After state takeover, St. Louis police should maintain community-based intervention efforts
The imminent return of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police to state oversight is rooted in the belief that policing remains a crucial force for crime reduction.
Safer streets, in turn, fuel business growth and community development. These legislative developments — and the changes that come with them — will undoubtedly affect ongoing crime reduction initiatives.
Yet, St. Louis stands at a pivotal moment.
By official measures, the city has made progress toward reducing violence since 2020-2021, when there was a nationwide spike. Policing will play a key role in sustaining this progress, but other factors are critical as well.
Research on strategic 'focused deterrence' policing, dating back to Boston's Operation Ceasefire in the 1990s, has a key takeaway: sustained violence reductions require both effective law enforcement and authentic community engagement.
St. Louis has embraced this approach. Public-private partnerships have built a coalition comprised of public health leaders, community organizations, local government, clergy, businesses, credible messengers and residents to form a 'network of capacity' for violence prevention and intervention.
This has since expanded to the Save Lives Now! Initiative and other community-driven efforts embodying a proven model: focused law enforcement, cognitive change and services. Such complementary police and community efforts target immediate violence and its harms while addressing risk factors to reduce violence in a sustainable way over the long term.
As policing oversight shifts, it is crucial to assess these community-driven initiatives. We co-lead a research team at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, studying the implementation of community-based violence intervention strategies and whether they're making an impact. We've observed meetings, interviewed key players, analyzed administrative data, and supported efforts to track outcomes and build accountability.
Government-led initiatives often face public skepticism, and even good ideas can falter in execution. Yet St. Louis offers promising signs.
Examples include the Office of Violence Prevention's collaborative relationships with both St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and community-based service organizations in its Community Violence Intervention; the business community's early commitment to supporting violence reduction that has since expanded to become the regional Save Lives Now! Initiative; and neighborhood residents working directly with city departments to address location-specific violence risks in the St. Louis Public Safety Collaborative.
Additionally, the Violence Prevention Commission funds and coordinates youth events to create safer, supervised spaces. Each effort reflects recommended implementation practices and helps strengthen neighborhoods, build trust with police, and support economic growth.
This collaboration is promising, but the ultimate goal of these initiatives is to reduce violence.
Recent data offers cause for optimism there as well. An analysis of official crime incident data shows that from 2022 to 2024, homicides dropped by 25% and aggravated assaults with guns declined 26%. In the 11 neighborhoods where the Office of Violence Prevention first focused its efforts, those official numbers dropped by 42% and 31%, respectively, during the same period.
While more work is needed to ensure that all members of the community feel safe, the results suggest that community-based resource mobilization combined with targeted policing can have an impact and these efforts should be expanded to other areas of the city struggling with violence.
Public policy is full of examples of once-promising programs that ran out of funding or faded over time. St. Louis cannot afford to let that happen here. Violence shapes both how residents experience their communities and how outsiders perceive the city — affecting everything from quality of life to economic investment.
Maintaining a comprehensive, collaborative strategy is essential but it requires continued support and resource allocation from local leaders and state officials coupled with advocacy and engagement from community residents and organizations.
St. Louis has reached a point where it has a rare opportunity to redefine what public safety looks like — one that blends strategic policing with community-based initiatives. This has proven to be a blueprint for successful violence reduction in other cities and it has begun to improve conditions for the better in St. Louis.
