By Thomas Abt and Richard Hahn
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Community violence happens between unrelated individuals, who may or may not know each other, generally outside the home” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022, para. 1). The Department of Justice describes community violence as “generally happening outside the home in public spaces” (Department of Justice, 2022, para. 1). So defined, community violence accounts for the large majority of homicides in the United States each year (Crifasi et al., 2018). The costs of this violence to impacted individuals, families, communities, and the country as a whole are staggering. Frequently cited studies estimate the average total social cost of a single homicide to be 10 million dollars or more (Cohen et al., 2004; DeLisi et al., 2010). The human costs of such violence are unquantifiable. A massive body of social scientific research demonstrates that community violence clusters around small groups of people, places, and behaviors (Abt, 2019). In the United States and elsewhere, fatal and nonfatal shootings concentrate in and among small networks of individuals and groups, leading to cascading effects of retaliatory violence (Papachristos et al., 2015). Crime and violence also converge in and around small numbers of locations (Herold, 2023). Finally, certain risky behaviors such as illegal gun carrying are closely associated with gun violence (Hureau and Wilson, 2021). Strategies identifying and addressing these clusters of community violence have demonstrated success in stopping such violence and saving lives. The effectiveness of people-based strategies like focused deterrence, place-based approaches such as hot spots policing, and behavioral interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy are all supported by dozens of studies employing multiple methods, many of which are summarized in systematic reviews (Braga et al., 2019; Braga et al., 2019; Lipsey et al., 2007). An emerging body of evidence also supports non-punitive, community‐led strategies known collectively as community violence intervention (CVI) (John Jay Advisory Group on Preventing Community Violence, 2020). CVI programs use a wide range of methodologies, but most seek to engage those at the highest risk for violence and provide some form of treatment, support, or services to interrupt ongoing cycles of violence. Identifying the key people, places, and behaviors most likely to be involved in violence in a certain jurisdiction is an essential first step for implementing many of these anti-violence approaches. Identifying them also helps local leaders better understand how community violence operates in their jurisdictions and improves their ability to decide strategy, allocate resources, coordinate efforts, manage performance, facilitate evaluation, and other important functions. Unfortunately, there are numerous obstacles to gathering such information. While community violence is concentrated, knowledge about such violence is diffuse, spread among many. Technological limitations often impair law enforcement’s ability to gather crucial data. Political agendas, mistrust, and administrative regulations can limit the sharing of information once collected. Community stakeholders often possess a wealth of knowledge concerning violence but may be unwilling to share such information due to gaps in the perceived legitimacy of governmental officials. In any city suffering from high levels of community violence, a critically needed capacity is the ability to overcome these obstacles and “identify people and networks involved in recent violence and at the highest risk of future violence, the context and motives behind those incidents, and the micro-places where violence is most likely to occur” (CPSC, 2024). For decades, local governments have engaged researchers and technical assistance organizations to help them better understand their crime and violence challenges. Expertise has come largely from the fields of criminal justice and public health. Since the 1980s, problem-oriented policing strategies have utilized the SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) framework to better identify, understand, and address crime problems. (Goldstein, 1990; Eck and Spelman, 1987). At approximately the same time, violence emerged as a legitimate issue in public health, ultimately resulting in a similar 4-step “public health approach” to violence (monitor the problem, identify risk and protective factors, test strategies, and promote effective ones) (Dalhberg & Mercy, 2009). In the field of community violence reduction, these efforts have evolved to include shooting reviews, homicide reviews, group audits, social network analysis, and various forms of crime mapping, among others. Sometimes called “problem analyses,” these efforts are instrumental in directing local attention, energy, and resources towards the anti-violence strategies with the strongest likelihood of success. Importantly, they can assist law enforcement agencies in narrowing their focus to the individuals most likely to become involved in violence, thereby reducing reliance on aggressive, unfocused enforcement tactics that generate little public safety benefit but cause significant community harm (Bitran et al., 2024). Here, we refer to these efforts as “community violence problem analyses” (CVPAs) to distinguish them from analyses of other crime and violence challenges. Examples of such analyses can be found in Appendix A. Despite their value, only a relatively small number of jurisdictions have used CVPAs to inform their anti-violence efforts. CVPAs and other forms of problem analyses are the “weakest and most overlooked phase of the action research cycle” (Ross & Arsenault, 2017). (continued)
College Park, MD: Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction. University of Maryland, 2024. 25p.
