Advancing Data and Evidence to Prevent Gun Violence

On December 16, 2024, dozens of experts, advocates, and policymakers gathered at the White House to discuss ways to improve current data- and evidence-based approaches to prevent gun violence.

The event was sponsored by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) and the Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP) in collaboration with the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH), the Tobin Center for Economic Policy at Yale, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP). Among those in attendance were representatives from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Also present were federal agency representatives, city leaders, health care practitioners, public health scholars, foundation leaders, and experts from a variety of non-profit organizations.

Throughout the day, conversations and presentations focused on three key themes:

● Expanded data collection tools: Participants shared recent improvements to widely used data collection tools and repositories, such as the addition of a firearm safety module to the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the FBI’s expansion of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to include data on non-fatal shootings;

● Novel approaches for using data: Participants discussed effective approaches for using data (with strong privacy protections) to develop, implement, and optimize targeted interventions, coordinate resources across multiple sectors and jurisdictions, and guide gun violence prevention policy;

● Building trust between researchers and communities: Participants identified solutions to key challenges that include setting expectations for accountability and collective documentation, building trust between institutions and the communities in which they are situated, and incentivizing relationship building between communities and academia.

These conversations highlighted the innovative and ongoing efforts to use data to address gun violence in cities such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Chicago, Illinois.

The city of Philadelphia developed comprehensive data dashboards (including data on housing quality and use, presence of stores and schools, and other social metrics in addition to shooting and firearm injury data) to guide their place- and person-based interventions; they then used the data to show impact, and build trust, accountability, and transparency with the community.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, the city combined data from the police department with housing and census data to identify the need to expand the geographic reach of community violence interventions; they collaborated with new organizations in implementation, thereby broadening their network.

In Chicago, city leaders partnered with community members to combine quantitative health care and law enforcement data and develop hyperlocal neighborhood-based programming for communities and people most at risk of being victims or perpetrators of violence; co-developing data collection strategies and interpreting findings in partnership with communities ensured local government and community quality of life priorities overlapped.

Other panels discussed specifics of how to infuse data and evidence into local implementation and how to adapt effective interventions across jurisdictions. They discussed that the development of trust takes time, but that it is a requisite for working with communities. Some reflected on the explicit need for institutions to acknowledge prior harms caused to communities. They highlighted the importance of fostering a professional community of practice through organized convenings that create a constructive space to share experiences about what works and does not work. They also stressed the importance of setting an expectation of accountability, and collective documentation through shared data collection and interpretation, storytelling, and publishing results. Another critical practice discussed was seeding experimentation to drive innovation and to support implementation across different local contexts.

The conversations also highlighted the degree to which knowledge and practice gaps persist.

The panelists encouraged thoughtful evaluation and dissemination of cities’ efforts to reduce gun violence. These efforts include developing innovative approaches to link place- and people-based data; creating multi-sectoral partnerships (including with researchers and community members) that actively break down siloes and build trust; and supporting the development of methods to link place- and people-based data and to scale effective pilot programs. The panelists also talked about the importance of data access and collaboration with research experts to advance the work. One model was described as first “creating trust” (programs being created in partnership rather than on behalf of groups), then “setting the table” (through seed experimentation, pilot grants, collective documentation, and seed experimentation), then “telling the stories” (through convenings, thoughtful communication, and dissemination of best practices).

Questions from attendees highlighted a desire to learn about practical ways of joining health data, law enforcement data, local community data, and data from departments of public health. Attendees discussed the difficulty of embedding data collection into practice, linking data across institutions and organizations, and summarizing data in non-identifiable ways. One example of how to achieve this goal was a partnership between an academic institution, a state police department, and a department of public health to understand drivers and correlates of gun violence deaths, and use that information to direct and evaluate investments.

Other attendees asked about how to document and measure change within structures and systems of support. Attendees discussed the value of impact reports—coproduced with communities—that document intentional collaboration building and storytelling. They also discussed the need to evaluate interventions not in isolation, but within the ecosystem in which they operate and the funding sources available.

Finally, attendees discussed the role of social media in driving or facilitating violent crimes and violence prevention. Panelists discussed having used social media to identify where retaliation might happen following an event, communicate with communities, and provide additional community support where there is high likelihood of risk. Others discussed projects using social media to provide positive support, encourage bystander intervention, and reduce the likelihood of bullying and violence.

The convening concluded with commitments from participants to:

● Foster trust and partnerships by connecting and coordinating efforts from communities, researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders across the gun violence prevention ecosystem to drive impact that addresses and supports local needs;

●Build a robust, comprehensive, and integrated data infrastructure at organizational, city, state, and federal levels by mobilizing community, health, and technology leaders to ensure best practices with respect to regulation and privacy, support program evaluation, and accessibility;

● Develop community capacity for evaluation, using a commitment to co-design, a commitment to technical assistance and training on the gathering and use of data, and a commitment to funding project evaluation;

● Advance implementation and scaling of community- and hospital-based violence intervention programs that have proven effective in pilot programs and/or other communities to contribute to the community violence intervention ecosystem by directly supporting programs and organizations, and by being good stewards of financial commitments to gun violence research and education

● Accelerate and align the use of data and evidence in the field through regular convenings to continue to synthesize and share best practices across jurisdictions, communities, and geographic or ideological divides.