Group Violence Intervention is a relatively new strategy that seeks to reduce gun violence among groups and their members. Initiatives that seek to Reduce Gun Violence are always Good. The strategy seems to target gangs with the help of the police that provide information about alleged known gang areas or where there are high incidents of Gun violence associated with gangs. However, the GVI uses the term “group” instead of gangs so as to neutralize the power of “gangs” and to recondition efforts towards positive group activities of helping to limit gun violence. According to a story carried by The Philadelphia Inquirer entitled: “A city-led effort to reach potential shooters has produced encouraging results, Philly officials say,” by Chris Palmer dated February 28, 2023; An evaluation conducted by a University of Pennsylvania researcher said the approach, known as Group Violence Intervention (GVI), helped reduce gun violence among targeted groups of young people.
The article stated that: An evaluation conducted by a University of Pennsylvania researcher said the approach, known as Group Violence Intervention (GVI), helped reduce gun violence among targeted groups of young people by as much as 50% during a nearly 30-month period ending last spring, (Philly officials announce GVI results, a city-run initiative to reduce gun violence (inquirer.com).
The article included the full 80-page evaluation report by: Ruth A. Moyer, Ph.D., J.D.
Evaluation Project Director at The University of Pennsylvania. The key findings of the report were:
KEY FINDINGS
Between January 2020 and May 2022, at least 1,147 Group Member-Involved shootings have occurred in Philadelphia. Approximately one out of every five of these shootings’ results in a death (23.1%). The current implementation of Group Violence Intervention (GVI) in Philadelphia has
produced significant reductions in Group Member-Involved (GMI) firearm violence at the group-unit level during the study period, January 2020 to May 2022. It has also produced significant reductions in GMI firearm violence at the census tract-level during the study period.
Importantly, due to COVID-19-related restrictions on public gatherings, the current GVI implementation in Philadelphia departed from the usual call-in meeting model. Instead, Mobile Call-In Team (MCIT) custom notification visits provided the primary means of GVI implementation.Given the results indicating a reduction in firearm violence, a GVI implementation through MCIT custom notification visits appears to maintain the effectiveness of GVI.
Post-Treatment relative to Pre-Treatment, a group-unit, on average, experienced a significant 38.6% reduction in shootings per week. Notably, receiving 2 doses of treatment relative to 0 doses of
treatment produced a significant 50.3% reduction in shootings per week for a group-unit.
A census tract experienced a non-significant 25.1% reduction (p=0.07) in GMI shootings perweek, Post-Treatment relative to Pre-Treatment. Importantly, however, where a census tract received
4 or more doses relative to 0 doses (Pre-Treatment), there was a significant 44.4% reduction (p=0.03) in GMI shootings per week.
The effects of GVI on individual outcomes such as victimization and offending merit further research. A longer study period in prospective research will provide an opportunity to more precisely detect the effect of GVI on individual behavior and victimization risk.
Enforcement actions were associated with a reduction in GMI shootings. Once it was subject to an enforcement action, a group experienced a significant 42.8% reduction (p=0.04) in shootings.
Future research should identify the particular levers in an enforcement action that are most effective.
This Evaluation conducted qualitative research to inform the quantitative findings. The qualitative research components were the following: (1) informal telephone conversations with GVI recipients; (2) surveys given to Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) officers involved in MCIT
custom notifications; and (3) informal surveys distributed at two Philadelphia Roadmap for Safer Communities community meetings, (Philly officials announce GVI results, a city-run initiative to reduce gun violence (inquirer.com)
Mr. David Fair, Executive Director of Turning Points For Children said in a LinkedIn post:
This is good news. But it’s also frustrating because this approach was also successful when it was being implemented in the Rendell and Street Administrations as the Youth Violence Reduction Project, an evidence-based approach that was even more effective than this new project. YVRP was basically closed under Mayor Nutter when he shut down most community anti-violence efforts solely to spite John Street, just one of the many incredible prevention programs decimated by Nutter’s childish bout of personal political pique at his predecessor. How many young people since have been shot or killed because of Nutter’s petty politics? ((25) Post | Feed | LinkedIn)
Moreover, I had some problems and questions concerning this report and study. I responded:
Initiatives that seek to reduce gun violence are always good. But it has to be truly effective, and studies must be representative of the strategies’ efficacy. The report is absolutely not convincing, makes question-begging-epithet i.e. “alleged certainty” that GVI works because “we know it works.” That’s unacademic and a faulty argument that should not appear in a study’s report such as this. The report stated that the project has been going on for three decades, however, violence has skyrocketed. Moreover, the terminology of the report is misleading using doses. What are doses – the intervention which is basically case management connections with the identified individuals? Further, the study seems to be based on some profiling as groups are identified as possible shooters and then GVI is applied to the groups which may not necessarily be prone to violence. How involved are community groups, such as the church? When you say you offer social services, what does it look like and how does it serve as a deterrent. The report is general and devoid of any anthropological report/testimonies. It is purely the study researchers making claims without showing any significant results correlating from the GVI application. What is “All told?” As the published report used the term “All told” which confused the reading of the report. It would seem that the report meant to use the term, although instead of all told, which would be more appropriate when making comparisons or justifying why the findings do not correlate with a variable such as the rise in crime and violence in Philadelphia neighborhoods.
The Report is available in The Philadelphia Inquirer: Philly officials announce GVI results, a city-run initiative to reduce gun violence (inquirer.com)
We have a copy of the actual evaluation report if you are unable to access it from the Inquirer. Email us at: