Improving Public Safety Through Better Accountability and Prevention

Everyone deserves to be safe where they live. Protecting the right of every individual to be free of crime and violence—regardless of race, wealth, health, ability, or background—is one of the most important responsibilities of government and community leaders and is essential to fostering thriving communities. The crime spikes during the COVID-19 pandemic affected every corner of the country and worsened a crisis of legitimacy facing criminal legal systems,¹ which struggled to respond to the sudden wash of violence and instill confidence in public safety.

Fortunately, many categories of crime are now on the decline, including homicide, most types of violent crime, and property theft.² The drivers of crime are complex and not always well understood, and crime rates have historically fluctuated in response to a wide range of causes not simply related to policy choices.³ Thoughtful analyses have begun to identify several potential factors behind recent crime trends, including a massive increase in gun sales,⁴ disruption of social services and community outreach,⁵ and even social media.⁶ Explanations are subject to fierce debate, but concerns over crime and public safety remain a top issue for many Americans,⁷ and people are looking to their leaders for timely and responsive solutions.

To that end, the Center for American Progress has created a public safety framework that improves accountability for people who commit crimes while highlighting both immediate and long-term solutions to prevent crime and build durable safety. This framework proceeds in two parts. The first outlines ways to make accountability solutions effective and targeted by:

• Improving responses to serious crime
• Ensuring accountability systems break cycles of crime
• Prioritizing support for crime survivors

The second part calls for investing in proven crime prevention strategies by:

• Reducing the harms caused by guns
• Expanding the public safety workforce
• Increasing services and support in underserved communities

Creating lasting and inclusive public safety requires a broader vision of accountability that avoids the harms of the past while investing in the infrastructure and services that foster well-being for the systemically neglected communities that suffer most from crime. Without faithful and transparent implementation of both approaches, true safety will remain elusive and inequitable.

Communities need to know that their elected leaders share their public safety concerns and are working on meaningful solutions to hold those responsible for wrongdoing accountable and stop the violence. To be effective at reducing crime, accountability for people who cause harm should rehabilitate and change behavior, empower people to rebuild their lives, and focus on preventing future crime. Criminal legal system policies that fail to achieve these objectives or that actively cause harm to communities should be identified and rejected in favor of more effective and just solutions. Historically, America’s primary solutions for crime have emphasized increased enforcement and punishment through incarceration. These approaches have been deployed broadly with a grossly disproportionate impact on Black communities.¹⁵ Despite research consistently demonstrating that a small number of people drive the majority of serious crime,¹⁶ the vast reach of the criminal legal system has been used to sweep up a huge net of people.¹⁷

The traditional criminal legal approach is slow¹⁸ and often delays or altogether denies accountability for wrongdoing. Crime persists because the gains from crime are immediate, and punishment comes much later, if at all. Policy solutions that focus on the severity of punishment are less likely to drive down crime than policies that increase the certainty that someone who has committed a crime is caught. Emphasizing punishment also fails to account for the fact that most perpetrators were first victims¹⁹ who may have been ignored, exploited, or further traumatized by the criminal legal system, and it neglects one of the primary objectives of the criminal legal system: repairing harm to crime survivors. Most victims²⁰ greatly prefer strategies that focus on repairing harm and restoring devastated families and relationships. In order to effectively hold people who commit crimes accountable in a targeted way and ensure criminal legal system policies achieve their objectives of improving safety, policymakers should fill existing policy and resource gaps with solutions that improve responses to serious crime, design policies to break cycles of crime and reoffending, and prioritize repairing harm to victims and crime survivors.

Improving responses to serious crimes

Serious crime, and gun violence in particular,²¹ remains one of the public’s most significant safety concerns. The criminal legal system can make strides to address this concern by significantly improving the rate at which serious crimes are solved, tailoring solutions to community needs through improved data collection and sharing, and improving police-community relations.

Improve the serious crime solve rate

The low solve rate for serious crime represents one of the most significant gaps in the criminal legal system, enabling many people to avoid accountability for the harm they cause.²²

Clearance rates, generally defined as crimes resulting in arrest and charge,²³ are at record lows for homicides²⁴ with only about half being solved nationally and even fewer in some big cities. Clearance rates for nonfatal shootings are far worse,²⁵ with only 1 in 5 resulting in arrest. But even these numbers, which are reported by police departments, fail to reflect the full picture. Given that most crimes go unreported,²⁶ according to one estimate, only about 11 percent²⁷ of serious crimes result in arrest, and only 2 percent lead to a criminal conviction.

Nowhere is this deficit larger than in Black communities. Black people are far more likely²⁸ to experience serious violent crime—gun violence in particular²⁹—and yet arrest rates are lowest for killings involving Black victims.³⁰

Many things account for this failure in accountability. Most enforcement efforts are currently dedicated to low-level offenses and “quality-of-life” issues rather than serious and violent crime, with misdemeanors consuming most criminal legal resources.³³ An analysis³⁴ of how several police departments allocate time revealed that officers spent more than half of their time on noncriminal calls and traffic stops, with most of their remaining time spent addressing property crime, medical issues, and other tasks. Only around 4 percent of policing time was spent on violent crime.

In fact, traffic stops are the most common interaction between police and the public, totaling 20 million stops nationwide.³⁵ One study found that nearly half of traffic stops initiated by police are for minor infractions such as a broken taillight or having an object hanging from the rearview mirror.³⁶ Law enforcement often initiates minor traffic stops as a pretext for investigating more serious crimes, a practice known as pretextual stops.³⁷ Pretextual stops have a high potential of escalating to violence or threats of violence against civilians³⁸ and divert significant policing resources away from more targeted efforts to address and solve serious crime.³⁹ The practice is pervasive and has proved ineffective at reducing crime⁴⁰ and racially biased in its implementation.⁴¹

In addition, long police response times to calls for service can negatively affect clearance rates⁴² because they reduce the likelihood an arrest will occur at the scene of the crime or that witnesses and victims will still be present to identify the person responsible. An analysis⁴³ of police response times to service calls from 2019 to 2022 reflected dramatic increases in the time it takes law enforcement to arrive on the scene of a crime. For example, police response times in New Orleans went from 51 minutes in 2019 to 146 minutes in 2022. During the same period, Nashville response times increased from 44 minutes to 74 minutes, and New York’s increased from 18 minutes to 33 minutes.⁴⁴ Other factors that contribute to low crime clearance rates are the increased use of firearms in murders, which provides less physical evidence and fewer witnesses; an increase in murders by assailants who are unknown to the victim,⁴⁵ high caseloads for detectives,⁴⁶ and reluctance⁴⁷ of witnesses to cooperate with investigations.

Clearance rates can dramatically improve⁴⁸ when law enforcement dedicates sustained time, personnel, and resources to investigate and solve serious crime. Most police departments have units focused on solving homicides, but nonfatal shootings are far more prevalent and yet less likely to receive similar attention. In Denver, the police department responded to a homicide spike in 2020 by creating a specialized unit⁴⁹ of detectives from within the department dedicated exclusively to solving nonfatal shootings. Recognizing that unresolved shootings may lead to retaliation and further violence, the unit treated cases as they would have homicides and focused intensively, and for a sustained period, on investigations into nonfatal shootings that otherwise might have gone unsolved. Denver increased its nonfatal shooting clearance rate substantially, from only 1 in 6 in 2019 to 60 percent of cases solved in 2023, best among the 20 most populous U.S. cities.

Law enforcement can redirect resources within their departments to increase the number of investigators and detectives. As demonstrated by Denver, this strategy can be adopted immediately without increasing budgets or personnel by hiring within departments and training officers in investigative work. Similarly, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) has proposed⁵⁰ that the Chicago police department improve its racially disparate homicide clearance rates by recruiting, training, and promoting 200 new detectives from existing staff. In addition to training patrol officers to better secure and canvas a crime scene, a cultural shift may be needed to ensure uniformed officers are valued and rewarded for their efforts to solve homicides like detectives.

In order to be effective, homicide detectives must be highly trained, able to build relationships with the community, and have lower caseloads. The Police Executive Research Forum and the Bureau of Justice Assistance recommend detectives take the lead on four to six new homicide cases⁵¹ per year to allow the necessary time to investigate, document, and follow up on cases. Many cities have detectives working many more cases, leading to lower clearance rates.

