Gun violence



Gun violence sounds like a challenge that cries out for a police enforcement response. Police traditionally have used force, secured crime scenes, detained suspects, and protected themselves and others. But evidence shows that alternative holistic approaches – in collaboration or alignment with police – often can decrease gun violence more effectively than an enforcement-only strategy. Because of this, several jurisdictions have started to address violent crime utilizing models that resemble co-response and alternative response programs, although they typically don’t use that terminology. 

Top Takeaways

  • Although police play a vital role in reducing gun violence, others in the community must be involved to achieve effective, sustainable results. Reimagining public safety to address this challenge requires strategies that have legitimacy with at risk individuals, victims, and community stakeholders.
  • Police can’t – and shouldn’t be expected to – reduce gun violence on their own; a reimagined approach must go beyond law enforcement. Individuals and groups, including outreach workers, community members with relevant life experience, service providers, and others, must take on crucial roles in preventing and responding to gun violence.
  • Because the police will continue to be first responders to many gun violence incidents, a reimagined response must reflect the right policing priorities, including commitments to (at a minimum) constitutional policing and procedural justice. 
  • Effective strategies require evidence-informed methods, quality data, and solid analysis to identify and focus resources on the individuals and groups at the highest risk for involvement in gun violence. Programs and strategies must be evaluated continually.
  • Violence prevention staff (e.g., credible messengers, peer specialists) must be trusted within their communities and must be willing to partner with others as needed.
  • Resources and services, including employment opportunities, must be available promptly and sustainably for those at the most significant risk.
  • Efforts to confront other contributing factors to gun violence, such as environmental conditions and the lack of positive life opportunities, should be led by community-based organizations that understand the unique needs of individuals at-risk for gun violence.

Gun Violence is a Major Problem

Day-to-day gun violence is a significant problem in the United States. According to the FBI, 16,669 homicides occurred in 2019 and 21,570 in 2020 – a 30 percent increase in the murder rate and the most significant rise in more than a century.1 Although non-firearm homicides increased less than 10 percent from 2019 to 2020, gun homicides rose by 35 percent, the largest annual increase ever recorded. This alarming trend continued in 2021.2

Non-fatal shootings also are increasing. Figures for non-fatal shootings are not collected in a reliable and uniform fashion, but shooting injuries are estimated to occur more than twice as often as homicides.3 In many cases, the only difference between a fatal and non-fatal shooting is a matter of centimeters of the gunshot, or proximity to a trauma center.

Low-income communities of color disproportionately experience the impact of shootings and homicides. Interpersonal disputes and group violence, often exacerbated by social media, are linked to many of these shootings. Many incidents are part of an ongoing cycle of retaliation.4 Although whole communities can be impacted negatively by gun violence, only a few individuals typically are responsible for most gun crimes.5

The Traditional Approach is Insufficient and Often Harmful

The traditional response to gun violence has been an enforcement-focused approach, with both proactive and reactive elements. Stop-and-frisk, traffic stops, and similar interventions are utilized to get guns off streets before violence occurs. After an incident occurs, perpetrators are arrested and processed through the criminal justice system.

The proactive elements of this strategy come with huge collateral costs in the form of diminished community trust, racially-disparate interactions with police, and potential for conflict escalation.

The reactive, after-the-fact process of investigation, prosecution, and incarceration, while sometimes necessary, is insufficient. An arrest is made in only about half of homicide cases and only a quarter of non-fatal, injury shootings.6 If convicted and sentenced, most perpetrators have little to no access to rehabilitative programs in prison – and, if they are able to reenter the community following incarceration, are likely to find few housing and employment options. As a result, they are more likely to return to high-risk behavior. 

The seemingly intractable nature of gun violence in communities that rely solely on an enforcement-only response demonstrates that this approach is insufficient and ineffective.

Building a Foundation for Success

Before wading into the nuts and bolts of holistic approaches that address gun violence, it is important for jurisdictions to establish a foundation that can support and sustain the work.

Inclusive Collaboration and Dialogue  

Bringing the right people together – it seems like an obvious first step to gather all the relevant stakeholders, but that doesn’t always happen. Relevant stakeholders include community-based organizations, individuals and practitioners with lived experience, municipal agencies and departments, and law enforcement partners, all of whom must be willing to engage thoughtfully with one another around the shared goal of reducing gun violence. Stakeholders first and foremost must recognize that gun violence is a community problem, and not just an issue for the police. 

