A recent analysis of some violence interrupter programs that have helped reduce gun violence indicate that these community lifelines are threatened by the expiration of funding provided by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159) in 2026.
This bill, passed in 2022, provides a substantial funding stream ($250 million) to help to build capacity and create new violence interrupter programs where there previously were none.
“Violence interrupter programs need time to work, but evidence supporting their effectiveness is gradually becoming more apparent,” wrote the authors of the report, Rooted in Restorative Justice, Violence Interrupters Increase the Peace. “While results vary…the key to success appears to be sustained funding and long-term support by stakeholders.”
According to the American Public Health Association, gun violence is a leading cause of premature death in the United States, killing more than 38,000 people annually. Gun-related injuries are the leading cause of death for children.
There are 120 guns per 100 people in the United States. Poor Black and brown communities are hit hardest by gun violence. The report added that gun violence is a form of war in these communities.
One of the earliest programs that started to address gun violence was initiated in the 1990s by the city of Chicago. The program, Cure Violence, was previously called CeaseFire.
During its first year of implementation, gun shootings in the West Garfield Park neighborhood were reduced by 67%. Today, Cure Violence oversees over 26 programs across 23 cities.
In 2015, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center compared two New York neighborhoods using violence interruption programs to similar neighborhoods that did not implement the programs.
Gun injuries fell by 50 % in the East Brooklyn neighborhood and only 5% in the control neighborhood of Flatbush. The South Bronx neighborhood saw a 37% decline in gun injuries compared to the control neighborhood in Harlem.
The FCNL analysis emphasizes that to be effective, violence interrupter programs must be deeply rooted in the realities of the communities they are in. “The most impactful investments in reducing community-level violence prioritize humanity, address the root causes, and aim to reduce further harm,” the authors wrote.
The most impactful investments in reducing community-level violence prioritize humanity, address the root causes, and aim to reduce further harm,” the authors wrote.
Successful violence interrupter programs work with people who are credible messengers. Violence interrupters are often born and raised in the communities they serve. They are trusted by their neighbors, and many have previous experience with the criminal legal system. Being former gang members or drug dealers, or having been involved in past violence—they have street credibility.
“When I am out there, I’m locked in. I know what it feels like to lose a child. I know what it feels like …. I would not give it up for anything in the world. I have a passion for people,” said Nicole Warren, a violence interrupter with Safe Streets Baltimore.
“I know what it feels like to lose a child. I know what it feels like …. I would not give it up for anything in the world.”
Violence interrupters aid and heal communities in ways that law enforcement is not structured to respond. These programs are not meant to replace law enforcement, especially with the over-policing of marginalized communities.
The bulk of the funding for violence interrupter programs comes from city governments, with nonprofit and federal support. At the federal level, the main source of funding is the Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVI) and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Gun violence in the U.S. is estimated to cost the country more than $550 billion annually. Cure Violence estimates that $33 is saved for every $1 spent on violence prevention. These programs not only save money, but also lives.
Excerpted from Rooted in Restorative Justice, Violence Interrupters Increase the Peace: An FCNL Analysis of Practice and Literature. It is co-written by José Santos Moreno, Kristen Archer, and Anika Forest.