Law enforcement departments can also improve clearance rates by hiring civilians to expand capacity, as nonsworn personnel can perform a wide range of functions. They can assist in the investigatory process and assume noninvestigatory responsibilities and administrative tasks that consume officer time. Some cities are already exploring this strategy. For example, in 2022, Baltimore rolled out an initiative⁵² to hire civilians to investigate certain offenses, including low-level crimes, cold cases, and internal affairs complaints. Similarly, in response to its officer shortage, New Orleans began employing more civilians in 2023 and has since been able to reduce the time⁵³ it takes for an officer to respond to a crime call.

Finally, cities and states can stop the practice of pretextual traffic stops by police. To address this problem, innovative local and state policymakers are passing new laws that restrict the types of traffic violations that police can enforce.⁵⁴ Cities such as Philadelphia⁵⁵ and Pittsburgh,⁵⁶ as well as states such as Virginia⁵⁷ and Michigan,⁵⁸ have passed ordinances listing the minor infractions that police may no longer use as the sole basis for a traffic stop. Localities such as Los Angeles⁵⁹ have adopted new policies instructing police to prioritize their traffic enforcement resources for more serious offenses.

Tailor solutions to community needs through better data collection and collaboration

Quality and tailored data collection and reporting are necessary to improve accountability for serious crimes and carry policy implications at local, state, and federal levels. Accurate and transparent data collection and reporting ensures public safety solutions are crafted to meet specific community needs and have the greatest possible impact on crime challenges.

Access to timely and accurate crime data illuminates trends in criminal activity, helps tailor response strategies to specific problems driving violence, measures the efficacy of current practices, and encourages meaningful community engagement. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of timely, accurate, and consistent crime data reporting nationwide, especially about violent crimes involving guns.⁶⁰ Many cities even fail to track the number of people shot each year.⁶¹

To disrupt the easy supply of illegal guns in the community, cities and counties should collect and analyze all firearm-related ballistic and trace evidence and participate in interagency collaborations such as Crime Gun Intelligence Centers. These centers integrate data and intelligence from multiple agencies to identify illegal gun trafficking networks and provide investigative leads to hold straw purchasers, corrupt gun dealers, and perpetrators of gun violence accountable.⁶² States can improve local data collection by requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to local law enforcement in a timely manner.⁶³

Cities and states should also compile information from county and city hospitals on fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries, including characteristics of the victim, place of injury, initial hospitalization costs, the relationship between victims and perpetrators, and the intent of the injury (unintentional, self-harm, or interpersonal violence). Information about incidents of gun violence should be shared in real time with local offices of violence prevention⁶⁴ and community violence intervention partners working to reduce community gun violence by interrupting potential cycles of retaliation and offering supportive services to people affected by gun violence.

Cities and states commonly perform monthly or quarterly reviews of child and domestic violence fatalities and opioid deaths. Cities should also conduct regular assessments of fatal and nonfatal shootings to ensure that policymakers and community leaders have a common understanding of the local violence problem and tailor responses and programs toward the individuals most at risk of violence.⁶⁵ After the 2020 spike in gun violence, Philadelphia launched a broad interagency collaboration to build a profile of the factors driving violence, including the background and criminal histories of those involved, the source of firearms, and rates of case resolution.⁶⁶ The analysis led to a set of governmentwide recommendations to address these trends.⁶⁷

In a December 2023 analysis of gun violence in Washington, D.C, researchers at the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform combined available gun violence data with more than 70 interviews of police and community members trained in outreach to people at high risk of violence to understand the circumstances of each shooting, the characteristics of victims and suspects, and identify the potential networks of individuals involved.⁶⁸ The report recommends weekly reviews of all gun violence by police officers most knowledgeable about the incidents and staff of supervision agencies to prevent retaliatory shootings and make referrals to violence intervention and prevention programs.

Improve police-community relations

Improving police-community relationships will also empower law enforcement to better address serious crime while creating a more just approach to accountability. People who trust law enforcement are more willing to rely on police⁸⁰ when they are harmed, to participate in investigations, and to collaborate in crime reduction strategies. Conversely, communities are significantly less likely to turn to law enforcement when trust is lacking or broken. After the murder of George Floyd, one analysis⁸¹ found that 911 call volume and, specifically, calls to police over gunshots dropped sharply across eight American cities. Over the past few years, trust in how law enforcement engages civilians has decreased among many communities. Recent polling⁸² found that only 39 percent of Americans trust that law enforcement is trained to avoid excessive force. A 2022 survey⁸³ found that about half of surveyed Black people would prefer to be robbed or burglarized than to have unsolicited contact with police. Unless harmful enforcement practices cease and public confidence in law enforcement is improved, especially among the neighborhoods most affected by crime, communities will continue to face challenges in tackling serious crime.

Modern law enforcement culture emphasizes a “warrior”⁸⁴ mindset, at times pitting law enforcement against the public and framing the role of police as battling an enemy. Many law enforcement trainings are rooted in this mentality and assume violence as part of the policing experience,⁸⁵ which can foster a consistently hostile dynamic between law enforcement and those it is tasked with protecting. Police departments should begin changing this dynamic and building or restoring community trust by training law enforcement to engage civilians according to the principles of procedural justice.⁸⁶ This calls for officers to treat civilians with dignity and respect, explain their actions clearly and fairly and allow civilians to reciprocate, and communicate trustworthy motives.⁸⁷ Procedural justice in policing can improve officer attitudes and behaviors while reducing crime and arrests,⁸⁸ increase law enforcement legitimacy,⁸⁹ and even improve public cooperation.

Law enforcement must also eliminate policing tactics that contribute to harsh overenforcement and violence against civilians, particularly in communities of color. Police should no longer use the zero-tolerance style of policing, also commonly called “stop and frisk,” which deploys aggressive use of stops, searches,⁹⁰ and arrests for minor offenses. This strategy has done little to reduce crime but appreciably worsens⁹¹ economic and racial disparities in targeted communities and harms community-police relations in the neighborhoods that most need a collaborative and positive dynamic with law enforcement.

To reduce unnecessary violence against civilians, states and cities should impose bans on the use of chokeholds and quick-knock and no-knock warrants.⁹² Law enforcement departments should provide de-escalation trainings, which equip officers with the tools to defuse encounters before they lead to physical force and can reduce use-of-force incidents and lessen officer injuries if appropriately implemented.⁹³ They should also require officers to issue warnings before the deadly use of force and impose a duty to intervene if another officer is committing misconduct. Institutional practices and the structures of police departments have fueled a culture that discourages officers from speaking out or interfering when they witness their colleagues engaging in misconduct or excessive force, but officers should be supported when they do so. Communities also want more clarity on the ways in which law enforcement responds to serious crime and engages with the public, including information on calls for service, arrests, stops, searches, body-worn camera footage, and data related to officers who have engaged in misconduct. Publication of this information promotes accountability and transparency at all levels and empowers communities to better identify and advocate for necessary changes.

