By Daniel W. Webster, Carla G. Tilchin, Mitchell L. Doucette

  Background Safe Streets Baltimore (Safe Streets) is a community violence intervention (CVI) program designed to reduce gun violence in neighborhoods with high levels of gun violence. Frontline workers are recruited for their ability to connect with individuals at highest risk for involvement in gun violence and mediate disputes, promote nonviolent norms for settling disputes, and connect program participants to services. Baltimore has fully implemented the program in 11 neighborhoods between 2007 and 2021. Six of these sites have been fully operational for less than three years and have not been previously evaluated. Prior evaluations of Safe Streets have shown mixed results across the sites and over time. Study Methods To estimate program effects, we analyzed variation in neighborhood-level monthly counts of homicides and nonfatal shootings for the period January 1, 2003 through July 31, 2022. The primary analyses were augmented synthetic control models for each site. This method generated a “synthetic” comparison for each Safe Streets site using a weighted combination of data from neighborhoods that did not implement the program but had similar levels and trends of violence before program implementation. We calculated program effects comparing treated sites to their synthetic controls, estimating what would have happened if Safe Streets had not been implemented. Because confidence in forecasts from statistical models tends to decrease over long periods of time, we generated estimates for the first four years of program implementation for the longer running sites in addition to estimates of the entire time a Safe Streets site has been in operation. We calculated average effects across all sites and within strata of site tenure (longer running and new sites) weighted by the precision of each site’s estimated effects. Key Findings: During the first four years of program implementation across the five longer-running sites, Safe Streets was associated with a statistically significant average reduction in homicides of 32%. Over the entire study period among these longer-running sites, homicides were 22% lower than forecasted if the program had not been implemented. Three of the five sites had significant reductions ranging from 28% in McElderry Park to 48% in Lower Park Heights. In SandtownWinchester, Safe Streets implementation was associated with a significant increase in homicides. Estimates of Safe Streets effects across the six new sites varied with an average reduction of 8% that was not statistically significant. Over the entire study period across all sites, Safe Streets was associated with a statistically significant 23% reduction in nonfatal shootings. Eight of the 11 sites had program-related reductions in nonfatal shootings. Four sites had significant reductions ranging from 29% in Lower Park Heights to 84% in Franklin Square. Sandtown-Winchester’s site was associated with a 53% reduction in nonfatal shootings over a period of more than seven years

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Violence Solution, 2023. 34p.

By Daniel W. Webster, | Cassandra K. Crifasi, Rebecca G. Williams, | Marisa Doll Booty  | Shani A. L. Buggs

