Class, lately, particularly in response to the fatigue over the extralegal uses of force by police, there has been a lot of talk of defunding police, abolishing police, reimagining justice, etc. Is it possible to curb violence without police intervention? Please read this report (also found under the readings tab on OpenLab). After reading the article please name two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like. (Please also discuss anything else that comes to mind).
Please be sure to respond to at least *two* other student posts.
*Be sure to review the discussion board grading rubric found under Course Materials to know the expectations for participation*
Introducing pro-social bonds could also for an easier transition to having less police involvement. In order to defund the police, we first must confront the problems within our neighborhoods and identify the reasons as to why law enforcement is called in the first place. While most violence in NYC comes from lower income neighborhoods, relieving some of the stress caused by financial burdens could help as well. Offering food and rent assistance could release some of that stress. The report does state how local law enforcement addressing the communities complaints and concerns would allow for the community to trust their local precincts and eventually read to a reduction in violence. I do believe it is a great start into defunding the police, but the issue is regardless if they are defunded, the communities do not trust the law enforcement system that was created to help them in need.
Hi Elaine,
You mentioned many great points but the one that stood out the most to me was community trust with law enforcement. I agree, I think it’s very important a community and its police officers have a healthy trustworthy relationship. I honestly think it should be fundamental, people specifically in areas of minorities shouldn’t be afraid to communicate/contact law enforcement. As you were saying it’s these little things that are often overlooked that would help improve our law enforcement system and ultimately also help with the reduction of crime.
I agree with the statement you made ” t’s these little things that are often overlooked that would help improve our law enforcement system and ultimately also help with the reduction of crime.” There are a lot of things that can be done to reduce crime and create a better bond with the public and police
Hey Elaine
Very good response, You have a really good point about in order to defund the police we should confront the problems with our neighborhoods and identify the reasons why is law enforcement is called. I agreed about you also mention if local law enforcement addressing the community complaints and concerns would allow for the community to trust their local precincts and could reduction in violence, I think Police Officers should be more open with their community.
Hello Elaine,
I agree that helping lower-income families with financial issues could reduce violence. There will be less domestic violence.
Hello Elaine, I completely agree with you because I feel the same way. We need to realize what the problem is in our neighborhood so we can solve it if we don’t want the law enforcement to get involved. We need to focus on our community because lot of poeple that are committing crime are the ones in need, if we help out people in our neighborhood then the crime rate would decrease.
Elaine you have many valid points. I agree that in order for things to workout with with police departments there has to be trust with the community. Even if we defund the police there still will be no progression if the people have no trust in the police.
Hi Elaine, whilst I agree with your point that by relieving stresses of communities will help decrease violence I think defunding the police is the wrong way to go. By defunding them we more than likely have less trained officers working in these communities in the future. I think reallocating funds within police departments to create specialized forces that are trained in communicating effectively with neighborhoods would be more effective. Having officers work in tandem with communities instead of policing them is a great way to help reduce violence.
Hello Elaine,I have to say I completely agree with your statement that trust in police forces and the society is necessary for things to work out, and if we defund the police, there will be no progress in change if the public does not believe them on anything of what they are doing.
The report spoke about research known as “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” essentially, it means that the government reshapes/invests in certain aspects of the physical environment in neighborhoods of poverty. This can lead to a reduction in “opportunities for violence, prevent the possession of illegal guns, lower rates of gun violence, and create sustained co-benefits such as reductions in stress, fear, and common nuisances.” Another finding spoken about was gun control, while we know it’s heavily debated here in the U.S but as the report says, “increasing restrictions on gun access for people convicted of domestic violence offenses, for example, has been shown to reduce violent crime.” “Raissian (2016) found GCA (Gun Control Act) expansion led to 17 percent fewer gun-related homicides among female intimate partner victims, 31 percent fewer gun homicides among male domestic child victims, and a 24 percent reduction in gun homicides of parents and siblings”. These methods spoken about in the report mentioned many alternatives to solving crime reduction, it stressed the idea that using more police to tackle a “bad area” wouldn’t solve the issue, not permanently at least. Using methods such as CPTE and gun control seem to be the most effective in the long run based on data and research. From what I have read in this report a future with less police intervention ironically seems more peaceful, so yes it is indeed a possibility to curb violence without police intervention.
Hey Lenny
I like your response and I like what you took from the article and I also I agreed with you those methods could solve crime reduction and you have a great point using more police to be in the bad area could not solve the problem permanently.