In addition, departments should change hiring and retention policies to build a more diverse, experienced, and effective police force that is more likely to inspire public confidence and trust.⁹⁴ Key strategies include:

• Employing targeted recruitment strategies to attract women and candidates of color
• Revisiting long-standing hiring policies regarding physical appearance
• Streamlining the application process⁹⁵
• Instituting a consistent schedule of exams and background checks
• Hiring civilian administrators⁹⁶ to help run background checks on applicants
• Reaching out regularly to applicants so fewer abandon the process

Other actions such as allowing flexibility in scheduling to reduce burnout, recruiting and promoting qualified officers from within, and striving for a transparent agency culture to help improve officer retention can increase department diversity. Departments should also invest in improved training and resources to support officer wellness and community engagement. Trauma-informed policing training can help officers manage their exposure to traumatic events on the job and can have long-term positive impacts on mental and emotional health.⁹⁷ Although police staffing is on the rebound⁹⁸ after facing shortages in recent years,⁹⁹ police departments should be careful not to lower hiring standards or training requirements as they seek to boost recruitment and retention of officers. Officer training programs should be undertaken in direct collaboration with community stakeholders and focus more on developing skills most relevant to the daily challenges officers face, such as interpersonal communication, problem-solving, procedural justice.¹⁰⁰ The federal government should establish national training standards for law enforcement that are rooted in evidence, minimize bias and use of force, and oriented to improving community-police dynamics. State, local, and federal funding for law enforcement training should require transparency on the content of trainings and incentivize compliance with national standards.¹⁰¹

Finally, there must be meaningful and transparent accountability for individual police officers involved in misconduct, violence against civilians, racial profiling, and other forms of corruption. Federal, state, and city governments can adopt a range of policies¹⁰² to reduce police misconduct and improve accountability, including eliminating “accountability-impeding”¹⁰³ provisions from state and local law and collective bargaining agreements and barring officers who commit significant misconduct from working in law enforcement again.¹⁰⁴ In 2023, the Biden administration created a national database to compile federal law enforcement misconduct.¹⁰⁵ States and localities can follow suit by establishing police misconduct databases and require law enforcement agencies to submit disciplinary records, termination decisions, use of force history, and any other relevant information on disqualified officers.

In 2022, the Biden administration issued an executive order¹⁰⁶ that called for “more comprehensive data collection related to use-of-force incidents; revised use of force standards; and expanded available resources to support the implementation of alternative crisis response models.¹⁰⁷ Congress should build on that progress and pass comprehensive police accountability legislation that, among other things, requires state and local reporting on police misconduct, restricts the use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants, creates a national police misconduct database, and ends the use of qualified immunity as a defense for law enforcement, among other things.

In some cases, police departments have such entrenched norms of racism, violence, and misconduct that external accountability mechanisms, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or state-level pattern and practice investigations,¹⁰⁸ can help identify and implement changes. These kinds of investigations can lead to sustained reform of police departments,¹⁰⁹ including fewer civilian killings and improved police legitimacy within communities. However, city leadership must commit to maintaining reforms after federal oversight has concluded.

Ensuring accountability solutions break the cycle of crime

People should be held accountable in ways that address underlying issues, seek to mediate conflict, deliver holistic and restorative outcomes, and reduce the likelihood of future criminal activity. Most criminal legal system approaches fail to interrupt cycles of crime or put people on a better path. Nearly three-quarters of people returning from prison are re-arrested within five years.¹¹⁰ Jail admission trends are similarly troubling. An analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative found that of the 4.9 million people¹¹¹ jailed in 2019, nearly one-quarter had been arrested two times or more in the same year. Many of these arrests were for nonviolent offenses, but several underlying issues were common among people with multiple arrests:¹¹² Many lacked health insurance, struggled with mental health disabilities, lived in extreme poverty, suffered serious psychological distress, or had substance use disorders. Accountability strategies that are not focused on addressing these common underlying issues are unlikely to interrupt cycles of offending. Local leaders and system stakeholders can deploy several approaches to interrupt cycles of crime.

Expand and increase access to diversion and treatment

Programs that divert people from contact with the criminal legal system, often while providing treatment or services, can effectively interrupt cycles of offending.¹¹³

Policymakers and stakeholders should implement diversion strategies outside and at every critical juncture within the criminal legal system. Cities can adopt pre-booking diversion, where law enforcement can direct people to community-based services or issue a citation instead of arrest. The Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, initially launched in King County, Washington, which includes Seattle, allows officers to divert individuals repeatedly arrested for low-level, behavioral health-related offenses to appropriate services that can address their needs. The LEAD model has been proven to reduce¹¹⁴ the likelihood of rearrest and future incarceration, and other cities are adapting this approach for their challenges with other improved outcomes. For example, in Houston, a Homeless Outreach Team¹¹⁵ housed within the police department is deployed into the community to support people experiencing homelessness. This team, which has helped hundreds of residents to date, can refer people to shelters or treatment, help people acquire personal identification such as social security cards, offer stabilizing medical care, and more.

Similarly, prosecutorial-led diversion¹¹⁶ allows people to avoid criminal conviction by participating in programming, performing community service, or meeting other conditions designed to eliminate repeat offending. Court-based programs, commonly referred to as problem-solving courts,¹¹⁷ defer prosecution upon completion of a treatment program, typically targeting mental health disabilities or substance use disorders. These programs can be effective if they impose limited, feasible, and targeted conditions on participants. For example, the Cook County Felony Drug School allows people accused of misdemeanor or felony drug possession offenses to attend four standardized drug education classes instead of jail. Of these participants, only 1 percent¹¹⁸ were subsequently incarcerated, and participants were 6 percent less likely to be rearrested within two years.

People committing first-time and low-level offenses are exceptionally responsive to early diversion, and cities should make programs as available and accessible to as many of these individuals as possible. A Houston-based program¹¹⁹ that diverted first-time felony defendants after completing a community supervision program cut participants’ reoffending rates in half and increased their employment by nearly 50 percent over 10 years. Milwaukee also has a diversion program¹²⁰ that redirects people deemed low risk from the legal system to community service and restorative justice programs,¹²¹ which are far more effective at interrupting cycles of crime. People who participated in this program were less likely¹²² to be sentenced to jail and 11 percent less likely to be arrested within two years than those who did not participate.

As cities and systems build out diversion strategies, they should avoid many programs’ common limitations and negative collateral consequences.¹²³ Historically, participation in diversion programs is significantly limited by eligibility criteria that excludes people with even minor prior system contacts, alongside exorbitant fees that are unattainable for most potential participants. Both prerequisites disproportionately exclude people of color and deepen already profound economic disadvantages. In addition, treatment strategies mandated by and rooted in the criminal legal system are no more effective than voluntary and personalized community-based approaches,¹²⁴ but they do increase system involvement and associated collateral consequences. States and localities must invest in and develop robust networks of community-based programs that can provide individualized services to participants in an expanded suite of criminal legal system diversion and treatment programs.

Ensure age-appropriate accountability strategies for children

States and cities should adopt more effective accountability strategies for young people that recognize their unique developmental stage and allow for growth and change. Adolescents—those between childhood and adulthood—are experiencing brain development processes that contribute to greater risk-seeking behavior, susceptibility to peer pressure, and diminished capacity for self-control.¹²⁵ They are also capable of changing,¹²⁶ and as they grow, most will naturally mature¹²⁷ out of antisocial and criminal behavior, regardless of the seriousness of their offense. In addition, incarceration has harmful effects¹²⁸ on children, including mental and physical health harms, slowing maturation, exposure to trauma and abuse, and the increasing likelihood of future arrest. Strategies emphasizing education and rehabilitation rather than punishment allow for these realities and are far more effective at changing trajectories.

A growing number of states are implementing policies that acknowledge children’s unique developmental process and offer them every opportunity for growth. For example, several states have passed laws to raise the age¹²⁹ at which children are tried as adults in the criminal legal system and eliminate the use of solitary confinement¹³⁰ on children. These and other policies have contributed to a significant decrease in youth incarceration in recent decades. Nationally, youth incarceration rates decreased 70 percent¹³¹ between 1995 and 2019, while violent crime arrests involving youths declined dramatically during approximately that same period, dropping 78 percent between 1994 and 2020.¹³²

Nevertheless, many systems still rely on approaches that perpetuate violence and recidivism, ignore the trauma driving juvenile offending, and deepen racial disparities. Young people of color¹³³ continue to be arrested and incarcerated at disproportionately high rates, and many young people enter the juvenile legal system because of school-related events. In schools nationwide, increasing police presence is prioritized¹³⁴ over access to supportive services such as counseling, social services, therapy, and health care. Multiple¹³⁵ studies¹³⁶ have demonstrated that exclusionary school policies, such as suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to arrest, increase the presence of police in school.¹³⁷ These practices, which fail to address the root causes of the student’s problematic behavior, disrupt educational progress, increase juvenile system involvement, and are used disproportionately against disabled¹³⁸ students,¹³⁹ Black students,¹⁴⁰ and LGBTQI+ students.¹⁴¹

Implementing restorative justice practices¹⁴² in schools where mediation is prioritized over punishment can help ensure that children are held accountable¹⁴³ for their actions without disrupting their participation in school. These practices support¹⁴⁴ children’s social and emotional development, improve school climate,¹⁴⁵ and can reduce the use of exclusionary practices and racial disparities.¹⁴⁶

States and cities should also employ diversion practices at various stages of the process where a child’s violation has been elevated to the juvenile legal system. Diversion programs for young people are more effective at reducing recidivism¹⁴⁷ than conventional judicial interventions, and several jurisdictions have adopted a range of diversion strategies.¹⁴⁸ Kings County, Washington, is realizing better outcomes through a diversion program called Restorative Community Pathways,¹⁴⁹ which connects community members weekly with young people to support their needs and ensure they are following program parameters. Of the 145 young people who participated in the Pathways program, just 8 percent were accused of new crimes. By contrast, more than one-fifth of those who were incarcerated during the same period were charged with new crimes.¹⁵⁰

Eliminate barriers for people with criminal convictions

State and local leaders committed to improving accountability must ensure that people with criminal records and those returning from incarceration are not punished in perpetuity. Policymakers must remove structural barriers unnecessarily impeding individuals’ efforts to change their lives for the better and break the cycle of crime and reoffending.

