Introduction and summary
On June 25, 2024, the U.S. surgeon general issued a landmark advisory declaring firearm violence an urgent public health crisis, pointing to its pervasive spread into our schools, homes, and public.1 The advisory reads:
Firearm violence is a public health crisis. Our failure to address it is a moral crisis. To protect the health and well-being of Americans, especially our children, we must now act with the clarity, courage and urgency that this moment demands.2
This marked the first time in history a U.S. surgeon general has released a statement on this issue, underscoring the urgent need for action as the impacts of firearm violence ripple through communities across the United States.3 Thousands of lives are cut short every year due to this senseless and preventable violence, and even more live with its everyday consequences.
The cost of gun violence is borne by families forever mourning the loss of their loved ones, survivors forced to live with lifelong physical and psychological injuries, students who are scared to attend school, front-line workers who carry secondary trauma, communities held in cycles of trauma, and many more who live with the constant fear of firearm victimization. More than half of U.S. adults report that a firearm-related incident has affected them or a family member4, and nearly 6 in 10 report that they frequently worry about a loved one being victimized by gun violence.5 The fears and realities of gun violence affect us all.
Despite these concerning trends, the extreme politicization of guns in America continues to derail almost every legislative effort to improve public safety. Even the most popular lifesaving solutions6 are consistently blocked at the state and federal levels in favor of gun lobby interest groups.7 Some state and federal “gun rights” policymakers prioritize unfettered access to guns over the right to live free from firearm violence. Compounding this challenge has been the widespread erosion of local authority through state preemption laws8, a legislative strategy pushed by the gun lobby to prevent the advancement of any local gun safety regulation. Since 19819, the National Rifle Association has rallied support in 45 state legislatures to successfully bar any jurisdictions within these states from implementing localized gun safety protections.10 Some states have even passed legislation to impose fines, civil liability, and/or criminality liability on or lead to the removal from office of city leaders who attempt to pass municipal gun safety measures.11 As a result, communities are forced to live with the everyday realities of firearm violence—particularly those that bear the brunt of it.
Roadblocks to state and federal solutions have put local leaders in the difficult position of seeking to reduce violent crime while having their hands tied by state preemption laws. Without the ability to keep guns out of the hands of those who would seek to cause harm, many cities have relied on policing as the primary avenue for addressing gun violence.12 This in turn has created its own set of challenges. Enforcement-heavy solutions can result in increased arrests for low-level offenses, especially among Black communities, and unnecessary exposure to the criminal legal system, which in turn can perpetuate underlying issues—such as inadequate health care, unemployment, lack of housing, and low socioeconomic status—that are known to contribute to cycles of violence and recidivism.13 Moreover, enforcement-only solutions cannot address the underlying causes of cycles of violence, failing to achieve genuine and durable public safety gains. In order to achieve real change, leaders must adopt a new approach to community safety that balances more effective and targeted accountability with strategies to prevent violence altogether.
Fortunately, local leaders across the country are circumventing legislative limitations by leveraging unprecedented federal investments to reduce gun violence.14 By embracing a wide range of community-led public safety solutions and combining improved accountability with greater investment into prevention, many cities that have historically struggled to achieve sustained reductions in firearm-related violence are now experiencing notable declines.15 Early 2024 data show that cities such as New Orleans, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia have seen homicides drop more than 40 percent compared with the first five months of 2023.16 Equally encouraging, 12 of the 50 most populous U.S. cities are reporting 20 percent fewer gun violence victimizations compared with pre-pandemic levels.17 Beyond achieving promising reductions, these strategies are helping city leaders alleviate an overburdened criminal legal system and invest in inclusive and lasting community well-being.
