by Jared Rutecki
WTTW Chicago
February 17, 2025

… When a shooting rattles a neighborhood in Chicago, headlines focus on the tragedy. But community violence specialists concentrate on something else: making sure the next conflict in the area doesn’t escalate, thanks to careful intervention work that researchers say is showing measurable, if nuanced, signs of success. Chicago is the focus of commentators across the country who draw attention to violent crime that touches all corners of the city. The burden disproportionately affects communities of color. There are root causes to gun violence identified by researchers. Addressing those issues will take time, experts say. But many neighborhoods need help today.

…

The Real Question

There is evidence that some community violence programs correspond with less crime, but according to Jeffrey Butts, it’s important to use the right information to support it. “If you just look at citywide crime numbers, you’ll never get the full picture,” Butts, research professor at John Jay College, said. “The real question isn’t just whether shootings went down but whether they went down in a way that’s different and sustainable compared to other places.” There is limited funding for this work, and it can be very expensive. Researchers need to stand out by showing impact and highlight figures connected to fewer shootings or other positive impacts.

It can be difficult for researchers to look at the data broadly because of resource constraints, Butts said. Researchers are also competing for attention and resources against groups with different priorities. “Police departments exaggerate facts, make up numbers and imply causation when there’s no evidence. They’ll say crime is down in Chicago by X percent. Therefore, what we’re doing is working,” Butts said. “The public might swallow that, but that’s not evidence of what caused crime to go down.” Studies of violence programs do not have randomly assigned participants like in medical research. But the stakes of getting it right deeply affect communities with high levels of crime where researchers want to make a difference.

Butts said it’s important for researchers and public servants to use facts to create and assess policies. They should build a solid base of support because politics can change, and evidence can help protect programs from future attacks. Researchers should consider systemic issues including jobs, food services, safe transportation, and housing connected to violence in communities as much as exploring the influence on individual outcomes, Butts said. Research has long established the high cost of violent crime. Butts said it can be difficult getting residents to recognize the financial benefits, even when a small reduction in shootings creates a big financial reward. Chicago occupies a critical place in the study of violence reduction, Butts said, with a cluster of serious and creative people trying to understand what makes communities safer.

There are real incentives for some officeholders to cherry-pick or misuse research. “When you answer questions about violence and point to individuals at high risk, that makes politicians happy because they can blame those other people,” Butts said. “There are politicians who live off of getting one group of people to vote against the other group, and this individual-level approach sustains that political energy.”

Crime reduction is often used as a political issue with more policing and harsher penalties being the dominant approach rather than community-based strategies, according to Butts. Developments in Washington, D.C., could also put some criminal justice research at risk. A lack of clarity about which data and records were removed following a recent order by President Donald Trump left many trying to figure out what information was changed or even removed. Federal government records allowed researchers to measure changes down to the block level. Its removal could affect programs at both the local and national level. Beyond violence research, removing select information could also protect those who could be challenged by the data. “It makes it possible for politicians to lie more easily if no one can check them,” Butts said. “It’s a big concern.”

[ read the article at WTTW ]