Nearly one-third of working-age Americans¹⁵¹ have some kind of criminal conviction, and 19 million¹⁵² working-age people have a felony record. Despite serving their sentences, individuals with criminal records have significantly reduced rights and face a host of legal barriers¹⁵³ that make everyday life exceedingly difficult. People with criminal convictions are often barred from economic supports for which they would be otherwise eligible, voting rights, student loans that help them acquire an education, vocational licenses that empower them to attain a higher-wage job or career path, and more.¹⁵⁴ The more than 500,000 people returning¹⁵⁵ annually from incarceration face these and even more difficult challenges. Returning individuals often lack social connections and community support and are nearly 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general public,¹⁵⁶ suffer from greater rates of food insecurity¹⁵⁷ and lower rates of stable employment,¹⁵⁸ and face significant barriers to necessary health care.¹⁵⁹ All of these disadvantages can perpetuate recidivism.

Federal, state, and local leaders can adopt a range of solutions to ensure returning individuals have access to safe and affordable housing that can stabilize their lives and help break the cycle of offending. Communities should embrace a “housing first”¹⁶⁰ approach for returning individuals and people with criminal records, which recognizes the crucial role housing has in creating stability¹⁶¹ and ensures housing programs are available without precondition or requirements. State and local governments should also develop and expand the amount of evidence-based transitional and supportive housing¹⁶² available for returning individuals in the immediate first few months after release, which can provide direct housing alongside health services, employment assistance, and other reentry support. Congress should increase funding for the Second Chance Act to ensure sustained support for these programs and rental assistance to reentering individuals. Moreover, these programs should direct most of the funding toward rental assistance instead of landlord incentives.¹⁶³

Establishing new housing programs, however, is insufficient to meet the demand for people in reentry, as both private landlords and state and local public housing authorities (PHAs) disqualify people from housing based on criminal records. PHAs determine which individuals and families are eligible for public housing using guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and their policies are typically more restrictive than federally required.¹⁶⁶ These restrictions can bar an individual from joining their family in public housing upon reentry.¹⁶⁷ HUD should prohibit HUD-assisted housing providers and PHAs from automatically excluding people with certain criminal histories, instead requiring fact-specific, individualized assessments that incorporate multiple sources of information, including recency and relevance of prior criminal activity.¹⁶⁸ In addition, state and local housing authorities should amend exclusionary policies to ensure no one is denied for using state-legalized drugs such as cannabis¹⁶⁹ and shorten the lookback period for criminal records.¹⁷⁰ Federal and state governments can also limit private landlords’ ability to deny housing based on criminal records through a “ban the box” policy,¹⁷¹ which bars landlords from asking about criminal convictions prior to making a housing offer.

Elected and community leaders should also remove unnecessary obstacles to employment and expand training opportunities for returning individuals. Stable employment helps reduce recidivism¹⁷² and decreases the likelihood that people will commit crimes. However, people face a wide range of obstacles to employment upon reentry. Most¹⁷³ full-time employers require a background check that frequently screens out people with criminal convictions. Thousands of laws explicitly prohibit¹⁷⁴ people with records from obtaining certain professional licenses, even when the crime of conviction is unrelated to the vocation. States can pass automatic record expungement measures, also known as Clean Slate Laws, to allow individuals to have certain criminal convictions cleared from their records. Since Pennsylvania passed automatic record-sealing legislation in 2018, 11 other states have followed suit and passed similar measures. Congress should pass legislation that establishes an automatic clearance mechanism for certain federal offenses and provide funding to states to support their automatic record clearance measures.

In order to increase the employment opportunities available to people with criminal records, states can also adopt “ban the box”¹⁷⁵ measures, which prevent employers from asking about criminal records on applications. State legislators can also change¹⁷⁶ hiring and licensing laws¹⁷⁷ that erroneously ban people with records from certain professions and provide job training¹⁷⁸ and readiness programs to help ensure that the skills of those released match workforce needs. In Minnesota, a program called EMPLOY¹⁷⁹ provides job placement and readiness support for returning individuals prior to and for one year after release. EMPLOY participants were 63 percent less likely to have parole revoked due to a technical violation and were 72 percent more likely to find employment post release.

Finally, federal, state, and local governments should ensure returning individuals can access safety net programs, including health care and food assistance. Ensuring continuous access to health care resources and services prior to release is crucial for successful reentry and reduces recidivism.¹⁸⁰ States should expand Medicaid eligibility for people during incarceration and support individuals through enrollment. States should avail themselves of Medicaid waivers that allow for the coverage for those who are incarcerated 90 days prior to their release. Through the waiver process, states can cover case management and medication-assisted treatment services and provide short-term medication before release for reentering individuals. States should increase access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) by opting out of criminal history restrictions.¹⁸¹ New York City and South Dakota offer prerelease enrollment for returning individuals, while a program in Ohio provides application assistance for returning individuals to connect them with benefits upon release.¹⁸²

Prioritizing support for crime survivors

One of the chief responsibilities of the criminal legal system is to seek justice for crime survivors and provide them with the necessary support and services to begin the difficult work of recovery. Fulfilling this responsibility is also instrumental to interrupting cycles of retaliatory violence, as many perpetrators were first victims who never received the necessary treatment, services, or support to address their trauma.¹⁸³ Comprehensive and timely services can also help facilitate cooperation and trust between crime survivors and police officers, increasing law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes and hold perpetrators accountable. Unfortunately, most crime survivors rarely witness their crimes solved,¹⁸⁴ and according to a 2020 survey¹⁸⁵ by the Alliance for Safety and Justice, less than 1 in 3 victims report receiving help after experiencing a crime. Moreover, most public safety solutions are unresponsive to the preferences of most crime survivors,¹⁸⁶ who greatly prefer accountability strategies that emphasize preventing future offending, rehabilitation, and reparation to victims as opposed to incarceration and punishment.

Provide comprehensive, culturally relevant, and trauma-informed services

Support services for victims should be available both in the immediate aftermath of a crime and throughout the ongoing investigation, and they should be comprehensive, culturally relevant, and trauma informed.

Understanding the role culture plays in the way victims experience a certain crime can help service providers and law enforcement develop appropriate approaches that mitigate trauma and facilitate appropriate services. Similarly, trauma-informed care recognizes that devastating events can affect people mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally, and can influence the way they interact with the criminal legal system.¹⁸⁷ Interacting with the criminal legal system can also retraumatize survivors of crime in a number of ways, including requiring them to retell their experiences frequently, not allowing them to make their own choices, or not being responsive or providing timely updates on events.¹⁸⁸ As police officers are often the first to engage victims following a crime, they should be trained in culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches to supporting survivors. They should also be trained to inform victims of their legal rights and available resources, including services that assist in filing for emergency financial aid, compensation and support, court accompaniment, transportation, and otherwise address survivors’ many needs.

