Bullet Proof: The Role of Policy and Data in Gun Control

Dr. Rachel Johnston directs the Violence Inquest for Solutions and Alliance (VISA) project at Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Dr. Johnston conducts research on law enforcement policy, the prevention of violence, and surveillance. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Criminology, Law, and Justice, as well as a master’s degree from the UIC College of Urban Planning and Policy and a bachelor’s degree from Cornell College.

Are we about to see a change in our nation’s gun violence policies? Is this national debate relevant to Chicago, or are there different issues at stake for Chicago communities and families?

Gun policy matters—think about smoking with regard to advertising or on television. The way smoking is perceived in our culture now is much different than it was 25 years ago. It takes time to make cultural changes. Many people are anxious for a change in gun violence rates, which can be perilous because people get disheartened when they want something to change immediately and it does not. Change will have to be achieved by slowly chipping away at violence from many, many different angles. It is very complicated, and although no one wants it to be a long, slow process, it is.

The national debate is certainly relevant to Chicago. There are many things that could be done on the national level that would have an impact on Chicago (many of President Obama’s gun violence prevention proposals, for example). I certainly hope we are at a tipping point with regard to gun policy, but I cannot say that I believe that is the case. It is a very complicated issue and there is very little common ground between opposing perspectives. There is so much fear on both sides of the debate. It is a highly emotional issue that seems to prevent sensible, realistic, and rational debate. There has been a lot of digging in of the heels and unrealistic demands.

In addition to the tragedy of losing a loved one, what are some of the effects that gun violence has on children and families? What, if anything, can policy do to mitigate those effects?

There is a lot of research on the effects of exposure to violence, especially on children. There is evidence that violence in the community can compromise feelings of safety and security, leading to emotional scars or even PTSD, higher levels of anger and aggression, sleep disruptions, or withdrawal. In children, these effects can impact brain development and create additional problems. Exposure to violence can lead young people to believe that they must arm themselves, increasing the opportunities for violence, as does desensitization to violence.

Public policy is simply about targeting resources. Changes in policy can impact public safety by creating an environment that fosters and supports healthy individuals and communities. For example, policies that implement screening at the court level can divert individuals from the criminal system into mental health or substance abuse treatment. Education policy can create programming to teach young people how to experience conflict and develop a non-violent response. Employment policies can create opportunities for individuals who are returning to communities from incarceration and thus impact recidivism. Policy can direct resources into any number of areas that can positively impact individuals, communities, and public safety.

The Violence Inquest for Solutions and Alliance (VISA) program strives to increase collaboration among the agencies that provide support to at-risk youth in Chicago. How will this collaboration reduce incidences of violence? What are the challenges or barriers to coordinating service among these different agencies?

It is no secret that there are inefficiencies in service delivery between public agencies. Public agencies provide services to young people without knowing how other agencies are working with those individuals. Coordination means that services can be much more comprehensive (such as one referral to counseling rather than separate referrals to different providers from multiple agencies) and monitoring can be more efficient (such as a single point of contact rather than multiple individuals who do not know about the others).

What kind of data will the VISA program collect? How will analyzing that data lead to improved policies?

Currently, anonymous reviews of fatal and non-fatal shooting incidents involving school-aged people are conducted monthly. Data are not recorded about the specific events. Rather, practitioners and policy experts are presented with details about the individuals involved (their criminal histories, school involvement, etc.) with an ear for identifying the opportunities that exist to enhance collaboration, coordination, or communication among public agencies. The core belief is that individuals who are involved with one public agency often have multiple “touch points” across public agencies. The group asks, “What changes would have had to occur to have potentially changed the outcome in these cases?” Often, the answer is that public agencies should do a better job of communicating about individuals and coordinating services. We are looking to turn those opportunities into policy recommendations.

It is our intention, after we secure the appropriate data sharing agreements, to link records about individuals across agencies to understand how individuals who are involved in shootings interact with governmental agencies. We also want to use the information to develop a more detailed picture of the context and characteristics of fatal and non-fatal shootings among youth in Chicago.

What sorts of simultaneous programs or policies are needed in order to make VISA effective?

Data sharing is the biggest issue we are addressing right now. There are existing guidelines—like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, internal policy, etc.—that must be reviewed and discussed in order to ensure the protection of juveniles’ information while allowing agencies to collaborate and operate more efficiently. I believe that improving information sharing will go a long way toward improving outcomes for individuals, and I also believe that once that piece has been sorted out, we can go much deeper into uncovering other opportunities to impact public safety.

Feature Photo: cc/wakalani