You must log in or register to comment.

UptownHiFi t1_jeel356 wrote

It’s a bit premature to be celebrating, but considering most homicides occur among individuals who know one another and have a history, targeted efforts by community members who know the players can have an impact.


YoYoMoMa t1_jeelqsr wrote

And these programs are so, so, SO cheap compared to policing.


UptownHiFi t1_jeen7jv wrote

Exactly. And generally the perpetrators and victims don’t see the police as a resource.


tangerinesubmerine t1_jefu6jr wrote

Yup. "Don't call the cops" is like code of conduct for gen Z in Baltimore. The understanding is that no matter how bad things are, the cops are virtually guaranteed to make it worse/escalate the situation.


youre_soaking_in_it t1_jegqnh8 wrote

It has been the code of conduct on the streets for a lot longer than that.


tangerinesubmerine t1_jegu4ks wrote

You're right, but I can only speak to personal experiences with certainty, so that's the perspective I was coming from. Honestly I can't imagine any point in the citys history where that code of conduct wouldn't be prudent, especially among more marginalized citizen groups. As far as I'm aware the police have always been what they are now.


DirtyPolecat t1_jeg4fjv wrote

They don't exactly prove otherwise with their track record.


tangerinesubmerine t1_jeg4i53 wrote

Yeah, maybe if they actually helped people instead of shooting them we would reconsider our position


jabbadarth t1_jeerdmt wrote

It really is a win win. People always point to the safe streets guy who was dealing as a failure of the whole system while arguing for more police and ignoring the myriad situations where police have broken the law.

This is, imo, one of the best ways to handle violence. Get community members to intervene in communities where they live and know people.


[deleted] t1_jef7qsy wrote

As if the Baltimore police aren't also dealing lol


sit_down_man OP t1_jeejl9e wrote

“Baltimore’s flagship community violence intervention program, Safe Streets, has led to reductions in nonfatal shootings and homicides, according to a Johns Hopkins analysis of nearly 15 years of data.

In the neighborhoods served by the five Safe Streets sites that have been open four years or more, the analysis indicated there was an average of 22% fewer homicides than predicted. And across all sites, Safe Streets was associated with a 23% reduction in nonfatal shootings, researchers found.”

There have been a lot of people in this sub very critical of any approach to violence reduction that strays from dumping money into more police, so I’m curious how people feel now. Thoughts?


Omnimark t1_jefogv8 wrote

My only thought is how messy the data are. As they mention in the study and the article, things like ghost guns, police mistrust, and the pandemic have made things particularly difficult to discern a baseline. So it's worth nothing that 22% fewer homicides "than predicted" doesn't necessarily mean that Safe Streets reduced homicides by 22%. We don't really know how effective it's been. But it does seem clear that there is a reduction, it's not just a displacement, its a reduction. So that's great!


DONNIENARC0 t1_jeekvby wrote

I'd honestly be skeptical any singular program or policy could reduce gun violence in any major city by over 20%. If it's truly that effective it should be a nationwide model, especially considering the relatively low cost. 20% is a pretty staggering number for something like this.


YoYoMoMa t1_jeem3ti wrote

Skepticism is healthy, but I think at the minimum this means we should fund them a ton more. They are so cheap compared to cops.


DONNIENARC0 t1_jeem7yo wrote

Agreed, expand it and see if you can maintain the results. Other cities should be chomping at the bit to emulate this, too, I'd think.


sit_down_man OP t1_jeela88 wrote

Are you implying Hopkins researchers fudged the numbers? If anything, my gut instinct would be that any study affiliated with Hopkins would be biased in the opposite direction so I’m not sure I agree with that.


[deleted] t1_jeeo2u0 wrote



z3mcs t1_jeeqs4y wrote

Saw this in another comment thread the other day:

>People are not rational and they don't trust experts.

We probably all do it, but it's interesting to see where people go "trust the experts here" vs questioning things.


