Center for American Progress

6 Ways Cities and Counties Can Reduce Gun Violence
Report

6 Ways Cities and Counties Can Reduce Gun Violence

Cities and counties across the country are taking meaningful steps toward reducing gun violence by implementing a set of accountability and prevention strategies capable of healing communities while breaking cycles of violence.

In this article
A row of houses is seen from above in Northern Baltimore, Maryland.
A row of houses is seen from above in Northern Baltimore, Maryland. (Getty/Joseph Sohm)

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.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

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:

  1. Community-based violence interruption
  2. Improved accountability for serious crime
  3. Increased support for crime survivors
  4. Investments in neglected neighborhoods
  5. Enhanced data collection and sharing
  6. 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.

Endnotes

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Firearm Violence in America,” June 25, 2024,  available at https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/firearm-violence/index.html.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Shannon Schumacher and others, “Americans’ Experiences With Gun-Related Violence, Injuries, And Deaths,” KFF, April 11, 2023, available at https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/americans-experiences-with-gun-related-violence-injuries-and-deaths/.
  5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/firearm-violence-advisory.pdf.
  6. Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, “National Survey of Gun Policy (2023),” July 21, 2023, available at https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/americans-agree-on-effective-gun-policy-more-than-were-led-to-believe.
  7. Mike Spies, “The NRA’s Straight-A Students,” The Trace, November 4, 2016, available at https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/nra-gun-record-rating-system-straight-a-students/; NRA-PVF, “Grades and Endorsements,” available at https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ (last accessed October 2024).
  8. Giffords Law Center, “Preemption of Local Laws,” available at https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/preemption-of-local-laws/ (last accessed October 2024).
  9. Jennifer Mascia and Chip Brownlee, “In Much of the Country, Cities Can’t Enact Their Own Gun Laws,” The Trace, December 8, 2018, updated on August 23, 2023, available at https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/preemption-nra-local-gun-laws/.
  10. Giffords Law Center, “Preemption of Local Laws.”
  11. Ibid.
  12. Vera Institute of Justice, “Redefining Public Safety Initiative,” available at https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration/criminalization-racial-disparities/public-safety/redefining-public-safety-initiative (last accessed October 2024); Howard Henderson and Denise Brown, “Preventing gun violence takes more than police,” Brookings Institution, March 31, 2022, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/preventing-gun-violence-takes-more-than-police/.
  13. Greg Rosalsky, “When You Add More Police To A City, What Happens?” NPR, April 20, 2021, available at https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens; Henderson and Brown, “Preventing gun violence takes more than police.”
  14. Akua Amaning, “The American Rescue Plan Has Helped State and Local Governments Invest in Community Safety” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2022), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-american-rescue-plan-has-helped-state-and-local-governments-invest-in-community-safety/.
  15. Chandler Hall, “Early 2024 Data Show Promising Signs of Another Historic Decline in Gun Violence,” Center for American Progress, June 11, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/early-2024-data-show-promising-signs-of-another-historic-decline-in-gun-violence/.
  16. AH Datalytics, “YTD Murder Comparison,” available at https://www.ahdatalytics.com/dashboards/ytd-murder-comparison/ (last accessed October 2024).
  17. Hall, “2024 Sees Smallest Summer Surge in Gun Violence Rates in 6 Years.”
  18. National Offices of Violence Prevention Network, “2024 Annual Report” (Oakland, CA: 2024), available at https://ovpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NOVPN-FY24-Annual-Report.pdf.
  19. National Offices of Violence Prevention Network, “National Offices of Violence Prevention Network Landscape Scan” (Oakland, CA: 2023), available at https://ovpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OVP-Report_V15_90823.pdf; Rachael Eisenberg, David Muhammad, and DeVone Boggan, “The Role of Civilian Offices of Violence Prevention in Helping Communities Stem Gun Violence,” Center for American Progress, May 10, 2022, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-role-of-civilian-offices-of-violence-prevention-in-helping-communities-stem-gun-violence/.