Trauma recovery centers¹⁸⁹ can be an effective way to connect crime survivors with wraparound services. The Advocate Trauma Recovery Center,¹⁹⁰ now available in three Chicago-area hospitals, prioritizes helping survivors recover, even after their physical wounds are healed. Through this program, survivors can access free group therapy, individual therapy, psychiatric services, and extensive social services all in one place. Whether it is finding survivors a place to live, a job, or financial or legal resources, these programs address the impact violence can have physically, mentally, socially, economically, and more.

Trauma recovery centers and other hospital-based violence intervention programs¹⁹¹ (HVIPs) are also helpful in addressing cycles of retaliatory violence. HVIPs connect with victims of violence once an injury has occurred. The programs are typically housed in an emergency facility or trauma center, where a case manager meets with survivors and guides them toward resources necessary to facilitate their immediate recovery, such as trauma support, counseling, and safety planning. Case managers also support survivors’ long-term stability through ongoing case management to help meet survivors’ needs. HVIPs may also be able to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement or arrest for participants.

Another key strategy for supporting victim recovery and increasing victim participation in case resolution is providing more relocation support to survivors, including short- and long-term housing and related services.¹⁹² Victims participating in police investigations can face greater risks of retaliation when returning to their neighborhoods and may need assistance with relocation. They may also require financial support as a safety net in case of job loss as they recover from crime and to assist with court fees and costs associated with the incident-resolution process.

Nearly one-third of gun violence survivors¹⁹³ have expressed the need for legal assistance for the victim or the death of a family member, but less than 10 percent¹⁹⁴ of victims of serious violence report having access to victim service agencies. To improve both access and availability to such services, states should expand victims’ civil legal services, expand proactive outreach programs, increase access for non-English speakers, and explore additional avenues for raising awareness of survivor resources.

Expand funding and remove harmful exclusions for victim services and funds

Federal and state governments have established crime victim compensation funds to assist in the difficult process of recovering from a crime. The largest funding source for crime survivors is the federal Crime Victims Fund.¹⁹⁵ However, most crime survivors never receive financial assistance. A 2022 national survey¹⁹⁶ by the Alliance for Safety and Justice found that 96 percent of victims of violent crime did not receive victim compensation to help them recover. Currently, states create eligibility requirements for federal and state victim compensation dollars that can be overly restrictive¹⁹⁷ and exclude a wide range of crime survivors. People can be denied services for a number of reasons, such as if they have outstanding fines or fees from prior federal, state, or local criminal offenses; were somehow involved in the crime; did not report the crime;¹⁹⁸ live with the perpetrator; have a criminal record; or were somehow perceived as contributing to their victimization.”¹⁹⁹ This ignores the reality that many victims are caught in cycles of violence and trauma and that most people who commit crimes were previously subject to violence, trauma, and victimization.²⁰⁰ Creating barriers that exclude such individuals only perpetuates violence and retaliation and disproportionately harms Black, Native American, and Latino communities²⁰¹ who suffer greater rates of gun violence. To better assist these individuals, victim compensation programs should increase accessibility by removing exclusions based on the criminal histories of the victim, the type of crime committed, and the victim’s behavior.

Second, federal and state victim compensation program funding is not supported through taxpayer dollars but by fines and fees collected through the criminal legal system. Most of the federal funding for victim compensation programs comes from criminal fines levied on corporate cases,²⁰² but states rely heavily on fees drawn from marginalized and poverty-stricken communities.²⁰³ In practice, this means that many of the people required to pay fees that source victim compensation funds are then denied access to those funds when they are victimized. State and federal leaders should expand funding for victim compensation programs to include general revenue funds. In 2022, Illinois adopted this strategy and passed legislation allocating $20 million from general revenue funds to a victim compensation program to supplement existing funding and ensure the financial needs of all victims are met.²⁰⁴ Similarly, Arizona has committed to an annual contribution of $2 million²⁰⁵ to its victim compensation program from the state’s general revenue.

In addition, victim compensation resources are typically siloed, forcing service providers to compete for limited grant dollars. Both the state and federal government should structure programs to incentivize collaboration across the spectrum of service providers to ensure a stronger continuum of care. Combining local, state, and federal funding streams will increase resources and streamline desperately needed access to victim supports and services. In addition, most states require victims to fund costs up front and submit for reimbursement later, but this puts a significant financial burden on crime victims and their families and renders the process of receiving victim compensation prohibitive for many. States should eliminate the reimbursement model and provide resources directly to survivors.

Improving accountability for serious crime is important for a wide range of reasons, as outlined above, but the criminal legal system is poorly equipped to protect people from harm to begin with, nor is it equipped to change the conditions that give rise to crime. Numerous prevention strategies that can have a significant impact on crime are available to policymakers, including passing legislation to reduce the harms caused by guns in daily life; expanding the public safety workforce to include a range of specially trained professionals to ensure the right responder is available for a given situation; and increasing services and resources for underserved communities.

Solutions to prevent harm caused by guns

One of the most significant factors driving violent crime is easy access to firearms by individuals who want to commit violence. States that have weaker gun laws²⁰⁶ are experiencing higher homicide rates, faster increases in mass shootings, and higher rates of police officer fatalities than states with strong gun laws. To prevent gun violence before it happens, policymakers must adopt legislation to limit access to guns by those who are likely to use them to cause harm, decrease unauthorized access to firearms, create licensing requirements for gun purchases, and empower gun violence survivors to hold gun manufacturers accountable for negligent practices.

Extreme risk protection order laws

Extreme Risk Protection Order²⁰⁷ (ERPO) laws reduce gun suicide and mass shootings²⁰⁸ by allowing the temporary removal of weapons from individuals who pose a high risk of violence to themselves or others.

Individuals contemplating suicide or acts of mass violence often exhibit warning signs.²⁰⁹ These laws create civil remedies allowing law enforcement, family members, or mental health providers to petition a court for the removal of firearms from someone when there is clear evidence that the individual is experiencing a temporary crisis, poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others, and has a firearm. Individuals under an ERPO are also prohibited from purchasing additional firearms for the order’s duration. ERPO laws include rigorous due process protections, which include notifying the respondent when an ERPO petition has been filed; providing an opportunity for the respondent to be heard and present evidence; and requiring a judicial finding of risk prior to the issuance of an ERPO. Momentum for ERPO laws is growing, with 16 states passing such measures within the past five years, and with support from three-quarters of Americans, including gun owners.²¹⁰ In 2022, Congress authorized $750 million²¹¹ over five years to support state implementation and establishment of ERPO laws, among other strategies.

Safe storage laws

Safe storage practices are essential in preventing unauthorized access to firearms and ensuring that gun owners are held accountable for failing to secure their weapons properly.²¹²

Typically, child access prevention laws impose a penalty on gun owners if failure to properly secure a firearm results in a child accessing it, while state safe storage laws require that individuals store their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition in certain circumstances. Given that 95 percent of all stolen firearms are taken from private homes and vehicles, safe storage is an easy way to prevent firearm theft. 26 states and the District of Columbia have some form of safe storage or child access prevention laws,²¹³ which have also been successful²¹⁴ in preventing access to guns by children and teens and reducing the risk of gun suicide. Congress should pass legislation that²¹⁵ requires gun owners to safely and securely store their firearms, reducing access to firearms often used in unintentional shootings, suicides, and school shootings.

Permit-to-purchase laws

Permit-to-purchase laws, also known as purchaser licensing laws, are one of the most effective ways²¹⁶ to reduce gun deaths, firearm trafficking, and shootings of police officers.

These laws require individuals to apply for and obtain a license before purchasing a firearm. By establishing additional standards for gun ownership, these laws ensure that those who own a firearm are properly trained on the use and safe storage of their weapons and that people with a history of violence, those at risk of future interpersonal violence or suicide, and straw purchasers or gun traffickers are blocked from accessing deadly weapons. Additionally, built-in waiting periods and renewal standards allow law enforcement²¹⁷ to routinely ensure that gun owners remain eligible for purchase and possession and facilitate the removal of firearms from individuals who may become ineligible because of a conviction, protective order, or other prohibiting event.