Hi Lenny,
I completely agree with you and I enjoyed reading your post, it was very detailed. I agree that these methods and strategies can help prevent crimes. Changing the physical environment can provide peaceful areas and reduce aggression. I also agree that gun control is a debate when it comes to restrictions of firearms. However, there is statistics that show it can reduce crime rates and it has. There are many methods and factors that be used to prevent crime with less police interaction and although I didn’t include it in my post there does seem to be a possibility to curb violence without police intervention, as you stated.
Hello Lenny,
I believe when investing in neighborhoods that are high in poverty will help reduce violence. I say this because people will be busy making money and they won’t care what the next person is doing. This will also remove people from committing crimes.
Lenny i agree with you. If we invest in our communities and show that we respect the people there will be a significant decrease in violence and crime mainly because there will be positive interactions with the people. of the community.
Hello Lenny,
I agree with you a hundred percent. I think we both touched upon the same strategies, we both agreed that improving the physical aspect of a neighborhood can be beneficial to reduce crime/violence. Another alternative in reducing crime we both agreed on was gun control, this would reduce the number of incidents that leave innocent people dead. Knowing how to effectively use the resources we have in “bad communities” and help them, might definitely reduce violence and less police intervention might be needed.
In my opinion, if we should defund the police or abolishing the police I think we should not defund the police because taking money from the police it could cause their training they getting and we could have a police officer that has bad training and about abolishing the police I think in some parts, yes like if is someone is having a Mental health crisis maybe someone that has a trainer to calm down the person could work but could go turn terrible so maybe if we could trainer the officer more how to deal those type of situation more than how to use their gun could make few great improvements. After reading the article I found two reports that speak to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like, the first is “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” which is about to design of streets and public spaces that can encourage the active guardianship of those spaces, thereby promoting informal neighborhood social control and reducing potential opportunities for crime. The second is “pocket parks” a mixture of epidemiologic randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and ethnographic participant-observer research, showing that “cleaning and greening” and Greening vacant lots may directly intervene to prevent gun assaults since vacant and overgrown lots are known to be havens for the storage and disposal of illegal guns as well as inciting violence and other unwanted behaviors along with abandoned cars and other large trash items.
Hi Gary,
Well by defunding the police we could allocate those funds into all the programs mentioned in the report. Defunding the police sounds scary, but if with what was said in the report is true and it has been proven through research then I think it’s entirely worth it to defund the police. It would be an investment for areas with poverty and the ultimate goal is to reduce crime so I’m all for it. I agree with you though! Police should have more training in communicating to de-escalating potential dangerous conflicts, for example with a person going through a Mental crisis like you mentioned.
Hi Gary,
When it comes to defunding the police there are many different opinions. It’s hard to really say whether I agree to defund or not because defunding or not defunding the police might not change nothing. By this I mean regardless what happens, if they get defunded or not, how does that really change their actions? What I think is really important is better training like you said. If police officers are better trained for the many situations that can happen, like a mental health crisis, they can deal with the situation better. There have been a few cases that I have seen in which there was a mental health crisis and someone needed help, but the police officer decided to use his weapon. Better training for sure is needed. On the other hand, I do agree with the methods you have used that show there can be a future with less police intervention.
Hi! It’s quite interesting that you’ve mentioned what defunding the police would do. The issue is that law enforcement tactics aren’t usually criticized up until recently, when footage of their devious behavior is posted online. It makes you wonder if defunding the police would actually make a difference as opposed to changing policing tactics.
I believe the report talked about shaping the police and the community, Also building chemistry between the two. In my opinion, defunding the police is a bad move because there are some officers who won’t even do their job the way it’s supposed to be done after the defunding. And I know some police officers personally and I was told officers at the station did not respond to a report and they put overtime on their payroll because there was a defunding of the police. The state makes their move so can the police I know it sucks but we have to keep in mind a lot that is going on and we need the police to respond to these emergencies and we need things to be done to the police other than defunding to create a safer and professional way of things being solved.
Hey Davud,
I like the fact you point that some officers wont do thier jobs they way they supposed to be done if we defound the police. However, In case prestaninting to people of color, minors, and the manelly ill they do not. Some police are the type to shoot first and ask question later when it comes down to certin cases. These are some of the reasons as to why so many people feel like we put money into the police system only for them not to really protect us.