Participants must be willing to discuss important issues, such as: What is our goal? What will success look like? What types of collaboration do we need or want? How do our interests coincide or diverge? Who is missing at the table, and what will it take to involve them? What resources do we need? Collaborating across stakeholders to answer these questions ensures that everyone at the table shares the same vision for success. 

In community conversations about gun violence, there inevitably will be practical and philosophical disagreements, turf issues, and even a lack of trust. To succeed, stakeholders must respect that there is no single “right answer” and that different strategies can complement one other. They must be willing to ask themselves and each other continually, “Who are we in service of?” and, “Why are we doing this work?” 

Data Collection and Analysis

In order to assure resources are focused where they are needed, it is essential to gather good data about those at the highest risk for gun violence, and specific locations where most gun violence occurs. It is important that these data include both victims and perpetrators of violence.    

Without sound analysis, even the best data can be meaningless. It is critical to conduct a rigorous problem analysis that identifies the key drivers of the violence locally and establishes a shared, fact-based understanding of why violence is occurring in order to guide the work of stakeholders inside and outside government.  

Police analysts and others with relevant knowledge and experience (e.g., street outreach workers) should be able to complete such an analysis in a reasonable amount of time and at a minimal cost. In addition, local colleges and universities often have experienced professionals willing to partner in this work.

How Can We Think about Responding Differently to Gun Violence?

There are five questions to consider in thinking about suppressing gun violence:

  1. How can community stakeholders and the police work collaboratively? 
  2. How can those outside of law enforcement lead through non-traditional interventions?
  3. How can addressing environmental conditions make a difference? 
  4. How can we move further “upstream” to reduce the likelihood of violence? 
  5. How can the police be most effective, while doing the least harm?

Let’s look at each in turn.

1. Encouraging Community-Police Collaboration

Efforts to reduce gun violence are more successful when there is collaboration between police and community partners in programs like those described below.7 But these collaborations require trust-building, ongoing dialogue between police and community stakeholders, a commitment not to assume ill-intent when mistakes inevitably are made or bad things happen, mutual respect for partners’ subject matter expertise, and the resources needed to sustain the work. Unfortunately, when programs are deemed to have “failed” in some cities, it often is due to a lack of sustained commitment by one or more partners or a lack of resources rather than the program model. 

Here, we break down two distinct approaches that link community and police efforts to address gun violence. Person-focused approaches aim to address the individual factors that may contribute to a person’s likelihood to engage in violence; location-focused approaches zoom in on local geographic areas that witness the most violent crime, and then focus resources and action within them. 

Person-Focused Approach: Collaborative Focused Deterrence

Ceasefire and similar programs such as Gun/Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) and Community/Gun Violence Intervention (CVI/GVI) are collaborative focused deterrence approaches, which infuse strategies to reduce gun violence with community-based services that incentivize staying out of trouble. 

The most notable of these programs, launched by David Kennedy and others in Boston under the name Operation Ceasefire, became known as the ‘Boston Miracle.’8 The program is described in David Kennedy’s book, Don’t Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America, and has been replicated in cities such as New Orleans, Chicago, Oakland, and Stockton. 

Ceasefire and other similar models have four primary components:

  1. Data-driven identification of individuals and groups at a high risk of gun violence
  2. Direct and respectful communication with those at the highest risk
  3. Intensive services, support, and opportunities
  4. Enforcement as a last resort, with clear upfront messaging about the serious consequences of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment9

Focused deterrence begins with gathering data and conducting a risk assessment to identify the groups and individuals most at risk, both for shooting and being shot. After this, the strategy moves to engagement, expanding the circle of involved parties to include social service and outreach workers. This team functions as trusted messengers, interacting respectfully and offering direct services. Ideally, such messengers should have some level of lived experience in the relevant community. These relationships are most successful when individuals are not merely ‘interrupted’ from committing acts of violence but also are connected to services, the legitimate economy, and positive life choices through an ongoing personal relationship.