While there is no federal permit-to-purchase law, 11 states²¹⁸ have enacted some kind of permit-to-purchase requirement for individuals seeking to buy a firearm. Some of these states require a permit to purchase for all firearms, while others only require a permit to purchase for certain types of firearms. Three states have passed legislation requiring a license to own firearms (valid as long as the person owns the gun), two states require a firearm safety certificate for prospective firearm purchasers, and the District of Columbia requires prospective purchaser registration.

Gun industry immunity laws

A small number of gun dealers are responsible for supplying the illegal gun market,²¹⁹ many of which are then used in the commission of violent crime.²²⁰ Gun manufacturers who continue to supply firearms to these dealers enable the illegal trafficking of guns, but survivors of gun violence currently have little recourse to hold the gun industry accountable.

To provide victims of gun violence with the same legal avenues for justice that hold nearly every other sector to account, Congress should repeal the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).²²¹ This 2005 law grants limited immunity to gun manufacturers, dealers, and advertisers in civil litigation. Generally, PLCAA makes it harder, slower, and more expensive for survivors to file lawsuits against the gun industry, even in cases where gun manufacturers have been negligent.²²²

PLCAA’s restrictions and limitations on certain types of civil lawsuits have prevented many survivors and municipalities from getting their day in court. Civil lawsuits against the tobacco, opioid, and automobile industries incentivized manufacturers to make safer products and reform their distribution and marketing practices. Repealing PLCAA would incentivize the firearm industry to make large-scale safety improvements, monitor distribution practices, prevent sales to straw purchasers, and stop advertising to children.

Until Congress repeals PLCAA, states should pass legislation that allows members of the gun industry to be held accountable if their negligence fails to prevent the sale or distribution of firearms to prohibited individuals, straw purchasers, or gun traffickers. Since 2021, eight states have passed legislation to increase access to justice for survivors of gun violence.²²³

For guidance, states can look to New York,²²⁴ Delaware,²²⁵ New Jersey,²²⁶ California, and Washington,²²⁷ which have recently passed similar legislation.

Expanding the public safety workforce

Communities face a range of social challenges that can destabilize families and neighborhoods, including homelessness, substance abuse, mental health crises, domestic disputes, and community conflict. Without preventive measures, these challenges can escalate to crime and violence that harms victims. Police have historically been responsible for responding to a wide range of social issues without the necessary training or resources to address them effectively. This undermines public safety by diverting law enforcement resources away from serious and violent crime while simultaneously denying community members the services of specially trained professionals who can address underlying needs without exacerbating fraught situations. Expanding the public safety workforce to include a wider range of professionals, including those specializing in crisis response, violence interruption, conflict resolution, and behavioral health, can improve immediate and long-term safety outcomes.

Establish and expand community responder programs

Between approximately 21 percent and 38 percent of 911 calls routed to police are low-risk situations that involve behavioral health, homelessness, social service needs, interpersonal conflict, or quality-of-life concerns.²²⁸ Specially trained community responder teams can safely and effectively handle many of these calls.²²⁹

Community responder programs “involve dispatching teams of at least two unarmed professionals with a range of skills, including de-escalation and conflict resolution, and who can provide linkages to community-based services and supports.”²³⁰ In many places, these programs also offer phone-based support, which can successfully de-escalate or resolve a crisis without dispatching an in-person team.²³¹

In recent years, many cities have established community responder programs while adapting dispatch²³² systems to ensure they are effectively deployed. Depending on the scope of the community program, responder teams are staffed by some combination of paramedics, peer specialists, mediation specialists, registered nurses, case managers, outreach workers, behavioral health specialists, and social workers. These programs can significantly reduce²³³ reports of the types of crime they target, decreasing the rate at which mental and behavioral health crises are criminalized and reducing crime overall.

Many programs in places such as Denver,²³⁴ and Austin, Texas,²³⁵ focus on responding to people experiencing mental health crises and provide immediate de-escalation while connecting individuals with community-based care and treatment and follow-up care as appropriate. Chicago²³⁶ established specialized teams to provide follow-up care for people who have experienced a drug overdose from opioids. Atlanta²³⁷ has created a community responder program that responds to people experiencing mental health crises, substance use disorders, or extreme poverty and connects them with targeted and immediate services. Dayton, Ohio,²³⁸ has established a program that focuses on mediating and de-escalating interpersonal conflict to resolve disputes before they become criminal.

Sustainable funding is often a barrier to program development and expansion. Community responder programs are most often funded by local governments.²³⁹ Jurisdictions have also leveraged federal resources through Medicaid and the American Rescue Plan Act²⁴⁰ to establish and grow these important programs. Congress should support the establishment and proliferation of community responder programs.

Develop and sustain community violence interventions

Communities are exploring a range of innovative, community-based strategies²⁴¹ to interrupt cycles of crime, violence, victimization, and trauma.²⁴²

Community violence Intervention ²⁴³ (CVI) programs are specifically designed to intervene with and offer support to the small number²⁴⁴ of people who are most connected to local cycles of violence. These programs allow affected communities to take the lead in building their safety infrastructure, thereby accessing an often hard-to-reach population that is closed to other violence prevention programs. For example, many CVI models²⁴⁵ specifically support gun violence victims and their families in the immediate aftermath of a shooting to disrupt any potential retaliatory violence.

CVI programs employ specially trained staff to engage participants, mediate conflicts to prevent escalation to violence, and connect individuals to community-based services and resources. CVI workers are largely credible messengers who have lived experience with violence, know and are known by the social networks within the community, and understand the details of the events precipitating the violence. CVI programs equip program staff²⁴⁶ to serve as peacemakers and navigate relationships with those who may be unreachable through traditional criminal legal channels. Trusted messengers often work alongside case managers and other social service professionals to address the range of program participant needs. Cities must invest in the CVI workers by increasing compensation, establishing career pipelines, and enhancing training and well-being support for their daily difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks.²⁴⁷

When properly implemented and sustained, CVI programs have reduced shootings by as much as 60 percent,²⁴⁸ making them one of the most effective tools for addressing community violence. One study²⁴⁹ recently found a 73 percent reduction in future violent arrests within two years for those who completed CVI programming. Localities have demonstrated success in implementing a variety of CVI program models that address the unique needs of their communities. Street outreach programs²⁵⁰ rely on “violence interrupters” to engage and support community members and mediate conflicts to prevent escalation to violence. Hospital-based programs²⁵¹ involve health care experts and community members connecting with victims and their families immediately after a shooting in trauma centers and emergency rooms to connect people with services and prevent retaliation.

Despite proven efficacy, CVI programs are woefully underfunded, challenging broader implementation and sustainability efforts in jurisdictions nationwide.²⁵² Local,²⁵³ state,²⁵⁴ and federal²⁵⁵ lawmakers are being called upon to sustain the early investments made through the American Rescue Plan Act²⁵⁶ that have been leveraged to establish the evidence base for CVI programs nationally. A commitment to sustainable funding, faithful implementation, workforce development, and ongoing evaluation are essential to the long-term success of these lifesaving programs.

Build local government infrastructure to support community partnerships

Local governments should create infrastructure to support and coordinate community partnerships and strategies. A whole-of-government approach is essential to addressing public safety by coordinating between law enforcement, public health, the criminal legal system, housing services, victim services, public works, and others.

In many cities, the locus of this kind of collaboration resides in an Office of Violence Prevention²⁵⁷ (OVP). OVPs are civilian government offices typically led by mayoral appointees and housed within mayors’ offices, local health departments, or administrative offices within city governments.²⁵⁸ These offices emphasize a public health approach to gun violence and may focus on a wide range of issues, including domestic violence prevention, youth violence prevention, and suicide prevention as integral to improving public safety.²⁵⁹ OVPs often act as conveners of local stakeholders; provide strategic direction for local violence prevention efforts; lead fundraising, engagement, and advocacy efforts to support the work; and provide government funding and oversight for community-based organizations to implement key programs.²⁶⁰ Since 2007, Richmond, California,²⁶¹ has consistently and sustainably invested in its Office of Neighborhood Safety, experiencing a 62 percent decline in homicides and 79 percent decrease in firearm assaults since its establishment.²⁶²

Cities are also establishing dedicated civilian offices to oversee community responder programs, which deploy specially trained civilian responders to assist in low-risk emergencies so that they do not escalate.²⁶³ In places such as Cambridge, Massachusetts,²⁶⁴ and Durham, North Carolina,²⁶⁵ these government offices coordinate city workers and/or contracted service providers that staff responder teams and coordinate between public health, housing, emergency medical, and police services.²⁶⁶ An emerging trend within cities is the establishment of even broader coordination across community safety functions beyond a single office. For example, Albuquerque, New Mexico,²⁶⁷ established a cabinet-level Community Safety Department that oversees crisis response, street outreach, and violence prevention programming.