Even as changes unfold, the city must hold onto this momentum by leveraging the community's growing capacity to effectively respond to violence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
2 days ago
- The Intercept
Trump Is Trying to Make It Easier to Evict People From Public Housing
President Donald Trump is preparing to revoke eviction protections for people living in federal public housing and project-based rental assistance programs — increasing the risk for millions of Americans to fall into homelessness. Last week, the Trump administration posted on the Office of Management and Budget's website that it is reviewing a new rule eliminating a Housing and Urban Development Department requirement that property owners and public housing agencies provide a 30-day eviction notice for people they intend to kick out of certain types of federally subsidized housing for lack of payment. If the rule change takes effect, public housing tenants could receive as little as 14 days of notice prior to eviction proceedings beginning, and in some jurisdictions, people in project-based rental assistance programs could receive no notice at all before formal eviction procedures begin. The 30-day notice rule was drafted during the Biden administration to give tenants facing eviction for nonpayment time to pay the amount due to stop the eviction or secure new housing. It requires property owners and public housing authorities to give tenants a month's notice in writing, and mandates that property managers include a monthly breakdown of overdue rent charges, the deadline for paying overdue rent, and instructions on how the tenant can pay their fees. The 30-day notice rule only took effect in January, but housing experts say that it has already made a significant difference for people facing eviction. Experts told The Intercept that should the Trump administration move ahead with the rule change, millions of people could be at risk of losing their housing to benefit Trump's corporate allies. 'It would be really a huge step backwards to see this protection be taken away at a time like this when people are really concerned about the ability to make rent and the ability to stay housed,' said Marie Claire Tran-Leung, the Evictions Initiative Project Director and a senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project. Some 2 million people live in project-based rental assistance housing, and an additional 1.6 million in public housing. Some housing assistance programs, such as the Housing Choice Voucher programs, were excluded from the 30-day notice, said Tran-Leung. The 30-day notice period significantly decreased evictions, said Tara Raghuveer, founding director of the Tenant Union Federation. 'For many households, that notice initiates a process of figuring out how they're going to make rent, so that the eviction doesn't happen,' she said. 'Many of the households impacted, disproportionately, these households are made up of single parents and children. And this will have devastating consequences.' 'It's not an easy thing to find an apartment to rent in just a few weeks.' The more notice, the better chance a family has to find alternative housing. 'Without the full 30 days, it's going to make it a lot more challenging,' said Sonya Acosta, a senior policy analyst with the housing and income security team for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'Given the rental markets across the country, it's not an easy thing to find an apartment to rent in just a few weeks.' Eviction doesn't just impact the immediate stability of a family. It has devastating long-term consequences, explained Tran-Leung. 'Being evicted … can create a record that often leads to barriers down the line when you're trying to find other housing because of eviction record screening practices that landlords are increasingly using in the private rental market,' said Tran-Leung. Health outcomes for children who've faced eviction are also poor. 'Children suffer a lot after evictions, like increased food insecurity and higher rates of anxiety and depression,' she said. 'So it just reverberates throughout the household, through different members, and really impairs housing in the future.' The Department of Housing and Urban Development declined to respond to a request for comment. Because the Trump administration introduced the rule change as an interim final rule rather than as a proposed rule, it could take effect on an accelerated timeline, said Acosta. Generally, as part of the federal rulemaking process, an agency issues a proposed rule that goes into the federal register and is open for comment, Acosta said. In the case of HUD, comments are typically open for 60 days to give various stakeholders the opportunity to weigh in. 'The interim final rule skips all of that public input stage and just goes straight to 'This is what we're going to do,'' she said. The rule still has to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, but it could go into effect swiftly post-review. That means tenants are going to feel the consequences sooner. 'This is going to be a lot trickier for everyone on the ground to make sure that people understand what can and cannot happen if they find themselves in that situation of facing eviction,' said Acosta. Tran-Leung said that this is a part of a larger push from corporate landlords who have lobbied the Trump administration to reduce eviction protections for tenants. 'Housing providers right now are looking for ways to speed up the eviction process to make it easier to get tenants out,' she said. Trump and other Republicans ran a platform of making America more affordable, but in practice they've spent the months since the election doing the opposite, said Acosta. 'You have them then pushing policies like this, where it's giving people less time to just get things together in the event of an eviction, while they're also pushing for major cuts in all of these different rental assistance programs that make housing more affordable,' said Acosta. 'You just have all of these things piling up, particularly on people with low incomes, just completely contradictory to what they are trying to message.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Organizers sue after Tacoma misses ballot deadline for minimum-wage hike