[deleted] t1_jeer5lh wrote



z3mcs t1_jeeuxz0 wrote

Hey, I agree with researching things. I just think it's kind of funny when it was like "Why are people trippin because some company wants to dump some waste in Baltimore? Don't be irrational, trust the experts!" And then now the tenor will be ....ehhh, not so fast, lets research.

Like I said in my initial post, we all do it, and I'm not pointing to you or saying you made that original post that got upvoted, cause you didn't, I'm just saying we all have those Ice Cube "first I was like....then I was like" moments, like so.


DONNIENARC0 t1_jeelsnj wrote

Not really, moreso that there may be some external factors that may have been overlooked

I hope that isn't the case, anyone who dislikes cheap and wildly effective violence reduction strategies would be insane.

A number like 20% on something like this is just pretty hard to digest.


todareistobmore t1_jegk2sq wrote

> If it's truly that effective it should be a nationwide model

I don't think this follows at all. Whether/how well it would work outside of dense urban neighborhoods seems to be a totally separate (and possibly more difficult) question than whether/how well it works here.


HuskyCriminologist t1_jees02o wrote

In case anyone is curious I found the original report. After browsing the report for a bit I'm... well I'm not skeptical but I'm not convinced either.

The 95% confidence intervals on the half of the results that have a p-value of < 0.05 are massive. Just as an example, the Average Effect of All Sites was between -0.34 and 0.00. So the study is 95% certain there was an effect of somewhere between -34% and 0%. There were also several observed places where homicides skyrocketed after the implementation of Safe Streets. Sandtown-Winchester's homicide rate went up by a staggering 44% as compared to the synthetic control (i.e., theoretically was caused by safe streets), Belair-Edison's doubled (+103%), Brooklyn's went up by 27%.

On the other hand, the observed non-fatal shooting rates don't match the homicide rates at all. Generally speaking, the rate of non-fatal shootings and the rate of fatal shootings move roughly in lockstep. That's not to say they can't move in different directions, or at different rates, but it is weird and surprising when that happens. This report shows that SW's homicide rate went up by 44% compared to the synthetic control, but their nonfatal shootings dropped by 53% compared to the expected value? Belair-Edison observed 21% fewer nonfatal shootings than was expected, compared to seeing 103% more fatal shootings than expected. On the flip side, Belvedere's nonfatal shootings were 459% (not a typo) higher than expected, but their homicide rate was 40% lower than expected.

This makes absolutely no sense, until you read a bit further and see that the p-value for the impact of Safe Streets on homicides is 0.381. There is a 38% chance that the observed impact on homicide rates is literally random chance.

I'm not saying this study is worthless, but it certainly looks like a case of "we spent a shit ton of money on this report we have to publish something".


Skontradiction t1_jefcug6 wrote

While I think this is good news, I would still view this report skeptically for a few reasons:

  1. I’ll just start off by saying the 22% reduction in homicides is not statistically significant according to the report.
  2. Also there is no statistically significant impact in new sites. The authors mention “all sites” because the estimated impacts for the older sites are lower than the newer sites. So combining the data gets them a bigger impact value and they manage to still stay statistically significant. That seems wrong to me.
  3. Research on the impact of SafeStreets in Baltimore is mixed. Other research by Hopkins has found some positive effects but two other studies on the program have found no impact. Similarly the literature nationwide is mixed. To the authors’ credit they note this in the report.
  4. Estimating the impact of Safe Streets is hard because sites are not chosen randomly. The sites in the program are those with the most violence. It is likely that a reduction in violence can be attributed to regression to the mean rather than any given intervention.
  5. The authors try to get around this by creating a synthetic control group. In other words, they take a bunch of areas around the city and weight their arrests, homicide stats, etc until they get a trend that is as close as possible to each Safe Streets site they are studying. This is a decent way to get around the problems in point two but the approach still has drawbacks the authors don’t give information on. For example, they give error bars for each synthetic control site and treatment site post intervention in the appendices. However they do not give data on how well the synthetic control matches the sites pre-treatment which would enable us to know how good a job they did creating controls. Similarly, we don’t have information on why the control matches pre-treatment trends. Do the control sites vary wildly but average out to a close approximation? Or do the control sites generally mirror the treatment site’s patterns closely?
  6. The nonfatal shooting results are barely statistically significant. The confidence intervals stopping at -0.00 for two overall effects makes me wonder if there’s p-hacking going on there. I don’t live and die by a p-value of 0.05 but it’s a flag that maybe data was manipulated until it hit a certain threshold.
  7. Putting the data together suggests a statistically significant effect on homicides in the first four years of Safe Streets but no impact/reversion in later years of program implementation (inferred because the impact becomes insignificant for the entire program duration). Again, these findings only apply to old sites. The authors find no statistically significant impacts in the new sites.

