Not every program designed to stop so-called gun violence will be successful. That's fine, if for no other reason than the only way to find out if something works is to test it, and when it doesn't work, you drop that and try something else. What you shouldn't see, though, is an increase.
If that happens, something is horrifically wrong.
Luckily, that doesn't happen much. In fact, it's typically enough of a non-factor that we get more worked up over the cost of violence prevention programs than the potential harms.
Earlier this year, a group of researchers quietly published a study with a stunning finding: A D.C. government-funded program aimed at reducing gun violence was actually associated with a slight increase in firearm fatalities in certain neighborhoods.
The study, spearheaded by Johns Hopkins professor Daniel Webster and University of Maryland professor Joseph Richardson, examined two D.C. programs that aimed to prevent shootings and offer resources to those most at risk of picking up a gun. The two launched their evaluation in 2023, as the city was experiencing a generational surge in homicides. Now, three years later, killings in D.C. have fallen sharply, in keeping with national trends — but, according to this research, the millions the city had spent on violence intervention programs did not appear to contribute to that reduction.
“I am not surprised that the outcomes were not good,” said Webster, who has studied gun violence prevention strategies for decades and said D.C.’s programs had a “fundamentally flawed” approach.
The findings, reflecting data from 2018 through the middle of 2025, were yet another blow for the city’s violence interruption programs, which have taken hits to both their budgets and reputations in recent years. Biden-era federal funding for these community anti-violence programs has dried up. In 2024, two city officials, including D.C. Council member Trayon White, were charged with bribery related to city violence intervention grants. And some violence interruption providers have come under scrutiny for employee misbehavior or alleged misuse of government funds.
Note that this means it covered both the highs of 2020 and 2021, and the lows of 2024 and much of 2025. It's actually an interesting range of dates for just that reason.
So what was this "fundamentally flawed" approach?
Apparently, the program, called Cure Violence, approached the city's violence issue as being the result of a hierarchical gang structure where shot-callers direct foot soldiers to shoot specific people.
Webster, however, notes that much of the violence we see has little to do with organized gang directives and a lot more to do with social media confrontations. Basically, someone talks smack on the internet, and because gang culture is an honor culture, one who has been insulted has to take action or lose status for being a "punk." That action means violence.
Unfortunately, this is a culture that also sees the only violence acceptable to be potentially fatal.
See, if these guys were getting into fist fights, I'd chalk it up to them being young and dumb. I think a lot of us got into some scraps over insults or perceived insults back in our days. I know I did. I grew up in the South, which also had an honor culture to some degree. We just handled things with our fists, not our guns, and then we moved on. Even if you lost, you saved face.
They don't do that, though. They shoot at each other, which would be bad enough if they could actually shoot. The thing is, they can't. That means innocent people get hurt.
And D.C. officials seemed focused on the kind of violence that simply wasn't happening.
It doesn't seem clear how it could be responsible for an increase in violence, but the lack of any effective focus, to say nothing of the funding issues, the low staffing levels, and everything else makes it clear this program was doomed from the start and was nothing but a waste of taxpayer money.
Stopping street violence, which I term as gang-related because it's the rest of gang culture, is vitally important. It can't be another way for city leaders to get fat bribes or to waste money just to pretend you're doing something.