This report outlines a blueprint for success that has been pioneered by some of these communities, focusing on these six evidence-informed strategies:
- Community-based violence interruption
- Improved accountability for serious crime
- Increased support for crime survivors
- Investments in neglected neighborhoods
- Enhanced data collection and sharing
- Building better local infrastructure to coordinate between a wide range of community organizations and government agencies
Invest in community-based, civilian-led strategies and create a government infrastructure capable of coordinating and supporting them
In any given city, many different players other than law enforcement work to promote safety and prevent violence. These include city agencies, schools, faith-based and community-based organizations, medical providers, nonprofits, and other key public safety stakeholders. One way cities can improve public safety regardless of legislative obstacles is to leverage this existing public safety ecosystem and establish an infrastructure within local government that can streamline these efforts through an all-hands-on-deck approach.
In 60 different locations18, such an infrastructure has been formed by leveraging city, state, and federal funds to establish local offices of violence prevention (OVP).19 While the roles of OVPs can differ based on their scope, resources, and area of focus, most work to proactively address the root causes of violence in communities by convening local stakeholders, providing strategic direction for community-led violence reduction plans, streamlining data collection and information sharing, and providing support for the broader ecosystem of public health and safety through grants management, partnership, and advocacy.20 Through this multitiered approach, local OVPs can address the many factors contributing to cycles of violence in a specific community and serve as catalysts for transformative change within their communities. Led primarily by mayoral appointees, these offices intentionally operate outside of the criminal legal system, staffed by individuals with diverse backgrounds in public health, social work, youth engagement, and community organizing.21 This allows the OVP to become an essential resource for overseeing and streamlining noncarceral activities to improve public safety.22
There are multifaceted and far-reaching benefits to a dedicated OVP. By developing a comprehensive violence reduction plan in partnership with residents, community organizations, and city stakeholders, a local OVP can tap into the local needs and priorities regarding violence prevention and facilitate a community-driven, whole-of-government approach to addressing violence.23 These comprehensive plans help set realistic goals for violence reduction efforts and often use a wide range of intervention, prevention, and community transformation strategies. These strategies include violence interruption services designed to de-escalate conflicts, job readiness and employment opportunity programs, after-school and summer activities, neighborhood revitalization and community greening, and other services designed to support culturally centered healing from trauma. Additionally, by capitalizing on the legitimacy, resources, and infrastructure of city government, a local OVP can fill gaps in capacity building, data collection, and information sharing—and provide grant opportunities to community organizations and strategic partners.24 This is particularly useful for ensuring community-driven violence prevention and intervention programs are insulated from political instability and lapses in funding—two major threats to the sustainability of these programs.25 All told, these offices provide an invaluable resource for addressing root causes of violence and fostering community well-being.
By establishing an OVP, local leaders can uplift the existing public safety ecosystem and reaffirm a commitment to building safety and justice in coordination with residents. Moreover, these offices give city leaders additional support for achieving public safety goals and bridge the gap between residents and local government, particularly in communities that have experienced generations of neglect at the hands of the government or law enforcement. In some places, such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Durham, North Carolina, these offices have even coordinated between public health, housing, medical, and police services to oversee crisis response programs that send civilian responders to assist in low-risk emergencies and reduce the risk of escalation.26
Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond, California
In 2007, Richmond, California, established a first-of-its-kind office of violence prevention as a tool for reducing gun violence and improving community well-being.27 Now known as the Office of Neighborhood Safety, this civilian-led agency was established outside the criminal legal system to oversee community-based safety solutions while maintaining credibility with communities closed off to law enforcement. The office currently oversees a range of strategies to interrupt, prevent, and heal from violence, including violence interruption to de-escalate conflicts, one-on-one transformative mentoring programs, workforce development programs, and more. From 2007 to 2022, Richmond’s OVP helped the city achieve a 62 percent decline in homicides and a 79 percent decline in firearm assaults.28
In addition to establishing a dedicated OVP, cities can greatly benefit from investing in and expanding community violence intervention (CVI) programs. These programs offer one of the most promising strategies for reducing gun violence and are often a key component of any citywide reduction blueprint.29 The communities most affected by violence have also experienced decades of disinvestment and racial segregation. And both survivors and perpetrators of violence have often been failed by multiple systems.30 As a result, the communities most at risk and in need of support services are also the least likely to trust the systems tasked with providing these services. CVI programs help to overcome this gap by employing credible messengers within the community to identify conflict and engage those at the center of violence.31 These trusted messengers are uniquely able to establish relationships with individuals at the highest risk of becoming victims or perpetrators—or both—and mediate peaceful resolutions before conflict turns deadly or retaliation occurs, while simultaneously connecting these individuals with relevant support services.32 These programs center holistic, community-based, and person-powered responses to gun violence, working in tandem with other stakeholders, service providers, and government agencies as part of a wider ecosystem of violence prevention.
