When a shooting rattles a neighborhood in Chicago, headlines focus on the tragedy.
But community violence specialists concentrate on something else: making sure the next conflict in the area doesn’t escalate, thanks to careful intervention work that researchers say is showing measurable, if nuanced, signs of success.
Chicago is the focus of commentators across the country who draw attention to violent crime that touches all corners of the city. The burden disproportionately affects communities of color.
There are root causes to gun violence identified by researchers. Addressing those issues will take time, experts say. But many neighborhoods need help today.
More than 70% of Chicago homicide victims in 2024 were Black, according to data from the city violence portal. In some predominantly Black areas like West Garfield Park, the homicide rate is almost 20 times more than in other police districts, according to a recent report about the People’s Plan for Community Safety, the framework for Chicago’s plan to reduce crime.
This is the world in which community-based violence intervention exists. Seeking to mediate conflict and reduce violence, these programs connect victims and potential victims with services including mental health, education and employment.
But the question is simple: Do they work?
Researchers are confident, both in the statistical and personal sense, that these programs decrease violence.
Leaders tout the success of this work. But not everybody can see the progress out their window.
How can they be so sure the programs are working, or that they cause the changes being observed? And what exactly are they measuring?
Measuring the Impact
Staff from the Institute for Nonviolence Chicago (INVC) sees the impact of gun violence every day. The team takes a comprehensive approach to violence prevention, engaging directly with individuals and providing crucial support to those affected by trauma.
INVC works with people who face the greatest risks of violence to mediate conflicts and stop retaliations.
The work by INVC targets Austin, West Garfield Park, Brighton Park and Back of the Yards, some of the neighborhoods in the city most affected by violence.
According to city data from 2024, Austin had the highest number of shooting victims, while West Garfield Park had the highest rate of gun violence victims, matching trends from previous years. But recently, there have been some significant reductions.
Andrew Papachristos, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and an INVC research partner, said these programs aim to impact smaller parts of these communities, opening possibilities to address wider systemic issues.
“It’s really hard to focus on other things when violence is making people unsafe and making them feel unsafe,” Papachristos said. “It’s hard to talk about beautifying spaces when people are afraid to be in them. It’s hard to get people to come into services if they’re worried about getting shot along the way.”
The outreach staff at INVC builds relationships with those affected by gun violence in their communities. Many have experienced gun violence personally. Some have spent time in prison.
This experience allows outreach workers to connect with groups locked out of schools and hospitals, who refuse to interact with police, mental health providers and other establishments. Staff mediates conflicts and reduces violence in ways such as establishing non-aggression agreements between parties.
Gun violence is not random, according to researchers, and only a very small percentage of any community’s population actively carry weapons and engage in related criminal activity. The majority of residents are dealing with gun violence, but they’re not the ones using guns.
Papachristos helps INVC and similar groups identify the people most at risk of gun violence. Researchers start with victims, and identify family members and friends who are at an elevated risk by mapping their social network. This helps provide targeted services to the most vulnerable participants.
INVC operates along with other organizations as part of a city program to reduce gun violence. Records show INVC received grants of greater than $4 million from the city and state for violence reduction since 2022, and it spent about $10.2 million in 2023.
Measuring the impact of nonviolence work requires input from many channels. Chicago police and medical facilities help create a reasonable estimate of shooting victims and gun homicides. But using only those figures to calibrate the success of these programs leaves out a lot of context, experts said.
A report about 13 community violence intervention organizations including INVC in Chicago found from July 2017 to December 2021, the partnership prevented 383 fatal and non-fatal shooting victimizations. Participants saw a 44 percent reduction in gunshot victimization after twelve months of accessing services.
Andrew Papachristos (center) speaks at “The State of Our City: A WTTW News Town Hall” on Feb. 3, 2025. Photo: Ken Carl for WTTW
Violence reduction groups look to improve and adjust as they measure success, Papachristos said. At INVC, if they have relationships with most crews in a neighborhood, they will look to develop relationships with the ones they don’t, opening a new pathway to interrupt potential violence.
In 2024, INVC estimated almost half of shooting victims and families accepted its services in a recent data report, an increase from past years.