  20. Lindsey McLendon, Rachael Eisenberg, and Nick Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2024), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improving-public-safety-through-better-accountability-and-prevention/.
  21. Ibid.
  22. Eisenberg, Muhammad, and Boggan, “The Role of Civilian Offices of Violence Prevention in Helping Communities Stem Gun Violence.”
  23. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”
  24. Jason Tan de Bibiana and others, “Coordinating Safety: Building and Sustaining Offices of Violence Prevention and Neighborhood Safety” (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023), available at https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/Coordinating-Safety-Summary-of-Recommendations.pdf.
  25. Eisenberg, Muhammad, and Boggan, “The Role of Civilian Offices of Violence Prevention in Helping Communities Stem Gun Violence.”
  26. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention”; Jackson Beck, Aaron Belfort, and Jason Bibiana, “Civilian Crisis Response,” Vera Institute of Justice, April 2022, available at https://www.vera.org/civilian-crisis-response-toolkit.
  27. Betsy Pearl, “Beyond Policing: Investing in Offices of Neighborhood Safety” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2020), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/beyond-policing-investing-offices-neighborhood-safety/.
  28. Jason Tan de Bibiana and others, “Coordinating Safety.”
  29. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”
  30. Giffords Law Center, “Community Violence,” available at https://giffords.org/issues/community-violence/ (last accessed October 2024).
  31. Chandler Hall, Nick Wilson, and Arnitta Holliman, “Debunking CVI Myths: Frontline Workers Are Not Professionals,” Center for American Progress, December 21, 2023, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-cvi-myths-frontline-workers-are-not-professionals/.
  32. Nazish Dholakia and Daniela Gilbert, “Community Violence Intervention Programs, Explained,” Vera Institute of Justice, September 1, 2021, available at https://www.vera.org/community-violence-intervention-programs-explained.
  33. Center for American Progress Criminal Justice Reform Team, “Frequently Asked Questions About Community-Based Violence Intervention Programs,” June 3, 2022, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-community-based-violence-intervention-programs/.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Ibid.
  36. Nick Wilson and Chandler Hall, “Community Violence Intervention: Susan Lee and Chicago CRED,” Center for American Progress, February 1, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-violence-intervention-susan-lee-and-chicago-cred/.
  37. Stephanie Kulke, “Chicago community violence intervention program shown to reduce gun violence,” Northwestern Now, November 6, 2023, available at https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/11/chicago-community-violence-intervention-program-shown-to-reduce-gun-violence/.
  38. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”
  39. Everytown for Gun Safety, “The Economic Cost of Gun Violence” (New York: 2022), available at https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/.
  40. Dennis Nealon, “The Business Case For Reducing Gun Violence,” Harvard Medical School, September 27, 2022, available at https://hms.harvard.edu/news/business-case-reducing-gun-violence.
  41. Center for American Progress Criminal Justice Reform Team, “Frequently Asked Questions About Community-Based Violence Intervention Programs.”
  42. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Funding and Awards: Advance Peace National Peacemakers Network,” available at https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/awards/15pbja-23-gg-05210-cvip (last accessed October 2024).
  43. The White House, “Federal Resources Available to Address Community Violence,” May 2024, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CVI-Funding-Resources.pdf.
  44. Appropriations Committee Democrats, “Republicans Defund Law Enforcement, Hurt Communities, Advantage Tax Cheats in 2024 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Funding Bill,” Press release, July 13, 2023, available at https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/republicans-defund-law-enforcement-hurt-communities-advantage-tax-cheats-in-2024; U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, “Community Violence Intervention,” available at https://www.ojp.gov/topics/community-violence-intervention#what-is-community-violence-intervention (last accessed October 2024).