Several different CVI models are used across the country, and these programs are often used in conjunction with one another, layering multiple strategies to meet the needs of each individual and community.33 The hospital-based violence intervention model, for example, works with hospitalized survivors of gun violence and connects them to social services in an effort to meet their basic needs while also working to prevent future cycles of violence and retaliation.34 The violence interrupter model employs “violence interrupters” or neighborhood change agents to build relationships with high-risk individuals based on shared backgrounds and life experiences and work with these individuals to support healing and mediate conflict before it escalates to violence.35 Other programs may also address housing assistance, mentorship, job readiness, youth development, and more. For instance, Chicago’s CRED (Create Real Economic Destiny) program combines a variety of approaches, including street outreach, life coaching, job readiness, educational training, and trauma services, to target and serve individuals in historically neglected communities.36 This has been hugely successful. According to an analysis of early program outcomes, the likelihood of arrest related to a violent crime among individuals at high risk of gun violence who completed the program decreased by 73 percent.37
When adequately supported and funded, CVI programs are shown to reduce shootings by as much as 60 percent, making them one of the most promising tools for preventing violence before it occurs.38 As a result, many cities are turning to these programs to achieve meaningful gains in public safety. In addition to saving lives, CVI programs help reduce the cost of responding to gun violence after it occurs, saving cities millions of dollars. For every firearm death and nonfatal shooting, U.S. taxpayers pay an average of $273,904 and $25,150, respectively, in costs related to immediate and long-term medical care, police investigations, and criminal justice services.39 When factoring in quality-of-life, work-loss and employer, police and criminal justice, and medical costs, the total financial burden of gun violence in the United States is estimated at $557 billion annually.40 Alternatively, cities that invested in CVI programs such as Cure Violence and Advance Peace save an estimated $18 to $40 in public safety costs for every $1 spent on programming.41 In fact, cities with established Advance Peace programs saved an estimated $67 to $268 million in 2022 alone.42
In the past four years, there has been an influx of federal funding to support local violence prevention efforts.43 However, these grant opportunities must be paired with sizable investments at the city and state levels to ensure programs continue to receive necessary funding amidst a looming American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding cliff and ongoing efforts by House Republicans to eliminate funds allocated through the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative.44 To do this, advocates should call on state policymakers to establish funding streams dedicated to community violence intervention and prevention efforts, similar to those established in Maryland45 and California46, and city leaders should work with local OVPs to create grant opportunities for community organizations and service providers to develop, build, and replicate evidence-based violence intervention programs.
People’s Plan for Community Safety, Chicago
The People’s Plan for Community Safety “harnesses the full force” of government, community, business, and philanthropy to achieve meaningful and lasting reductions in violence through a comprehensive approach to public safety.47 Led by the Mayor’s Office for Community Safety, this strategic plan aims to address historic disinvestment and create paths toward healing through a two-pronged approach that targets the people and places affected by violence. By combining community violence intervention programs, victim and trauma support services, and youth investments with expansions in educational engagement, economic opportunity, health and housing services, and community investments, this approach aims to both interrupt cycles of violence and eliminate its root causes. With ongoing community engagement and dedicated coordination across the city, Chicago is working in tandem with its residents and community partners to break cycles of violence and foster durable public safety.
