This post is part of Philly Power Research's “Beyond Policing” series. This series is continuing work that was previously led by Movement Alliance Project (MAP) over the past two years exploring how Philadelphia can invest in our communities to improve public safety instead of investing in policing. MAP's "Safety We Can Feel" campaign included a survey of 1300 Philadelphia residents and dozens of interviews on how to build strong, healthy, and safe communities.

Philadelphia, like many other cities across the country, has experienced a surge in violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the City has touted its increased investments in anti-violence programs the past two years. In FY23, Mayor Kenney’s proposed budget puts $184.5 million toward areas that it categorizes as anti-violence, up from $155 million in FY22.

While the City’s increasing focus on funding violence prevention initiatives is commendable, it is questionable whether it is steering this money toward the most effective programs and sufficiently addressing the root causes of violence. Far too often, money is used to fund programs that emphasize surveillance and threats of incarceration, rather than focusing on providing the types of material, social, and emotional support needed to truly build healthy and safe communities.

The FY23 budget provides $3.75 million toward the Office of Violence Prevention’s (OVP) Group Violence Intervention (GVI) program (a $1 million increase from the prior year). However, in interviews with MAP, community members criticized this program for doing more harm than good through its emphasis on surveillance, restrictive eligibility and participation requirements, and the threat of punishment - rather than focusing on providing social services. Community members criticized OVP and Urban Affairs Coalition (which is receiving over $7 million in grants from OVP in FY23) as being very bureaucratic and not transparent, leading to challenges for access to services and cross-sector collaboration.

An unfortunately typical pattern in City-funded social programs is lots of short-term pilot programs, often changing from one mayoral administration to the next, without enough dedicated ongoing funding given to proven programs that make a difference.

For example, Network of Neighbors, which was one of relatively few City-funded programs that received substantial praise from MAP interviewees, has operated since 2016 with a small amount of public funding support. Network of Neighbors is a trauma-response network that trains community members to support and lead responses to stress, trauma, loss, and violence in their communities. In FY22, it received only $262,793 in grant-supported funding through the City’s Department of Behavioral Health. The state will be providing additional funding to expand this program in FY23, but it is unclear from the budget documents exactly how much funding will be provided - most likely $1-3 million dollars.

Reentry programs are another area where the City fails to invest enough resources. When people return from prison with little support in finding jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, and other forms of support, it is unsurprising that far too many people wind up cycling in and out of the criminal justice system.

Other programs which the City promotes as part of its anti-violence initiatives, like free afterschool and summer youth programs, have gone far under-utilized in recent years due in part to insufficient outreach and coordination of recruitment activities, as well as staffing shortages stemming from low wages in the youth development and education sectors. DHS funding for PYN’s WorkReady program, offering employment and training opportunities to youth, is decreasing from $9.8 million in FY22 to $7.9 million in the proposed FY23 budget.

Involvement of the police in some anti-violence programs, a poor history of success of City-sanctioned programs, and concerns about potential police collaboration with ICE all contribute to a lack of trust for City-sponsored anti-violence programs. And while the City has increased funding for grants to anti-violence community-based organizations, there are often big hurdles for on-the-ground, grassroots organizations to complete complex applications and compliance monitoring for City grants. Limited funding is offered to support the administrative work that is needed to support the required grant and data management, so larger organizations that have more capacity to manage these things tend to be more likely to receive grants.

At the same time, the City fails to recognize ways in which some of its policies like mass public school closures a decade ago and tax incentives for gentrification, like the 10-year tax abatement, have contributed to violence. These policies have played a role in uprooting tight-knit communities, forcing people to move into new areas where they may feel less safe, and potentially exacerbating neighborhood level conflicts as gentrification shifts the boundaries of community and law enforcement prioritization. At the same time, lack of neighborhood stability has a negative impact on networks of material and social resources and supports.

Even if we were to take at face value that the investments of Mayor Kenney’s administration in anti-violence programs will be effective, there remains a vast imbalance in the resources it is investing in violence prevention ($185 million in FY23) versus reactive systems for carceral punishment of crime ($1.3 billion for Police, Prisons, and criminal justice agencies like the District Attorney and First Judicial District). The Philadelphia Police Department has 7,307 budgeted employees, which makes up 29% of all full-time City of Philadelphia positions funded by the General Fund.

In interviews with MAP, community members identified a number of anti-violence related programs that the City could increase funding for, which would be more effective for improving community safety than increasing funds for policing.

What We Should Fund Instead of Policing:

• Network of Neighbors - the one City-funded program that came up multiple times in interviews as a stand-out example of what the city should be doing to address violence

• Employment programs for returning citizens

• Expansion of job and workforce development programs - e.g. WorkReady for teens and young adults, PowerCorps for young adults and returning citizens, The Center for Nonviolence and Social Justice Community Health Worker Training Academy

• Rebuilding Black economies - e.g. Sankofa farms, grant programs for small Black-owned businesses, loans from the Philly public bank which is in the process of being developed

• Long-term mental health and emotional support for individuals and families affected by trauma and community violence, including peer support programs

• Key qualities of effective violence prevention programs mentioned by interviewees: culturally responsive, trauma-centered, and run by community members