Skip to main content Skip to footer
← Back to Community Violence Intervention
Card 04

What Calls Does This Handle?

CVI does not handle calls. The distinction matters — mobile crisis teams respond when someone dials 911. CVI workers are already in the community before any incident occurs. What follows is how programs across documented cities describe the populations they serve, the violence dynamics they address, and what falls outside their scope.

The Primary Population: Highest-Risk Individuals

Every documented CVI program begins with a targeting question and converges on a consistent answer.

Orlando’s Advance Peace focuses on what program worker Raysean Brown described to WESH as “the guys that are committing the gun violence or most likely to be the victim.” Aurora’s SAVE program identifies what Division Chief Mark Hildebrand described as “specific social groups of kids in the highest risk.” In Chicago, CRED operates in fifteen neighborhoods that account for roughly half of the city’s gun violence, per the Chicago Tribune. The SC2 initiative reports that CRED currently reaches about 15% of the people assessed as highest-risk, with a goal of 75%.

Programs use multiple identification methods. Street intelligence — credible messengers who live in the targeted neighborhoods and know the people, networks, and conflicts firsthand — is the method practitioners describe as primary. Social media monitoring tracks disputes as they develop online. Hospital notifications flag shooting victims at risk of retaliation. Police data sharing provides incident information, though as the 2023 ProPublica investigation documented, accepting police data creates the risk that CVI is perceived as a police intelligence operation. Court and reentry referrals connect people leaving incarceration to CVI services. School referrals and self-referrals round out the identification funnel. Chicago, Baltimore, and Orlando layer several methods together.

Shooting Victims (Retaliation Prevention)

A Minneapolis analysis found that 41% of shooting victims were shot again within five years. Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs operate at this intervention point, deploying credible messengers to the bedside.

Grady Hospital in Atlanta reported a 98% acceptance rate among eligible patients in its first year (2023-2024), per 11Alive reporting. The population is primarily victims of penetrating trauma — gunshot and stabbing. Age ranges vary by program: Grady targets 14-34, per 11Alive; Johns Hopkins serves 15-35, per its published RCT; Cleveland focuses on youth ages 6 through 17, per UH Rainbow Hospitals (the Ideastream-reported 6-15 range reflects a specific research study population, not the program’s full service range).

Former police officer and criminal justice professor Thomas Stuckey described the HVIP results: a “two-thirds reduction in the likelihood that someone with a violent injury will need similar emergency medical assistance.” The Indianapolis Prescription for Hope program at Eskenazi Hospital found, in a 2018 long-term evaluation, a 3% repeat injury rate among participants compared to 8.7% without the program.

Youth in High-Violence Schools and Communities

School-based CVI programs place credible messengers on campus. In Albuquerque, the West Mesa High School program provides what the Albuquerque Journal described as “on campus peer-to-peer support” in partnership with Foot Locker, which provides retail employment pathways for program participants. The school’s principal told the Journal that “being reactive is not working. We cannot rely on a single solution.”

In Baltimore, Safe Streets expanded into schools with what the city described as “five intervention strategies” including “restorative practices to combat violent behavior.” In Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a youth-focused approach using what THV11 described as “custom in-person visits to individuals identified as high-risk” produced 543 consecutive days without a juvenile homicide before the streak ended in June 2025.

Families and Social Networks of Victims

The Oakland case documented by ProPublica illustrates the scope. Violence interrupter Joseph Truehill met the family of a murdered 15-year-old at the hospital, stayed “until 5 a.m.,” then “connected the mother to long-term support, checked on her daily for two weeks, ordered DoorDash meals, helped with funeral costs.” The mother testified: “If I didn’t [get support]… I might be in retaliation mode.”

Chicago’s READI model provides wraparound services including employment, housing, therapy, and legal aid that extend to the participant’s immediate environment. As the University of Chicago describes the READI design: “subsidized, supported work combined with group cognitive behavioral therapy” providing “a stable source of income to deter illegal work, an incentive to participate in therapy, a place to build and reinforce new skills and norms.”