Blueprint for Peace, Milwaukee
In 201748, the Milwaukee Office of Violence Prevention launched a “Blueprint for Peace”49, a whole-of-government prevention plan designed to mitigate and prevent cycles of community violence by improving resilience among residents facing “adverse community experiences.” In coordination with residents and key stakeholders, this strategy works to prevent violence before it occurs and intervene in the aftermath to reduce the impact and likelihood of future cycles of harm, operating separately from but parallel to the criminal legal system. Through this blueprint, Milwaukee can reduce community exposure to root causes of violence, invest in community assets and resiliency factors, and build a future where all residents are valued, supported, and protected. In 2022, ongoing engagement with the community and a commitment to coordinated, data-informed violence prevention strategies led to the development of the Violence Response Public Health and Safety Team that has since allowed Milwaukee to identify and prevent circumstances that could give rise to violence.50 After a steady increase in firearm violence throughout 2022, 2023 data showed promising improvements in public safety, including a 50 percent reduction in homicides and a 30 percent reduction in nonfatal shootings year over year.51
Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan, Baltimore
In 2021, Mayor Brandon Scott launched Baltimore’s first Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan, a five-year strategy to improve long-term public safety in the city through an “all-hands-on-deck” approach, and tasked the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement with leading and refreshing this plan every two years. Centered on four key pillars—“Public Health Approach to Gun Violence and Prevention,” “Youth Justice and Violence Reduction,” “Community Engagement and Interagency Collaboration,” and “Evaluation and Accountability”—this plan has allowed Baltimore to achieve a 33 percent decrease in homicides and a 20 percent decrease in nonfatal shootings from 2023 to 202452, all while investing in a better future for its residents.
Office of Violence Prevention and Trauma Recovery Strategic Plan, Newark, New Jersey
After ongoing and meaningful engagement with residents, community organizers, and city leaders and an extensive analysis of city data, the Newark Office of Violence Prevention and Trauma Recovery53 launched its strategic plan for community safety in 2022.54 Rooted in a community-based approach to public safety, this plan addresses the underlying causes of violence while leveraging the power of residents and local organizations as interdependent partners working to break cycles of trauma through reconciliation, coordination, and community healing. With the understanding that violence is a public health concern and that public safety is a collective endeavor, this blueprint gives communities an active role in creating public safety, invests in the people and resources working to prevent violence, creates a space for healing and resilience, and focuses on the places and people most acutely affected by violence.
Improve police strategies and just accountability for serious crime
The failure to solve violent crime and hold offenders accountable for violence can be devastating for communities and must be addressed as part of a local approach to preventing gun violence. When community members have low trust in law enforcement’s ability to solve serious crime, those at risk of being both victims and perpetrators are more likely to choose other means of protection and justice, increasing the likelihood of retaliatory violence.55 Additionally, low police legitimacy is associated with witnesses being unwilling to supply information to police and testify in court, further impeding police investigations and exacerbating already tense relationships between communities and law enforcement.56 As a result, perpetrators of violence in these communities are not brought to justice by legal means, and the cycle of violence continues. Recognizing this, local leaders should adopt nonlegislative strategies capable of improving responses to serious crime, enhancing accountability measures that provide justice for those harmed, and helping those caught in cycles of violence rehabilitate and change their behavior.
When community members have low trust in law enforcement’s ability to solve serious crime, those at risk of being both victims and perpetrators are more likely to choose other means of protection and justice, increasing the likelihood of retaliatory violence.