Balancing the “carrot” described above, is the “stick” of enforcement – arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment – communicated with clarity as the predictable and promised consequence of continued violence involvement. This blend of positive and negative interventions and messages creates a powerful incentive to refrain from violence.

Police remain an essential backstop, both to ensure the credibility of enforcement threats and because, even in a best-case scenario, some individuals will not respond to positive engagement.

When implemented with fidelity to the ideals described above, this model produces impressive results, particularly when programming is focused on a specific sub-group, such as youth. For example, the Boston Miracle resulted in a 63 percent reduction in youth homicide.11 Other cities have seen similar decreases; for example, Oakland, California, observed a 49 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal shootings over six years, including consecutive declines from 2012.12

In Los Angeles, the Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GYRD) program has reduced violent crime significantly, especially crime related to group violence.13 A descendant of the Boston model, GRYD is part of a large ecosystem of stakeholders, including the Mayor’s Office and LAPD, enabling it to leverage resources from multiple sources and establish trust and communication across potential dividing lines.

Location-Focused Approach: Place Network Investigations  

Place Network Investigations (PNI) focuses on geographic areas with persistent violence. Early research demonstrates that PNI can reduce gun crimes, strengthen communities, and reduce reliance on police resources.14

Recurring crime patterns, illicit markets, and violent hot spots suggest the presence of place-based social, organizational, and physical networks that facilitate criminal activity. PNI aims to disrupt and break down these networks through strategies that include:

  • Conducting an analysis that identifies places with disproportionate numbers of community requests for emergency assistance related to gun violence
  • Engaging the community through surveys, interviews, and focus groups to obtain a deeper and more granular qualitative understanding of patterns of criminal activity
  • Creating a PNI advisory board that engages community stakeholders, city departments, and police in strategic problem-solving
  • Championing of the PNI strategy by local leadership to ensure active participation and to hold board members accountable for the implementation of effective, ethical, and equitable crime interventions
  • Prioritizing the use of government, non-profit, and private-sector resources to prevent and eliminate harmful place-based dynamics
  • Focusing problem-solving to improve community health and resiliency in historically disenfranchised and vulnerable neighborhoods

2. Allowing Others to Lead the Way

In many communities, reimagined gun violence reduction programs increasingly rely on street outreach and violence interrupters and are less dependent on the police. This is not by accident. Because gun violence is hyper-local – often occurring among residents who know each other – it is essential that community partners with neighborhood credibility lead efforts to connect with at-risk individuals. 

There are many variations in the implementation of street outreach and violence interruption programs, so it is difficult to categorize them in a single way. But in broad terms, programs focused on reaching the few people at the highest risk of being victims or perpetrators of violence have shown encouraging results. In contrast, those that fail to focus on at-risk individuals, have limited social programming, or simply canvas neighborhoods looking to tamp down violence have minimal impact.15

Street Outreach & Interruption

Programs such as the Urban Peace Initiative in Los Angeles (which is involved with the previously mentioned Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) program), the Newark Community Street Team, and the Professional Community Intervention Training Institute are for the most part conducted independently of the police, with varying levels of communication and information-sharing with law enforcement.

Street outreach workers and violence interrupters seek to identify ongoing conflicts and reduce retaliatory violence before it occurs through constant community engagement and dialogue, education, and sporting events.16 In addition, these programs seek to sidestep entrenched debates regarding the causes of crime, and address street violence as a public health challenge.  

The evidence for the effectiveness of these models is incomplete, as they have not been tested thoroughly in a randomized setting.17 However, the available data are encouraging, with a reduction in violence ranging up to the high double digits in focused neighborhood settings.18 Surveys also indicate changes in neighborhood attitudes towards the use of violence, though more research is needed on the long-term duration of this effect.19

Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs  

Like the street outreach programs described above, Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs (HVIPs) view violence through a public health-centered lens.23 However, in contrast to street outreach workers who engage at-risk individuals in community contexts, HVIPs focus on victims of shootings while they receive hospital treatment. This strategy is based on the theory that it is a moment when individuals can be encouraged to make positive life changes.