Individuals Returning from Incarceration

Chicago’s READI accepts referrals from criminal justice sources alongside outreach-referred participants. The University of Chicago’s 2024 evaluation found that the outreach-referred subgroup showed a 79% reduction in shooting and homicide arrests, compared to 65% for the full cohort. As the researchers noted, the method of identification may affect outcomes.

Geographic Targeting

CVI programs operate in specific neighborhoods, not citywide. In Detroit, the Force Detroit program documented a 72% drop in homicides and shootings in targeted neighborhoods from November 2023 to January 2024 versus the prior year, per the City of Detroit and Detroit Free Press. The citywide decline during the same period was 37%. In Baltimore, the Penn North site went 478 consecutive days without a homicide, per the Baltimore Banner.

The geographic concentration means CVI is designed for the pattern that most high-violence cities exhibit: a small number of places producing a disproportionate share of shootings, as the Chicago Tribune documented with Chicago’s fifteen neighborhoods.

The Violence Dynamics CVI Addresses

CVI addresses retaliatory, network-driven, concentrated community violence — gang-related shootings, disputes escalating within small social networks, retaliatory cycles following an initial shooting, and interpersonal violence within high-risk communities.

The evidence base measures outcomes primarily in firearm metrics: shooting reductions, homicide declines, reinjury rates. But as the field describes, the work engages the broader violence ecosystem — conflict mediation addresses disputes that might escalate to violence of any kind. A community experiencing retaliatory cycles may be a candidate regardless of whether the violence involves firearms.

What CVI Does Not Handle

CVI is not designed for behavioral health crises — mobile crisis teams serve that population. CVI is not designed for domestic violence between intimate partners, which involves distinct dynamics of power, control, and coercion requiring specialized responses. CVI is not designed for random violent crime — a mugging by a stranger or a bar fight between people with no prior connection does not fit the network-driven contagion model.

CVI is not a general social service. While programs provide wraparound support, those services exist to stabilize people at the center of violence networks — tools in service of violence reduction, not standalone programs.

The Scale Question

The gap between need and capacity is the most consequential number in any CVI landscape. In Chicago, CRED serves approximately 15% of the people assessed as highest-risk, with a goal of reaching 75%, per the SC2 initiative. CVI programs operate in most of the largest U.S. cities, but within those cities, coverage is partial.

The University of Chicago’s Leadership Academy takes six months per cohort and has reached 21 cities, per the Chicago Defender. But the credible messenger credential — lived experience with violence — cannot be mass-produced. Rural and suburban communities face an additional gap: the CVI evidence base and program infrastructure is concentrated in high-violence urban areas. Whether the model adapts to non-urban contexts remains largely untested.

Bottom Line

CVI serves the small, identifiable population at the center of community violence networks — what Orlando’s program describes as “the guys that are committing the gun violence or most likely to be the victim.” Programs operate in specific high-violence neighborhoods, not citywide. The violence dynamics CVI addresses are retaliatory, network-driven, and concentrated. CVI does not handle behavioral health crises, domestic violence, random crime, or general social service needs. The primary constraint on who CVI reaches is capacity: Chicago’s CRED reaches roughly 15% of its identified target population, and that gap between need and coverage exists in every documented city.

  1. Orlando Advance Peace — targeting, Raysean Brown. WESH, 2023. Also: ClickOrlando/News 6, November 2023. https://www.clickorlando.com/getting-results/2023/11/08/shootings-are-down-by-37-in-orlando-city-credits-new-crime-prevention-program/ ↩

  2. Aurora SAVE — Division Chief Hildebrand. 9NEWS, September 2023. https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/aurora-program-reduce-youth-violence/73-49d6756d-113b-4653-98a2-e4ab972d3bfa ↩

  3. Chicago — 15 neighborhoods, 15% of highest-risk, goal 75%. Chicago Tribune, February 2024. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/02/01/foundations-business-interests-raise-66-million-to-fight-crime-in-chicago/ Also: SC2 initiative. https://www.scalecvichicago.org/ ↩