After reading the article, the two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like are Confront the Gun Problem, and Engage and Support Youth. I understand there is a major problem with our gun laws, and changing them will challenge the 2nd amendment. However, “reducing access to guns would reduce violent crime. Increasing restrictions on gun access for people convicted of domestic violence offenses, for example, has been shown to reduce violent crime. Using spatial and temporal variation in the application of the 1996 expansion of the federal Gun Control Act (GCA) to prohibit defendants convicted of qualifying domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing or purchasing a firearm, Raissian (2016) found GCA expansion led to 17 percent fewer gun-related homicides among female intimate partner victims, 31 percent fewer gun homicides among male domestic child victims, and a 24 percent reduction in gun homicides of parents and siblings. Restricting children’s access to guns reduces violent crime as well”. This won’t fix the problem fully, however, it is a step in the right direction. Engage and Support Youth, which I believe is super important to lower violence. “Providing summer jobs for youth may lower violence not only during the period of employment but afterward as well. Using randomized assignment, a study of youth applicants to a summer jobs program in Chicago found that variations in a 6-8 week part-time job at minimum wage coupled with a job mentor and a job-readiness training led to 42 percent and 33 percent reductions in violent crime arrests one year after program participation”(Davis and Heller forthcoming). More youths will be productive instead of interacting with people, who might lead them to commit crimes.
I agree with your response. I believe that reducing access to guns can also reduce the number of violent crime activities and have a positive impact in the future.
Hello Sabbir, I have to say that I completely agree with your response, I as well believe that restricting firearms ownership would minimize the amount of violent crimes and have a long-term positive effect.
Hello Sabbir,
I totally agree with your response. I also believe that reducing access to guns and implementing laws that would exclude certain individuals from getting firearms would definitely have a positive impact in minimizing violence. In your response you said ” Increasing restrictions on gun access for people convicted of domestic violence offenses, for example, has been shown to reduce violent crime”. This shows how having restrictions for certain group of people who committed certain crimes in the past does help with the reduction of violence.
After reading the article the two findings that I came across that speak to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like are “Improving the Physical Environment” and “Confront the Gun Problem.” Improving the Physical Environment can be useful in decreasing violence. “One of the most obvious place-based interventions to reduce crime and violence without policing is the creation of green space, such as adding parks, planting trees, and revitalizing vacant lots.” Providing nature in certain neighborhoods can help create peaceful space and reduce aggression. There was an experiment done in Chicago that “demonstrated that increased greening and greater tree canopy in public housing areas were associated with significantly less violent crime and reports of aggression by residents” (Kuo and Sullivan 2001a; Kuo and Sullivan 2001b). There were a few other studies that showed that this method can indeed work. It may not work in every area, but it shows improvement. There are many debates about gun problems and getting rid of them. “Reducing access to guns would reduce violent crime. Increasing restrictions on gun access for people convicted of domestic violence offenses, for example, has been shown to reduce violent crime.” Applying the Gun Control Act to this will not allow defendants who have been convicted for domestic violence misdemeanors to buy a gun. Restricting certain people from getting access to a firearm can prevent crime rates. Not only has restrictions reduced “gun-related homicides among female intimate partner victims”, “gun homicides among male domestic child victims”, and “gun homicides of parents and siblings”, but has also reduced crimes within children. A child-access-prevention law has helped reduce students from “being threatened or injured with weapons on school property.” Having restrictions and reducing access to firearms can lead to prevent gun crimes.
Hello Denise, I completely agree with you because I also feel that the environment that the people are in depends on where they live. People with good income lives in a good community, while people with lower income lives in a bad community so there are more crime rate in those neighborhood. The use of gun also happens with people with lower income, people that doesn’t earn a lot tends to rob people with gun for money so if we have more rules about who should be getting a gun would lower the crime rate.
Base on the reading , it can be possible to curb violence without police intervention. One of the suggestions that were mentioned in the research were the major strategies that can be done to improve and reshape certain aspects of the physical environment creating a positive impact for the future such as fixing abandoned buildings , greening vacant lots – ( Research found that nature is believed to reduce crime by having a neuro-therapeutic that reduces aggression and creates a welcoming and more invested relationship with one another ( Kuo and Sullivan 2001b) , lighting public places, and most importantly prevent the possession of illegal guns. Reducing substance abuse and controlling where and when alcohol is sold can reduce violence , Biderman al. (2010) detected a 10 percent homicide reduction associated with legal provisions governing alcohol sales.
