Are Billions Of Dollars In Community-Based Violence Programs Worth The Expenditure?
/Are Billions Of Dollars In Community-Based Violence Programs Worth The Expenditure?
By: Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr.
There’s nothing wrong with trying new community-based crime control strategies. The problem is what seems intuitive to so many doesn’t mean that programs will work.
Properly constructed research is essential to our understanding of what works, and more importantly, what doesn’t. Until the proof is in, the billions of dollars projected to be spent on community-based violence programs probably won’t work.
I was involved in numerous meetings with community organizations regarding crime. Charismatic community organizers made presentations to my agencies seeking support for a wide array of programs that they said would lower violence. They stated that they know their communities better than anyone and that we bureaucrats just need to fund them or cooperate and get out of the way. To suggest that we were skeptical was an understatement.
Per community leaders: Our young people need somewhere to go, something to do. They need skills they are not getting in school. They need hope. They need someone who cares. They need a future. They need mentors. All we have to do is to offer them the right programs, they said. They said that it was intuitive. It was common sense.
Do you know how many programs for crime control made intuitive sense to many but failed? Boot camps. Hawaii’s Project Hope. Educational and vocational programs in prison. The list is endless.
There’s nothing simple about offenders. Offenders are complex. The degree of substance abuse and mental health problems is enormous. Many (if not most) come from histories of child abuse and neglect. The degree of female sexual violence by someone the victim knew is considerable. Brain damage is commonplace. Our youth are scarred by violence in their homes and their communities. Parole and probation agents say that offenders have chips on their shoulders the size of Montana. The degree of recidivism (new crimes-new incarcerations) after leaving prison or juvenile facilities is overwhelming.
I have no issues in offering programs to people caught up in the justice system. I advocate for these programs on a humanitarian or religious basis. But the essential question comes down to effectiveness, and the data to date is either inconclusive or discouraging. My criminological training emphasized accountability and not misleading taxpayers who fund these programs.
While it’s not politically correct to say, the great majority of community leaders don’t have a clue as to what it takes to create a small bureaucracy that hires and fires people, writes grants and implements programs. They are not comfortable with people evaluating them because it’s simply more outsiders who, in their opinion, don’t understand life in their communities. They are sure that their approach works but can’t offer proof (based on outside researchers) that their programs have merit.
Our world is full of organizations and publications acting as advocates. In my opinion, 90 percent of what’s written or offered regarding crime control is sketchy. People will swear that programs work when they don’t.
The TRACE seems to be an exception. They state that “Gun violence is often portrayed as an intractable problem, but a growing body of evidence shows that there are existing interventions that can save lives right now. These programs rarely get the careful, sustained attention they deserve. This project seeks to change that.”
Now, to my knowledge, gun violence community-based programs do not have a substantial body of methodologically correct research backing them. The only modality we have based on good research that lowers crime based on hundreds of evaluations is proactive policing.
The Trace and Philadelphia
Community-based violence interruption programs are a key part of local governments’ response to the nationwide rise in homicides. The Biden administration has contributed more than $10 billion in American Rescue Plan funding to more than 300 communities, including Philadelphia, for anti-violence initiatives. The Philly grant program costs $22 million altogether because of administrative costs.
Despite the push, some critics believe there isn’t enough traditional academic evidence to justify such spending. And measuring success in an emerging field made up mainly of smaller nonprofits — which lack large grant-writing teams and development infrastructure — has proven to be a complicated task. But the programs are varied and neighborhoods aren’t laboratories, complicating ordinary evaluation.
The city will likely announce the new round of grantees, and will also make public an independent evaluation of the program. But some of the puzzle pieces during the first round of the grant program were a bad fit. Take the case of Put It Down Philly, a violence interruption program co-founded by an ex-felon, which was approved for a grant of $729,696 to expand its program targeting the 18- to 30-year-old men who are at risk of being involved in violence.
Despite the organization’s impressive pitch and the ex-felon’s made-for-TV background as a reformed gangbanger, infighting led to the collapse of Put It Down Philly before it could even begin to spend the money to help young men.
The TRACE and Proof
The government — at the state and federal levels — is about to invest billions of dollars in community-based violence intervention programs, which focus on strategies like mediation of potentially violent disputes and social support for likely perpetrators of violence. Critics, however, are pushing back, arguing that there is not enough rigorous scholarship to support the investment.
In fact, there is evidence from across the country for the efficacy of such interventions. But large-scale traditional academic study of this type of work is rare. The complicated nature of violence makes it uniquely challenging to pull apart, and the expense of formal public health and sociological studies is immense. For smaller groups, which now must compete for the millions available, the burden is particularly high.
The back and forth raises an important question: If gun violence is a key social crisis of our time, why don’t we have more science about how to stop it?
There’s nothing wrong with trying new strategies. The problem is what seems intuitive to so many doesn’t mean that programs will work. Sending violent and repeat offenders to prison strikes many as intuitive, and it has a substantial research base. Hiring more cops and enforcing the law is equally intuitive and, like incarceration, it has a considerable research base, with police initiatives depending on community cooperation and assistance.
Most community-based programs do not. That doesn’t mean that such programs are worthless. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try them. But at least the TRACE understands that research and data are essential components of new programs.
Advocates will always be the bane of criminal justice and crime control efforts. Advocates mislead, thus endangering the very programs they promote. Most prison-based rehabilitation programs produce terrible results but rather than admit this and search for reasons why, advocates will claim endless success where none exists.
Whether or not people like it, properly constructed research is essential to our understanding of what works and more importantly, what doesn’t.
Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr.is a retired federal senior spokesperson. A former Adjunct Associate Professor of Criminology and Public Affairs - University of Maryland. Former advisor to the “McGruff-Take a Bite Out of Crime” national media campaign. Past police officer. Aspiring drummer. Operator of CrimeinAmerica.net. His book based on thirty-five years of criminal justice public relations,” Success with the Media: Everything You Need to Survive Reporters and Your Organization” is available at Amazon and additional booksellers. He can also be found @ leonardsipes.com
