Cure Violence Global

Cure Violence Global traces its origins to 2000, when Dr. Gary Slutkin — who had spent years combating infectious diseases for the World Health Organization in Africa — returned to his native Chicago and recognized patterns. The epidemiologist observed that gun violence in certain neighborhoods behaved like contagious disease: clustering geographically, spreading through social networks, spiking suddenly after index events, and affecting populations in predictable ways. Slutkin wondered whether the same interruption techniques used to halt cholera or tuberculosis outbreaks could be applied to shootings. His hypothesis was controversial, even heretical to some, but it was grounded in decades of field epidemiology. Violence, he argued, was learned behavior that spread person-to-person through modeling and retaliation, and therefore could be treated using detection, interruption, and community immunity strategies.

The organization initially operated as CeaseFire Chicago, launching its first intervention sites in the West Garfield Park neighborhood and later expanding to other parts of the city's West and South sides. Early results surprised skeptics: independent evaluations by Northwestern University and the Department of Justice documented significant reductions in shootings in program areas compared to similar neighborhoods without the intervention. The approach did not rely on police arrests or harsher sentencing. Instead, it deployed violence interrupters — often former gang members or individuals with street credibility — who could detect brewing conflicts through their networks and mediate before guns were drawn. The model also employed outreach workers who built long-term relationships with individuals at highest risk, offering cognitive behavioral therapy techniques, job connections, and pathways away from violence. By 2012, as evidence accumulated and international interest grew, the organization rebranded as Cure Violence to reflect its public health framework and expanded mission beyond Chicago.

What distinguished Cure Violence from traditional violence prevention programs was its explicit rejection of moral or criminal justice framing. Slutkin insisted that labeling people as criminals or bad actors was counterproductive, just as stigmatizing tuberculosis patients had historically undermined treatment compliance. Instead, the organization treated violence exposure as a health condition, shooters and victims alike as people needing intervention, and communities as patient populations requiring sustained care. This philosophical shift proved powerful, allowing workers to engage individuals no social service agency or police department could reach. Over two decades, the model matured from a single-city experiment into a global franchise, adapted and implemented by local partners across North and South America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The mission of Cure Violence Global is to stop the spread of violence by using disease control and behavior change methods proven effective in public health campaigns worldwide. The organization rejects the notion that incarceration alone can solve endemic violence in communities where shootings have become normalized across generations. Instead, it applies three core strategies drawn directly from epidemic control: detect and interrupt potentially violent conflicts before they occur, identify and change the behavior of the highest-risk individuals, and mobilize the community to change norms around violence. This triad mirrors the detect-and-interrupt, treat-the-highest-risk, and build-population-immunity approach used in controlling infectious disease outbreaks, translated into the language of street conflict and retaliation cycles.

Central to the model is the role of violence interrupters, credible messengers who maintain deep relationships within the communities they serve. These individuals are typically from the same neighborhoods, often with personal histories that give them legitimacy among active gang members or individuals engaged in street conflicts. Interrupters receive training in conflict mediation, motivational interviewing, and crisis response, then work long hours monitoring social media, attending funerals and parties, and maintaining constant communication with residents to detect signs of impending violence. When they identify a brewing conflict — a disrespect incident, a disputed drug corner, a threatened retaliation — they intervene directly, shuttling between parties, de-escalating emotions, offering alternatives, and sometimes physically preventing someone from leaving their house with a gun. This real-time interruption is the first line of defense, the epidemiological equivalent of isolating an infected patient before they spread disease.

Outreach workers, the second component, engage in longer-term behavior change with individuals at highest risk. They might work with someone for months or years, offering cognitive behavioral therapy techniques that help reframe automatic violent responses, connecting them to employment or education opportunities, and providing consistent mentorship. The outreach relationship is intentionally non-judgmental and health-focused: workers discuss violence exposure as trauma that affects decision-making, not as moral failure. Community mobilization, the third pillar, involves shifting neighborhood norms so that violence becomes less acceptable and less automatic as a response to conflict. This includes organizing community events, mobilizing residents after shootings to demonstrate collective rejection of violence, and supporting local leaders who model and promote non-violent conflict resolution. Together, these components create a layered prevention system targeting violence at the individual, relationship, and community levels simultaneously.

