In June 2022, the most significant piece of gun violence prevention legislation in decades, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, became law. Alongside several common-sense gun regulations, the law allocates $250 million for community-based violence prevention initiatives—a promising step toward promoting safety through non-carceral and community-centered approaches.¹ 

This federal action is important, but it only scratches the surface of what can be done to keep communities safe from gun violence. From investing in youth employment programs to revitalizing vacant lots to improving the quality of neighborhood housing, a wealth of community-based safety interventions are proven to reduce violent crime—including gun violence—in the places most impacted by it, and tackle the conditions of inequality that allow violence to concentrate in the first place.² But far too often, these community-based interventions are under-funded, particularly when compared to more punitive approaches.³

Luckily, another source of federal aid can fund community-based safety investments: the American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) $350 billion in Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. In addition to helping states and localities recover from the pandemic, the funds also provide local leaders with an unparalleled opportunity to address the public health crisis of gun violence. Indeed, President Joe Biden recently called on state and local leaders to use portions of this funding to address gun violence, including by “expanding evidence-based community violence intervention programs, and preventing crime by making our neighborhoods stronger with more educational and economic opportunities.”⁴  

This research brief documents how state and local leaders are leveraging ARP funds to invest in non-carceral community-based safety initiatives; presents perspectives and case studies from leaders on-the-ground innovating on such strategies; and offers recommendations for how state and local leaders can maximize ARP funds to promote community safety prior to 2024 (when all funds must be obligated) and 2026 (when all funds must be spent). This is an unparalleled—and time-limited—window of opportunity, and states and localities should be thinking strategically right now about how to not only invest in proven strategies to reduce gun violence, but also promote life-affirming safety investments that  support thriving communities. 

Despite news headlines to the contrary, the U.S. is not in the midst of a crime wave. But it is experiencing an unprecedented and alarming increase in murders, driven largely by gun homicides.⁵ Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates nationwide rose nearly 30%, while other forms of crime went down.⁶ Since then, homicides, gun assaults, and other forms of violent crime have continued to trend upward, and as of June 2022, the homicide rate was 39% higher than it was prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ For this reason, this brief focuses primarily on the role that community-based safety investments can play in addressing gun violence but it is important to note that these investments can also have broader impacts on public safety and community well-being.  

To understand the effectiveness of community-based safety investments, it helps to look at where most gun violence occurs.⁸ Within cities and towns, gun violence is spatially concentrated—disproportionately occurring within a select set of high-poverty and disinvested neighborhoods, and within these neighborhoods, a select set of streets.⁹ These are also the places where indicators of structural disadvantage (such as poverty, racial segregation, lower educational attainment, and high unemployment) cluster.¹⁰ This pattern held during the recent nationwide increase in gun violence.¹¹  

The spatial concentration of violence stems from generations of policies and public and private investment decisions. Numerous studies have found a connection between state-sponsored racial segregation and gun violence, with the same places historically deemed unworthy of economic investment (through redlining) being more likely to be where gun violence concentrates today.¹² Research has also identified a link between concentrated poverty, densely crowded housing, and vacant buildings with higher rates of violent crime, including gun homicides.¹³  

Given the many place-based factors that contribute to gun violence, there is growing recognition that just like improving public health in other ways, reducing gun violence requires addressing its social determinants and looking outside traditional systems (such as courts or hospitals) to tackle its root causes.¹⁴  This approach is consistent with the preferences of survivors of violent crime, who overwhelmingly prefer investments in non-punitive crime prevention over criminal legal system responses.¹⁵ As the John Jay College of Criminal Justice recently pointed out, this approach is also consistent with an emerging and growing body of research that elevates the effectiveness of non-carceral public safety investments that put communities at the center and builds their capacity to advance safety, health, and economic opportunity.¹⁶ 

The next section of this brief examines four categories of non-carceral community safety investments that ARP funds are being used for. Before introducing examples of investments in each category, we provide further empirical justification for specific investments within that category. But while the empirical evidence matters, the underlying moral argument does as well: Mass incarceration is not a morally acceptable solution to systemic disinvestment.¹⁷ Local leaders should support non-carceral community safety interventions not only because they are effective, but because investing in struggling communities is the right thing to do. 

