Interesting news report

[Pond James Pond]

You are saying that gang members don't engage in criminal behavior and that DV killers don't abuse and harass their victims for months or years before they kill them. Is that correct?

No...

I'm saying that applying that one process to everyone so as to refute a claim in a report is unrealistic.
You basically said that criminals go on an escalation of crimes until in culminates in murder and I think it's probably a bit more nuanced that that...

Not every gang member is the same, nor will they all behave in exactly the same manner, any more than everyone else does.

I'm not casting doubt on whether or not you know what you're talking about, nor that what you described happens a lot. What I disagree with is the notion that this study has to be bunk because it doesn't match what you've experienced nor that what you've experienced is the only way things can pan out.

Are you open to the possibility that the methods they use can work some of the time and that this is not a one-pill cure for all violence?

Because that is all I'm taking from this report: that some members of the community are receptive and when that happens it interrupts what would otherwise become tit-for-tat reprisals all down the line.

The point is, no community program can work without the people in the community wanting it to work. I think THEY are the ones more deserving of the credit.

They do deserve the credit and as I understand the methods, they are indeed the ones recruited to be the mediators and de-escalators.

This is how I visualise it:

I see street kid A who gets in to a disagreement which starts to spiral. From that point on it may be that he shoots someone whose friends then shoot him , whose friends then shoot them etc. I then imagine one of those local community activists getting wind of this and going to try and calm things down. From that point on, if successful, that set of reprisals has been cut. X, Y and Z who would have been involved will have now avoided becoming a statistic.

It may well be that street kid A later doesn't exercise restraint or doesn't heed the mediators advice at a later date and then people get shot, but those in that first "chain reaction" event won't be among them. And those interventions are happening all over the place with all sorts o street kids.

So not perfect, but the more it works, it seems the more it works. For me, what the project devisors did right was isolate the behaviours or events in the chain that were the point of interception for those mediators.

That is why I like it and find it encouraging.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

I see street kid A who gets in to a disagreement which starts to spiral. From that point on it may be that he shoots someone whose friends then shoot him , whose friends then shoot them etc. I then imagine one of those local community activists getting wind of this and going to try and calm things down. From that point on, if successful, that set of reprisals has been cut. X, Y and Z who would have been involved will have now avoided becoming a statistic.

To me this is pure TV Movie fantasy.

Just about all "disagreements" of that type that I see resulting in shootings and other violent attacks are over drug money, drugs, prostitutes, snitching, gambling and (rarely) women.

Often times the offenders are simply high out of their minds and have no idea why they did what they did on the spur of the moment. I assure you my experiences are by no means unique. You should check out the UCR data sometime.

So you are suggesting that a community mediator work out who gets to sell meth in what neighborhood and who gets to traffic their women at which hotel? Maybe Johnny decides not to beat Jimmy with hammer because he shorted him $40 on the last batch of allergy medicine and he can make it up later when he swipes some pipes and sells it at the recycle center? Or maybe they will just walk away from that life due to their strong sense of moral values?

An "intervention" on a single day, a week or even a month changes absolutely nothing about how people live their lives. Certainly they will keep doing whatever it was that started the conflict in the first place. Without a good understanding of the scope and scale of the problem and why things are the way they are this whole program is a waste. It fails to define the problem set at all. In fact it is worse than that. It proceeds from a series of false assumptions.

 

[K_Mac]

If we continue with the violence as a disease metaphor, talk is only to begin the analysis of what is wrong. Then treatment is required. If talk could fix my neurocardiogenic ails I would be a much healthier guy. Unfortunately some diseases require treatments that sometimes work and sometimes don't.

Violence in the communities being discussed here is just a symptom. The real problems of poverty, drugs, incarceration, poor education, unemployment, and a generational dependence on a welfare system that has enslaved and destroyed the culture it was ostensibly designed to help, are the diseases that must treated. I have little faith that anyone or any political party has the will to treat the infection. It is far easier to throw money at it and blame the folks living in the mess, than actually doing anything about it.

 

[Pond James Pond]

To me this is pure TV Movie fantasy.

OK. But again that is your opinion.
Doubtless based on plenty of real world events. Mine is that I believe there are cases when it does work. My opinion that it can work is largely because of the results associated, and that these were independently evaluated in the reports I linked.
My opinion is based on its results. I had no preconceptions about whether something like this was pie-in-the-sky. If some then call me naive, so be it.

I guess this answers my question earlier of whether or not you were open to the idea that this might sometimes work.

Either way, the adage of agree to disagree applies here, it seems.

