Two criminal justice experts argue in The Conversation that programs providing cash assistance to people most at risk for committing gun violence can save lives and reduce the financial toll of the violence in cities.
Black Americans are disproportionately impacted by gun violence, murdered at nearly eight times the rate of white Americans. That “largely reflects their disproportionate experience of systemic barriers such as poverty and limited access to quality education, good jobs and affordable housing,” write Natasha N. Johnson and Thaddeus L. Johnson with Georgia State University.” Those are “all factors that research shows contribute to neighborhood violence.”
But there are limits to traditional “tough-on-crime” responses that focus on law enforcement and incarceration, they argue, which fail to address underlying causes of crime such as generational poverty and limited economic prospects, along with a “street-code” that discourages working with police. Communities should also develop strategies to offer support — including mental health care, professional services, and even a monthly stipend.
Johnson and Johnson point to a community-based program started in Richmond, California, that offers participants a $1,000 monthly cash stipend for up to nine months, if they meet goals intended to steer them away from crime, such as completing educational courses and finding employment. It also connects them with around-the-clock mentorship for 18 months, and other services such as cognitive behavioral therapy.
The program has expanded to several cities around California. In those cities, shootings have decreased, participants in the programs have avoided new arrests and gun violence, and victims of gun violence have decreased anywhere from 5 to 52 percent.
Critics of the program have called it “cash for criminals” and argue that paying people to obey the law ignores the personal responsibility of individuals. But Johnson and Johnson argue that the costs of community violence are too great not to utilize all available and effective interventions, and that “the objective is not to pay off potential offenders but rather to stabilize tumultuous lives and open avenues for personal and professional growth. It is challenging to develop these initiatives without stigmatizing recipients or creating dependency. But the harsh truth is that we either pay now or pay later.”
“Initiatives that address community violence without tackling its underlying causes is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the root causes of a disease,” they write.