Following hospital discharge, former patients typically are offered social support and community connections through caseworkers and intervention specialists to help them avoid returning to at-risk environments and situations.24 Additional supports include connections to life planning and counseling, employment services, mentoring, and education. Ideally, these services include family members and continue over an extended period.25

Although program results vary, some HVIP models are highly successful. For example, Caught in the Crossfire in Oakland cites a 70 percent reduction in re-arrest among participants.26 Baltimore’s Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program (VIP) cites similar numbers.27 HVIP programs also demonstrate significant financial savings, including reduced healthcare costs and criminal justice expenditures.28 

Spotlight from the Field: The Office of Neighborhood Safety in Richmond, California and Community Partnering 4 Peace in Chicago, Illinois 
Established in Richmond, CA in 2017, the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) identifies individuals at the highest risk and engages partner organizations to build individual and community relationships. ONS’ programming includes a high-touch, personalized fellowship, which provides life coaching, mentoring, connection to needed services, and cultural and educational excursions. In addition, ONS shares information on a minimal basis with the Richmond Police Department (RPD) through a staff liaison, enabling ONS to respond to shooting scenes and reach out to individuals involved in gun violence.
Following the creation of ONS, firearm-related homicides declined in Richmond by at least 50 percent.20 Some evidence indicates that among direct program participants, 77 percent have not been involved in further gun violence activity. However, other ongoing gun violence reduction efforts in Richmond also likely have contributed to this success.21 The model now has been exported to other partner cities, where early evidence is promising.22 
Chicago’s Community Partnering 4 Peace (CP4P) program operates on a ‘hyper-local’ level to implement street outreach programs, prevent violence, and reclaim safe spaces. Through CP4P, partner organizations work collaboratively to de-escalate tension among individuals at imminent risk of violence, deliver a mix of prevention services (e.g., case management, legal support, employment, trauma, mental health care, and substance use services) to other high-risk individuals, and provide safe spaces in the summer where residents can gather and build relationships. 

3. Addressing Environmental Conditions

When gun violence is examined through a public health lens, it becomes clear that the physical environment can impact the behavior of those caught up in such violence. In many high-crime neighborhoods, there are numerous blighted locations, including certain parks, vacant lots, and transit stations where gun violence is especially prevalent. Police data can validate the occurrence of crime in these areas, but usually they are well known to neighborhood residents. Blight abatement, often achievable at low cost, is one of several ways to modify the physical environment and drive down gun violence. 

Blight Abatement 

Widespread blight on vacant urban land creates potentially risky environmental conditions, especially in low-income neighborhoods.29 The restoration of vacant urban land can reduce gun crime significantly and can be done at low cost using interventions such as:

  • Cleaning and greening of vacant lots by removing trash and debris
  • Grading the land and planting new grass 
  • Planting a small number of trees to create a park-like setting
  • Installing low wooden perimeter fences, including multiple ungated openings, to encourage entry and use of newly greened lots 
  • Regularly maintaining newly treated lots

One 2018 randomized controlled trial of over 500 vacant properties found that lots that received beautification services – debris cleaning, regular maintenance, and installation of grass, trees, and low fences with multiple entry points to encourage resident use – reduced gun violence by 29 percent, burglaries by 21 percent, and general nuisances by 30 percent in the surrounding area.30 Residents also reported significant reductions in the perception of crime and fear of being outside. 

These various forms of blight abatement can be completed quickly with community support, and ultimately help residents reclaim these spaces for community use.

4. Moving Upstream: Tackling Root Causes of Violence

Many of those caught up in gun violence are formerly incarcerated and/or experience poverty, lack of employment, and minimal access to legitimate employment opportunities. Breaking these cycles is difficult, if not impossible, unless high-risk individuals receive necessary therapeutic interventions and are supported in meeting their critical needs. An increasing number of initiatives aim to address this connection between socio-economic circumstances and violence reduction by assisting with basic needs, incentivizing program participation, and providing no-cost wrap-around services to those who most benefit from them. 

Providing Essential Resources

Only a small percentage of individuals account for the majority of shootings, and they disproportionately experience poverty, lack of education, or limited access to the legal job market. In countless programs across the country, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), employment, and housing currently are being tested as practical and cost-effective means of reducing violence when timed and combined appropriately.31 

CBT is an evidence-based intervention often used to support formerly incarcerated individuals and other at-risk groups. Therapists, mental health counselors, and other similar professionals conduct talk therapy with clients, encouraging them to connect their negative behavior patterns with negative thinking. The belief here is that, if individuals can change how they think and cope with life’s challenges in a positive manner, then they may be able to change resulting negative behavior (e.g., substance use, participating in crime, etc.). 