Violence in the communities being discussed here is just a symptom. The real problems of poverty, drugs, incarceration, poor education, unemployment, and a generational dependence on a welfare system that has enslaved and destroyed the culture it was ostensibly designed to help, are the diseases that must treated.

Absolutely agreed on the causes. And agreed that no one will truly tackle them because that would mean completely changing the status quo of the world we live in to do it properly or result in something twisted like it did here 70-odd years ago.

It is far easier to throw money at it and blame the folks living in the mess, than actually doing anything about it.

People living there are not helpless human flotsam with no power to guide themselves, but the current they are stuck in is very strong. Nonetheless, sometimes people do break out or make a change to their communities. In those cases, such people can probably do more if they are given outside help.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

My opinion that it can work is largely because of the results associated, and that these were independently evaluated in the reports I linked.

They are not. All of the studies that you posted took place before the activities that claimed success in the AJ article and used different supposed methodology to achieve their purported success.

Slutkin's theory is borne out in Cure Violence's swift and significant results: a 2012-2013 study showed that the Chicago neighbourhoods where it operates saw incidences of shootings drop by 41 to 73 percent.

The newest "study" you referenced was published in January 2012.

None of the studies involved a violence interrupter roaming the streets looking for wayward kids.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Supposed methodology?
Purported success?
Study in inverted commas?


After providing independent reports, you're now using language like that?

Really....
It speaks volume about how open you are to the possibility that this has worked.

You claim life experience in this domain, so I'm presuming LE. If so, I'd have thought you'd be thrilled to see a program such as this. Instead all I've seen is determination to shoot it down.

None of the studies involved a violence interrupter roaming the streets looking for wayward kids.

Yes, they do. Read on:

Cure Violence was a progression and relabel of CeaseFire which started work in Chicago in the early 2000s. The Chicago report evaluates that in the 2009 report.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to note, they too referenced your list of typical reasons to engage in violence on page 4-28 (conflicts over love interests not mentioned).

It references people who "interrupt" possible conflicts amongst "high risk" individuals. From page iii of the abstract:

CeaseFire focused on changing the behavior of a small number of carefully selected members of the community, those with a high chance of either "being shot or being a shooter" in the immediate future. Violence interrupters worked on the street, mediating conflicts between gangs and intervening to stem the cycle of retaliatory violence that threatens to break out following a shooting. Outreach workers counseled young clients and connected them to a range of services.

Results show mixed but overall positive numbers on page 7-46

Another was published in 2013 and had reviewed Cure Violence in 2012-2013
That study says the following on page 2:

Consistent across all of the interviews conducted with CeaseFire participants were individual reports of decreased involvement in crime and violence, with change in behavior attributed to mentoring, primarily around opportunities for employment. Participants also highlighted CeaseFire workers’ ability to mediate conflict within the neighborhood, pointing to workers’ unique skill to get high-risk residents to listen and respect their message because they had credibility. High-risk participants reported they were more likely to respond and listen to CeaseFire workers because the workers had lived a similar life, “the things I did, they did”.

The 2012 Baltimore report evaluated the project's effects during its implementation from 2007-2009.

Page 2 of the evaluation report refers to incident mediation by outreach staff:

From July 2007 through December 2010, Safe Streets outreach workers mediated 276 incidents.

The graphs in a number of areas show pretty clear areas under the curve as being smaller than the control areas during the study and all areas before the study started. In other areas, the difference is not so evident, but still a net positive in some areas.

The NY reports from 2015 look at the project successes after it began in 2013.
Again on page 3 of the executive summary:

Street Outreach and Conflict Mediation: The Ceasefire model seeks to identify and engage individuals deemed to be at a high risk for future violence through street outreach by “credible messengers,” with experience in the target neighborhood and knowledge of local gang or street conflicts.

The CureViolence website which was the organisation reported on via AJ also references conflict interrupters as part of their Core Components.
So I don't know where you got the impression that these mediators were not part of the game all along...

I've taken the time to look through those reports in order to address your concerns about this but, truth be told, I'm getting the impression you have your view and nothing is going to change that.
Well, I'm not here to convince you...

Read what I've written or don't. Check what I've referenced or don't.
If you don't want to see this any other way, then knock yourself out: it will make zero difference to me.

And I say that without bile, vitriol or animosity.
All I'd set out to do was share what I thought was something encouraging. At this point, however, I'm done with this.

Other readers can decide if they think there's something in it or not and whether you or I or both are being intransigent.
More importantly, they can decide if this scheme is a good or a bad thing for their troubled communities...

all the best.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

They have failed then. Baltimore and Chicago have shown huge increase in murder rates in the last two years.