  4. Minneapolis — 41% of victims reshot within five years. CBS Minnesota. Also: PBS Frontline, 2021. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/groups-arise-spurred-by-minneapolis-gun-violence-to-enact-early-interventions/ ↩

  5. Grady Hospital, Atlanta — 98% acceptance rate, age range 14-24. 11Alive Atlanta, January 2024. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/grady-hospital-atlanta-ivyy-program-tackling-gun-violence-one-year-progress/85-6546fc09-ea58-469f-a4e8-0725878c65d3 ↩

  6. Thomas Stuckey — “two-thirds reduction.” Bell et al., Journal of Trauma, 2018. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739956/ Also: Indianapolis Prescription for Hope evaluation. Also: Bell et al., PMC/Journal of Trauma, 2018. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739956/ ↩

  7. Indianapolis Prescription for Hope — 3% vs. 8.7%, 2018 evaluation. Bell et al., Journal of Trauma, 2018. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739956/ ↩

  8. Albuquerque West Mesa High School — principal quote, Foot Locker partnership. Albuquerque Journal, March 2024. https://www.abqjournal.com/news/giving-hope-to-high-risk-youths/article_c47eee78-b979-11ee-8a6d-2b9ad65a8bf3.html ↩

  9. Baltimore school expansion — “five intervention strategies.” Baltimore City Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Scott Announces School-Based Violence Intervention Pilot Programming,” October 25, 2022. https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/news/press-releases/2022-10-25-mayor-scott-announces-school-based-violence-intervention-pilot Also: CBS Baltimore, October 2022. https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/three-baltimore-city-schools-implementing-violence-intervention-programs/ ↩

  10. Pine Bluff — 543 days, streak ended June 2025. THV11, May 2025. https://www.thv11.com/article/news/local/pine-bluffs-gun-violence-intervention-program-500-days-no-juvenile-homicide/91-371d5b84-ded6-438d-b0b7-8a2df3cec869 Also: KARK, June 2025. ↩

  11. Oakland mother testimony — Joseph Truehill. ProPublica, Alec MacGillis, May 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/are-community-violence-interruption-programs-effective ↩

  12. READI — program design, outreach-referred subgroup 79%, full cohort 65%. Heller et al., QJE, 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10898100/ ↩

  13. Detroit Force Detroit — 72% targeted, 37% citywide. City of Detroit press release. https://detroitmi.gov/ Also: Detroit Free Press. ↩

  14. Baltimore Penn North — 478 days. Baltimore Banner, March 2024. https://www.thebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/safe-streets-penn-north-JLZH6TGFJFAYHCIIMMTT4J4OD4/ ↩

  15. CVI program descriptions — violence ecosystem description. Term used across HAVI, University of Chicago, and multiple program descriptions. ↩

  16. University of Chicago Leadership Academy — 21 cities, six months. Chicago Defender, September 2023. https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/ ↩

  17. ProPublica investigation — identification tensions, police data risk. ProPublica, Alec MacGillis, May 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/are-community-violence-interruption-programs-effective ↩

  18. Johns Hopkins HVIP — age range 15-35. Cheng et al., Pediatrics, 2008. Also: AAMC review. https://www.aamc.org/news/can-hospitals-help-reduce-violence ↩

  19. Cleveland HVIP — serves ages 6-17 (UH Rainbow Trauma Recovery Program). Ideastream Public Media, Stephen Langel, February 11, 2025 (references a 2017 research study with ages 6-15). https://www.ideastream.org/health/2025-02-11/university-hospitals-program-reduces-repeat-violence-among-young-gunshot-victims Also: UH Hospitals program page. https://www.uhhospitals.org/rainbow/about/trauma-recovery-program ↩

  20. Does It Work? ↩

  21. Three tiers of evidence address the question: randomized controlled trials, longitudinal evaluations, and city-level outcome data. What follows presents each tier with its documented strengths and documented limitations. ↩