Cure Violence Global does not partner with law enforcement in its direct service delivery, a deliberate choice meant to preserve the trust essential for interrupters and outreach workers to function. Community members must believe that what they share with Cure Violence staff will not lead to arrests or prosecutions; otherwise, the flow of information that allows early conflict detection would dry up. This independence from the criminal justice system is sometimes misunderstood as being anti-police, but the organization frames it as maintaining a distinct public health role analogous to doctors treating gunshot victims without interrogating them. Police serve a necessary enforcement function, but Cure Violence occupies a prevention space where credibility depends on confidentiality and non-punitive relationships.

Cure Violence Global's program sites span continents, each adapted to local context while maintaining core methodological fidelity. In the United States, the model has been implemented in cities including New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Kansas City, among others. The New York program, operating since 2010 in neighborhoods across the South Bronx, East New York, and other high-risk areas, has been subject to rigorous independent evaluation. A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that shootings and killings decreased significantly in Cure Violence catchment areas during program operation, with some sites experiencing reductions of 50 percent or more compared to preceding years and control areas. The program demonstrated particular success in preventing retaliations, the cyclical shootings that can dominate certain neighborhoods for months after an initial incident.

In Chicago, where the model originated, multiple program sites have operated over two decades with varying levels of support and funding continuity. Evaluations by researchers at Northwestern University documented that during fully funded periods, neighborhoods with Cure Violence presence saw measurable drops in shootings that could not be explained by citywide crime trends, police activity, or economic factors. The evidence base grew strong enough that the model earned recognition from institutions including the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) and was cited in federal violence prevention frameworks. However, the Chicago experience also illustrated a key challenge: when funding lapses and sites close, violence often rebounds, underscoring that this approach requires sustained investment rather than short-term pilot projects.

Internationally, Cure Violence Global has supported program implementation in contexts as varied as Cape Town, South Africa; San Pedro Sula, Honduras; London, United Kingdom; and Iraqi Kurdistan. In Trinidad and Tobago, local partners adapted the model to address gang violence that had driven homicide rates to regional highs. In South Africa's Cape Flats, where gang violence intersects with deep poverty and historical trauma, the model was integrated into existing community health systems. Each international adaptation required careful attention to local conflict drivers, power structures, and cultural norms around honor and retribution, but the underlying public health principles remained consistent. The organization's global reach demonstrates that while violence manifests differently across contexts, the mechanisms of its spread and the logic of interruption transcend geography.

Beyond direct service sites, Cure Violence Global has influenced policy and practice through its training and technical assistance work. The organization operates a comprehensive training institute that has prepared thousands of violence interrupters, outreach workers, program managers, and government officials in the model's methodology. This training covers conflict mediation skills, trauma-informed practice, data collection for program monitoring, and the theoretical underpinnings of the public health approach to violence. By building capacity among local organizations rather than simply exporting a Chicago-based team, Cure Violence Global has created a network of autonomous programs that share methods and learning while remaining rooted in their communities. This franchise model has proven more sustainable and culturally responsive than centralized service delivery, though it requires ongoing quality assurance and technical support to maintain program fidelity.

A day in the life of a Cure Violence interrupter reveals the intensive, relational nature of the work. Interrupters typically begin by checking in with their networks — texting contacts, monitoring social media for signs of tension, and sometimes making rounds to known gathering spots. They might learn that two young men had a confrontation the night before, that disrespectful words were exchanged, and that friends are pressuring both sides to respond with violence to maintain reputation. The interrupter's job is to insert himself into this dynamic immediately, before the conflict escalates. He might meet separately with each party, acknowledging their anger and sense of disrespect while offering alternative ways to resolve the situation that don't involve guns. He reminds them of friends who were killed or imprisoned over similar incidents, helps them think through consequences, and sometimes brokers a face-saving resolution that allows both parties to de-escalate without appearing weak. This work is urgent, unpredictable, and often occurs late at night or on weekends when conflicts ignite.