Some cities have experienced significant improvements in clearance rates after directing law enforcement to commit sustained time, resources, and personnel to investigating and resolving serious crimes.57 This can be achieved without additional funding by redirecting existing time and resources within police departments toward solving gun homicides and nonfatal shootings, thereby increasing the number of investigators and detectives working on these cases. In Denver, prioritizing nonfatal shootings and homicide investigations didn’t require additional funding or personnel; instead, it involved shifting personnel from within existing departments and providing enhanced training in investigative practices.58 This allowed Denver to create a dedicated firearm assault team to support the closure of nonfatal shooting investigations and, as a result, increased its clearance rate for nonfatal shootings from 39 percent in 2019 to 65 percent in 2023.59
Another strategy that has successfully improved police efficacy and better directed officer time is the hiring of nonsworn civilians to support nonenforcement activities. An estimated 4 percent of police resources are allocated to responding to violent crime, leaving a significant portion of officers occupied with addressing minor quality-of-life issues.60 Recognizing the limitations of law enforcement, cities such as Baltimore have advocated for the recruitment of civilians to assist in investigating cold cases and internal affairs complaints.61 Other cities such as New Orleans have begun hiring civilian responders to address low-level nonviolent complaints.62 Beyond mitigating chronic officer shortages nationwide, employing civilian responders often proves advantageous, as civilians are frequently better suited than law enforcement to manage calls involving mental health crises or nonviolent concerns.63
Clearance rates can also vastly improve when police shift away from ineffective and unethical enforcement practices and create community partnerships that foster mutual trust. When community members perceive law enforcement and the legal system as legitimate avenues for addressing violent crime, they are more likely to comply with existing laws and share critical information with the police, which is crucial for solving and preventing cycles of violence.64 To improve community relations and enhance police accountability, city leaders in Berkeley, California, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh have enacted local ordinances identifying minor infractions that law enforcement may no longer use as sole grounds for traffic stops.65 Similarly, Los Angeles redirected traffic enforcement resources toward investigating more serious offenses.66 Other localities such as King County, Washington, have adopted prebooking diversion strategies to divert chronic low-level, behavioral health-related offenders to community-based services capable of addressing their needs, rather than relying on arrest and incarceration.67 This program has allowed the county to reduce the likelihood of arrest and future incarceration, minimize the number of individuals unnecessarily ensnared in the criminal legal system, and improve community relations.68
Finally, police can identify and engage those most deeply embedded in community violence by working in close collaboration with community leaders through group violence intervention programs.69 Group violence intervention is a police-led deterrence strategy that recognizes that a small number of people are responsible for the majority of violence in any given location and that partnerships between law enforcement, community members, and social service providers can bring critical intervention and support services to those individuals.70 With resident involvement, law enforcement identifies those at the heart of violence, warns these individuals of the impending consequences of continued violence, and deploys partners to intervene and deliver a credible message against violence, while meaningfully connecting these individuals with existing social and support services. Several cities have already experienced great success with this model, including Boston, which experienced a 63 percent reduction in youth homicide; Stockton, California, which experienced a 42 percent reduction in gun homicide; and New Haven, Connecticut, which experienced a 73 percent reduction in average monthly shootings.71 More recently, Baltimore’s group violence intervention program led to the takedown of an alleged drug trafficking ring that had been contributing to citywide violence.72 This program and others, coordinated through the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety, has helped Baltimore achieve its lowest homicide rate since 2014.73
63%
Percentage reduction in youth homicide in Boston
42%