Hi! Yes it could be possible to avoid police intervention, but different methods of approaching situations to come about. What most people also fail to realize is some people do need some sort of structure, which is what most Americans fear of defunding law enforcement.
After reading the article the two findings that I came across that speak to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like are “Improving the Physical Environment” and “Engage and Support Youth”. The report states that “By reshaping certain aspects of the physical environment—e.g., fixing abandoned buildings, greening vacant lots, and lighting public spaces—policymakers can reduce opportunities for violence, prevent the possession of illegal guns, lower rates of gun violence, and create sustained co-benefits such as reductions in stress, fear, and common nuisances.” Most violence comes from lower income neighborhoods so we must face the problems we have within our neighborhoods and try to solve it. People with low income tend to live in not the best community due to that lot of criminal activities occurring there which grabs the law enforcements attention so if the government tried to help people in those neighborhoods it would automatically decrease the crime rate there. The lab also states that, “Ensuring quality school experiences for young children has demonstrable benefits for public safety and reductions in violence.” Lot of people get introduced to criminal activities when they are teenagers so they tend to get involved because people are affected by what their peers are doing so if their peers are dropping out of school to become a gangster then the others would do the same. If people are raised in a good community then they will see the others and stay in school trying to become successful, the youths that are in school tend to only focus on good outcomes so making sure that kids go to school would definitely lower the crime rate. If people in the neighborhood are staying safe by not doing any criminal activities then they wouldn’t need the help of law enforcement because nowadays people don’t trust police officers so having them over wouldn’t help.
I believe that we shouldn’t defund the police. Mainly because if this happens there will be less efficient training for the new officers and less resources for the departments. We should make the programs and training more strict rather then completely abolishing the police department.
Hey Quelzalcoatl,
I can see where you are coming from about not defunding the police, but then again I feel like we should. No matter how much training we put into the police system to help them out, they still always end up overusing the power they have over people. I remember when a lot of money was going into body cameras to help stop police brutality and keep a record of what happened, though they did not help with anything but show how police treat people and still nothing is done.
Two topics that stood out was “Improving the Physical Environment” and “Confront the Gun Problem.”
Everything right now with police brutality has became bigger than ever. I mean it always existed but now we have more people standing up and trying to fight it. However when it mentions “improving the physical environment” we need to improve the community as a whole. By doing, fixing old homes, business that are closed and more can help people be involved in more things and be surrounded by great things that can possibly influence more good than bad.
Confronting the gun problem is something the people are trying to do but the system failing to realize that it is part of the problem. The police themselves don’t know how to use this tool that was given to them because innocent people have died or certain situations could have been dealt with differently. However even though guns don’t kill people, people kill people, they shouldn’t carry something that can end up being used wrongfully.
People will want to abolish police but when someone is in danger who else can we go too? They may not be the best option but it’s the only one. Abolishing police will basically mean no more law because you will no longer have people enforcing it. People will kill, steal, and do whatever they want because we couldn’t stop it. We weren’t train to fight and no many is brave or some are completely helpless. Having no police will just cause great chaos that it could even be dangerous to go outside. No one is looking after you and no one is on speed dial once you need them.
i agree that facing gun control is a huge issue for violence. With the rising number of mass school shootings in the media, it is important to limit access to firearms to those who may want to commit similar acts. This could also be helped by targeting youth in schools to teach anti-violence in communities where violence is socially normal.
I believe the two findings from the report that would help is Engage and Support Youth and Reduce the Harmful Effects of the Justice Process. I feel like if you have the support of the youth then everyone will fall in line. I know it sounds crazy to say but if you look at it most of the movements from today are mostly from the youth. Youth of today can really change the world of tomorrow with their voices. Not only that it will lower crime rates at a great rate. When looking at what age bracket who commit crimes is 18-25 mostly. For example, the article states, “Youth with positive and structured lives have lower rates of crime and violence, and youth programs often use positive engagement as a mechanism for public safety (Butts et al. 2010)”. This proves how much youths affect society and its crime. Reducing the harmful effects of the justice process will also help in helping curb violence. One thing I learned is if you treat a person as a criminal they will start to act like it. This shows especially with teens who were arrested at a young age. I remember I had a friend who was arrested at a young age because he got into a fight, and ever since then he started committing crimes as if he needed to prove a point. This young man was a kid that used to get As in his classes and now he feels as if society failed him. It also states in the article how reducing juvenile detention shows that it reduces violent crimes. In my opinion, I feel like the police are the root of all problems. Back then there was barely any policing and there was not much crime, it was not until slaves were free we started seeing crimes increased. If you look at history you can kind of pinpoint where and why crimes started happening so much.
