Cure Violence

Cure Violence
Name	Cure Violence
Formation	2000
Founder	Gary Slutkin
Type	Nonprofit organization
Headquarters	Chicago, Illinois
Leader title	Executive director
Leader name	Adopted local directors vary

Cure Violence is a public health violence-interruption initiative founded in 2000 that treats interpersonal violence as a contagious disease and employs outreach workers to mediate conflicts, change norms, and reduce shootings and homicides. Originating in Chicago, the model has been adopted, adapted, and tested in numerous cities and countries, building institutional relationships with municipal agencies, academic researchers, and community organizations. The approach combines street outreach, hospital-based intervention, and data-driven targeting to interrupt transmission of violence and shift social norms in high-risk networks.

History and development

The program was developed by epidemiologist Gary Slutkin after work on World Health Organization campaigns against tuberculosis, cholera, and HIV/AIDS. Early pilots in the Englewood neighborhood and other Chicago communities drew attention from the Centers for Disease Control and public health academics at institutions such as the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University. In the 2000s the model was codified into protocols and manuals while partnerships formed with municipal agencies in New York City, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Los Angeles County. International replication occurred in sites including Kigali, Kingston, and London through collaborations with local nonprofits and foundations like the MacArthur Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Policymakers in city governments and officials from law enforcement agencies sometimes supported pilot expansions alongside community leaders and public health departments.

Theoretical framework and methods

Cure Violence frames interpersonal violence using concepts from epidemiology and behavioral science, mapping transmission dynamics similar to models used by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. The model trains former perpetrators and credible community members as violence interrupters and outreach workers to identify high-risk individuals, employ conflict mediation similar to practices in restorative justice settings studied by scholars at Harvard University and Yale University, and use cognitive-behavioral techniques drawn from interventions researched at Columbia University and UC Berkeley. Core methods include hospital-based violence intervention modeled on programs at Mount Sinai Hospital, community mediation approaches akin to those used by the National Neighborhood Watch movement, and hotspot targeting informed by crime analysis traditions from the National Institute of Justice and urban studies centers at the University of Pennsylvania. The theory posits that interrupting transmission, changing social norms, and reducing opportunity lowers incidence rates in targeted networks.

Implementation and programs

Implementations vary across municipal, hospital, and nonprofit settings. Municipal pilots have worked with mayors' offices in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cleveland to deploy outreach teams to high-risk blocks and housing developments. Hospital-based programs operate in emergency departments modeled after initiatives in Providence and Detroit that link victims with case management and social services coordinated with local Department of Health offices. Nonprofit partners such as community development corporations, faith-based groups, and youth organizations in neighborhoods like South Bronx and West Baltimore implement peer support and mentorship programs. Adaptations in international contexts have integrated local actors such as community mediators in Sierra Leone and gang diversion specialists in Cape Town.

Evaluation and evidence

Multiple evaluations by universities, municipal research offices, and independent evaluators have produced mixed but often positive results. Randomized and quasi-experimental studies conducted with researchers from Johns Hopkins University, UCLA, and the University of Chicago reported localized reductions in shootings, homicides, or retaliatory assaults in several sites. Evaluations by municipal analysts in New York City and Baltimore and meta-analyses published by scholars affiliated with Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examined effect sizes, spillover, and scalability. Other studies noted null or ambiguous findings in contexts with limited fidelity, weak data systems, or constrained funding, paralleling debates seen in evaluations of programs like Operation Ceasefire and hospital violence intervention models at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics include scholars, policymakers, and civil society actors who raise concerns about evidentiary standards, replicability, and accountability. Methodological critiques from researchers at Columbia University and University of Pennsylvania emphasize selection bias, small sample sizes, and difficulties in attributing causality in nonrandomized rollouts. Law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions have questioned partnerships between outreach workers and police agencies such as the New York City Police Department and the Chicago Police Department. Community advocates and funders have debated issues of professionalization, worker safety, and labor rights in nonprofit settings like those overseen by local departments of human services. Media outlets including the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on both successes and challenges, fueling public and political debates over expansion and oversight.

Funding and organizational structure

Funding streams include private philanthropy from foundations such as the MacArthur Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, municipal contracts with mayoral administrations in cities including Chicago and Philadelphia, and grants from federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice. The organizational architecture consists of a central coordinating body working with local affiliate nonprofits, municipal health departments, and academic partners; governance models vary with boards composed of community leaders, public health professionals, and academic advisors connected to institutions such as Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and University of Chicago. Debates over sustainable financing mirror discussions about community safety models in policy forums hosted by think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Chicago