This report is the product of the Reducing Violence, Building Trust: Data to Guide Gun Law Enforcement in Baltimore project. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (JHCGPR) collected and analyzed data relevant to the enforcement of laws restricting the possession of firearms by prohibited individuals and unlawful carrying of concealed firearms to provide data-driven recommendations for more fair and effective practices. The project was designed to help inform the response to the dual crises in Baltimore—extraordinarily high rates of gun violence, and gun law enforcement practices that, in some cases, have violated the law and more generally weakened community members’ trust in the police. In 2017, Baltimore experienced its highest homicide rate on record during two out of the past three years and had the highest murder rate among cities with a population greater than 500,000 in the U.S.1 Homicides declined in 2018, but in 2019, Baltimore’s per capita homicide rate eclipsed the 2017 record, ending the year with 348 total homicides (58.6 per 100,000 population). Nine out of 10 homicides (291) in the city were committed with firearms. The number of nonfatal shootings in 2019, 771, was also higher than that seen in the past five years.2 Because illegal gun possession is often a precursor to shootings, making arrests for illegal gun possession has long played a prominent role in the Baltimore Police Department’s strategy to combat violent crime. While BPD arrests for drug-related crimes have plummeted by 70% from 2014 to 2019, arrests for weapons violations, principally illegal possession of firearms, have changed relatively little during that time period. Police units focused on illegal gun carrying in hot spots for shootings have helped to reduce shootings, but less focused enforcement practices have not always translated into measurable reductions in violence.3 Past efforts to get illegal guns off the streets and deter illegal gun possession without adequate oversight enabled civil rights violations, facilitated alarming criminal activity by BPD’s Gun Trace Task Force, and increased distrust of the police in many communities. These practices and their aftermath have lasting and harmful implications for public safety and justice. They also motivate current efforts by BDP to facilitate reforms and build trust with community members in compliance with the Consent Decree. Researchers from JHCGPR drew from a variety of sources of data from Baltimore and studies from other cities to summarize key findings concerning proactive gun law enforcement practices—legal issues, impacts of police stops and searches on individuals, impacts on gun violence, community members’ views on the appropriateness of police practices and their desire for greater police accountability, and measures some law enforcement agencies are taking to improve the effectiveness and prevent abuses from proactive gun law enforcement. The report cites prior systematic and expert reviews of relevant research, especially the 2018 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s committee on proactive policing.a Several sources of data from Baltimore were used, including: 1) findings from a recent JHCGPR report on the effects of law enforcement and city-led strategies on gun violence (2,3) the United States Department of Justice’s City of Baltimore Consent Decree and reports from the selected Independent Monitor;  3) new data from court records on case dispositions for cases involving charges for illegal firearm possession; and 4) household surveys and focus group interviews with residents living in some of Baltimore’s neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence. The JHCGPR study team sought to identify promising models for effective and fair proactive gun law enforcement through interviews with law enforcement officials in 24 other jurisdictions. This report provides 13 specific research findings relevant to eight recommendations informed by evidence that is intended to guide future proactive gun law enforcement efforts capable of reducing crime and enhancing community confidence and trust.  

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 2020. 65p.

By Nathaniel M. Lesher

With the rising threat of active shooters, armed off-duty and retired law enforcement officers may prove to be an effective tool in American homeland security. Yet, while the number of active shooter and critical incidents in the United States have continued to rise, the number of non-traditional response interventions has remained minimal. Unfortunately, the presence of armed, off-duty law enforcement officers can create other problems, often referred to as blue-on-blue encounters. This thesis examines the questions Can tools such as Hero911 mitigate some of the major risks associated with self-dispatch How can off-duty or plainclothes officers be best incorporated into active shooter response Finally, what processes can make utilization of non-traditional responders safer for all This thesis concludes that over the past 20 years of active shooter responses, first responders have missed an opportunity with respect to the use of non-traditional responders. On- or off-duty non-traditional responders serve as a force multiplier, which widens the pool of available responders. Use of any technology is not without risks, and to avoid more confusion during an active shooter event, training is paramount. Properly used, tools such as Hero911 can reduce the risks involved in non-traditional officer response.

Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2022. 103p.

By Robert VerBruggen

Decades ago, carrying a gun—especially a concealed gun—was a reliable indicator of criminal activity in much of the country. Police officers who noticed a civilian “packing” were justified in assuming that the individual was thereby breaking the law; in short, he was an armed criminal. Under a key 1968 Supreme Court decision, this was reason enough to both stop and frisk the suspect.

Things have changed. Over the past several decades, most states have radically liberalized their gun-carrying laws, first by granting concealed-carry permits on a “shall-issue” basis, which means that anyone who meets certain requirements, such as training and a clean background check, is entitled to a permit. Now, more than 20 states no longer require a permit at all. And in June 2022, the Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, held that all states must allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns, invalidating New York’s requirement that applicants for a carry license must show a special need to carry, beyond the basic desire for self-defense.

Particularly during a time in which cities across the country have experienced rising gun violence, the court’s decision raises certain issues that need to be resolved. Chief among them: How can police continue to get illegally possessed guns off the street when it is legal—and, indeed, a constitutional right—for many individuals to carry guns on the street?

This report summarizes the legal landscape surrounding stops and frisks. It also investigates—using data from New York City’s stop-and-frisk program—how pedestrian stops of armed individuals tend to play out in practice. The goal here is not to take stances on guns or policing practices. Instead, it is to map out the legal status quo, highlight the tensions among competing priorities, and lay out options that judges and states with different sets of values might consider.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2023. 17p.