I agree with you Beverly that the most important group to target is the youth since they are the most vulnerable to be affected by violence and that they can also become influenced by it and become violent themselves. It’s also interesting how you pointed that there could be a connection with the police leading centuries ago as to why violence is still at large. It most definitely could be a problem that started ages ago and still drags on to today and were trying to make changes now
I agree with you youth are the most important people to contribute crime in society because it all from the beginning if they learn good things they will share peace and tranquillity to the environment an if they learn bad an violence while growing up they can spread that diseases and make then Environment bad for us.
Although I feel like community based justice and intervention can be a tool used to help curb violence I don’t believe defunding the police is a solution that will effectively help. I do believe in the reallocation of resources to new police forces that would specialize in dealing with people who have mental health issues such as the Memphis model would be a step in the right direction. These types of specialized officers can work in conjuncture with the community they are serving and more effectively help these communities by building a foundation and trust that comes with officers trying to talk and communicate with residents more than trying to just police them. We’ve seen programs that are community based like ones in Newark work very effectively. These same strategies should be implemented into the neighborhoods of NYC that are poorer and have higher crime rates. We know that poor neighborhood usually lead to higher crime rates. Like the report mentions, if we have officers who focus on helping address the concerns of the community as well as helping address the causes to the ailments of the community then a reduction in violence is more than likely to occur.
Hi Dominick,
I also agree with you that defunding the police is not a solution that will effectively help with the issue of reducing violence. Reducing funds is plausible but not completely defunding it. It’s great that you mentioned the Memphis model, it can definitely help the police with the decision to use deadly force as a last resort action leading to less civilians getting killed by the police. Which in turn can bring a better relationship with the community. Complementing it with the programs that you mentioned being used in Newark to provide a stronger connection.
I think there is a good amount of violence that can be curbed without the police intervention but not all. If the ideas presented on the report are adopted by communities first then maybe you can argue decreasing the funds of police instead of completely defunding it could be a reasonable decision. For example as the report states, improving the physical environment helps decrease violence. Adding more green areas, more public spaces, better lighting for pedestrians. These ideas are also economically viable which is another benefit. Another idea for reducing violence without police intervention is implementing policies to reduce substance abuse. Setting age limits on alcohol, restricting alcohol sale in specific areas or during a specific time. This idea is very simple and has show in studies to reduce violence. Another idea that has become very popular due to many recent events is to implement a strict gun control policy. Limiting or banning access to certain types of weapons as well as to specific groups like young people. Requiring training before being able to purchase could also help with becoming a responsible gun owner. Personally I would like for handguns to be the only weapon to be legal to buy since if in a case where it’s used for violence it would cause much less damage when compared to an automatic rifle.
I agree that policing should not be completely forgone, however the idea of making law enforcement the immediate reaction to situations that can be improved or addressed in other fashions should be something to focus our money on. I Agree with you that greening communities and providing lighting and cameras could help because this would limit the number of officers needed to surround these areas and create an atmosphere that would deter individuals from engaging in violence.
We should not defund the police, in my opinion. Specifically, even where this occurs, incoming officers will have less effective training and units will have less personnel. Rather than abolishing the police force entirely, we should make the services and training more comprehensive. We should teach them more precisely how to deal with certain situations. Not everything has to revolve around immediate violence towards an individual. Most situations that occur with police officers often happen due to miscommunication from the officer towards the individual. So again the police shouldnt get defunded, but re-educated on certain ways to handle situations better.
