Issues

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

Children who are exposed to violence at home or on the streets can learn that violence is a means of communication, problem-solving, or self-defense. This effect of normalization can feed violence itself.

Comprehensive approaches have emerged to combat the cycle: In Philadelphia, a groundbreaking program seeks to treat assault victims for trauma. In Memphis, a survey found that 37 percent of adults in the county during their youth had witnessed someone being shot or stabbed. Research on ACEs has, says a public defender, “given us a new common language when we’re advocating on behalf of kids in front of the courts that helps explain some of the behaviors that might not seem understandable if you’re just looking at it without understanding the history of this child’s life.” In St. Louis, responses include parenting classes to help families deal with stress;, education for school staff and students to recognize signs of trauma and stress, encouraging wellness, and prenatal programs to relieve stress in pregnant women.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

Research on these issues is embryonic, but it’s developing quickly. Efforts like the ones in Philadelphia and Memphis show early promise, but it’s important to follow them over time, both because such programs often show results in years rather than months and because you’ll want to establish that any impact is more than ephemeral. Ask: What are the concrete goals of a program, and how would one measure the positive effects of, for example, a wellness program for parents? If parents are dropping out of a parenthood program, why? What’s the science behind interventions, and if the overall environment in a neighborhood or family remains violent, can interventions be lasting and productive?

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

Japan simply forbids almost all gun ownership. Australia and Great Britain have banned many semi-automatic weapons and created a national firearms registration systems.

America mostly hasn’t taken that path (though there is Hawaii). Gun violence is often caused by a small number of high-risk people harming themselves and others with guns; targeting those few is often more effective than a broader community approach.

Beginning in 1996, after a sharp increase in killings of young people, Boston police – collaborating with the U.S. Attorney’s office, the departments of parole and probation, and other agencies – used quantitative and qualitative research to identify chronic offenders and gang members who were associated with many of the city’s homicides. Officers confronted participants about the risks they faced, offered support, and cracked down on groups that kept shooting. That “focused deterrence” approach led to a 63% drop in youth homicides within two years.

Boston’s “Operation Ceasefire” approach has been iterated in other cities. An effort in Richmond, California, went a step further, offering 50 individuals most likely to commit violent crimes training and career guidance, but tossed in cash stipends as further incentive to cease violent activity. In Trenton, N.J., officials formed a Shooting Response Team that investigated all shootings and was able to identify chronic offenders. In tandem with a court strategy that eliminated one-year plea deals for gun offenders, Trenton found itself able to better keep violent offenders off the streets. And in Rochester, N.Y., officials and researchers saw that petty disputes often led to deadly violence. Front-line officers set about to track street-level arguments, informing analysis that helps officials determine which arguments are likely to continue and escalate, and to develop responses that stave off violence before it happens.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR :

The Ceasefire approach depends on cooperation between police, courts, and community groups. It can be hampered if catalytic leaders leave, political support ebbs, or funding evaporates. In general, these strategies take some time to play out; it’s reasonable to report on them early on, noting if evidence on their efficacy is lacking, and then return for follow-up stories as a track record emerges.

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

This is a particularly complicated issue, because our mental health system is so fragmented and ineffective. The justice system is already overloaded with mentally ill patients, and treating those people in prisons and jails is not a particularly effective long-term fix, in part, because corrections officers aren’t trained mental health professionals. So, what are appropriate and effective intervention points? Can we construct alternative courts, alternative approaches to dealing with mental health issues when they intersect with the criminal justice system?

In Phoenix, a team of professionals provides what’s called “assertive community treatment” (ACT) to those with serious mental illness. An outreach-centered program, it’s becoming an industry standard for treating those with severe mental illnesses. Houston’s police department devotes an entire division to mental health, with programs aimed at helping people in crisis avoid arrest, including a homeless outreach unit and teams of officers paired with mental health counselors to go out on calls for help. The department reduced the number of mental illness emergency contacts in half between 2008 and 2016. In Seattle, police and social workers patrol together, forging an alliance that is placing a dent in Seattle’s homelessness problems, which has a mental health component.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

A systematic approach, experts say, is more effective than a series of one-off experiments. Quite often the impetus for that systematic approach comes from a traumatic event: In Houston, the effort began after two people with schizophrenia were shot and killed by police in two months in 2007. Also among the more successful efforts are those with broad acceptance and multiple partners, as well as political support. As with most issues, look for consistency, and results over time. Comparing one city’s response with another’s can be illuminating: Why do efforts work in some communities, but not in others?