Chicago was up 12.5% in 2015 and is on track to be possibly be up as much as 50% this year.

Baltimore was up 63% last year and will top that this year.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Did you expect the effects would continue after the program was finished, without further input?!

This is going nowhere...

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Apparently we are looking at two different sets of data and reading different things or I don't know what. So lets look at some stuff and go some places.

First off your quoted number of 33,000 gun deaths a year "putting in perspective" as you claim includes mostly suicides and accidents, the overwhelming majority in fact. You then launch in to the claims of the effectiveness of interrupting the patterns of person on person violence. These numbers are completely unrelated.

Next this claim:

Did you watch the video? The talk was not about amnesties, gun control laws at all....

Just because they want to use it to move onto guns, it doesn't mean that the initial premise that violence is a social behaviour that can influence the behaviour of those exposed to it is automatically false.
Now letting or preventing anti-gun folks then exploiting that to their own ends is a different story.

You do know that this group is simply the rebranded group Cease-Fire a vehemently anti-gun group?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cure_Violence

Originally developed under the name "CeaseFire" in 2000, Slutkin launched the model in West Garfield, the most violent community in Chicago at the time.

But since we are specifically taking issue with the Cure Violence program as referenced in the article in your original posting being that the topic under discussion. The rest of the stuff that you keep posting that has nothing to do with that particular program is a separate issue. But I'll get to that later.

Baltimore.... Funding was not cut off in 2015 as you claimed in fact...

From the organization that you posted:

http://cureviolence.org/results/scientific-evaluations/baltimore-safe-streets-evaluation/

Baltimore

- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake recruited the National Network in 2013 to help the city implement Operation Ceasefire, shortly after Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts released the city's new strategic public safety plan. The National Network is currently advising implementation on Baltimore's East and West sides. The effort launched officially in early 2014 and the first call-in occurred in June 2014.

So we are halfway through 2014 and we get our first call. If call volume is really that low (and I absolutely believe it) I would say any effect that the program would have in 2014 would be nominal. 2015 and 2016 we should see some real impacts.

Now I have already posted the huge rise in murders in Baltimore so how do you explain how effective that program is?

Baltimore already had their own program in place prior to that time that pretty much did the same thing except it was not under the auspices of an anti-gun group. You then go on to cite the study of the other program that IS NOT THE PROGRAM UNDER DISCUSSION HERE. They make a lot of claims that it is the same thing saying "Following the model", "replication site" but it isn't. They did not even partner until years after the study.

Use your imagination as I provide an analogy. You have two different car engines. They propel a car and essentially do the same thing. One is a an inline four and the other is a V8 they are NOT THE SAME THING.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-rodricks-0604-20150603-column.html

Of course the program got derailed when a number of their councilors turned back to crime and drugs and guns were found in their offices. When did that happen, oh yeah after they became partners with the group under discussion.... Why is that bad? Oh because the councilors are all felons...

Chicago:

As noted above Chicago Cease Fire opened in 2000. The murder rate went up in Chicago in 2000 and stayed up for several years dropping off in 2003.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rder_Rates.png/600px-Chicago_Murder_Rates.png

Since then rates were kind of normalized for the last fifteen years at a steady rate until recently. This was part of a nationwide trend drop off in murder rates after the VCCLEA was implemented in the 1994. The murder rate essentially declined 40% in five years and then went in steady decline to the rates that we have had nationally until the last couple of years.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/murderrate.png

So it begs the question. If the Cease Fire program was so effective why did the drop just happen in one year a few years after they started and then stop? They were getting full funding the whole time. It isn't though murders weren't happening. If the model is a few years after the program starts we see a drop off it sure isn't working.

I could go into the eaches but you seem pretty determined to defend this anti-gun organization programs which is kind of surprising giving the forum in which you are doing so.


In any case short of something new and relevant here I am out. Saying the same thing more loudly serves no purpose.

 

[Pond James Pond]

First off your quoted number of 33,000 gun deaths a year "putting in perspective" as you claim includes mostly suicides and accidents, the overwhelming majority in fact.

I know, I raised the number as it is the one often referred to in the media. About 12,000 are attributed to homicides. But thanks for raising that as it means that the murders avoided in these programmes even more statistically relevant.

You then launch in to the claims of the effectiveness of interrupting the patterns of person on person violence. These numbers are completely unrelated.

So the numbers of homicides as a whole are unrelated to the person on person violence we're talking about? I see....

You do know that this group is simply the rebranded group Cease-Fire

If you'd bothered to read my penultimate response you'd see I'd written that myself.