  22. The Gold Standard: Randomized Controlled Trials ↩

  23. Three RCTs have evaluated CVI or CVI-adjacent programs. ↩

  24. The University of Chicago Crime Lab’s 2024 READI evaluation enrolled 2,456 participants in a randomized design. The results, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: a 65% reduction in shooting and homicide arrests among participants. The outreach-referred subgroup — those identified through street intelligence rather than criminal justice referrals — showed a 79% reduction in arrests and a 43% reduction in victimization. The effect on gunshot victimization, a 44% decrease, was sustained at 18 months. An important statistical note: the study’s pre-specified primary outcome (a combined index of three violence measures) did not reach conventional statistical significance, and the 65% shooting arrest reduction carries a p-value of 0.13 after multiple-testing adjustment. An independent review at EvidenceBasedPolicy.org characterizes the violence effects as “suggestive under established scientific standards” rather than definitive. The cost-benefit ratio (4:1 to 18:1) is statistically significant (p=.03). A 40-month follow-up is forthcoming. ↩

  25. The 2024 Denver GRID evaluation enrolled 143 participants in a randomized design. Per the published NIJ findings by David Pyrooz of CU Boulder, participants were “nearly 70 percent less likely to perpetrate violence” compared to the control group. ↩

  26. The University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Choose to Change (C2C) evaluation enrolled 2,074 youth and found reduced violent-crime arrests by nearly half during the program, with smaller but persistent effects at two and three years.. C2C targets a younger population than READI and uses cognitive behavioral therapy delivered in schools rather than comprehensive wraparound services. ↩

  27. Longitudinal Evidence: Baltimore Safe Streets ↩

  28. Johns Hopkins University tracked Baltimore’s Safe Streets program from 2007 through 2022. Daniel Webster, then director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, concluded that there is “clearly less gun violence” when programs like Safe Streets are properly implemented and adequately funded. The finding: 32% lower homicides in the first four years at the five longest-running sites and 23% fewer nonfatal shootings across all 11 sites. ↩

  29. The Baltimore data also produced a cost-benefit estimate: $7.20 to $19.20 in economic benefits for every dollar invested, per Johns Hopkins. The returns come from prevented emergency department visits, avoided trauma surgeries, reduced criminal justice costs, and maintained economic productivity. ↩

  30. Two caveats from the methodology: First, the 15-year timeframe includes periods of both strong and weak program implementation — Baltimore’s Safe Streets has experienced site closures, management problems, and funding disruptions. The 32% finding averages across varying levels of fidelity. Second, the methodology is observational, not experimental — Johns Hopkins used statistical modeling to predict what homicide levels would have been without the program. This is rigorous but not as definitive as an RCT. ↩

  31. City-Level Outcomes ↩

  32. Multiple cities have reported violence reductions in areas where CVI programs operate. These are primarily program-reported or city-reported data — they have not been independently verified by outside researchers and should be read with that caveat. ↩

  33. Detroit’s Force Detroit program, per the City of Detroit and Detroit Free Press reporting, documented a 72% drop in homicides and shootings in targeted neighborhoods from November 2023 to January 2024, compared to the prior year. The citywide decline during the same period was 37%. ↩

  34. Lansing, Michigan saw a 52% decline in fatal shootings in a March 2025 Michigan State University evaluation, per The Trace. One caveat the evaluation’s own authors flagged: the decline was greater in non-program areas than in program areas, raising questions about specific program attribution versus citywide or national trends. ↩

  35. Orlando’s Advance Peace program was evaluated by UC-Berkeley researchers in 2024, who found a 20% reduction in firearm homicides and a 36% reduction in nonfatal shootings in the first year. By the third year, program neighborhoods showed an 88% reduction in gun homicides and a 71% reduction in shooting victims, per the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. Orlando recorded just 10 total homicides in 2025, its lowest since 1971. The first-year evaluation estimated $8.3 to $8.9 million in taxpayer savings. ↩

  36. A March 2025 NYC Comptroller’s report found the Crisis Management System produced a 21% shooting reduction across multiple precincts, per the Comptroller’s office. An independent NYC Council Data Team analysis found a consistent 17% reduction. ↩

