Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Illinois experienced a historic firearm violence surge in 2016 with a decline to baseline rates in 2018. This study aimed to understand this 2016 surge through the direct accounts of violence prevention community-based organisations (CBOs) in Illinois.
Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 representatives from 13 CBOs from the south and west sides of greater Chicago metropolitan area. Interviews were audio recorded, coded and analysed thematically.
Results We identified lack of government-derived infrastructure and systemic poverty as the central themes of Illinois’s 2016 firearm violence surge. Participants highlighted the Illinois Budget Impasse halted funding for violence prevention efforts, leading to 2016’s violence. This occurred in the context of a strained relationship with the criminal justice system, where disengagement from police and mistrust in the justice system led victims and families to seek justice outside of the judicial system. Participants emphasised that systemic poverty and the obliteration of community support structures led to overwhelming desperation, which, in turn, increased risky behaviours perceived as necessary for survival. Participants disproportionately identified that this impacted the young people in their communities.
Conclusions Lack of government-derived infrastructure and systemic poverty were the central themes of the 2016 firearm violence surge. The insights gained from the 2016 surge are applicable to understanding both current and future surges. CBOs focused on violence prevention offer insights into the context and conditions fuelling surges in the epidemic of violence.
- Qualitative research
- Violence
- Firearm
- Poverty
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data in the form of codes can be made available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data in the form of codes can be made available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Twitter @ac_thomas7, @AnneMStey
Contributors JDD: Formal analysis, investigation, data curation and writing—original draft. AT: Formal analysis, investigation, data curation and writing—reviewing and editing. JDS: Formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—reviewing and editing and project administration. SR, LS and JBR: Conceptualisation, methodology and writing—reviewing and editing. MM: Conceptualisation and writing—reviewing and editing. JKJ: Methodology, formal analysis and writing—reviewing and editing. KL: Formal analysis, writing—reviewing and editing and project administration. AS: Guarantor, conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, writing—reviewing and editing and supervision.
Funding AS time was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (K23HL157832-01) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS029483).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.