I want this program to succeed and I don’t think the above means the program is a failure. I just am very skeptical of the headline findings being reported here.


BaltimoreBadger23 t1_jeel3c9 wrote

That's great news. Let's get more of these and further slow down the violence. Lack of anything better to do is the leading cause of teens and young adults of any culture or background to get into trouble. There is just a bigger lack of anything to do in the poorer areas.


bmore t1_jeetu9l wrote

Weird the one media outlet that usually reports on Safe Streets the most doesn't have a piece on this!


BeekyGardener t1_jef1jmz wrote

Can somebody to an ELI5 of why they seem to be working? I'm not being a skeptic. I genuinely want to understand.


DONNIENARC0 t1_jeejcix wrote

Wow, they're claiming it reduced gun violence by over 20% and effectively prevented 1 of every 5 murders?


YoYoMoMa t1_jeem9ec wrote

Seems really good, and I know a lot less about interpreting crime stats than people at the Hop.


XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jeexy6v wrote

Displacement is not the same as a reduction. Homicides and shootings overall have not decreased in any sort of meaningful way in the city... just in the zones they're focusing on. This is the same reason I am not sold on the GVRS program that the city is touting as a success. Yeah, when you flood an area with resources that area is going to see a crime reduction. Meanwhile, other areas that aren't seeing those resources are seeing increases in crime.

Both programs have their merits, but neither are the cure all that the powers that be want them to be.


Slime__queen t1_jef1oxj wrote

Maybe then .. we bring similar resources to more areas


XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jef7glv wrote

Yes that'd be nice, but those resources don't exist. Expanding programs like Safe Streets and GVRS takes manpower and money that the city does no have.


Slime__queen t1_jef8pia wrote

I don’t know a ton about the budgeting situation of the city so I’m not gonna argue or agree with that, but I just mean that this seems to show that these kind of programs are a good goal to support and work towards. Just because we can’t make that happen right now, we can still identify this as something people want to make happen. And treat not having the resources for it as a problem to solve rather than a reason to dismiss the idea. Not that you necessarily were, but I see people often discount something because there’s not enough resources, but that isn’t a permanent thing.


NoMoKraTo t1_jef6642 wrote

There is no problem that more money can't solve. The problem is having enough money.


Slime__queen t1_jef74cv wrote

Sure, I guess what I meant was that if something only works in the area it’s accessible that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea or isn’t working. It just needs to be brought to more areas. And that deciding something is worth spending money on is the first step to addressing the “not enough money” problem.


bmore t1_jegq5ob wrote

What is the overall homicide and nonfatal shooting count this year vs this time last year?


XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jegrldw wrote

I don't have the exact numbers accessible right now, but there is a decrease in both so far this year. Why are you asking?


bmore t1_jeguoq4 wrote

I thought homicides were down ~22% and nonfatal shootings were down ~25% over this time last year. I was curious if I'm wrong because that doesn't seem to track with "have not decreased in any sort of meaningful way."


XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jegw13c wrote

Are you attributing a year to date reduction for 3 months solely to Safe Streets? Why didn't that reduction happen in other years of Safe Streets operation? What is the comparison to murders and shootings in Safe Streets zones year over year? If there's an increase in zones but a reduction in non-zones, is that Safe Streets fault too? I don't have all the answers to these questions and I don't think you do either.