According to the University of Chicago Crime Lab, combining CBT with legitimate employment opportunities produces encouraging results for individuals previously engaged in violence.32 In one study, researchers found that “an eight-week CBT program for criminally-engaged adults, paired with a cash grant, dramatically reduced violence among the study population, with lasting effects.”

Meanwhile, “research…in Chicago found that the city’s summer youth employment program reduced violent-crime arrests rates by nearly 50 percent among participants, with effects long after the summer job ended.”33 These programs may, if scaled, reduce shootings in cities across the United States and make a strong argument for resource allocation beyond law enforcement alone.34 

Spotlight from the Field: Rapid Employment and Development Initiative35  and CRED36 in Chicago, Illinois
In Chicago, the Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI) is a collaborative model that provides program participants with cognitive behavioral interventions (such as CBT), paid transitional jobs, and wrap-around support services – all structured to offer tangible, accessible pathways to stable employment. By working through six local community-based organizations, READI bolsters local infrastructure for violence reduction work. READI also has partnered with the University of Chicago Crime Lab to continuously evaluate its efficacy in the community.
Most of Chicago’s CRED’s programming (as in “credible”) – which utilizes in-house resources and an extensive network of collaborative partners – supports young and adult men residing in communities most affected by violence through four core programs: street outreach, coaching and counseling, workforce development, and advocacy and prevention.

5. Maximizing Police Effectiveness

The traditional police response to gun violence is centered on enforcement, utilizing strategies such as pretextual traffic stops to take guns away from would-be perpetrators of crime. Following an encounter, individuals typically are arrested, incarcerated, and moved through the criminal legal system. It is no secret that these approaches’ collateral consequences can produce significant harm, including racial discrimination and trauma, the erosion community trust, and failure to contribute to sustained reductions in violent crime. 

Although an exclusive reliance on specialized police units and equipment is unlikely to achieve desired declines, police still play an essential role in addressing gun violence. ‘Violent crime’ typically is on the top of most residents’ minds when asked of the types of issues police are best equipped to respond, indicating a broad desire for officers to focus on this particular community problem. 

And so, the question is how might the value and efficacy of police activity and presence be maximized? Here, we discuss how collaboration, engagement, and careful attention to community-guided priorities can do just that. 

Align police incentives with best practices and community need

Agency priorities are reflected in how officers are trained, evaluated, recognized, rewarded, and promoted, and these practices create an incentive structure for law enforcement professionals.37  When it comes to confronting gun violence, many police agencies explicitly or implicitly reward officers for making the most arrests – thereby signaling that arrests are the tool of choice. 

A successfully reimagined role for the police depends on officers being encouraged and rewarded for a much broader spectrum of community engagement and violence prevention activities, especially collaboration with other city agencies, community organizations, and neighborhood residents.

Similarly, senior leaders within police departments must provide officers time to do more than respond to 911 calls. This includes opportunities to mentor, teach, and engage in recreational activities with young people in areas with high levels of gun violence, as well as building relationships with family members who play a critical role in the lives of those caught up in cycles of violence.     

Expect officers to utilize procedural justice

By using procedural justice in their interactions with community members, police officers can improve relationships, build trust, and strengthen their effectiveness in preventing and solving gun crimes.38 

Procedural justice is not complex and ideally should be utilized within a police agency as well as in the community. In order to be effective, each component listed below requires training and practice: 

Respectful listening

  • Answering questions and connecting people with resources
  • Treating people fairly, regardless of the basis for the interaction
  • Following up on concerns and helping to solve problems whenever possible39   
Focus policing on hot spots

When combined with procedural justice training, as well as situational and problem-oriented policing strategies, hot spot policing can reduce gun and other crimes not only in hot spots, but possibly in larger areas.40 Such programs involve intermittently patrolling micro-hot spots (street segments or blocks) for 10 - 16 minutes at least every two hours, and is not to be confused with the use of street teams that engage in stop and frisk enforcement. Increasing visibility and positive community engagement within hot spots can also enhance community trust and legitimacy.