Local organizers are suing Pierce County, the city of Tacoma and Pierce County Auditor Linda Farmer after Tacoma missed a deadline to get a citizen's initiative to establish a 'workers bill of rights' on the November ballot. Organizers with United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367, Tacoma for All and the Tacoma Democratic Socialists of America filed the suit in Pierce County Superior Court on Aug. 12, alleging that the county and the city did not 'act with the reasonable promptness and diligence required to protect the people's right of initiative.' The lawsuit calls for the court to require the initiative to be placed on the Nov. 4 ballot, stating that local governments should not be allowed to 'slow walk' the processing of an initiative to deter it from appearing on a ballot. The groups in February started collecting thousands of signatures to get the controversial initiative, which would raise Tacoma's minimum wage to $20 per hour, on the November ballot. After the county validated the signatures and the city validated the petition early last month, the city had 30 days to approve it directly and eliminate the need to put it to the voters or call for an election to put it on the ballot. The City Council took the latter action at a special meeting on Aug. 8, calling for an election to get the item on the Nov. 4 ballot this year. But it missed the deadline to do so by three days. County officials rejected the city's resolution calling for an election on Nov. 4 because it missed the deadline, marking it as 'received' on Aug. 8. The lawsuit alleges that the county's rejection of the resolution is the 'direct result of Pierce County's failure to promptly validate the petition.' It states that the organizers submitted the signatures they collected on June 24, but County Auditor Linda Farmer did not begin the process of validating the signatures until July 7. The county's letter stating that it verified the petition states that the pages were submitted to the county on June 26. 'It is fundamentally unfair, and contrary to statutory requirements, for local government to delay the processing of an initiative and to use that delay to deny ballot access,' the complaint reads. Tacoma city spokesperson Dee Paul told The News Tribune that the city does not comment on pending litigation. Pierce County did not immediately return a request for comment. The lawsuit also takes issue with the timing of Tacoma's approval of the resolution to put the initiative on the November ballot. The City Council did so on Aug. 8 at a special meeting, but the lawsuit contends it could have done so at its regular Aug. 5 meeting and met the deadline. The suit states that the city chose a 'questionable path' in pushing the decision to Aug. 8. The initiative can only appear on the November ballot now with judicial intervention, the complaint reads. 'This lawsuit is about more than winning a $20 minimum wage and fair scheduling,' UFCW Local 367 president Michael Hines said in a release. 'It's about protecting the democratic rights of every Tacoma voter. Local leaders cannot be allowed to hide behind technicalities while openly colluding with big business to silence working people. We will fight this in the courts just as we will fight for victory at the ballot box.' The lawsuit comes as a similar effort continues in the city of Olympia where the City Council approved an initiative to appear on the November ballot on July 22. It also isn't the first time these organizers have entered into litigation against the city and county. Tacoma for All and UFCW Local 367 sued the city of Tacoma, Pierce County and Farmer in August 2023, alleging that the city violated its charter when the council put an alternate renters' rights measure on the ballot that year. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
First Amendment fight grows over Florida marijuana petition rules
A group proposing an adult-use marijuana ballot initiative on Aug. 12 asked a judge for "complete relief" against a state law regulating petition gathering. The reason: The case implicates First Amendment rights, meaning Florida's state attorneys should not be allowed to enforce the law alongside other state officials and county supervisors of elections. Tallahassee attorney Glenn Burhans, representing Smart and Safe Florida, said in an Aug. 12 telephonic hearing before U.S. District Judge Mark Walker that one focus of the case is to preserve First Amendment freedoms to petition government. Smart and Safe Florida is proposing a constitutional amendment for adult-use marijuana in the 2026 elections. He said that, in a preliminary injunction granted last month, Walker already found a provision of the law disallowing nonresidents and noncitizens from circulating petitions to be unconstitutional. (A preliminary injunction can be granted early in a lawsuit to temporarily stop something, like enforcement of a law, until the case is fully decided.) "I think Smart and Safe clearly has standing to challenge the nonresident circulator criminal penalties," Burhans told Walker. He continued to say that nonresident circulators should be able to continue collecting petitions without state attorneys being able to enforce the new state law against them. "The harm is traceable and addressable as to the state attorneys, and in order to get complete relief, frankly, Smart and Safe needs to have the state attorneys enjoined so that their circulators, the nonresidents, will go back out in the field and do their work." Last month, Walker wrote in his order that prohibiting nonresidents and noncitizens from circulating petitions "impose a severe burden on political expression." That's why Walker agreed that the groups could potentially succeed in these First Amendment challenges. Mohammad Jazil, outside counsel for Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, brought up concerns for jurisdictional issues, saying bringing another preliminary injunction could be problematic while the state is already challenging the most recent injunction in appellate court. "An order on a P.I. motion is not an invitation to file another P.I. motion, but that's where we stand," Jazil said. Along with Smart and Safe, the petition groups challenging HB 1205, which went into effect July 1, include Florida Decides Healthcare (backing Medicaid expansion) and Florida Right to Clean Water. Smart and Safe Florida's ballot initiative made it to Florida's general election ballot last year, but it failed to meet the state's required threshold of 60% support from voters. The group is repeating its efforts from last year, since it initially did not specify any prohibitions for marketing toward children or public use of marijuana. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida cannabis petition battle centers on free speech rights Solve the daily Crossword