While the most straightforward uses of the American Rescue Plan’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds are to replace lost tax revenue or shore up general funds, the Treasury Department’s rules allow for a broad range of uses that “build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-term growth and opportunity.”²² Treasury also makes clear that community safety interventions are valid expenditure types for all communities, particularly those that have suffered an uptick in violence.²³ And as analysts at Civil Rights Corps, Alliance for Safety and Justice, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and other organizations have pointed out, these flexible funds offer the largest-ever influx of federal dollars to support states and localities advance non-carceral interventions that promote a holistic vision of community safety.²⁴ 

Below is a curated list of state and local investments in non-carceral community safety interventions, categorized along four key dimensions of community well-being.²⁵ While there are many more examples, our list represents a diverse set of locations with distinct approaches.  

A place’s economic health has a significant influence on its rates of violence; neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, unemployment, and income inequality have higher rates of violent crime.²⁶ On the other side of this relationship, a promising body of evidence demonstrates that by enhancing economic opportunity and reducing inequality within neighborhoods, places can significantly reduce crime.²⁷ For instance, evidence shows that youth workforce development and employment programs can reduce youth involvement in violent crime by as much as 45%.²⁸ Improving school quality has also been found to reduce violent crime arrests.²⁹ Finally, helping families avoid financial stress has been found to reduce crime and produce numerous other community benefits.³⁰  

Figure 1 illustrates how state and local governments are heeding this body of evidence and using ARP funds to advance community safety through economic mobility. For example, Illinois allocated $60 million investment toward youth employment programming, which subsidizes wages for high-risk youth and allows them to gain employability skills, participate in career development and apprenticeship programming, and receive wraparound services to address the root causes of employment barriers.  

The most consistent evidence on the relationship between violence prevention and place exists in the realm of the built environment. Numerous studies find that the renovation of housing, vacant buildings, land, and lots as well as efforts to add greenery and improve air quality significantly reduce violent crime.³¹ These place-based strategies aim to counter decades of public and private disinvestment by revitalizing the physical environment and improving the health and safety of entire communities, rather than focusing on a sub-set of high-risk individuals (which many violence prevention programs, such violence interrupters, tend to focus on).³² These interventions also align with a public health approach to preventing violence, which addresses the environmental factors that increase susceptibility to violence and advances protective environments that nurture safety, health, and well-being.³³ Examples range from addressing air pollution to increasing Medicaid coverage to expanding access to substance abuse and mental health treatment.³⁴ 

Figure 2 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to advance built environment improvements in communities and bolster public health system responses to community violence. For example, Chicago allocated ARP dollars to fund public realm improvements, building restorations, the preservation of safe and affordable housing, and the reactivation of city-owned land in the 15 areas with the highest rates of homicide and nonfatal shootings. 

It is important to note that while Figure 2 includes built environment and public health interventions explicitly categorized as “community violence interventions,” there are many other examples of state and local governments investing in built environment improvements that have the potential to prevent violence and are not categorized as such. These include city beautification and a revitalized community park in Milwaukee, streetlight repair in Los Angeles, and weatherization efforts to remove lead and mold in Washington, D.C.³⁵ 

“We drew a one-to-one connection between the uptick and gun violence and the pandemic. The loss of social cohesion, the isolation, the breakdown of traditional society norms. So, we said, let’s use ARP funds to address that.”