  37. Northwestern University’s Center for Neighborhood Engaged Research and Science (CORNERS) found that Chicago’s Communities Partnering 4 Peace prevented at least 383 homicides and shootings between 2017 and 2021. Peacekeeper hotspots experienced a 41% overall reduction in victimizations from 2023 to 2024, per a Northwestern University CORNERS evaluation published in April 2025. ↩

  38. The growing evidence base also includes replication results. Orlando’s Advance Peace model produced results in its UC-Berkeley evaluation, and the same model in Lansing produced a 52% decline in fatal shootings in Michigan State University’s evaluation — two-city results from the same model, each with independent university evaluations. ↩

  39. Philadelphia reported in November 2023 a 26% homicide reduction since 2021, during a period of significant CVI investment, per the City of Philadelphia. ↩

  40. In 2023, Dallas police reported that what had been the city’s number-one violent crime hot spot for decades had dropped off the list, per WFAA, following a violence reduction strategy that included CVI partnerships. ↩

  41. A February 2024 White House estimate credited CVI programs nationally with contributing to the 12.4% national homicide decline, though this is a modeled attribution across a broader strategy that included policing and gun legislation. ↩

  42. Hospital-Based Outcomes (HVIP) ↩

  43. Cleveland’s University Hospitals tracked more than 600 participants over five years through 2025 and documented reinjury rates dropping from 29% to 19%, per Ideastream Public Media. Indianapolis’s Prescription for Hope program at Eskenazi Hospital found, in a 2018 long-term evaluation, a 3% repeat injury rate among participants compared to 8.7% without the program — what evaluator Thomas Stuckey described as a “two-thirds reduction.” A 2008 Johns Hopkins RCT focused on youth aged 10 to 15 presenting with peer assault injuries found participants were three times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime. ↩

  44. Atlanta’s Grady Hospital program, led by trauma surgeon Dr. Randi Smith, reported in January 2024 a 1% reinjury rate in its first year with 600 consultations and a 98% acceptance rate among eligible patients, per 11Alive. By August 2025, the program had expanded to nearly 1,000 participants and the reinjury rate had risen to approximately 3% in years two and three — still dramatically below the national average of 30-40%, per Atlanta News First. Minneapolis’s Next Step program documented reinjury dropping from a historical baseline of 41% to 3% after one year. ↩

  45. A 2025 St. Louis evaluation of the Life Outside of Violence HVIP program, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found no significant difference in reinjury between program participants and a comparison group — the most prominent null result in the CVI evidence base. ↩

  46. Cost-Benefit Evidence ↩

  47. Each shooting generates emergency response costs exceeding $100,000 when police investigation, ambulance, emergency surgery, ICU stay, and follow-up are combined, per multiple economic analyses. Prosecution and incarceration cost $30,000 to $60,000 per year per person. Medical costs for a single gunshot injury range from $30,000 to $100,000. ↩

  48. Against those costs, the documented returns: Baltimore’s Safe Streets returned $7.20 to $19.20 per dollar invested, per the Johns Hopkins evaluation covering operations from 2007 through 2022. Orlando’s Advance Peace saved taxpayers $8.3 to $8.9 million, per UC-Berkeley’s 2024 evaluation. The 2024 READI RCT produced $182,000 to $916,000 in social savings per participant, representing a 4-to-1 to 18-to-1 return on investment (this ratio is statistically significant at p=.03). ↩

  49. The comparison baseline for all cost-benefit estimates is the status quo: the cost of emergency response, hospitalization, criminal justice processing, incarceration, and productivity losses associated with violence. ↩

  50. What the Evidence Does Not Show ↩

  51. Five evidence gaps matter for decision-makers. ↩

  52. No multi-site randomized trial exists. The three RCTs evaluated specific programs in specific cities. Whether READI’s results generalize to a different CVI program in a different city with different implementation quality is an assumption, not a finding. ↩

  53. Most programs have not been independently evaluated. The field has strong evidence from a small number of programs and limited evidence from the majority, per a February 2026 systematic review of Cure Violence evaluations published in INQUIRY, which found that 68.7% of 83 findings showed violence reductions but only 32.5% reached statistical significance. ↩

