Cure Violence Global

Cure Violence Global emerged from an unconventional question posed by Dr. Gary Slutkin, a physician and epidemiologist who had spent a decade reversing epidemics in Africa and Asia. After working with the World Health Organization on tuberculosis, cholera, and AIDS campaigns in Somalia, Uganda, and elsewhere, Slutkin returned to his native Chicago and noticed something startling: the patterns of violence in certain neighborhoods mirrored the disease outbreaks he had studied abroad. Clusters appeared. Events spread from person to person. Behavior seemed contagious. In 2000, he founded what was initially called CeaseFire Chicago, applying epidemic control methods to the West Garfield Park neighborhood, one of the city's most violence-affected areas.

The founding insight was radical for its time: violence behaves like a contagious disease, spreading through exposure and social networks, with identifiable risk factors and predictable transmission patterns. Slutkin observed that just as cholera spreads through contaminated water and tuberculosis through airborne particles, violence spreads through norms, behaviors, and direct modeling. Young people exposed to violence become more likely to engage in it themselves, creating cyclical outbreaks within communities. This framework suggested that traditional criminal justice approaches, which focus on punishment after the fact, miss the opportunity to interrupt transmission before violence occurs.

The early Chicago work yielded unexpected results. In the initial West Garfield Park site, shootings and killings dropped significantly within the first year of implementation. The success drew attention from public health researchers who began studying the model rigorously. By the mid-2000s, independent evaluations by institutions including Johns Hopkins University and the University of Illinois at Chicago were documenting measurable reductions in gun violence in neighborhoods where the program operated, compared to similar communities without the intervention. These findings established credibility for an approach that had initially seemed far-fetched to many in law enforcement and policy circles.

The organization expanded gradually, first to other Chicago neighborhoods, then to cities across the United States including Baltimore, New York, and Philadelphia. By the 2010s, international interest had grown substantially, with cities from Cape Town to London to Medellin seeking to adapt the model. The organization rebranded as Cure Violence Global to reflect its widening scope and to emphasize the public health framing that distinguishes it from traditional violence prevention efforts. Today the organization serves as a technical assistance provider, training and supporting local organizations worldwide that implement the model in their own communities, adapting it to diverse cultural contexts while maintaining core methodological principles.

The mission of Cure Violence Global centers on stopping the spread of violence in communities by using methods proven to stop epidemics. The organization's fundamental premise is that violence is a learned behavior that clusters and spreads through populations, making it amenable to public health interventions focused on changing norms and interrupting transmission. This approach represents a significant departure from conventional strategies that treat violence primarily as a problem of individual criminality requiring deterrence and incarceration. Instead, Cure Violence treats violence as a health issue requiring community-based intervention, much as public health workers respond to outbreaks of infectious disease.

The methodology rests on three core components, each borrowed directly from disease control strategies. First, detect and interrupt potentially violent situations before they occur by identifying the highest-risk individuals and mediating conflicts that could escalate. Second, identify and change the behavior of the highest-risk individuals through relationship-building and intensive mentoring. Third, mobilize the community to change norms around the acceptability of violence, creating an environment where violent responses become less likely. These three pillars work together to reduce both individual incidents and the broader cultural acceptance that allows violence to perpetuate.

Central to the model is the role of violence interrupters, credible messengers who often have personal histories with violence and deep roots in the communities they serve. These interrupters work the streets, maintaining relationships with individuals at highest risk of shooting someone or being shot. They are not police officers or social workers in the traditional sense; their credibility comes from lived experience and authenticity. When conflicts arise—a disrespected gang member, a dispute over money or relationships, a shooting that threatens to trigger retaliation—interrupters mediate immediately, calming situations and offering alternatives to violent responses. They remain available around the clock, responding to crises whenever they emerge.