I totally agree with you that defunding the police is not a good idea for many reason, first reason. is that we need police to respond to crimes and help Community for services and to maintain orders. so we need to fund police extra money for traning and more tools to make them better and to build connections with society
Increasing prosocial connections and anti-violence norms across communities and neighborhoods can help reduce violence, with community-based initiatives led by familiar and trustworthy mediators. Based on the reading two ways in which violence can be reduced without the police intervention are improving the physical environment and confronting the gun problem. Due to the widespread gun ownership in the United States, banning firearms away from individuals who may use them for self-defense is challenging, but it is an important part of any attempt to minimize community violence. In addition, members of society can build physical environments that eliminate violence with cost-effective, place-based approaches that are structural, flexible, and durable in order to improve one’s individual behavior at a time. As it was stated in the reading, wealthy neighborhoods do not rely on police intervention as much and the rates of violence are lower in wealthier communities. This means that improving the physical environment, and of course the economic issue, violence can be reduced, and police intervention will be less needed. Personally I do believe that violence can be curbed without the police intervention, or with less police presence. Less violence, will also mean less police presence. We also need more trust within the communities and with the police itself, this would create a more peaceful environment and hopefully a less violent one.
Defunding the police is a broad topic that I don’t really disagree with or agree with. But I do believe that some of the money that’s giving to the police, should be reallocated to a sector that needs it more and that will help with the reduction of violence.
The only way to reduce violence in our community is social bond, and congregations. This is because people always believes what they hear for example in our entire life we heard that black is criminal, ,muslim are terrorists. many of us believe this idea because we don’t have connection with other race and ethnicity. same the police should have a strong connections with the community, if the police and people have connection they will care and protect each other and both party can work together to save the Community so this will keep the community even safer.
Hey I like that you kept your explanation to the point and simple. I agree that people do believe what they hear and believe what they see because they judged a book by its cover. We are so quick to attack each other instead of coming together.
I believe two of the strongest solutions to lowering violence in lower income areas is creating more anti-violence norms and putting time and work into both cleaning up and “greening” communities. In terms of appearance, greenery and parks is proven to minimize violence and create a more peaceful environment, but having a community that looks and feels good lets others know that it is a good place to live and bring business and carry pride through. This could bring new jobs and a community respect more maintenance and upkeep. Social influences are also so incredibly important in lessoning violence. Because lower income communities or specifically communities of color feel distrust towards law enforcement as they are systemically mistreated and targeted, there is generational example to handle issues within the community which leads to a chain of violence as a cultural necessity to get by. This can be addressed by focusing on community outreach (especially in schools) to highlight was of breaking violent trends. Schools should not only teach anti-violence to students, but those affected by violence should have easy access counseling throughout their entire school life.
Confront the Gun Problem and Engage and Support Youth are two conclusions from the study that relate about how a society with far less police action will look like, after reading the paper my ideas are much clearer. But think about it, underfunding the police officer is not the solution. Unfortunately there’s many police officers that are corrupted, but there’s also many that are very good at what they do. Their job is to secure the people, although for some it has been forgotten. Instead of under funding the police officers they should use the money to better train them. NYC needs police officer, imagine the city without police officers it will be a disaster.
hey i agree underfunding the police is not the solution because not all officers are bad and defunding will result to less officers on the streets and more violence happening. You made a good point with officers should have better training
two points in this article that really caught my attention are “confront the gun problem” and “engage and support youth”
I don’t think defunding the police is a good idea because it will cause more problems and this means less officers on the streets. For one, if we defund the police that means less training, most issues occur because officers are not properly trained. If we do not have proper training officers rely on their instincts instead of relying on the practices they learn bested. Also defunding the police means, more crime will happen because it is less officers out on the streets. I know some officers can be taking advantage of their jobs but their are officers who actually does a great job.
Confront the gun problem: the article stated “Reducing access to guns would reduce violent crime. Increasing restrictions on gun access for people convicted of domestic violence offenses.” Gun control is a big issue because not only does minors, teens, just people all around the world use guns for violent acts but officers do not know how to properly use guns. We need to pass gun laws that actually reduce gun violence and let doctors run an evaluation to make sure their is nothing wrong.
Engage and support youth: most kids do not have support at home and this can relate to them causing violence because they go looking for the love and support somewhere else and this can lead to peer pressure. It is also important engaging with the youth because you want them to know they can trust you. You want them to know they feel safe around you.
Though police intervention may be needed for crimes there are other ways in curbing violence without police intervention. I strongly believe that education is key in all purposes, with that being said we can have small institutions educating young people on the abuse of drugs which are one of the reasons why there is such high crime rates in few Neighborhoods. These Neighborhoods are mostly low income areas. The funding of low income areas will definitely be a plus in curbing violence causing less frustration and a better peace of mine for families. An increase in Job opportunities should also be given allowing families to help themselves also instead of relying on other alternatives of income. With these suggestion a happier environment will definitely be in place resulting in less crime and curbing violence.