The Biden administration has taken an essential step to model this whole-of-government approach by establishing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.²⁶⁸ To ground these efforts in a public health approach, the administration should also establish a Community Safety Division within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee federal grant programs and facilitate interagency coordination on prevention-focused public safety programs.

Whether through an OVP or some other department, federal, state, and local policymakers should develop mechanisms to direct government resources to community-based organizations to carry out the essential public safety and violence prevention work they are doing and have been doing in their neighborhoods for years, often with little or no governmental support. Community-based organizations provide critical services that can prevent and interrupt crime, and many have deep roots and understanding of neighborhood dynamics. Government leaders should ensure dedicated and sustainable funding for these organizations that can be regularly distributed through grants or government contracts, commit to accelerating the pace of bureaucratic processes, and dedicate staffing for oversight to ensure resources can flow swiftly where and when they are needed.²⁶⁹ Funding decisions and grantee selection should include a diverse range of stakeholders, and applicant organizations should be supported through the process to improve their chances of receiving funding. ²⁷⁰ Policymakers should also provide support and capacity building for community-based organizations to grow their own capacity to apply for government funding, administer funds, establish partnerships, and manage reporting requirements.²⁷¹ Statewide coalitions in places such as Illinois, California, and Wisconsin have been successful at leveraging existing federal and state grant programs and advocating for increased financial commitments to maximize the funding flowing to community-based organizations.²⁷²

With sound infrastructure, cities will be set up to more effectively develop and implement holistic, community-centered violence prevention plans²⁷³ that guide both the government and community members in collaborative efforts to reduce crime and violence. These strategic plans serve as a roadmap for cities to coordinate a whole-of-government approach that centers the people most harmed by crime, acknowledges the role that systemic racism and other forms of discrimination play in cycles of violence, examines community conditions and environmental planning, and uses data to develop a comprehensive profile of violence in a community. These plans can also be pivotal in educating legislators and the larger community on the value of community-based strategies.

Newark, New Jersey is lauded for its “ecosystem” approach.²⁷⁴ This comprehensive strategy²⁷⁵ simultaneously addresses the many factors that lead to crime and relies on engagement from all community members as essential and interdependent partners in improving public safety. In Chicago, the People’s Plan for Community Safety²⁷⁶ is a coordinated effort to address historic divestment, heal communities, and create inclusive public safety across all neighborhoods. The robust set of strategies brings government, community partners, businesses, and philanthropy together to immediately interrupt violence among those who are acutely affected and address the causes of violence in high opportunity neighborhoods over the long term. In 2017, Milwaukee’s OVP launched the Blueprint for Peace,²⁷⁷ a comprehensive community-driven roadmap to prevent and reduce violence, under which Milwaukee established a Violence Response Public Health and Safety Team²⁷⁸ that collaborates across a range of government services and community leaders to identify circumstances that could give rise to violence and coordinate responses.

Increasing services and resources for underserved communities

A lasting approach to building safety deploys intensive resources to underserved areas and seeks to change the underlying conditions that contribute to crime. Cities and neighborhoods with the highest crime rates have historically been neglected, marginalized, disinvested, and isolated. As a result, residents lack access to institutions that create stable and durable communities, such as health care providers and systems, affordable and clean housing, employment opportunities, and improved physical environments. Federal, state, and local leaders can adopt both immediate and long-term strategies to improve access to each of these community institutions, which will improve public safety in the present while building durable and thriving neighborhoods.

Expand access to public health and housing resources

Ensuring that communities have access to health care, including high-quality health coverage options, is key to reducing crime and the conditions that lead to crime.

Health insurance improves access to health care services, including preventive and behavioral care; however, most people who enter jails lack health insurance.²⁷⁹ Many of these individuals have limited coverage options, as they do not qualify for Medicaid²⁸⁰ and are less likely to hold the sort of stable employment that provides health insurance. Increasing the number of people insured is directly connected to reductions in both property and violent crime. One study²⁸¹ found that states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) saw a 3 percent drop in crime compared with states that did not. In addition, Medicaid expansion has been shown to reduce²⁸² arrests, particularly related to drug use.

In addition, communities with high rates of drug use and violence may benefit from locating substance abuse treatment centers directly in the most affected neighborhoods. These have proven²⁸³ to reduce financially motivated and violent crimes in the immediately surrounding area, likely by reducing the use of drugs that generate violent behavior, reducing conflicts related to drug trafficking, and eliminating the need to steal to fund a drug habit.

The 10 remaining nonexpansion states²⁸⁴ should take advantage of federal incentives²⁸⁵ to expand Medicaid coverage. In addition, states can take action to improve coverage affordability, helping to improve access to care for high-risk populations. For example, to incentivize enrollment for young adults, Maryland has a Young Adult Premium Assistance Program²⁸⁶ that uses state funds to help 18- to 37-year-olds with ACA marketplace coverage pay for their monthly health insurance costs. More resources are needed to support public health alternatives so that a range of health care and mental health treatment options are readily available for those needing support well before they reach a crisis moment. Increased funding for community health clinics, trauma recovery centers, peer support specialists, and community health workers would also address other access barriers that prevent people from receiving the care they need in their communities.

Likewise, access to housing is critical to building safer, healthier, and more stable communities. Communities with higher rates of eviction are more likely to experience higher rates²⁸⁷ of violent crime, theft, and gun violence.²⁸⁸ Homelessness and housing insecurity can destabilize people living on the margins, which can lead to unnecessary criminal legal involvement. Given the persistent shortage of affordable housing,²⁸⁹ large numbers of low-income families and individuals are housing insecure and at risk of experiencing homelessness. Historical and current racially unjust practices²⁹⁰ such as redlining,²⁹¹ devaluation²⁹² of Black- owned homes through appraisals, and disinvestment²⁹³ have concentrated low-quality housing and housing instability in Black and other communities of color.

State, local, and federal leaders must work to adopt strategies to expand the supply of affordable high-quality²⁹⁴ housing, provide rental assistance, and improve housing infrastructure. Several cities²⁹⁵ have used federal funding streams, including the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), to help address housing insecurity and assistance needs. Sustainable and long-term investments in housing programs and infrastructure should be targeted as a crime prevention strategy. For example, Denver²⁹⁶ has approved $3.9 million in ARPA funds to expand alternative temporary housing areas known as “safe outdoor spaces,” which allow people experiencing homelessness to connect with support services and “regain stability in a safe, managed and supportive environment.”

Increase economic opportunities in disinvested communities

Economic security is crucial to reducing crime and has immediate and long-term impacts on public safety. Lower rates of unemployment²⁹⁷ are associated with lower crime rates, while communities where residents struggle with chronic and severe financial stress have higher rates of violence.²⁹⁸

Subsidized employment programs, which connect people to employment and training opportunities alongside additional support services, can significantly reduce crime and violence for participants. They are particularly impactful for people at high risk of violence, especially when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy. Chicago’s Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI)²⁹⁹ connects people who are significantly affected by gun violence with paid transitional jobs, along with cognitive behavioral interventions and wraparound support services. These types of interventions reduce the likelihood of participants’ arrest for a shooting or homicide by 80 percent.³⁰⁰ Subsidized employment programs have an additional range³⁰¹ of benefits, including increasing financial stability for families, improving educational outcomes for children of participants, and lowering rates of long-term poverty, all of which can help reduce crime and violence.

