Many cities in North America face a persistent barrage of young men shooting each other.  Traditional policing is not enough.  Successful solutions to stop the violence exist.  These must be comprehensive prevention that is sustained as set out using evidence in Less Law, More Order:  The Truth about Reducing Crime.  We need leadership in cities to use those solutions.  We need support from all orders of government to invest in effective prevention.

Shooting of teens and deaths of young adults were successfully prevented by local leadership that combined smart policing and focused youth outreach in Boston in the 1990´s.    But unfortunately, the city did not have a permanent leadership centre to sustain the success.  So the violence returned.

The US Department of Justice fostered the smart enforcement approach in multiple cities across the USA in the 2000´s with Project Safe Neighborhoods.  Yes, some violence was averted but without the focused youth outreach, the reductions were modest.

The interrupters had proved by 2008 that it reduced shootings in Chicago. Its ability to foster conflict mediation correlated with fewer shootings in Baltimore in 2012.  But lack of sustained funding in some of the vulnerable neighborhoods has let the violence continue in Chicago.

We have a wealth of practical knowledge (see post 20)  that identifies the actions that reduce violence by  intervening on the negative life experiences that so often correlate with violence, guns and gangs.  Targeting services – to problems of domestic violence, school failure or substance abuse and so on –  stops youth at risk from becoming violent young men.

But to be effective, we must invest in these actions so that they are sustained, targeted to where a diagnosis shows they are needed, and implemented by professionals whose jobs are as permanent and rewarded as in the enforcement aspects of public safety.

Across the Atlantic, the City of Glasgow used this knowledge to cut violence in their high priority neighborhoods by 50% within 3 years – a success rate as impressive as Boston.  They established a permanent leadership centre – the Violence Reduction Unit – and combined smart policing with investments in the range of actions to tackle those negative life experiences.

Some cities in the US have picked up the baton but we need many more and we need them as well funded on prevention as in reaction.  The Prevention Institute has promoted project UNITY to build support for effective, sustainable efforts to prevent violence before it occurs so that urban youth can thrive.  This engages more than a dozen major cities.

The National League of Cities is also in partnership with 13 major cities in California, combatting gang violence by focusing  on successful  practices that braid prevention, intervention,  enforcement, and a community’s “moral voice”.

The US Department of Justice has talked of braiding its funding with other federal agencies to help the local communities as these lack the sustained and adequate funding that is needed.

In Canada, the Province of Alberta is already investing in comprehensive prevention that braids its funding around a ten year plan to reduce violence.  The Province of Saskatchewan is adopting a Glasgow model of comprehensive prevention.  A dozen cities have formed a network to reduce violence informed by evidence.

Cities face the crunch of police budgets.  Governments stagger under the debt of mass incarceration.  It is time for political leadership to invest in the number one priority of (potential) crime victims to stop crime.  This means smart policing and effective prevention.  An investment that grows each year by as little as one per cent of what is spent on reacting to violence could stop shootings and street violence by 50% within five years.