Evaluating Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence in Baltimore: Drug Law Enforcement, Cure Violence, and Focused Deterrence

Baltimore has been plagued by persistently high rates of firearm violence for decades, even as gun violence rates across the country have declined. City and law enforcement officials in Baltimore have employed various approaches to reduce homicides and nonfatal shootings. This research project evaluated the use of three strategies aimed at gun violence reduction in Baltimore: drug law enforcement, the Cure Violence model, and focused deterrence. Negative binomial regressions were used to estimate the effects of drug law enforcement and focused deterrence on homicides or nonfatal shooting counts at the police post level, while synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the effects of the Cure Violence model. Key informant interviews were also conducted to gain greater understanding of the focused deterrence program. Analyses indicate that drug law enforcement interventions were associated with no reductions in homicides but at times with increases in nonfatal shootings in the months following the interventions. Findings also reveal that the beneficial effects of the Cure Violence model have diminished since the program began in Baltimore. The focused deterrence replication was found to be harmful in one of the two police districts where implemented, and threats to the program’s success, per key informant interviews, included concerns about accurate identification of individuals most responsible for violence, frequent leadership changes, a lack of financial support for law enforcement and of services for those sought for the intervention, and the lack of engagement by law enforcement with community members on issues of legitimacy, shared vision, and strategy. The dissertation project highlighted the importance of placing priority focus on violent individuals, adhering to program fidelity when implementing and executing evidence-based violence prevention programs, continuously monitoring, evaluating, and evolving programs as needed, and addressing the contentious relationship in Baltimore between law enforcement and community residents

Estimating the Effects of Law Enforcement and Public Health Interventions Intended to Reduce Gun Violence in Baltimore

Baltimore has long been plagued by high rates of homicides, with guns playing an important role. City and law enforcement officials in Baltimore have attributed much of the gun violence to the illegal drug economy and the availability of guns for criminal use. For many years, the most visible and direct approaches employed by the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to curb gun violence have focused on enforcement of drug laws to reduce violent crime associated with the drug trade. In the most ambitious and resource-intensive efforts, the objective of law enforcement actions has been to "take down" or severely weaken organized groups selling illegal drugs through targeted arrests and prosecutions. Such efforts are intended to both remove violent criminals from communities and, ideally, deter violent crime. Most of these targeted drug law enforcement efforts have been place-focused, targeting "hot spots" for homicides and shootings. Within these hot spots, there is often some degree of targeting of individuals believed to be important drivers of gun violence, based on intelligence gathered, individuals' histories of criminal offending, and individuals' criminal associates.In the early 2000s, Baltimore City leadership encouraged aggressive enforcement of drug laws, resulting in the arrests of tens of thousands of individuals for drug possession and drug distribution. However, beginning mid-2007, the BPD shifted its focus to initiatives aimed at apprehending violent criminals and targeting illegal gun possession. We used data from January 1, 2003, through December 23, 2017, to estimate the effects of place-focused policing and prevention initiatives that were focused on criminal offending involving guns and/or drugs to estimate the effects of those interventions on homicides and nonfatal shootings. An overview of the specific interventions assessed in this study follows

Risk and Protective Factors for Firearm Assault Injuries Among Black Men: A Scoping Review of Research.

Black men are disproportionately affected by firearm assaults in the United States, and these disparities are rooted in structural and social inequities. The objective of this scoping review of research was to identify risk and protective factors for firearm assault injuries among Black men at all levels of the social-ecological framework. The search was conducted in 2021. The initial search generated 1,122 articles. Studies were eligible if they (a) included an analysis of modifiable risk or protective factors for firearm assaults among Black men; (b) reported an estimate of correlation, association, or effect between risk or protective factors and firearm assault injuries, firearm violence, and/or firearm homicides; and (c) were published peer-reviewed articles. In all, 19 articles were identified for review. Risk factors identified at each ecological level include the following: (1) Individual: firearm possession/weapon use and criminal legal system interaction; (2) Relationships: gang membership and exposure to other people who have experienced a firearm assault; (3) Community: indicators for socioeconomic status and racial residential segregation; and (4) Societal: historical racist policy. Individual-level substance use had mixed results. Few (26%) studies examined protective factors at any ecological level, but community-level factors like neighborhood tree cover were identified. Future research needs to examine risk and protective factors at the societal level and multiple ecological levels simultaneously leading to more effective multi-level interventions that will guide policy formation. A greater diversity of study designs, research methods, and theoretical frameworks is needed to better understand factors associated with firearm assault among Black men