  45. Maryland OneStop, “FY23 CSW-Crime and Violence Prevention and Intervention Details,” May 29, 2024, available at https://onestop.md.gov/forms/fy23-csw-crime-and-violence-prevention-and-intervention-632b22023041130001387986.
  46. California Board of State and Community Corrections, “California Violence Intervention & Prevention Grant – CalVIP,” available at https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_cpgpcalvipgrant/ (last accessed October 2024).
  47. City of Chicago, “People’s Plan for Community Safety,” available at https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/community-safety/home/PeoplesPlanforCommunitySafety.html (last accessed October 2024).
  48. City of Milwaukee, “Blueprint for Peace” (Milwaukee: 2024), available at https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/healthAuthors/OVP/Reports/20171117OVP-Report-MKEBlueprintforPeace-Low-Res.pdf.
  49. City of Milwaukee, “414 Life Blueprint,” available at https://city.milwaukee.gov/414Life/Blueprint (last accessed October 2024).
  50. Elliot Hughes, “With homicides, shootings at historic levels in Milwaukee, collaborative effort tackles root causes of violence,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 6, 2022, available at https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/09/06/milwaukee-gun-violence-response-team-works-prevent-shootings/10307207002/.
  51. Milwaukee Health Care Partnership, “Health System Violence Intervention Programs Yield Promising Results,” July 3, 2023, available at https://mkehcp.org/community-health/health-system-violence-intervention-programs-yield-promising-results/.
  52. City of Baltimore, “Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan: Biennial Update” (Baltimore: 2024), available at https://www.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/cvpp-update-0509.pdf.
  53. City of Newark, “Newark Office of Violence Prevention & Trauma Recovery: Strategic Plan,” available at https://www.newarknj.gov/departments/ovptr (last accessed October 2024); Andres Rengifo and Lorena Avila, “The Future of Public Safety: Exploring the Power & Possibility of Newark’s Reimagined Public Safety Ecosystem” (Newark, NJ: 2022), available at https://newarksafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TheFutureOfPublicSafety.pdf.
  54. City of Newark, “Mayor Baraka Unveiled Office of Violence Prevention and Trauma Recovery Strategic Plan as Part of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week,” April 26, 2023, available at https://www.newarknj.gov/news/mayor-baraka-unveiled-office-of-violence-prevention-and-trauma-recovery-strategic-plan-as-part-of-national-crime-victims-rights-week.
  55. Andrew Dawson, “Police Legitimacy and Homicide: A Macro-Comparative Analysis,” Social Forces 97 (2)(2018): 841–866, available at https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/97/2/841/5002998?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false.
  56. Rod K. Brunson and Brian A. Wade, “‘Oh hell no, we don’t talk to police’: Insights on the lack of cooperation in police investigations of urban gun violence,” Criminology & Public Policy (2019):1–26, available at https://nicjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NYC-Study-2019.pdf.
  57. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”
  58. Elise Schmelzer, “Denver police solved less than half of all nonfatal shootings last year. A new solution is showing promise.”, The Denver Post, November 13, 2020, available at https://www.denverpost.com/2020/11/13/nonfatal-shootings-denver/.
  59. Ibid.
  60. Jeff Asher and Ben Horwitz, “How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?”, The New York Times, June 19, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time-violent-crime.html.
  61. Jessica Anderson, “Baltimore police look to be among first law enforcement agencies to hire civilian investigators,” The Washington Post, April 17, 2022, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/baltimore-police-look-to-be-among-first-law-enforcement-agencies-to-hire-civilian-investigators/2022/04/17/885b5f62-bd09-11ec-8c09-e73af7e12d67_story.html.
  62. Jeff Asher, “Is Crime Underreporting Getting Worse?”, Jeff-alytics, December 18, 2023, available at https://jasher.substack.com/p/is-crime-underreporting-getting-worse.
  63. Amos Irwin and Rachael Eisenberg, “Dispatching Community Responders to 911 Calls” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2023), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/dispatching-community-responders-to-911-calls/
  64. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Reducing Law Enforcement Violence and Building Trust: Q&A on a Report on Gun Laws in Baltimore,” June 10, 2020, available at https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2020/reducing-law-enforcement-violence-and-building-trust-q-and-a-on-a-report-on-gun-laws-in-baltimore.