  54. The evidence is concentrated in large cities. Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Orlando, New York, and Philadelphia are not representative of every jurisdiction that might consider CVI. Whether the model produces equivalent results in rural communities, smaller cities, or politically conservative jurisdictions is largely untested. ↩

  55. Long-term outcomes beyond two years are documented only in Baltimore (Johns Hopkins, 2007-2022) and READI (44% gunshot victimization decrease sustained at 18 months). Whether violence reductions observed in other cities persist, grow, or decay over time is not documented. ↩

  56. The mechanism has not been independently tested. The READI evaluation tested the combined package — outreach, employment, cognitive behavioral therapy, case management — not the individual components. Whether the credible messenger relationship, the employment, or the CBT drives the results is an open question. ↩

  57. Not every evaluation has produced positive results. The Life Outside of Violence HVIP program in St. Louis found no significant difference in reinjury, a reminder that program design, implementation quality, and local context affect whether the model produces its intended effects. ↩

  58. The Invisible Success Problem ↩

  59. CVI workers describe a measurement challenge unique to prevention. As one violence interrupter put it: “We squashed it. But nobody knows about those kinds of stories.” A shooting that was prevented leaves no trace in the data. The mediations and interventions that produce population-level shooting reductions are, by definition, events that did not occur and therefore do not appear in any outcome dataset. ↩

  60. Bottom Line ↩

  61. Three randomized controlled trials anchor the CVI evidence base: READI (65% reduction in shooting arrests among 2,456 participants, though the pre-specified primary outcome did not reach conventional statistical significance), Denver GRID (70% reduction among 143 participants), and Choose to Change (50% reduction among 2,074 youth). Johns Hopkins tracked Baltimore Safe Streets from 2007 through 2022 and found 32% lower homicides in the first four years at the five longest-running sites and 23% fewer nonfatal shootings across all 11 sites.. City-level data from nearly a dozen jurisdictions shows consistent patterns of shooting reductions, with Orlando’s three-year results (88% gun homicide reduction) providing the most dramatic trajectory. Cost-benefit estimates range from 4-to-1 to 18-to-1 returns. The evidence gaps are real: no multi-site RCT, most programs not independently evaluated, evidence concentrated in large cities, long-term data limited, and one prominent null result (Life Outside of Violence, St. Louis). The honest summary: the model has produced impressive results when well-implemented in the cities that have been studied. Whether those results translate to every jurisdiction that might adopt CVI is the question the evidence cannot yet fully answer. ↩

  62. Source Appendix ↩

  63. READI RCT — 2,456 participants, 65% reduction, p=.13 primary outcome, 4:1-18:1 cost-benefit (p=.03). Heller et al., QJE 139(1), 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10898100/ Also: EvidenceBasedPolicy.org review. https://www.evidencebasedpolicy.org/study-reviews-1/readi-chicago ↩

  64. Denver GRID — 143 participants, ~70% less likely. Pyrooz, D.C., NIJ, 2024. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/multidisciplinary-teams-street-outreach-and-gang-intervention-mixed-methods ↩

  65. Choose to Change — 2,074 youth, ~50% reduction during program. University of Chicago Crime Lab. https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/ ↩

  66. Johns Hopkins 15-year evaluation — 32% lower homicides in the first four years at the five longest-running sites and 23% fewer nonfatal shootings across all 11 sites., $7.20-$19.20 ROI. Daniel Webster: “clearly less gun violence.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. https://www.thebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/safe-streets-penn-north-JLZH6TGFJFAYHCIIMMTT4J4OD4/ ↩

  67. Northwestern CORNERS — CP4P prevented 383 victimizations 2017-2021; 44% gunshot victimization decrease sustained 18 months. Northwestern University CORNERS. Also: SC2 initiative. https://www.scalecvichicago.org/ ↩

  68. Peacekeeper — 41% reduction 2023-2024. Northwestern University CORNERS (Andrew Papachristos), April 2025. https://news.wttw.com/2025/04/17/chicago-has-seen-significant-gun-violence-declines-under-peacekeepers-program-new-study Also: Report PDF: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/634dd45091db1de63b7112d9/67ffdcbe728fe830be5886c0_Peacekeeper%20Eval%20Report_FINAL.pdf ↩