So yeah, I'd say ignoring the other years of overall murder and shooting rates staying the same on increasing city wide just to cherry pick 3 months this year is not meaningful.


bmore t1_jeh5992 wrote

I didn't say a thing about Safe Streets. I asked if the overall numbers I had are wrong because they seem to be completely different than what you implied.


[deleted] t1_jefjkoj wrote



dillond18 t1_jefony6 wrote

May I suggest some more research and learning on your part to inform your opinions? These are just a few sources I've found on the topic from a quick search and have linked them here for your convenience.

Also doing your own research is very enriching so please feel free to further explore violent crime reduction thru your own research methods. Being curious about topics will broaden your horizons.

I am also happy to further discuss this topic with you, please feel free to follow up with any research or articles you wish to discuss or analyze. thank you for reading!


sit_down_man OP t1_jefju05 wrote

I have some breaking news for you, kiddo.


[deleted] t1_jeg5rra wrote



CrabEnthusist t1_jeg9a71 wrote

I used to support universal healthcare, but then someone was snarky to me on the internet, and now I'm a fascist


sit_down_man OP t1_jegf57t wrote

I’m not a liberal and I also encourage you to keep voting for more and more fash politicians. That’ll really show me!


Deacon51 t1_jefb5bj wrote

When programs work, they should be funder and expanded. You want to reduce gun crime, here's a proven method that should not incite the pro-second amendment crowd.


TheCaptainDamnIt t1_jef44go wrote

I for one look forward to this actual good news never being covered by FOX45.

EDIT: Holy fucking shit! I had to go look. The current lead story on FOX45s website right now is a three sentence 'story' about allotting funds to the Blacks in Wax Museum, that has an break in the middle of those three sentences to show a graphic for another story that's just pictures of black peoples mugshots! This is the most race baiting thing I've ever seen a 'legitimate' news org do.

It literally has the copy "It is the nation’s first wax museum presenting the history of great Black Americans." that is followed by black people mugshots. Fucking wow!


DONNIENARC0 t1_jef8aoa wrote

I just googled it to have a look, I got pictures of blueberries. Might be a targeted ad.


TheCaptainDamnIt t1_jef9ruo wrote

It looks like it's rotating ads for other stories on the FOX45 site. It just so happens that FOX45 uses a ton of mugshots in their stories and loves to post stories of 'black people committing crimes' so they're bound to get this. But this one is coming up more than the others when I try other devices or IPs.


WinkyTheFrog t1_jefqo9y wrote

Someone translate I had a stroke reading this title


AutoModerator t1_jeeinl3 wrote

Hello there!

Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.

It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.

In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


dcfb2360 t1_jefg14s wrote

These programs work. As much as i think scott is kinda timid and needs to be more assertive & proactive, his crime approach is the right way to address the problem. If anyone's interested in an overview of these types of crime prevention programs, check out focused deterrence and operation ceasefire:


WikiSummarizerBot t1_jefg2sy wrote

Operation Ceasefire

>Operation Ceasefire (also known as the Boston Gun Project and the Boston Miracle) is a problem-oriented policing initiative implemented in 1996 in Boston, Massachusetts. The program was specifically aimed at youth gun violence as a large-scale problem. The plan is based on the work of criminologist David M. Kennedy.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


dangerbird2 t1_jef2sug wrote

Johns Hopkins evaluation also finds bears poop in the woods and the Pope is Catholic


DirtyPolecat t1_jeg422i wrote

If we never studied things that are "common sense", we'd still think the sun revolves around Earth.


green_marshmallow t1_jeg1ah3 wrote

As much as I wish this were true, the only thing that will convince me is the homicide rate going down. As the author directly says, more study is needed. All the collegiate studies in the world won't change the body count, or that certain locations are hardly ever open.

Of course Sinclair45 hasn't said anything about this though. Doesn't fit the narrative.


RoutineDark9816 t1_jeg73d5 wrote

Yeah right. Been living here 30+ years. People are full of shit. Locals keep killing others all the time. What a joke. Only thing that will stop the criminals is giving them millions for “reparations” so they have motivation to stop shooting up their neighborhood with illegal guns. Will keep reading the news as the rats eat up their dead bodies.