Programmatic Results and Impact:

Source: PDF pp. 1097-1098 · raw: 1097 · 1098

Breadcrumb: 5 ps › OVP-Ceasefire-Budget-Note---Final › Response memo to FY2025 Budget Note: Budget and Reporting Structure Analysis for Office of Violence Prevention and Ceasefire › Programmatic Results and Impact:

funding in the form of federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and General Funds allocated by an Emergency Ordinance in April 2021 and an Emergency Declaration in July 2022, significantly 5 increased the investment and spend in CVI programming in 2023 and 2024. With multi-year ARPA funding and multi-year contracts, there has been underspending of the budget in the recent fiscal years. Programmatic Results and Impact: While there is ample anecdotal information regarding positive impacts associated with implemented CVI efforts (see below in the Success Stories section and the Appendix), robust quantitative performance data has not been systematically collected on key programmatic 6 outcomes. CVI contractors and grantees submit quarterly or monthly performance reports, however, the format for data submission has changed over time and only includes aggregated summary data that does not allow for the systematic measurement of program outputs and outcomes longitudinally. A review of the available summary data indicates an estimated 42% increase in the number of high-risk individuals being served by SLO, ICM, HHP, and TVIF since 2021 (quarterly 7 average of 113 in 2021 vs.152 in 2024). Despite the significant measurement barriers, which are now being addressed (see below for more details), the data available indicate that there is a positive relationship between increased spend on CVI programming and increased services being provided to high-risk individuals, with a corresponding decrease in injury and fatal shootings. Figure 2 8 Injury and fatal shootings have declined 20.1% in the past 12 months and 32.6% since peaking in July 2022 (see Figure 3), indicating that the CVI strategy and programming are achieving the intended impact of saving lives and reducing injury shootings. In addition to preventing the tragic 5 Gun Violence Reduction | Portland.gov 6 A dearth of performance data is not unique to OVP and Ceasefire and is a challenge for other safety bureaus. In the case of CVI programs and services, historical funding for OVP had been via special appropriations which are dollars that do not require the collection and reporting of performance indicators. 7 Service data is presented as a quarterly average per year because total quarterly data was unavailable across programs. 8 Percentage declines represent the 12-month rolling average in injury and fatal shooting incidents. 4

loss of life and injuries, investing in the CVI strategy and programs produces tangible costs savings for the City and our regional government and health care partners. NICJR conducted a cost 9 analysis , specific to Portland, that demonstrates the economic cost per shooting as $1.4MM per Homicide shooting and $670K per Injury shooting. Figure 3 The data on injury and fatal shootings indicate that CVI programming likely played a significant role in preventing the loss of 15 lives and 43 shooting injuries in 2023 vs 2022, which represents significant savings in suffering and trauma to families and the community. Furthermore, these declines in gun violence also reduced the costs of gun violence for governmental and health care partners by an estimated $50MM, from a roughly $9.5MM investment in CVI programming over the same time. In other words, every dollar invested in CVI resulted in an approximate savings of $5.26 in money spent on law enforcement, criminal justice, healthcare, incarceration, victim supports, and in lost productivity. While 2024 is seeing a flattening in reductions in homicides, injury shootings are on pace to decline by about another 20%, which would represent an additional approximate $30MM in cost savings. Year Cost of Gun Violence Ceasefire & OVP Budget 2022 $285.3MM $3.8MM 2023 $235.5MM $9.5MM While we are seeing positive progress in long-term outcomes that indicate macro-level strategic impact and the cost savings of investing in the CVI strategy and programs, the lack of systematic, robust programmatic outputs and proximal outcomes limits our ability to evaluate effectiveness at the program level, including the ability to identify and rectify program-level weaknesses or bottlenecks in real-time. OVP & Ceasefire, however, have been working over the past year on building and implementing a NICJR-recommended intensive case management platform, called 9 See the Appendix for NICJR’s The Cost of Per Shooting analysis. Additional research from the Urban Institute found that gun violence also has lasting negative economic costs in terms of slowing and restraining business and job growth and lowering home values, homeownership rates, and credit scores in the most affected communities. For example, their research showed “in Minneapolis, each additional gun homicide in a census tract in a given year was related to 80 fewer jobs the next year,” and “one more gun homicide in a census tract was associated with…a $22,000 decrease in average home values in Minneapolis and a $24,621 decrease in Oakland.” 5

Parent: Response memo to FY2025 Budget Note: Budget and Reporting Structure Analysis for Office of Violence Prevention and Ceasefire · PDF: pp. 1097-1098