The model deliberately separates itself from law enforcement cooperation. Interrupters do not share information with police, a boundary essential to maintaining trust in communities where relationships with law enforcement are often strained or hostile. This independence allows interrupters access to individuals and situations that police cannot reach. The goal is not to aid prosecution but to stop the next shooting from happening. This approach has occasionally generated controversy, particularly among those who view any response to violence that operates outside the criminal justice system with skepticism. Yet research has consistently shown that the model's effectiveness depends on this separation, as trust enables the candid conversations and real-time interventions that interrupt violence before it occurs.

Cure Violence Global operates through a network of local implementing partners rather than directly running programs in most locations. The organization provides training, technical assistance, quality assurance, and ongoing support to community-based organizations that adopt the model. This partnership structure allows the methodology to scale while ensuring programs remain grounded in local contexts and led by community members who understand neighborhood dynamics. Sites operate across the United States, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, each adapting the core approach to local cultural norms while maintaining fidelity to the fundamental public health framework.

In the United States, numerous cities have implemented Cure Violence programs with documented results. Baltimore launched a program in several neighborhoods, with independent research finding significant reductions in homicides and non-fatal shootings in areas where the intervention operated compared to control areas. New York City implemented the model in South Bronx neighborhoods, with evaluations showing notable decreases in gun violence during program operation. Philadelphia, Oakland, and Chicago have all maintained programs for years, building evidence that the approach can be sustained over time and that effects persist as long as programs remain adequately resourced and staffed.

Internationally, the model has been adapted to contexts as varied as Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where it addressed violence related to organized crime; Trinidad and Tobago, where gun violence had reached epidemic levels; and several communities in the United Kingdom, where knife violence among young people had become a pressing concern. In each setting, local organizations have modified messaging and tactics while preserving the core strategy of treating violence as contagious and deploying credible messengers to interrupt transmission. The model has also been applied to prison settings, where violence interrupters work inside facilities to prevent assaults and riots, demonstrating the approach's flexibility across different institutional environments.

Research on the model's effectiveness has grown considerably over two decades. Multiple independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals have found associations between Cure Violence programs and reductions in shootings and killings. A study in the American Journal of Public Health examined seven Chicago sites and found four showed statistically significant reductions in shootings. Research in Baltimore found reductions in homicides of thirty to fifty percent in some program areas. While studies vary in methodology and findings—as is typical in social science research on complex interventions—the accumulated evidence has led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and other major public health institutions to recognize Cure Violence as an evidence-based strategy worthy of broader implementation.

Beyond violence reduction metrics, the organization has influenced how policymakers and public health officials conceptualize violence prevention. The reframing of violence as a public health issue rather than purely a criminal justice matter has opened new funding streams, brought different professional expertise to the problem, and shifted public discourse. Cities now commonly include public health departments in violence prevention planning, a development that seemed unlikely before Cure Violence demonstrated the approach's viability. The model has inspired similar initiatives and contributed to a broader movement treating violence as preventable rather than inevitable, a shift with profound implications for resource allocation and community investment.

The day-to-day operations of a Cure Violence program unfold largely out of public view, in the informal spaces where violence typically originates: street corners, parks, social media exchanges, funerals, hospitals. Violence interrupters spend their days building and maintaining relationships with individuals identified as highest risk, meaning those statistically most likely to shoot or be shot based on factors including recent conflict involvement, network connections to other high-risk individuals, and demonstrated willingness to use violence. Interrupters know their communities intimately, often having grown up in the same neighborhoods, and they maintain constant presence in the physical and social spaces their participants inhabit.

When potential conflicts emerge—and in high-violence communities, they emerge daily—interrupters move quickly. A shooting occurs, and the team immediately works to prevent retaliation, knowing that retaliatory violence often follows within hours or days. They locate individuals connected to the victim who might seek revenge, talk through the situation, offer alternative frameworks for responding, and sometimes physically keep people apart until tempers cool. They attend hospital bedsides, funerals, and court dates, providing consistent presence during the moments when violent responses feel most compelling. This work requires extraordinary interpersonal skill, courage, and stamina, as interrupters regularly place themselves in volatile situations to de-escalate conflicts.