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

Two words: Body cameras. Wearable video has become standard equipment in departments across the nation, with some dramatic results. Since its force deployed wearable cameras in 2010, use-of-force incidents in Oakland, California – an early adopter – have plunged 72 percent, according to department records.

Other, more systemic fixes have emerged. In Las Vegas, police have embraced de-escalation as a guiding principle, weaving the idea into a revised use-of-force policy that shapes its policing approach. Officers are trained annually using real-life scenarios to confront controversial challenges like mistaking harmless objects in citizens’ hands for guns. The department evaluates every serious incident to determine what might have been handled better – and the learning is baked into future trainings. A Washington State program, likewise, is designed to make officers “guardians of democracy” rather than “warrior” cops – controverting decades of traditional police training anchored in confrontation.

New York City has taken a very different approach: Its ClaimStat program tracks allegations of police misconduct and shares the information publicly. The idea: shining a light on misconduct cases, and highlighting the financial impact, will have a chilling effect – ultimately reducing the number of lawsuits against the city. The increasing use of body cameras is anchored in a similar logic: the possibility that encounters between police and community members will be made public will alter officers’ behavior.

But the biggest thrust is around “community policing,” a broad range of practices that aims to avoid confrontation altogether by getting officers out of their cars and into neighborhoods, improving relations with the citizens they’re protecting. Two years after Canton, Ohio, police began patrolling high-crime neighborhoods by foot and organizing community events to build trust, violent crime had dropped by 40%.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

In real life, culture change happens very slowly. Training recruits to avoid use of force can introduce new approaches among younger officers, but shifting practice among existing officers can take years. In the meantime, body cameras offer a quick fix. They raise privacy questions – but standards have emerged to guide their use and the storage of resulting footage. Given the clear results, the more important question may be: Why isn’t every officer wearing one?

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

A variety of strategies have emerged: Communities have expanded and strengthened social services; police departments are more likely to take offenders into custody when there are indications that a domestic assault has occurred; risk assessment tools have been improved; judges routinely remand offenders to mandatory counseling.

The most effective approaches, experts say, combine many or all of the above, yielding system-wide responses that combine focused attention on individuals with recognition and remediation of contextual factors. In St. Paul, Minn., a coordinated response integrates shelters for victims, criminal justice reform including an initiative to lodge charges against offenders faster, and more often. Its success is testimony to a joint effort by the advocate community and law enforcement officials, along with legislative initiatives that enshrine reforms in law.

In High Point, N.C., a strategy of focused deterrence has shown results: It’s an approach that was effective in reducing gang violence, translated to domestic situations. Authorities target a specific criminal behavior that is most often caused by a few chronic offenders, and then offer those offenders help in the form of carrots (more education, for example) and sticks (threats of sanctions and punishment). In New Haven, Ct., a collaboration between the New Haven Department of Police Services and the Yale School of Medicine Child Study Center joins clinicians and cops to help address domestic violence by specifically taking care of kids in violent homes.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

Some systemic approaches have many partners, and disagreements among them may reduce their effectiveness. As in other interventions to alleviate violence, the strategies may work well in one place but not well in others. The difference may have to do with leadership, with context, or with demographic specifics. There are separate questions concerning shelters. When a woman leaves an abusive spouse and moves into a shelter, that shelter is not a permanent solution: What happens next? And what can ensure longer-term successes?

WHAT ARE THE RESPONSES?

A program called “Collaborative and Proactive Solutions,” addressing behavior problems at their core, has shown promise in some schools. Its founder, psychologist Ross Greene, says it helps schools deal constructively with kids with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities and anxiety disorders, and also kids who have experienced repeated trauma and other challenges. Teachers in one Washington State school district learned to deal with poor attitudes and poor choices by asking “What’s going on?” instead of “What’s wrong with you?”

A New York City program called “School Climate Reforms” represents an increasing trend that turns to restorative justice instead of punishment. In the case of an infraction, students participate in a community circle, peer mediation, collaborative negotiation or some other activity to build trust and confidence. And in Spokane County, Washington, community truancy boards work with students to address the root causes of truancy – with notable success. The goal these alternative discipline approaches: to keep kids in school, leading not just to higher education performance but better social outcomes.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

Restorative justice initiatives have reduced both suspensions and incidents of in-school violence, and a UC Berkeley study shows that they also can help students assume greater responsibility and agency. But they require funding and training for all teachers and administrators. Even then, educators sometimes resist efforts to keep disruptive students in their classrooms.