Outreach workers operate on a different timeline, building sustained relationships with a caseload of individuals identified as highest risk. Risk is determined through various factors: recent release from incarceration, exposure to violence as victim or witness, active gang involvement, or explicit threats against them. An outreach worker might meet with the same person weekly for months, working through cognitive behavioral therapy exercises adapted for street contexts. These sessions might explore how childhood trauma shapes automatic responses to perceived threats, practice alternative conflict resolution techniques, or identify triggers that lead to violent reactions. The relationship itself is often transformative — many high-risk young men have never experienced a sustained, non-judgmental adult relationship where they can discuss their fears and vulnerabilities. Outreach workers also provide practical assistance: accompanying clients to job interviews, helping navigate probation requirements, or connecting them with mental health services. The work requires extraordinary patience and cultural competence, as progress is often slow and setbacks frequent.

Community mobilization activities create the broader environment in which individual behavior change can take hold. After a shooting, Cure Violence staff might organize a community response within hours — gathering neighbors for a peace march, distributing flyers that articulate community rejection of violence, or convening a meeting of local stakeholders to discuss prevention strategies. These mobilizations serve multiple purposes: they demonstrate that the community cares and is watching, they create space for grieving that doesn't default to retaliation, and they slowly shift norms so that violence is no longer seen as inevitable or acceptable. The organization also works with community leaders, clergy, business owners, and parents to amplify prevention messages and model non-violent conflict resolution. This norm-change work is gradual and difficult to measure precisely, but public health theory suggests it is essential for creating lasting reductions in violence that persist even after direct interventions end.

Data collection is woven throughout Cure Violence operations. Workers document every mediation, every outreach session, every shooting or violent incident in their catchment area, and the circumstances surrounding each event. This data serves multiple purposes: it allows program managers to assess whether violence is decreasing, helps identify emerging conflicts or hot spots requiring immediate attention, and provides the evidence base for evaluation research. The organization has worked with independent researchers to develop rigorous evaluation designs, including randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that compare outcomes in program areas to carefully matched control neighborhoods. This commitment to evidence has been crucial for the model's credibility and replication, distinguishing it from many community violence initiatives that operate on theory or anecdote alone. The data also grounds the work in reality, forcing constant adaptation and learning rather than allowing programs to continue ineffective practices.

Cure Violence Global's public health approach has earned recognition from major institutions in medicine, criminal justice, and international development. The model has been cited favorably in reports by the Institute of Medicine, was designated a promising practice by the National Institute of Justice, and has been featured in numerous academic journals including the American Journal of Public Health and Lancet. The organization's founder, Dr. Gary Slutkin, has been profiled widely and has presented the approach in venues ranging from the World Economic Forum to the Aspen Ideas Festival. A documentary film, The Interrupters, directed by Steve James and produced by Alex Kotlowitz and Slutkin, brought national attention to the work by following Chicago interrupters through their daily challenges, earning critical acclaim and introducing millions to the disease-interruption framework. This visibility has been a double-edged sword, generating interest and funding while also raising expectations that a complex, long-term public health intervention can produce rapid, dramatic results.

The organization's influence extends beyond its direct program sites through its impact on the broader violence prevention field. Many cities now employ violence interrupter programs or credible messenger initiatives that draw explicitly from the Cure Violence model, even if not formally affiliated. The language of treating violence as a health issue rather than purely a crime problem has entered mainstream discourse, appearing in mayoral speeches, police department strategies, and public health frameworks. Foundations and government agencies increasingly fund intervention approaches that emphasize prevention and behavior change over enforcement alone, a shift the Cure Violence model helped catalyze through its evidence base and compelling reframing of the issue. The organization has also contributed to international conversations about violence reduction in post-conflict settings and cities struggling with gang violence, offering an alternative to heavy-handed security approaches that often perpetuate cycles of violence and mistrust.

Currently, Cure Violence Global operates as both a direct service provider in select sites and as a technical assistance and training organization supporting local partners worldwide. The organization's headquarter location in Chicago maintains program oversight, methodology development, and evaluation partnerships while local implementing organizations carry out day-to-day intervention work in their communities. This structure allows for geographic expansion without requiring a massive centralized staff, though it demands significant investment in training, quality assurance, and ongoing technical support. The network model also creates opportunities for peer learning, with violence interrupters from Baltimore sharing strategies with counterparts in London or Cape Town, all adapting the core approach to their distinct contexts while maintaining methodological integrity. As urban violence remains a persistent public health crisis affecting cities worldwide, Cure Violence Global's role as both implementer and knowledge steward positions it as a significant force in the global violence prevention field.