  69. Detroit Force Detroit — 72% targeted, 37% citywide, November 2023-January 2024. City of Detroit. https://detroitmi.gov/ Also: Detroit Free Press. ↩

  70. Orlando Advance Peace — Year 1: 20%/36%, $8.3-$8.9M (UC-Berkeley 2024). Year 3: 88%/71% (FRRC 2026). 10 homicides in 2025. ClickOrlando, August 2024. https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2024/08/01/gun-violence-reduced-in-orlando-neighborhoods-due-to-intervention-program-heres-how/ Also: Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, February 2026. https://floridarrc.com/cvi/ ↩

  71. Lansing — 52% decline, March 2025 MSU evaluation. Authors’ caveat on non-program areas. The Trace, May 2025. https://www.thetrace.org/2025/05/advance-peace-lansing-michigan-shootings/ Also: Michigan Advance, June 2025. https://michiganadvance.com/2025/06/03/shootings-dropped-in-lansing-but-untangling-why-is-complicated/ ↩

  72. NYC Crisis Management System — 21% (Comptroller March 2025), 17% (Council Data Team). NYC Comptroller, March 2025. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-cure-for-crisis/ Also: NYC Council Data Team. https://council.nyc.gov/data/cure/ ↩

  73. Philadelphia — 26% since 2021, reported November 2023. City of Philadelphia. https://www.phila.gov/2023-11-29-kenney-administration-progress-report-our-violence-prevention-efforts/ ↩

  74. Dallas — hot spot removed, 2023. WFAA, August 2023. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/one-of-the-top-crime-hot-spots-in-dallas-has-dropped-off-the-list/287-bffcac71-d9f6-4722-9f13-4565880031b6 ↩

  75. Federal 12.4% estimate. White House Fact Sheet, February 2024. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/06/fact-sheet-the-biden-%E2%81%A0harris-administration-advances-equity-and-opportunity-for-black-americans-and-communities-across-the-country-2/ ↩

  76. Cleveland — 600+ participants, 29%→19%. Ideastream, February 2025. https://www.ideastream.org/health/2025-02-11/university-hospitals-program-reduces-repeat-violence-among-young-gunshot-victims ↩

  77. Indianapolis — 3% vs. 8.7%, 2018. Bell et al., Journal of Trauma, 2018. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739956/ ↩

  78. Johns Hopkins youth RCT — 2008, ages 10-15. Cheng et al., Pediatrics 122(5), November 2008. Also: AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/news/can-hospitals-help-reduce-violence ↩

  79. Grady Hospital — 1% first year (January 2024), ~3% years 2-3, ~1,000 participants by August 2025. 11Alive, January 2024. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/grady-hospital-atlanta-ivyy-program-tackling-gun-violence-one-year-progress/85-6546fc09-ea58-469f-a4e8-0725878c65d3 Also: Atlanta News First, August 2025. Also: Everytown $100K grant, 2025. ↩

  80. Minneapolis Next Step — 41%→3%. CBS Minnesota (WCCO), “Next Step Program Aims To Help Gun Violence Victims Avoid Retaliation,” November 17, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/next-step-program-aims-to-help-gun-violence-victims-avoid-retaliation/ Also: PBS Frontline, 2021. ↩

  81. Life Outside of Violence — null result, St. Louis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2025. ↩

  82. Cure Violence systematic review — 68.7% showed reductions, 32.5% significant. Ransford, Williams, Slutkin, INQUIRY, February 2026. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00469580251366142 ↩

  83. Cost of violence — >$100K per shooting, $30-60K prosecution/year, $30-100K per gunshot. Multiple economic analyses. See Q11 for detailed cost-benefit. ↩

  84. Violence interrupter — “We squashed it.” ProPublica, MacGillis, May 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/are-community-violence-interruption-programs-effective ↩

©2026 Safer Cities
Privacy Policy