Opinion: The D.C. Council must not cut an effective violence interrupter program

The mayor and the D.C. Council are caught in a back and forth over who should control the city’s violence interruption efforts: The mayor’s office, or the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, both of which run separate programs meant to curb violence across the city.

What is lost in all the rhetoric is the impact on the men who put their lives on the line for the District and the youths they serve.

D.C.’s violence interruption programs are under a microscope after the mayor-run Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) was ensnared in a bribery scandal involving then-Councilmember Trayon White (since ousted from his Ward 8 seat and hoping to win reelection). Councilmembers and community members alike have expressed concerns about oversight at ONSE.

Now, the D.C. Council is proposing to consolidate the two violence interrupter programs, merging the attorney general’s Cure the Streets program with the same office that has come under fire for bad management: the mayor’s ONSE.

Meanwhile, my friends who work in Cure say they are hearing that four of their neighborhood teams (and maybe more) will be cut.

Here is my message to the mayor and the D.C. council:

• Unlike the ONSE program, Cure’s work is based on a well-proven model that has a body of evidence behind it. It has had monitoring mechanisms baked into it from the very beginning.
• In contrast, the “looseness” with which ONSE has been run is suggestive of a deeper, cultural issue in the agency. Councilmember Brooke Pinto has proposed that the mayor’s office sign an agreement to run ONSE more effectively, but it’s unlikely to fix the root problems. So, why is the Cure program the one targeted for shutdown?
• If any of Cure’s teams are shut down, what will happen to the youths who have formed strong bonds with those workers? And what about the men who risked their lives to successfully reduce violence in our neighborhoods? 
• Violence interrupters work to stop neighborhood conflicts from escalating, often putting themselves in harm's way to do so. These men went deep into communities that they would otherwise have wisely avoided, working for skimpy benefits and salaries that aren’t even sufficient to live comfortably in today’s gentrified Washington D.C. In 2022, one violence interrupter was caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting and now he must navigate life with one leg. Yet these workers, who are mostly returned citizens forced to play “catch up” after spending decades in prison, are not provided any disability insurance or other safety-net benefits. No wonder my Cure friend is now looking at alternatives, like getting a Commercial Driver’s License.
• Violence interrupters are called upon to do essential, dangerous work that – in many cases – no one else has the “street credibility” to do. They should be treated as professionally as police officers, with sign-on bonuses, a livable salary for D.C. and benefits like a 401-K.
• Violence interrupters also tell me they have been held back from achieving even more success by crippling restrictions (such as the red tape tied to any form of cash assistance) and insufficient funding. As one worker told me, “I can’t convince a kid to give up the gun that he uses to get income if I don’t help him meet his immediate needs. If he has an urgent need for money and he doesn’t have anyone to go to, he’ll go out and get it in the only way he knows how. And we need to stop being penny wise and pound foolish. Sometimes these kids just want to feel good for one day. And that means allowing them to buy new, stylish clothes instead of giving them used or thrifted stuff.”

I agree with Attorney General Brian Schwalb when he said he would only support a merger that ensures the resulting program will be “well-funded and supported,” along with “rigorous oversight and leadership.” Yet Joseph Richardson, a University of Maryland professor who has been evaluating the efficacy of both Cure and the ONSE program, has told the D.C. Council that ONSE violence interruption sites have staffing levels far below that of cities with effective programs.

Instead of looking for ways to cut money from our violence interruption programs at a time when such work has contributed to a drop in District crime by 12% compared to last year, the council should be looking for creative ways to continue and even increase it, while rewarding the programs and workers who labored ethically to achieve that success.

Yes, I know this is a very tough budget cycle for D.C., due to federal budget and other cuts. But if public safety is indeed the number one priority Mayor Bowser says it is, then the District must fulfill its moral commitment to both the residents it has asked to interrupt the violence with their bodies and the youths who have come to rely on them for support.