Percentage reduction in gun homicide in Stockton, California
73%
Percentage reduction in average monthly shootings in New Haven, Connecticut
Improve the built environments of neighborhoods and expand access to public health and housing
Community safety is not just the absence of violence; it also requires investments in the conditions and programs that facilitate stability and foster well-being. Given the concentrated nature of gun violence within cities and counties, strategies focusing on investing in the most affected neighborhoods can be pivotal for long-term community revitalization. A growing body of research underscores the significance of addressing environmental factors contributing to violence, such as vacant buildings, inadequate street lighting, and blighted lots.74 These efforts not only help prevent violence by reducing the number of locations where illegal activities occur and illegal guns are stored but also alleviate neighborhood distress, improve community relations, and reinforce informal social conditions known to deter violence.75 For instance, efforts to improve street lighting, sidewalks, and accessible public transportation and parks in one Philadelphia neighborhood were associated with a 76 percent reduction in the likelihood of homicides.76 Another study in Philadelphia similarly found that efforts to clean and plant small bushes, trees, and grass in vacant lots led to a 29 percent reduction in violent crime in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty.77 In other cities, efforts to clean and rehabilitate blighted and abandoned properties have resulted in significant reductions in gun violence, with some areas experiencing a nearly 40 percent decrease within one year.78 Identifying places associated with high rates of violence can also help direct cities on efforts to improve physical environments. For example, in 2005, a citywide effort to review every homicide and nonfatal shooting in Milwaukee revealed that a disproportionate number of incidents occurred in or near bars.79 Subsequently, the city passed an ordinance requiring bars with a history of violent offenses to install cameras. By 2014, bar-related homicides had fallen by 80 percent.80
Additionally, creating shared spaces and investing in safe housing can help alleviate social tension and promote communities of healing. One study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University found that repairing and cleaning abandoned houses resulted in an associated 13 percent decrease in gun assaults in the surrounding blocks.81 In Philadelphia, efforts to provide low-income residents with free structural home repairs brought a 21.9 percent drop in total crime to the neighborhoods that received these services.82 To build shared spaces in Milwaukee, the city built a neighborhood trail connecting the communities of Harambee and Riverwest to arts and outdoor spaces.83 Indianapolis has dedicated $1.1 million in ARPA funding toward neighborhood-led beautification efforts to improve physical conditions and nurture a sense of community.84 To invest in these strategies, cities can look to a number of federal grants dedicated to funding neighborhood improvements.85
However, it’s crucial to ensure that community greening and cleaning efforts do not result in the displacement of residents. These programs should be complemented by expanding access to public health and housing resources, establishing local substance abuse treatment centers, and maintaining ongoing communication with the community to prioritize its needs and concerns. To do this, several cities have tapped into federal funding streams to address housing insecurity and rental assistance needs and inject long-term investments in housing programs and infrastructure improvement.86 Meanwhile, other cities have leveraged federal funding to develop robust medication-based treatment programs focused on substance use disorders.87
Support survivors of crime
Victim support services and compensation programs are paramount to interrupting cycles of violence and ensuring survivors get the assistance they need to heal—both physically and emotionally—from criminal victimization. Unaddressed trauma can lead to serious consequences for survivors and affected communities, with rates of post-traumatic stress among residents in some neighborhoods reaching 30 percent—equivalent to levels seen among returning Vietnam veterans.88 When survivors are unable to access the resources necessary for healing, they are more likely to experience early death and revictimization89, develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and experience financial hardship, causing communities fall into cycles of retaliatory violence.90 Thus, improving early intervention and access to timely and adequate victim support services is necessary to build lasting community safety.