Relationships, resources, and political empowerment: community violence intervention strategies that contest the logics of policing and incarceration

Community violence—defined as unsanctioned violence between unrelated individuals in public places—has devastating physical, psychological, and emotional consequences on individuals, families, and communities. Immense investments in policing and incarceration in the United States have neither prevented community violence nor systemically served those who have been impacted by it, instead often inflicting further harm. However, the logics that uphold policing and incarceration as suitable or preventative responses to community violence are deeply ingrained in societal discourse, limiting our ability to respond differently. In this perspective, we draw from interviews with leading voices in the field of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention to consider alternative ways to address community violence. We begin by demonstrating that policing and incarceration are distinguished by practices of retribution, isolation, and counterinsurgency that are counterproductive to the prevention of community violence. Then, we identify alternative practices of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention that include (1) fostering safety nets through relationships among individuals, families, and neighborhoods, (2) fighting poverty and increasing access to resources, and (3) building political capacity among organizations to transform the broader systems in which they are embedded. They also include accountability practices that are preventative and responsive to the needs of those who are harmed. We conclude that elevating the language, narratives, and values of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention can transform our responses to violence, interrupt cycles of harm, and foster safer communities

Voicing narratives of structural violence in interpersonal firearm violence research and prevention in the United States

Violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” Encompassed in this definition are multiple, interrelated forms of violence, including interpersonal firearm death and injury, but also the systems, policies, and practices enacted by those with power to advantage some groups while depriving others of meaningful opportunities for meeting their basic needs—known as “structural violence”. Yet dominant violence prevention narratives too often ignore or deemphasize the deeply intertwined threads of structural violence with other forms of violence, leading to policies and practices that are frequently insufficient, and often harmful, for reducing interpersonal firearm violence and building community safety, particularly in minoritized and structurally marginalized communities. We highlight ways in which limited scrutiny of structural violence, the omission of its defining characteristics—power and deprivation—from functional characterizations and frameworks of interpersonal firearm violence, and the inadequate distribution of power and resources to those most impacted by violence to self-determine narratives of and solutions to interpersonal firearm violence grossly impacts how interpersonal firearm violence is collectively conceived, discussed, and addressed. Expanding dominant narratives of interpersonal firearm violence, guided by the wisdom and determination of those most impacted, such that the goal of prevention and intervention efforts is not merely the absence of violence but rather the creation of a community safety and health ecosystem is essential to meet this critical moment in firearm violence research and prevention

Reducing Violence and Building Trust: Data to Guide Enforcement of Gun Laws in Baltimore

This report is the product of the Reducing Violence, Building Trust: Data to Guide Gun Law Enforcement in Baltimore project. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (JHCGPR) collected and analyzed data relevant to the enforcement of laws restricting the possession of firearms by prohibited individuals and unlawful carrying of concealed firearms to provide data-driven recommendations for more fair and effective practices. The project was designed to help inform the response to the dual crises in Baltimore—extraordinarily high rates of gun violence, and gun law enforcement practices that, in some cases, have violated the law and more generally weakened community members' trust in the police

Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence

Arnold Ventures sought to review the research evidence for violence reduction strategies that do not rely on law enforcement. The John Jay College Research and Evaluation Center (JohnJayREC) and an expert group of researchers from public policy, criminology, law, public health, and social science fields conducted the scan. The research group members worked collaboratively to identify, translate, and summarize the most critical and actionable studies

Relationships, resources, and political empowerment: community violence intervention strategies that contest the logics of policing and incarceration.

Community violence-defined as unsanctioned violence between unrelated individuals in public places-has devastating physical, psychological, and emotional consequences on individuals, families, and communities. Immense investments in policing and incarceration in the United States have neither prevented community violence nor systemically served those who have been impacted by it, instead often inflicting further harm. However, the logics that uphold policing and incarceration as suitable or preventative responses to community violence are deeply ingrained in societal discourse, limiting our ability to respond differently. In this perspective, we draw from interviews with leading voices in the field of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention to consider alternative ways to address community violence. We begin by demonstrating that policing and incarceration are distinguished by practices of retribution, isolation, and counterinsurgency that are counterproductive to the prevention of community violence. Then, we identify alternative practices of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention that include (1) fostering safety nets through relationships among individuals, families, and neighborhoods, (2) fighting poverty and increasing access to resources, and (3) building political capacity among organizations to transform the broader systems in which they are embedded. They also include accountability practices that are preventative and responsive to the needs of those who are harmed. We conclude that elevating the language, narratives, and values of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention can transform our responses to violence, interrupt cycles of harm, and foster safer communities