However, when not operated in accordance with the above stated principles, hot spot policing can lead to dangerous interactions. This was demonstrated in the killing of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the Memphis Police Department’s Street Crimes Operation to Restore Peace In Our Neighborhood (S.C.O.R.P.I.O.N.) Unit, which was described by residents as an intimidating and even violent presence in the neighborhood.41 

Initial reporting on the unit revealed that it did not follow hot spot policing practices, and instead relied on a number of troubling practices, including utilizing unmarked cars (which prevent officers from being visible and present within a hot spot), engaging in pretextual stops and negative interactions with residents over non-violent crime, and using outcome measures to evaluate police such as  the amount of cash seized and number of arrests.

Coordinate with prosecutors to address group violence

Police and prosecutors often work together to disrupt gun violence by coordinating efforts on at-risk groups. For example, coordinated prosecution strategies at 73 public housing communities in New York City from 2011 to 2018 reduced gun violence by about one-third.42 This decrease in shootings was sustained for approximately 18 months without increased enforcement or displacement of gun violence to surrounding areas.  

Coordinated prosecutions of group violence are superior to traditional reactive enforcement models, but the benefits are often temporary and come with counter-balancing concerns. Such concerns include actual or perceived procedural failures during prosecution that contribute to mistrust of law enforcement. In addition, sentencing individuals to lengthy prison terms is not a long-term solution to gun violence and may have negative collateral consequences for communities and individuals.

Focused deterrence through risk analysis

Although the collaborative and service-supported focused deterrence programs described above are more effective, focused deterrence also can be a useful strategy even when law enforcement operates on its own. A police-centered focused deterrence program typically involves ongoing assessment of the groups, individuals, places, and risk factors that drive most gun violence.43 ‘Shooting reviews,’ or studies of recent shootings provide a critical context in assessing the dynamics of who shot whom and why. Following these analyses, police and other law enforcement partners meet proactively with at-risk individuals and groups, and then focus enforcement efforts on the small number of individuals judged to be the highest risk.


Although police have an essential role in addressing gun violence, a holistic police-plus strategy that also utilizes non-police responders, wrap-around services, and proactive interventions is both more effective than a police-only model and carries a much lower risk of collateral harms. By learning from and adopting best practices with a proven, evidence-based positive impact, municipalities can begin to reduce the toll of gun violence, especially in vulnerable communities, while also building trust between law enforcement and the people it serves.


 1 Gramlich, J. (2021). What we know about the increase in US murders in 2020. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

2  Kegler, S.R., Simon, T.R., Zwald, M.L., et al. (2022). Changes in firearm homicide and suicide rates. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 71, 656-663. Retrieved from

3  Kaufman, E. J., Wiebe, D. J., Xiong, R. A., Morrison, C. N., Seamon, M. J., & Delgado, M. K. (2021). Epidemiologic trends in fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries in the US, 2009-2017. JAMA internal medicine, 181(2), 237-244.

4  Cardos, N. (2019). What Social Media Posts Can Tell Us about Gang Violence. WTTW News. Retrieved from

5  Gathright, J. (2022). A majority of D.C.’s gun violence is driven by a small number of people, study says. Retrieved from

6  Eischens, R. (2021). If you shoot someone, you’ll probably get away with it. Minnesota Reformer. Retrieved from; Li, W., & Lartey, J. (2022). As Murders Spiked, Police Solved About Half in 2020. The Marshall Project. Retrieved from

7  Collaboration between residents and police can reduce gun violence. But trust is crucial. (n.d.). Public Source. Retrieved from

8  Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Don't shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

9  Effective community-based violence reduction strategies. (2020). In National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.

10  Braga, A. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2018). Oakland Ceasefire Evaluation.; von Ulmenstein, S. & Sultan, B. (2011). Four case studies of swift and meaningful law enforcement responses. In COPS.