Employment access is also crucial for the nearly 4.7 million³⁰² “opportunity youth,” young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are not currently working or in school. Subsidized youth summer job programs also reduce the rate of arrest and violence³⁰³ among participants during program participation and in the following months and years, with a powerful impact on those at the greatest risk of crime and violence. New York City’s³⁰⁴ Summer Youth Employment Program decreased arrests among participants by 14 percent. Similarly, Boston’s³⁰⁵ Summer Jobs Program reduced violent crime by 35 percent and property crime by 57 percent among participants. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is the primary funding source for subsidized youth employment programs.³⁰⁶ Congress can improve the WIOA through the reauthorization process by establishing dedicated funding streams solely for subsidizing summer and year-round youth employment programs and can develop new legislation to fund complementary youth services.³⁰⁷

Providing direct cash assistance³⁰⁸ to people from disinvested communities is another effective strategy for reducing financial stress that leads to crime. Programs that offer emergency financial assistance to people experiencing sudden disruptions, such as eviction or homelessness, have reduced arrests among recipients overall and arrests for violent crime by 51 percent. ³⁰⁹

Protect and empower young people

Programs focused on supporting the positive development of young people have been hugely effective in improving public safety.

Many complex factors can contribute to crime and violence among young people, including persistent poverty,³¹¹ trauma,³¹² lack of education and employment,³¹³ weak gun laws, access to weapons,³¹⁴ and lack of faith in the criminal legal system.³¹⁵ They also possess developmental characteristics that make them more susceptible to impulsivity and peer pressure than adults. As such, they are uniquely vulnerable to choices and situations that can lead to criminal activity. One practical approach is teaching young people improved decision-making and cognitive behavioral skills. For example, several programs in Chicago used group sessions with young men from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods to teach strategies for improved decision-making in stressful situations.³¹⁶ Participants in the program had significantly reduced arrest rates, including 45 percent to 50 percent fewer violent crime arrests, and graduated high school at higher rates.

Schools also play a critical role in helping young people avoid involvement in crime. While schools should be safe places, too often they are sites of violence, particularly gun violence, in part due to the lack of resources to support the diverse mental and emotional health needs of students. Some 14 million students attend schools with law enforcement personnel but no counselors.³¹⁷ Schools should invest in supports that have been demonstrated to improve students’ physical and emotional health, rather than hardening practices such as metal detectors or school-based law enforcement. Social and emotional learning and restorative discipline that emphasizes mediation and conflict resolution as a form of accountability can also be taught in schools to empower students and prevent conflicts from escalating to violence.³¹⁸

Before- and after-school programs can also be effective³¹⁹ at improving safety.³²⁰ While these programs can raise student graduation rates, increase class attendance, improve grades, reduce use of drugs and alcohol, and reduce the likelihood of criminal gang involvement, their impact is limited by the scarcity of programs and barriers such as lack of transportation and funding. Programs should target children assessed as most at risk for low performance, nonattendance, and dropping out of school. It is essential that funding for these programs be distributed equitably and that investments are made in culturally competent programming.³²¹ Michigan³²² recently created a $50 million grant for after-school programs and distributed funds to jurisdictions throughout the state. Estimates suggest that for every $1 invested in after-school programs, $3 is saved when accounting for reductions in crime and delinquency and increases in school performance and future earning potential.³²³

Communities can also reduce gun violence among young people by providing comprehensive, holistic, and preventive violence intervention services.³²⁴ These programs can collaborate across providers and government services—including schools—to engage children affected by violence and at risk of becoming involved in violence themselves. In Chicago, the Choose to Change (C2C) program³²⁵ engages young people who are significantly affected by violence in their communities. It connects them with wraparound services and trauma-informed therapy, which has been shown to reduce engagement in violence and contact with the criminal legal system while improving school attendance and lowering instances of school misconduct.

States and cities, particularly those without the financial resources to launch programs, should leverage the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act³²⁶ grant opportunities to expand access to school-based mental health services. Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resiliency in Education), Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant programs, School-Based Mental Health Services, and Medicaid billing grants can be used to develop these innovative programs in schools nationwide.

Improve built environments in neglected communities

The physical environment of a place is closely tied to rates of crime and violence.³²⁷ Communities that have systematically experienced disinvestment, neglect, redlining, and segregation are more likely to have vacant lots, abandoned or run-down homes, and so-called blight.³²⁸

These conditions are associated with higher rates of violence, especially gun violence. In addition, crime and violence tend to be closely concentrated in specific areas of communities. To have an immediate and long-lasting impact, cities and neighborhoods should identify these spaces and make every effort to restore, clean, green, and maintain them.³²⁹

First, cities should try to repair abandoned houses and the homes of low-income residents. Homeowners are deeply invested in the safety of their neighborhoods, but many low-income residents lack the resources and/or physical ability to make repairs themselves. Philadelphia adopted the Basic Systems Repair Program,³³⁰ which offers low-income residents free structural home repairs. Over a seven-year window, the sections of the city that received these services experienced a 21.9 percent reduction in total crime.³³¹ Similarly, communities should repair or remove abandoned homes and buildings. A program by the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University that repaired broken windows, removed trash, and tended the yards of abandoned houses found³³² that the blocks surrounding those once-neglected houses experienced a 13 percent drop in gun assaults. Other cities have experienced reduced calls to police³³³ after cleaning vacant lots. Cities should also increase street lighting in high-crime areas, which has proven to reduce nighttime crime.³³⁴

In addition, turning abandoned lots into parks and green spaces—known as cleaning and greening—has proven highly effective at reducing crime.³³⁵ It can reduce locations used for illicit activity, provide community members with a place to gather and create a greater sense of investment in neighborhood safety. The most significant reductions occur when local residents engage³³⁶ in the process and maintain the spaces. Creating more green spaces and tree canopy³³⁷ can deter crime by reducing the stress,³³⁸ mental fatigue, and aggression that can lead to violence. It will also facilitate greater interactions among neighbors that tend to reduce interpersonal conflict and increase social attachments. Public housing settings that have nearby trees and natural landscapes, or have greater amounts of vegetation, report³³⁹ significantly fewer crimes, including violent crime, domestic violence, and property crime.

Federal and state governments can increase funding for local jurisdictions to rebuild disinvested neighborhoods. The Brookings Institution has identified recent and historical sources³⁴⁰ of federal grants that communities can access to improve investments in local infrastructure and neighborhood improvements. Community Development Block Grants³⁴¹ or Community Development Block Grant CARES Act resources can also be used to fund these strategies.

Public safety requires a comprehensive set of strategies that improve accountability for wrongdoing while preventing violence before it occurs by addressing the conditions giving rise to crime. This requires embracing a broader vision of accountability that avoids the harms of the past and reduces future crime through rehabilitation and repair, as well as investing in neglected communities and building the infrastructure that fosters well-being. Durable, lasting safety will only be realized by providing all communities and neighborhoods with equitable public resources and services. Elected and community leaders should act swiftly to identify critical crime challenges and adopt locally tailored, evidence-based policies to respond to crime and, optimally, prevent it altogether.

The authors would like to acknowledge their colleagues who supported the research and development of this report at every stage. It would not have been possible without their efforts and expertise. This includes: Akua Amaning and Allie Preston with the Criminal Justice Reform team; Arnitta Holliman, Chandler Hall, and Allison Jordan with the Gun Violence Prevention team; William Roberts and Anuja Gore with the Rights and Justice department; Jerry Parshall and Peter Gordon with the Government Affairs team; Colin Seeberger with the Communications department; Lily Roberts, Michaela Zonta, and David Ballard with the Inclusive Growth department; Stephanie Hall with the Higher Education team; Andrea Ducas, Marquisha Johns, and Jill Rosenthal with the Health Policy team; and Mia Ives-Rublee with the Disability Justice Initiative.

Additionally, the authors would express their gratitude to the expert reviewers whose crucial contributions helped shape this report: Michael Collins from the Color of Change; Ames Grawert and Rosemary Nidiry from the Brennan Center for Justice; Rebecca Blair, Amy Fettig, Alyssa Kress, and Miriam Krinsky from Fair and Just Prosecution; Amos Irwin from the Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Heather Warnken from the Center for Criminal Justice Reform at the University of Baltimore; Lanae Erickson and Kylie Murdock from Third Way; and Daniella Gilbert, Jackson Beck, Denise Chandler, and Savannah Castañeda from the Vera Institute of Justice.