Adam Renon, Senior Policy Advisor, Multnomah County

A significant body of evidence demonstrates that social cohesion and feelings of belonging to a neighborhood are associated with lower violent crime rates.³⁶ Research has also found that increasing the number of spaces for informal contact between neighbors (e.g., parks, community centers) is linked to a greater sense of safety for people in urban areas.³⁷ A growing body of evidence even indicates that creative placemaking can enhance community safety.³⁸

The evidence linking social cohesion with reduced violence forms the basis for many evidence-based community violence intervention programs, such as Cure Violence or Advance Peace,³⁹ which rely on community outreach to reach individuals in neighborhoods at the highest risk for violence.⁴⁰ These violence interrupting programs have contributed to significant declines in violence in high-crime neighborhoods in Richmond, Calif., Stockton, Calif., Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, and others.⁴¹ 

Figure 3 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to either invest in community violence interruption programs or in activities and programs that promote social cohesion. For example, Elkhart, Ind. is using ARP dollars to host summer events with music and food, present talks by credible messengers (e.g., people who have formerly been involved with the criminal legal system and now work in violence prevention), distribute anti-gun-violence yard signs, and provide COVID-19 information. Cincinnati is funding the Save Our Youth: Kings & Queens program, in which at-risk teens participate in a three-month program involving field trips and speakers focusing on Black history.  

“[Safer Summer St. Louis] is about investing in youth and telling them we value them enough that we’re taking this $1 million in [ARP] funding and we’re going to put it directly to events that allow you to be young and have fun in St. Louis—in a safer St. Louis.”

Jessica Meyers, Director of the St. Louis Area Violence Prevention Commission

Nearly every non-carceral community-based safety intervention requires the leadership and dedication of civic and community-based organizations to be implemented.⁴² And aside from that, research indicates that the mere presence of such organizations within a neighborhood leads to reductions in violent crime.⁴³ The challenge, however, is that while city resources are plentiful for increasing police in high-crime neighborhoods, cities routinely fail to fund the community infrastructure (such as grassroots organizations) that stabilize communities.⁴⁴ 

Figure 4 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to enhance the capacity of community-based and civic organizations to prevent violence. For example, New Haven, Conn. used $785,000 of its ARP funds to create Civic Space, a centralized public forum for citizens and grassroots organizations to share input on ARP investments, learn about new community-centered violence prevention initiatives, and partner with other organizations working on similar aims. 

The state, county, and local leaders we interviewed offered five primary recommendations on how to more equitably and effectively allocate ARP spending toward non-carceral community safety interventions. These recommendations, which align with emerging research on best practices for the equitable use of ARP funds, include:  

“When we give power to young people to use their voice, to be able to co-create, that is more powerful than [when] we are just ordaining from on high and not letting them be effective partners,”

Devanshi Patel, CEO of the Center for Youth and Family Advocacy in Virginia. 

“We need to learn from the individuals who have been incarcerated or who have committed gun violence, and ask them, ‘What would have prevented you from entering that life?’”

Adam Renon, Senior Policy Advisor, Multnomah County

“If you’re doing crisis response right, you’re engaging people and gathering a lot of data that’s hard for people to refute in terms of what the needs are in the community. We don’t have to guess what people need. We have 6,000 interactions from people in this community saying what they need.”

Wilford Pinkney Jr., St. Louis

At the end of 2021, cities and counties had budgeted only 40% of their total ARP allocation (82% of the first of two funding tranches). While more money has been budgeted this year, there is still plenty of funding left to be allocated prior to the 2024 deadline and spent prior to the 2026 deadline. It is vital that state and local leaders seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in community-based violence prevention efforts now, as these programs can take time to establish roots at the local level and scale up. 

By investing in critical community safety infrastructure before the next rise in gun violence, communities will be better supported and equipped to avoid such violence, while also averting the intergenerational consequences that accompany punitive responses to it. As Devanshi Patel of Virginia’s Center for Youth and Family Advocacy said, it is imperative to invest in “restorative justice and community-based programming now to help kids stay out of the legal system” because system-involvement and incarceration can create harms for people and communities that are felt for generations. 

Ultimately, the benefits of addressing the root causes of gun violence go far beyond the shots you don’t hear. In addition to the lives saved, the benefits can be seen in the children playing in parks, the youth finding employment, the sick accessing treatment, the entrepreneurs launching businesses, or neighbors hosting block parties. By investing in economic opportunity, bolstering social cohesion, upgrading the built environment, and strengthening neighborhoods’ civic ties, state and local leaders can create the conditions necessary for long-lasting individual and collective flourishing.