As for the anit-gun position: I am unaware of it. I'm also uninterested in it.
I referred to these programs purely from the point of view that they had being working to do in the specified neighbourhoods.

In fact, at no point in this thread will you find me advocating any form of gun control.
Quite the opposite:
I was interested in this because it made no mentioning of controlling access to guns, but rather the behaviour: again very clear position on my part from the outset so things like this:

I could go into the eaches but you seem pretty determined to defend this anti-gun organization programs which is kind of surprising giving the forum in which you are doing so.

....sound more like an ad hominem attack. Particularly as I've not defended any organisation in this thread: I've defended the logic of their approach based on the results I've referenced.

a vehemently anti-gun group?

Maybe, maybe not. From your own Wiki link:

Cure Violence follows a three-pronged health approach to violence prevention : detection/interruption of planned violent activity, behavior change of high-risk individuals, and changing community norms.

No mention of gun control there. In fact no mention on the entire page...

The rest of the stuff that you keep posting that has nothing to do with that particular program is a separate issue.

No, it isn't.
Again: the initial post was due to the approach of the organisation, not the specific organisation itself.
Given that the other projects use the same approach, they are equally relevant. You can claim that they don't but the abstracts and summaries in those links say otherwise.

Indeed, if they weren't linked, why on earth would they be referenced on CureViolence's own website as being so?!

Seeing as you referenced the evaluation summary yourself, here is a slide from that very page:

Now I have already posted the huge rise in murders in Baltimore so how do you explain how effective that program is?

I don't claim to but:

1. I never said that this was a one-pill cure for murder: in fact I said that it wasn't and shouldn't be taken that way.
2. No rational person would expect one single thing to affect the situation as a whole.
3. The studies focussed its attentions high risk individuals in a small, set number of neighbourhoods. So again, why would this be expected to affect murders across the entire city area?

Baltimore already had their own program in place prior to that time that pretty much did the same thing ...

So, it did. I read the article: thanks.
The article basically said that the same idea: of dissuading would-be violence actors in a community helps reduce murder rates. And you linked it. You linked an article that says what I've felt was a good idea actually worked.
So again, thanks.

I can see now that you were so bent on finding a report that said Ceasefire/CureViolence had screwed up that you actually supported my position regarding a means of stopping violence before it occurs.

Your position appears to be you simply don't like CeaseFire/CureViolence as an organisation: correct?

It certainly seems that way and that is fine but don't project your dislike of them onto me when, for my part, I only been promoting an approach that didn't see restricting legal gun ownership as part of its MO, not singing the praises of this organisation or that.

Heck: perhaps it's not the best organisation for the job. No skin off my nose: I don't own stock in them.
For me it's not about who, but what. And how.

Saying the same thing more loudly serves no purpose.

It seems we agree on that.

As I've said before, I'm not here to convince you.

The above is for the benefit of other readers, so they can make up their own mind, one way or the other.

 

[Tom Servo]

You do know that this group is simply the rebranded group Cease-Fire a vehemently anti-gun group?

Oh, what a mess. By using that name, they're deliberately confusing themselves with Operation Ceasefire, which was a novel and effective means of reducing violence in troubled cities.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

No mention of gun control there. In fact no mention on the entire page...

And yet earlier you seemingly, acknowledge that they that is what they will go on to do and yet you don't seem to to care a whit. Or else you are crazy naive? It really doesn't matter.

a vehemently anti-gun group?

Maybe, maybe not. From your own Wiki link:

Quoting out of context? Really?

Again: the initial post was due to the approach of the organisation, not the specific organisation itself.
Given that the other projects use the same approach, they are equally relevant. You can claim that they don't but the abstracts and summaries in those links say otherwise.

Indeed, if they weren't linked, why on earth would they be referenced on CureViolence's own website as being so?!

It's not.

Why they would put it there should be obvious on the face of it. If you can't figure out why I can't figure a way to explain it to you that you will understand. Your bafflement baffles me. You might go back and read the article again more slowly.

So, it did. I read the article: thanks.
The article basically said that the same idea: of dissuading would-be violence actors in a community helps reduce murder rates. And you linked it. You linked an article that says what I've felt was a good idea actually worked.
So again, thanks.

Your welcome except of course for the part about it having nothing to do with the program you are talking about. It is shame I can get you to the watering hole and you still won't drink. Maybe some day you will figure it out. Good luck with that.

 

[Pond James Pond]

It is shame I can get you to the watering hole and you still won't drink.

I see no watering hole. Just a bottomless pit.

What I've seen most clearly in all of this is your bias.
So thanks, but no thanks: I'll go drinking elsewhere.