Salem city leaders on Monday laid out a new framework for responding to drug use through prevention, treatment and enforcement, but the presentation also made clear how limited the city’s direct tools remain. Staff said Salem does not have dedicated drug-enforcement officers, does not control much of the treatment system, and still needs more partner input before bringing back recommendations.
Presented by City Manager Krishna Namburi, the framework is part of Salem’s broader Safe, Clean and Healthy Salem initiative. Namburi described it as an effort to map the current system, clarify the city’s role, identify where outside partners fit, and pinpoint the gaps that continue to limit results.
“The city’s role is to connect, align and advocate for a coordinated and effective system for Salem,” Namburi told the council. That distinction mattered throughout the presentation. Rather than offering a new city-run solution, Namburi repeatedly framed the work as an attempt to understand what Salem can realistically do on its own and where it must rely on county, regional and nonprofit partners.
The clearest message Monday was that Salem is still in the assessment stage, not the implementation stage.
The framework breaks the issue into three tracks: prevent, treat and enforce. On prevention, the city pointed to youth and opioid-related education efforts already underway. On treatment, Salem’s role centers more on outreach and connecting people to services than on providing treatment itself. On enforcement, staff acknowledged the city’s own capacity is limited.
Namburi said treatment services are “largely outside” the city’s direct role, leaving Salem dependent on a broader network of providers and agencies. That makes the city more of a convener than a controller, even as drug use remains one of the community’s top concerns.
The presentation also spelled out the practical weaknesses in the current system. Among them: limited enforcement staffing, no dedicated drug-enforcement officers for Salem, jail-space constraints, shortages of public defenders and prosecutors, and too few treatment and recovery beds. Staff also said Salem does not yet have a clearly defined local prevention strategy, despite the scale of the problem.
That made Monday’s discussion more notable as an acknowledgment of the city’s limits than as the unveiling of a new city program.
Councilors generally supported the framework, but several argued the city should be more deliberate about where it focuses attention. Councilor Irvin M. Brown said northeast Salem should be an early priority, arguing the area has long carried a disproportionate share of gang activity, graffiti and drug-related issues. Councilor Mai Vang said similar concerns have surfaced in east Salem and urged the city to think about how to build on models that have already shown results.
Councilor Vanessa Nordyke said the issue requires a broader response and called the effort a “three-legged stool,” arguing that “enforcement alone is not enough, treatment alone not enough, prevention alone not enough.”
Public testimony highlighted a more specific gap in the city’s treatment framework. Kelly Thomas, who told council he has more than 800 days in recovery, urged the city to explicitly include secular, non-faith-based peer recovery options. “The secular infrastructure already exists right here in Salem,” Thomas said. “The city needs to just simply see it, name it, and connect people to it.”
His comments sharpened one of the broader weaknesses in the city’s current map: even where services exist, they may not fit every resident trying to access recovery.
Namburi said the city needs to treat the work as a shared civic effort. “I don’t think the city of Salem or us as a staff can address this issue by ourselves,” he said. “We need the council’s support. We need our partners’ support. We need the community to be at the table.”
No vote was taken on the framework Monday, and council did not approve a new policy package or funding plan. What city leaders offered instead was a clearer public picture of what Salem can do, what it cannot do alone, and how much of the response still depends on other agencies and providers.
That leaves the city at a familiar but important point. Salem has now publicly defined the problem in broader terms than enforcement alone. What it has not yet done is show residents which actions it is prepared to take, what those actions will cost, and whether they will meaningfully change conditions on the ground.