Support for victims should be available in the immediate aftermath of a crime and throughout any ongoing investigations. This support should be comprehensive, address the many needs of survivors, and be culturally responsive to the communities it serves. One way to accomplish this is through trauma recovery centers (TRC), which are programs typically housed in emergency facilities or trauma centers that are dedicated to meeting the needs of underserved crime survivors.91 Investing in trauma centers is a promising way for cities to connect crime survivors with wraparound services, particularly those from underserved communities and communities of color who often are unable to access traditional support services.92 Whether by finding survivors a place to live, helping survivors return to work sooner, providing access to medical and treatment services, assisting with filing for financial compensation, or securing legal representation, these programs address the aftermath of violence by streamlining the many services needed to help survivors heal and return to life after trauma. For example, the Advocate Trauma Recovery Center, which is now available in three Chicago-area hospitals, prioritizes the long-term recovery of survivors, providing them with access to free group therapy, individual therapy, psychiatric services, and extensive social services all in one place.93
With sustained funding and implementation, these programs can improve the well-being of survivors and reduce future cycles of violence. Research suggests that individuals serviced by TRCs experience better outcomes related to mental health and quality of life, with a nearly 40 percent reduction in PTSD symptoms and a more than 50 percent reduction in symptoms of depression.94 Equally encouraging, crime survivors who participate in TRC services are 56 percent more likely to return to work and 44 percent more likely to cooperate with law enforcement to solve crimes than survivors who do not receive these services. Moreover, those who are typically less likely to apply for victim compensation due to age, educational attainment, and housing conditions are more than four times as likely to apply when served by TRCs.95 By meeting the many needs of survivors, these centers can help communities heal and save cities millions of dollars, with TRCs costing one-third of usual treatment services.96
Unfortunately, many survivors of violence are unable to access the support they need, with estimates showing that less than 1 in 3 victims of crime report receiving any assistance at all.97 To address this gap, cities should create new funding opportunities for local support services, in addition to pursuing investments through state and federal crime victimization funds (through the Victims of Crime Act). A local OVP can be instrumental in securing new and existing funding opportunities, as well as streamlining cooperation between government stakeholders, community organizations, and law enforcement.98 In addition to investing local and federal dollars into victim support services, cities should work with state leaders to remove harmful exclusions for victims seeking assistance, including the perception that they are not cooperating with law enforcement, among other factors that punish victims caught in cycles of violence.99Jason Tan de Bibiana and others, “Coordinating Safety.”[/footnote
Tailor solutions to community needs through improved data collection and sharing
Improving data collection enables cities to target gun crime and understand its underlying factors.100Moreover, timely and accurate data can help connect victims of gun violence with resources, identify hotspots of violent activity, tailor public health response efforts, and evaluate the efficacy of existing programs and strategies designed to reduce violence. However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive crime data across the United States, exacerbated by insufficient reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies.101
One way local leaders can address this gap and establish more informed community safety strategies is by enhancing local crime data collection. At a minimum, they should collect all nonfatal and fatal gunshot reports, crime gun trace data, and other relevant reports of criminal gun activity—including theft of firearms—broken down by firearm type, geographic and demographic information, and victim-perpetrator relationship. City leaders should also look to county hospitals to compile information on gunshot injuries, including victim characteristics, place of injury, hospitalization costs, victim-perpetrator relationships, and the intent of injury if available, which can provide valuable insights for response and prevention efforts depending on if the injury is unintentional, interpersonal, or self-harm. To strengthen coordination around violence reduction strategies, these data can then be shared on a daily basis with CVI programs, local OVPs, and other relevant stakeholders working to interrupt cycles of retaliation before they occur. Finally, to support these efforts, cities should look for funding opportunities through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop programs that track and report nonfatal gun injuries.102
Local leaders can also utilize these data to conduct comprehensive reviews of violence and tailor public health responses accordingly. For example, a Newark Public Safety Collaborative (NPSC) violent crime review found that in 2022, more than half of all gun violence in the city occurred within two blocks of a bodega.103 Subsequently, NPSC partnered with Newark’s Office of Violence Prevention and Trauma Recovery to bring fresh food and floodlights to bodegas in the city. One year following implementation, Newark experienced nearly a 10 percent decrease in gun violence.104 In Milwaukee, a citywide review of homicide and nonfatal shootings led by the Homicide Review Commission (MHRC) prompted a series of changes to prevent straw purchases, childhood exposure to violence, and efforts to revive the city’s witness protection program.105 This was hugely successful: Districts where the MHRC interventions were implemented experienced a 52 percent decrease in the monthly count of homicides, while districts where these efforts were not implemented experienced only a 9.2 percent decrease in homicides.106 Similar reviews in Oakland, California, and Philadelphia were integral to identifying missed opportunities for intervention and helped inform government-wide recommendations and public education campaigns.107
Data collection related to local community-based intervention efforts and other strategies designed to reduce violence is also essential to understanding what is and is not working to create community safety. By supporting data collection related to CVI programming and other public health services, cities can help secure future funding opportunities and empower affected communities to take the lead in creating community safety. Furthermore, making this information publicly available strengthens community engagement and promotes awareness of ongoing violence prevention efforts. The easiest way to enhance program data collection is to connect programs to a local office of violence prevention, which can help facilitate capacity building on the front end and prepare these organizations for a higher threshold of data collection and reporting.
