Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T04:57:37.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing Community Safety through Interagency Collaboration: Lessons from Connecticut's Project Longevity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2021

Camila Gripp ,
Chandini Jha  and
Paige E. Vaughn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Group Violence Interventions (GVIs) combine a focused deterrence law enforcement approach with community mobilization and social services. The current study qualitatively examines Project Longevity, Connecticut's largest GVI initiative, to contribute to the limited literature on implementation of gun violence reduction strategies. Relying on interviews with 24 of Project Longevity law enforcement and non-law enforcement partners, we explore the establishment of interagency collaboration, which was viewed by study participants as the most pressing implementation challenge of Project Longevity. Our case study results offer important lessons to practitioners responsible for implementing GVI strategies.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue S4: Gun Violence in America: An Interdisciplinary Examination , Winter 2020 , pp. 47 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Braga, A. et al., “The Concentration and Stability of Gun Violence at Micro Places in Boston, 1980–2008,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26, no. 1 (2010): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Braga, A. et al., “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1 (2018): 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.; Engel, R.S., “Focused Deterrence Strategies Save Lives: Introduction and Discussion of an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1 (2018): 199-203; Kennedy, D. et al., “Beyond deterrence” in Tilley, N. and Sidebottom, A., eds., Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety (London: Routledge, 2017): at 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Individual Gun Violence Intervention, National Network for Safe Communities, available at <https://nnscommunities.org/strategies/individual-gun-violence-intervention/> (last visited August 20, 2020).+(last+visited+August+20,+2020).>Google Scholar
Given the study's focus on challenges from the perspective of implementing stakeholders, we did not interview the individuals targeted by the study, which would be a fruitful area of future study. It is also important to credit the New Haven community's positive reception of Project Longevity. See Bass, P., “Gang Violence Project Kicks off,” New Haven Independent, November 27, 2012.Google Scholar
See Braga, A. and Weisburd, D., “Focused Deterrence and the Prevention of Violent Gun Injuries: Practice, Theoretical Principles, and Scientific Evidence,” Annual Review of Public Health 36, no. 1 (2015): 55–68.Google Scholar
CT Against Gun Violence, Gun Facts, available at <https://cagv.org/gun-facts/> (last visited March 26, 2020).+(last+visited+March+26,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Sierra-Arévalo, M. and Papachristos, A., “Applying Group Audits to Problem-Oriented Policing,” in Bichler, G. and Malm, A., eds., Disrupting Criminal Networks: Network Analysis in Crime Prevention (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2015): 27–46; Sierra-Arévalo, M. et al., “Evaluating the effect of project longevity on group-involved shootings and homicides in New Haven,” Crime & Delinquency 63, no. 4 (2017): 446–467.Google Scholar
Dozens of GVI strategies around the country receive support from the National Network for Safe Communities (NNSC), an entity formed to provide guidance and technical assistance to law enforcement partners structuring GVI interventions. Although the National Network for Safe Communities offers a set of detailed guidelines for ‘Call-ins,’ some local adaptation occurs. See Group Violence Intervention — An Implementation Guide, National Network for Safe Communities, available at <https://www.nationalpublicsafetypartnership.org/clearinghouse/Content/ResourceDocuments/Group%20Violence%20Intervention%20-%20An%20Implementation%20Guide.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2020).+(last+visited+August+20,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Sierra-Arévalo, M. et al., “Evaluating the Effect of Project Longevity on Group-Involved Shootings and Homicides in New Haven, Connecticut,” Crime & Delinquency 63, no. 4 (2017): 446–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See See Braga, A. et al., “Deterring Gang-Involved Gun Violence: Measuring the Impact of Boston's Operation Ceasefire on Street Gang Behavior,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30, no. 1 (2014): 113–139; Braga, A. and Weisburd, D., “The Effects of Focused Deterrence strategies on crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49, no. 3 (2012): 323–358; Papachristos, A. et al., “Attention Felons: Evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no. 2 (2007): 223–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Engel, R.S., Tillyer, M.S., and Corsaro, N., “Reducing Gang Violence Using Focused Deterrence: Evaluating the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV),” Justice Quarterly 30 (2013): 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Corsaro, N. and Engel, R.S., “Most Challenging of Contexts: Assessing the Impact of Focused Deterrence on Serious Violence in New Orleans,” Criminology & Public Policy 14, no. 3 (2015): 471–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See McGarrell, E.F. et al., “Reducing Homicide Through a ‘Lever-Pulling’ Strategy,” Justice Quarterly 23 (2006): 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Braga, A. and Weisburd, D., “The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49, no. 3 (2012): 323–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Braga, A. et al., “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1 (2018): 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For more details on this issue and recommended improvements, please see the Online Appendix.Google Scholar
BVRI Implementation Update, National Network for Safe Communities, available at <https://jjie.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NNSC_BVRI-Implementation-Update-1.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2020).+(last+visited+August+20,+2020).>Google Scholar
Davies, T. et al., Group Violence Intervention London: An Evaluation of the Shield Pilot,” Mayor of London Office for Policing and Crime, available at <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gvi_london_evaluation270117.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2020).+(last+visited+August+20,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Fox, A. et al., Measuring the Impact of Kansas City's No Violence Alliance (evaluating a focused deterrence strategy to combat gun violence) (2015).Google Scholar
Our interview schedule is available in the Online Appendix.Google Scholar
The Online Appendix includes a description of participant roles (Table 1).Google Scholar
See Deterding, N. and Waters, M., “Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first century Approach,” Sociological Research & Methods (2018): 1–32.Google Scholar
Two of the 24 interviewees said they were unable to comment because they had not been involved with Longevity since its implementation.Google Scholar
See Online Appendix for additional themes (Figure 1).Google Scholar
Himmelman, A., Collaboration for a Change: Definitions, Decision-Making Models, Roles, and Collaboration Process Guide, Himmelman Consulting, available at <http://tennessee.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Himmelman-Collaboration-for-a-Change.pdf> (last visited August 20, 2020).+(last+visited+August+20,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Fisher, P. Foster et al., “Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration: The Contributions of Interorganizational Alliances,” American Journal of Community Psychology 29, no. 6 (2001): 875–905.Google Scholar
To keep interview participants anonymous, we have replaced names for numeric identifiers and omitted self-identifying information from quotes presented along the text.Google Scholar
Sullian, H. and Skelcher, C., Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Service (London: Palgrave, 2002): at 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See section 2.1 of this article (implementation and progress reports).Google Scholar
See Sedgewick, D. and Hawdon, J., “Interagency Cooperation in the Era of Homeland Policing: Are Agencies Answering the Call?” American Journal of Criminal Justice 44 (2019): 167-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullian, H. and Skelcher, C., Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Service (London: Palgrave, 2002): at 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Alshenqeeti, H., “Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review,” English Linguistics Research 3, no. 1 (2014): 39-45; Bjork, R.A., “Retrieval as a Memory Modifier: An Intepretation of Negative Recency and Related Phenomena,” Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium (1975): 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar