jail and their boss is muzzling them for unknowable, purely political reasons. You are very smart
Oh wait nevermind the public defender union also opposed contracting with SCORE
https://publicola.com/2023/03/07/amid-lawsuit-over-jail-conditions-county-moves-forward-with-controversial-inmate-transfer-plan/
Guess you’re not that smart after all
@8: Since it’s obvious many low-level offenders do not “access services for homelessness or addiction” now, the assertion that they won’t do so at SCORE either seems like a very hollow objection. Again, based upon this story, there’s no reason to believe those two issues are connected at all, let alone hold up progress on getting criminals off the streets before they commit more crimes.
(Should you ever actually hold a real job, you might want to be aware it is possible for a worker to disagree with both the boss and the union.)
@9 right all the people who willingly chose a low paid and generally disrespected career path because they believe so strongly in providing a defense to poor people probably disagree with their boss and their union on the subject of housing their clients at a problematic jail. Makes sense