Experts urge data-driven Community Violence Intervention, stress street teams and sustained funding

Marcus McAllister and Dr. Cicco Tillman, visiting experts with the University of Chicago’s Community Violence Intervention Leadership Academy, told the Portsmouth Scribe and Gun Violence Prevention Task Force that CVI (community violence intervention) uses targeted, data-driven methods and community-based credible messengers to reduce shootings.

The experts said CVI is distinct from broad “violence prevention” programs because it focuses near-term on a small number of people at highest risk, identified through three pathways: social-network algorithms, criminal-justice flags and local community knowledge. “We utilize those three things, not independently but cohesively to identify individuals who should be in the program,” Tillman said.

Why it matters: the presenters argued that concentrating resources on a small number of high-risk individuals is more manageable and more likely to reduce shootings than dispersing funds across general prevention. They discussed how CVI fits inside a city’s public-safety ecosystem — coordinating street-intervention teams, case managers, hospital-based responders, school-based workers and survivor services — and noted that program success requires both frontline credible messengers and professional back-office capacity.

Details and evidence: panelists traced CVI’s evolution from Operation Ceasefire and Cure Violence to federal attention and said they helped advise DOJ grant design. They recommended daily operational briefings and targeted canvassing driven by mapping and data. “In most communities throughout the United States, less than 1% are the drivers of violence,” Tillman said, explaining why a focused approach can be “surgical and intentional.” He added, “The number 1 cause of death among black men is homicide,” underscoring the racialized public-health dimension he said policymakers should consider.

Program design and staffing: presenters described typical caseloads (roughly 10–15 people per credible messenger), the need for extensive training and ongoing technical assistance, and strategies to place credible near-peer staff inside schools when background checks would otherwise bar frontline hires. They stressed continuity and consistency as essential to building community trust.

Costs and fiscal recommendations: the presenters argued that CVI should be funded as a permanent part of public-safety budgets rather than solely by short-term grants. McAllister said establishing a fully equipped violence-intervention site — office space, wraparound services and staffing — can require substantial start-up funds and ongoing support; he estimated that a violence-prevention site could cost on the order of hundreds of thousands to around $750,000–$1,000,000, while smaller reentry or survivor programs need less. The panel also urged use of fiscal agents or experienced back-office staff to meet government accounting expectations.

Questions from task force members focused on operational details — who performs the cross-agency coordination, how daily briefings work, school access for staff with backgrounds and pre-release engagement for people incarcerated. The speakers described morning briefings, mapping exercises and pre-release case management as practical elements used in cities where CVI is implemented.

What’s next: presenters left time for questions and offered to share training and slide materials. The task force thanked them for the briefing and said members would continue internal discussion about next steps and potential local implementation. The meeting did not adopt any formal CVI contract or budget at this session.