  65. Kate Harris and others, “The Road to Driving Equality: A Blueprint for Cities to Reduce Traffic Stops,” NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Quorum, 2023, available at https://nyujlpp.org/quorum/harris-the-road-to-driving-equality/.
  66. Libor Jany and Ben Poston, “Minor police encounters plummet after LAPD put limits on stopping drivers and pedestrians,” The Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2022, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-14/minor-traffic-stops-plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change; City of Los Angeles, “City of Los Angeles Alternatives to Traffic Enforcement Study and Community Task Force Recommendations” (Los Angeles: 2023), available at https://ens.lacity.org/ladot/enforce_reports/ladotenforce_reports3669174285_09142023.pdf.
  67. University of Cincinnati Center for Police Research and Policy, “Assessing the Impact of Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): A Review of Research” (Cincinnati, OH: 2021), available at https://www.informedpoliceresponses.com/_files/ugd/313296_3fe253651ac5403bb85d85550a9149fc.pdf.
  68. Ibid.
  69. Center for American Progress Criminal Justice Reform Team, “Frequently Asked Questions About Community-Based Violence Intervention Programs.”
  70. Ibid.
  71. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”
  72. Dakin Andone and Emma Tucker, “‘This is not luck. This is a systemic approach’: These major US cities are trying to curb violent crime — and it’s working,” CNN, September 29, 2024, available at https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/29/us/us-violent-crime-rates-down-dg/index.html.
  73. Ibid.
  74. University of Chicago Crime Lab, “Reducing Crime Through Environmental Design,” available at https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/projects/nyc-street-lighting-reducing-crime-through-environmental-design/ (last accessed October 2024); Aaron Chalfin and others, “Reducing Crime Through Environmental Design: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment of Street Lighting in New York City,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 38 (2022): 127–157, available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-020-09490-6.
  75. Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, “Community Violence Intervention,” available at https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/community-violence-intervention (last accessed October 2024).
  76. Hanna Love, “Want to reduce violence? Invest in place.”, Brookings Institution, November 16, 2021, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/want-to-reduce-violence-invest-in-place/.
  77. Ibid.
  78. Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, “Community Violence Intervention.”
  79. National Resource and Technical Assistance Center for Improving Law Enforcement Investigations, “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in American Cities” (Washington: 2016), available at https://centerforimprovinginvestigations.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/StrategiesReducingGunViolenceAmericanCities_2016.pdf.
  80. Ibid.
  81. Kelsey Geesler, “Abandoned house repairs reduced nearby gun violence,” Penn Today, December 5, 2022, available at https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/Penn-Columbia-research-abandoned-house-repairs-reduced-nearby-gun-violence.
  82. Eugenia C. South, John MacDonald, and Vincent Reina, “Association Between Structural Housing Repairs for Low-Income Homeowners and Neighborhood Crime,” JAMA Network Open 4 (7) (2021), available at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2782142.
  83. Love, “Want to reduce violence? Invest in place.”
  84. Ibid.
  85. Sam Washington, Hanna Love, and Thea Sebastian, “The infrastructure law’s untapped potential for promoting community safety,” Brookings Institution, March 29, 2022, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-infrastructure-laws-untapped-potential-for-promoting-community-safety/; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “CDBG-CV Community Violence Intervention Quick Guide,” available at https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CDBG-CV-Community-Violence-Intervention-Quick-Guide.pdf (last accessed October 2024).
  86. Akua Amaning, “The American Rescue Plan Has Helped State and Local Governments Invest in Community Safety” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2022), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-american-rescue-plan-has-helped-state-and-local-governments-invest-in-community-safety/.
  87. National Association of Counties, “Counties and the American Rescue Plan Act Recovery Fund: Behavioral Health,” February 28, 2022, available at https://www.naco.org/resources/featured/arpa/behavioral-health.
  88. Elizabeth Van Brocklin, “The Wounds You Can’t See: Four Women on the Lasting Trauma of Gun Violence,” The Trace, May 22, 2018, available at https://www.thetrace.org/2018/05/gun-violence-survivors-trauma/.
  89. ScienceDaily, “Gunshot survivors in high-crime community face elevated risk of early death, study shows,” November 18, 2015, available at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118181259.htm.
  90. Alicia Boccellari, “Trauma Recovery Centers: Addressing the Needs of Underserved Crime Survivors” (National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers, 2020), available at https://allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TRAUMA-RECOVERY-CENTERSAddressing-the-Needs-of-Underserved-Crime-Survivors.pdf.
  91. Ibid.
  92. Ibid.
  93. Ibid.
  94. Ibid.
  95. Ibid.
  96. Ibid.
  97. Ibid.
  98. Alliance for Safety and Justice, “Toward Shared Safety: The First-Ever National Survey of America’s Safety Gaps” (Oakland, CA: 2020), available at https://allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/NatlSafetyGaps-Report-PREVIEW-20200908-1751.pdf.
  99. Alliance for Safety and Justice, “Healing from Harm: Expanding Access to Victim Compensation” (Oakland, CA: 2023), available at https://allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ASJ-VICTCOMPADDEND23F2.pdf.
  100. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention”; Weihua Li and Jasmyne Ricard, “4 Reasons We Should Worry About Missing Crime Data,” The Marshall Project, July 13, 2023, available at https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/07/13/fbi-crime-rates-data-gap-nibrs.
  101. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Funded Programs and Activities,” May 16, 2024, available at https://www.cdc.gov/injury-violence-prevention/programs/funded-programs.html.
  102. National Offices of Violence Prevention Network, “2024 Annual Report.”
  103. Ibid.
  104. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Bloomberg American Health Initiative, “Violence Reduction Councils: A Community Approach to Saving Lives” (Baltimore: 2024), available at https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-07/Violence-Reduction-Council-Toolkit-2024.pdf.
  105. Ibid.
  106. Mike McLively and Brittany Nieto, “A Case Study In Hope Lessons From Oakland’s Remarkable Reduction In Gun Violence” (Washington: Giffords Law Center, 2019), available at https://perma.cc/V4CW-99DF; Philadelphia City Council, “100 Shooting Review Committee Report” (Philadelphia: 2022), available at https://phlcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/100-Shooting-Review-complete.pdf.
  107. DW Rowlands and Hanna Love, “Mapping gun violence: A closer look at the intersection between place and gun homicides in four cities,” Brookings Institution, April 21, 2022, available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mapping-gun-violence-a-closer-look-at-the-intersection-between-place-and-gun-homicides-in-four-cities/.
  108. Steven Raphael and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime,” The Journal of Law & Economics 44 (1) (2001): 259–283, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320275?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
  109. Center for American Progress Criminal Justice Reform Team, “Frequently Asked Questions About Community-Based Violence Intervention Programs.”
  110. National League of Cities, “Chicago, IL: Community Violence Intervention,” June 25, 2024, available at https://www.nlc.org/resource/reimagining-public-safety-impact-updates/chicago-il-community-violence-intervention/.
  111. Ibid.
  112. Sara Heller, Harold Pollack, and Johnathan M.V. Davis, “The Effects of Summer Jobs on Youth Violence” (Washington: Office of Justice Programs, 2017), available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251101.pdf.
  113. Betsy Pearl and Ed Chung, “Resisting ‘Tough on Crime’: Smarter Ways to Keep American Cities Safe,” Center for American Progress, February 1, 2018, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/resisting-tough-crime-smarter-ways-keep-american-cities-safe/.
  114. Kyle Ross, “Congress Must Bolster Youth Employment Programs To Secure America’s Economic Future” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2023), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/congress-must-bolster-youth-employment-programs-to-secure-americas-economic-future/.
  115. McLendon, Eisenberg, and Wilson, “Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention.”

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Author

Allison Jordan

Policy Analyst, Gun Violence Prevention

Team

Gun Violence Prevention

Our goal is to reduce gun violence by enacting strong gun laws, increasing investment in local solutions, and growing the movement dedicated to this mission.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.