11  Kennedy, D.M., Braga, A. A., et al. (2001). Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire. Retrieved from

12  McLively, M., Nieto, B. (2019). A Case Study In Hope: Lessons From Oakland’s Remarkable Reduction In Gun Violence. Retrieved from

13  Mayor’s Office Gang Reduction & Youth Development. (n.d.). Retrieved from

14  Herold, T.D., Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., Clouse, S.L. (2020). Place Network Investigations in Las Vegas, Nevada: Program Review and Process Evaluation. Retrieved from

15  National Network for Safe Communities. (2020). Considering the place of streetwork. In Retrieved from

16  Mayor’s Office Gang Reduction & Youth Development. (n.d.). Retrieved from; National Network for Safe Communities. (2020). Considering the place of streetwork. In Retrieved from

17  Cure Violence Global. (2019). 10 things you really need to know about violence. In Retrieved from ; Mission & Comprehensive Strategy | Mayor’s Office Gang Reduction & Youth Development. (n.d.). Retrieved from

18  The Effects of Cure Violence in the South Bronx and East New York, Brooklyn. (2022). — John Jay College’s Research and Evaluation Center. Retrieved from

19  Delgado, S., Blount-Hill, K., Mandala, M., & Butts, J. (2021). Perceptions of Violence: Surveying Young Males in New York City. — John Jay College’s Research and Evaluation Center. Retrieved from

20  Wolf, A.M., Del Prado Lippman, A., Glesmann, C., Castro, E. (2015). Process Evaluation for the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Retrieved from

21  Peace, A. (2020). The Solution. Advance Peace. Retrieved from

22  Peace, A. (2022). Learning Evaluation Impact. Advance Peace. Retrieved from

23 Fatal Injury and Violence Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC. (n.d.). Retrieved from; Slutkin, G., Ransford, C., & Decker, R. B. (2015).; Cure violence: Treating violence as a contagious disease. Envisioning criminology: Researchers on research as a process of discovery, 43-56.

24  Diez Roux, A. V., & Mair, C. (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Annals of the New York academy of sciences, 1186(1), 125-145.

25 Caught in the Crossfire (Oakland). (n.d.). National Gang Center. Retrieved from

26  Ibid.

27  Cooper, C., Eslinger, D. M., & Stolley, P. D. (2006). Hospital-based violence intervention programs work. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 61(3), 534-540. 

28  Purtle, J., Rich, L. J., Bloom, S. L., Rich, J. A., & Corbin, T. J. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis simulation of a hospital-based violence intervention program. American journal of preventive medicine, 48(2), 162-169.

29  Branas, C. C., South, E., Kondo, M. C., Hohl, B. C., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D. J., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(12), 2946-2951.

30  Ibid.

31  Blattman, C., Chaskel, S., Jamison, J., Sheridan, M. (2022) Working Paper: Cognitive Behavior Therapy Reduces Crime and Violence over 10 Years: Experimental Evidence. Retrieved from

32  Peters, M. (2016). Intervention dramatically lowers violent crime arrests for at-risk teens. UChicago News. Retrieved from

33  Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C., & Sheridan, M. (2017). Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia. American Economic Review, 107(4), 1165-1206.; Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth. Science, 346(6214), 1219-1223.

34  Heller, S. B. (2014). Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth. Science, 346(6214), 1219-1223.

35  Office of Civic Engagement. (2021). Innovative READI Chicago initiative brings hope amid heartbreak of gun violence. University of Chicago News. Retrieved from

36  Our Goal. (n.d.). Retrieved from

37  Council on Criminal Justice, Task Force on Policing. (2021). The Path to Progress: Five Priorities for Police Reform. Retrieved from

38  Berkman, J. (2022). What are the Core Principles of Procedural Justice? ShotSpotter.

39  The Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School. (2018). Principles of Procedurally Just Policing. Retrieved from

40  National Institute of Justice, Crime Solutions. (2013). Practice Profile: Hot Spot Policing. Retrieved from 

41  Eder, S., Rosenberg, M., Goldstein, J., Baker, M., Bracken, K., Walker, M. (March 1, 2023). Muscle Cars, Balaclavas, and Fists: How the Scorpions Rolled Through Memphis. The New York Times. 

42  Chalfin, A., LaForest, M., & Kaplan, J. (2021). Can precision policing reduce gun violence? evidence from “gang takedowns” in New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(4), 1047-1082. 

43  Focused Deterrence Strategies. (2020). The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP). Retrieved from