Analysts target and report about crews that have and have not been reached to measure the difference in outcomes, and they are tracking participants over longer periods of times to gain further insight, Papachristos said.
INVC collaborates with organizations throughout communities including those in public health, schools, funeral homes, law enforcement, faith, and educational groups. It’s difficult to identify an institution in the neighborhood that INVC doesn’t work with, they said.
The fact that people enroll in mental health services or go to school for the first time is part of a positive public safety impact, Papachristos said.
The stigma of accepting behavioral health care can be an impediment, but participation can be an important measure for success.
“It takes the hell of a lot to stop gun violence. There are so many reasons that people are caught up in this lifestyle,” Kelly Carroll, associate director of behavioral health and wellness at INVC, said. “It feels complex and overwhelming because it is, so we have to attack from a lot of different angles.”
When judging the success of a program, a single instance of violence or the failure of a program doesn’t mean violence reduction itself is a failure, Papachristos said. It should be viewed as part of the broader safety infrastructure.
Participants learn to make decisions carefully if they have something to lose, making them think before engaging in violence. Outreach workers rely on researchers like Papachristos to prove their work has an impact. But many say even when it’s tough to measure or count every detail, they still see their influence directly.
Simply making a connection with a person can create an opening for positive change, according to outreach staff.
“If you allow me to be in your life and you accept me saying, ‘Hey, how are you doing?’ That’s a win,” Samuel Castro, director of strategic initiatives and partnerships at INVC, said. “If I can create some type of relationship for you to allow me in your space, I won. That’s just the beginning of this journey.”
The Real Question
There is evidence that some community violence programs correspond with less crime, but according to Jeffrey Butts, it’s important to use the right information to support it.
“If you just look at citywide crime numbers, you’ll never get the full picture,” Butts, research professor at John Jay College, said. “The real question isn’t just whether shootings went down but whether they went down in a way that’s different and sustainable compared to other places.”
There is limited funding for this work, and it can be very expensive. Researchers need to stand out by showing impact and highlight figures connected to fewer shootings or other positive impacts.
It can be difficult for researchers to look at the data broadly because of resource constraints, Butts said. Researchers are also competing for attention and resources against groups with different priorities.
“Police departments exaggerate facts, make up numbers and imply causation when there’s no evidence. They’ll say crime is down in Chicago by X percent. Therefore, what we’re doing is working,” Butts said. “The public might swallow that, but that’s not evidence of what caused crime to go down.”
Studies of violence programs do not have randomly assigned participants like in medical research. But the stakes of getting it right deeply affect communities with high levels of crime where researchers want to make a difference.
Butts said it’s important for researchers and public servants to use facts to create and assess policies. They should build a solid base of support because politics can change, and evidence can help protect programs from future attacks.
Researchers should consider systemic issues including jobs, food services, safe transportation, and housing connected to violence in communities as much as exploring the influence on individual outcomes, Butts said.
Research has long established the high cost of violent crime. Butts said it can be difficult getting residents to recognize the financial benefits, even when a small reduction in shootings creates a big financial reward.
Chicago occupies a critical place in the study of violence reduction, Butts said, with a cluster of serious and creative people trying to understand what makes communities safer.
There are real incentives for some officeholders to cherry-pick or misuse research.
“When you answer questions about violence and point to individuals at high risk, that makes politicians happy because they can blame those other people,” Butts said. “There are politicians who live off of getting one group of people to vote against the other group, and this individual-level approach sustains that political energy.”
Crime reduction is often used as a political issue with more policing and harsher penalties being the dominant approach rather than community-based strategies, according to Butts.
Developments in Washington, D.C., could also put some criminal justice research at risk. A lack of clarity about which data and records were removed following a recent order by President Donald Trump left many trying to figure out what information was changed or even removed.
Federal government records allowed researchers to measure changes down to the block level. Its removal could affect programs at both the local and national level. Beyond violence research, removing select information could also protect those who could be challenged by the data.
“It makes it possible for politicians to lie more easily if no one can check them,” Butts said. “It’s a big concern.”