Invest in programs to increase economic and youth opportunity
While gun violence affects every community, its burdens are not distributed equally. Within cities, gun violence is often highly concentrated in just a few neighborhoods marked by intense poverty and disconnected from employment opportunities, a condition fueled by decades of divestment and residential segregation.108 Gun violence then works to exacerbate and hold the inequalities of concentrated urban poverty in place, all while further burdening communities with trauma and loss. Thus, efforts to expand economic opportunities in affected communities can help create durable and stable living conditions and provide communities with the tools needed to thrive. When residents experience less financial stress and gain access job opportunities, they are less likely to fall into cycles of crime, making economic security crucial for achieving both immediate and lasting improvements to community safety.109
Within cities, gun violence is often highly concentrated in just a few neighborhoods marked by intense poverty and disconnected from employment opportunities, a condition fueled by decades of divestment and residential segregation.
Subsidized employment programs can be particularly impactful in preventing future violence among populations at high risk of experiencing or committing violence. These programs focus on connecting individuals to employment and job readiness opportunities alongside additional support services. For example, the Chicago Rapid Employment and Development Initiative110 combines cognitive behavioral interventions with access to job and economic opportunities and wraparound support services to directly engage individuals at the highest risk of experiencing violence and help them respond positively to stressors in their lives. In doing so, this program allows individuals to pave the way toward a future without violence and reduces cycles of harm in Chicago’s most affected communities. This has been hugely successful, reducing the likelihood of future shooting- or homicide-related arrests for some participants by 79 percent.111 This program also saved an estimated $3.50 to $17.70 for every dollar invested by reducing the various costs associated with responding to and investigating violent crime.112
79%
Reduced likelihood of future shooting- or homicide-related arrests for some participants in Chicago's Rapid Employment and Development Initiative
Expanding employment access for young people is also critical to achieving lasting reductions in youth-involved violence. Research indicates that subsidized youth summer job programs have a powerful impact on young people with the greatest risk of becoming involved in violence and reduce the rate of arrest and violence among all program participants.113 After establishing a summer jobs program for youth, Boston achieved a 35 percent reduction in violent crime and a 57 percent reduction in property crime among participants.114 Local leaders should look to leverage funding for subsidized youth employment programs through the city’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.115
By connecting communities to labor markets and providing support to individuals at the highest risk of violence involvement, city leaders can empower residents, reduce elevated rates of gun violence, and help address a number of public health and quality-of-life concerns, without exacerbating the harms of the criminal legal system.
Conclusion
Gun violence is preventable. Evidence-based solutions can address the root of violence, build safe and thriving communities, and create paths to healing, all while avoiding the harms of the past.116 Balancing crime reduction, violence prevention, and accountability strategies allows local leaders to build a genuine and lasting public safety ecosystem that empowers communities and reduces future crime at a lower financial and societal cost than the enforcement-only policies of the past. By investing in locally tailored, community-led, and prevention-oriented safety solutions, many cities across the country have already begun to build safer futures and achieved historic reductions in gun violence. While there are many more steps cities can take, the recommendations in this report provide local leaders with six key strategies capable of effectively combating firearm-related violence, addressing the conditions giving rise to crime, strengthening communities, and enhancing public safety without causing additional harm to vulnerable neighborhoods through displacement, neglect, or unnecessary punishment.