Outreach workers complement interrupters by building longer-term relationships with high-risk individuals, connecting them to services, mentoring them through life transitions, and modeling alternative pathways. These workers help participants navigate systems—education, employment, housing, healthcare—that often seem impenetrable to young people with limited resources and significant barriers. The relationship itself becomes therapeutic; many participants have experienced profound trauma and have few adults in their lives who offer consistent, nonjudgmental support. Outreach workers celebrate small victories, provide accountability, and remain present through setbacks, building the trust necessary for genuine behavior change.

Community mobilization represents the third operational component, working to shift neighborhood norms around violence. This involves organizing community events, distributing educational materials, engaging faith leaders and other influential community members, and creating visible displays of collective opposition to violence. When a shooting occurs, mobilization teams may organize peace marches or vigils, not only to mourn but to demonstrate that the community rejects violence as acceptable. These public activities reinforce the private work of interrupters and outreach workers, creating an environment where choosing nonviolence becomes easier because it aligns with visible community values.

Programs operate with careful attention to data, tracking shootings, conflicts mediated, individuals engaged, and community events conducted. This information allows teams to identify emerging hotspots, allocate resources strategically, and assess whether interventions achieve intended effects. Regular staff meetings review recent incidents, discuss challenging cases, and coordinate responses to developing situations. Supervisors provide support for staff who work in emotionally demanding conditions, recognizing that this work takes a toll and that worker wellbeing directly affects program quality. The operational model thus combines immediate crisis response with longer-term relationship building and community engagement, all grounded in continuous learning and adaptation.

Cure Violence Global has received recognition from major public health and policy institutions worldwide. The World Health Organization has identified the model as a best practice in violence prevention. The Institute of Medicine, in its report on preventing violence, highlighted Cure Violence as an innovative approach warranting further study and implementation. The model has been featured in numerous academic journals, policy reports, and media outlets, bringing public health frameworks for violence into mainstream discourse. Dr. Slutkin, the founder, has presented the work at venues ranging from academic conferences to the Aspen Ideas Festival to international forums focused on urban safety and public health.

The organization's reach now extends to dozens of cities across multiple continents. In Latin America, where violence has reached acute levels in many urban areas, several cities have adopted the approach as part of comprehensive violence reduction strategies. European cities confronting increases in youth violence have implemented adaptations focused on knife crime and gang conflicts. African cities experiencing rapid urbanization and attendant violence have incorporated the model into community safety initiatives. Middle Eastern contexts have adapted the approach to address conflicts with sectarian dimensions. This geographic diversity demonstrates the model's adaptability and suggests that the core insight—violence spreads contagiously and can be interrupted—transcends specific cultural contexts.

The documentary film "The Interrupters," directed by Steve James and produced by Kartemquin Films, brought national attention to the work of Cure Violence interrupters in Chicago. Released in 2011, the film follows several interrupters through their daily work, capturing both the intensity of crisis intervention and the patience required for long-term behavior change. The film received critical acclaim, was shortlisted for an Academy Award, and broadcast on PBS, introducing millions of viewers to the public health approach to violence prevention. It remains a powerful educational tool and advocacy instrument, helping communities considering the model understand what implementation actually looks like on the ground.

The organization faces ongoing challenges common to violence prevention work: funding instability, political pressures, and the difficulty of sustaining programs long enough to demonstrate lasting impact. Violence prevention funding often flows through criminal justice budgets controlled by actors who may not fully embrace public health frameworks. Programs sometimes launch with initial enthusiasm only to lose funding when political winds shift or when results do not come as quickly as impatient stakeholders expect. Cure Violence has worked to address these challenges by building evidence, training local partners in sustainability strategies, and advocating for stable public health funding streams that recognize violence prevention as infrastructure rather than as optional programming subject to annual budget whims.