Community-Identified Priorities for Improving Safety in Low-Income Urban Communities Experiencing High Rates of Firearm Violence

Abstract

The present qualitative study explored perspectives from youth, caregivers, and community partners who lived in or worked with organizations that served two low-income, urban communities exposed to disproportionate rates of firearm violence. The purpose of the study was to (a) identify changes that community members and community partners would like to see in terms of safety, (b) compare the similarities and differences in responses across the three participant groups. Youth (n = 11), caregivers (n = 20), and community partners (n = 41) participated in semi-structured interviews as part of a larger study evaluating community strategies to reduce community-levels of youth violence. Perspectives on changes related to safety were represented across four themes: (1) Changes to policing, (2) Increasing safety, (3) More opportunities for youth and family programs and activities, (4) Structural and resource investments in communities. Overall, qualitative findings offered a context-specific picture of desired areas for change to improve community safety. The results contribute to a framework for community mobilization and have implications for the development of comprehensive community violence prevention initiatives.

1. Introduction

Firearm violence is a significant and preventable public health issue in the United States that disproportionately impacts young people, particularly Black youth who live in urban, low-income communities (CDC, 2024; Nation et al., 2021). Over the last three decades, the highest cause of mortality among Black youth between the ages of 10 and 24 was homicide (David-Ferdon et al., 2021). Although mortality data portray the most severe outcomes of youth violence, non-fatal outcomes are more common, and young people, especially Black youth, are overrepresented (CDC, 2024).

This disproportionate exposure to violence is evident in two selected communities in a mid-sized city (approximately 230,000 people) in the southeastern U.S., which participated in a larger study to test the efficacy of several community-level approaches to prevent youth violence. In this city, among youth 10 to 24 years, in 2021, nearly all homicides involved firearms (95%) and the rate of these fatal events was 100.2 per 100,000—nearly ten times the national average (Bishop et al., 2024; CDC, 2025). In the same year, violence-related injury visits represented 17.3% of all injury visits to the region’s only comprehensive Level 1 trauma center; notably, half of these visits involved firearms (Bishop et al., 2022). Furthermore, compared to the state, where the rate of ED visits due to firearm injury is 8.2 per 10,000, in the focal city, the rate was 3.3 times greater at 27.5 per 10,000 (Virginia Department of Health, 2026; Bishop et al., 2022).

Violence continues to have a profound and unequal impact on Black youth living in low-income urban communities. Enduring systems of structural inequities perpetuate and sustain the disproportionate burden of exposure to firearm violence (Nation et al., 2021). Black youth continue to be disproportionately represented in low-income, urban neighborhoods due to factors including systemic community disinvestment (Belgrave et al., 2022; Benns et al., 2020). Social and structural conditions—such as geographic isolation, high residential density, residential instability, and community poverty concentration—are closely linked to elevated rates of community violence. For example, local city findings indicated that Black youth experienced higher rates of mortality and emergency department visits for violence-related injuries compared to peers from other racial backgrounds (Bishop et al., 2022, 2024).

Community violence focuses on violent incidents that typically occur between unrelated individuals outside the home (CDC, 2025). While a key aspect of community violence is firearm violence, it also includes other types of violent incidents (e.g., physical assault; CDC, 2025). Consequences of community violence include mortality, physical injury, and mental health difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress; Sheats et al., 2018). These adverse outcomes underscore the need to deepen our understanding of processes associated with community members’ safety in areas with high levels of violence exposure. There is a need to identify perspectives from community members, including youth and caregivers (CGs), and community partners (CPs) about changes to improve safety. The current study identified emergent themes detailing changes that community members and CPs would like to see to address safety concerns.

This study draws from theoretical models on the socio-ecological context of risk and protective factors related to community violence (CDC, n.d.) and social determinants of health (Healthy People 2030, n.d.; Solar & Irwin, 2010). CDC’s Socio-Ecological Model underscores the need for cross-cutting prevention approaches representing multiple levels of social ecology (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal; CDC, n.d.). In the field of violence prevention, a disbalance exists: most efforts address risk and protective processes at the individual or relationship levels (e.g., programs to enhance socioemotional skills), whereas fewer prevention efforts center on the community and societal levels (Nation et al., 2021). It is important to understand how the changes identified by community members and partners align with the various levels of the socio-ecological model to inform comprehensive prevention approaches.

The Healthy People 2030 Framework lists the domains of social determinants of health (SDOH), including financial stability, access to high-quality education opportunities and healthcare, quality of the community’s-built environment, and supports in social and community contexts (Healthy People 2030, n.d.). These domains represent broad determinants of overall health, well-being, and quality of life (Healthy People 2030, n.d.). Living in areas with high rates of firearm violence exposure can contribute to a lack of SDOH in each domain (Nation et al., 2021). Additionally, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) conceptual framework depicts how social contexts and social stratification result in health inequities caused by differential exposure, vulnerability to, and consequences of health outcomes (Solar & Irwin, 2010). The current study applied the WHO’s conceptual framework to community violence prevention with systemic inequities at the root cause of high community levels of firearm violence in urban low-income communities. The high rates and negative consequences of community violence in urban communities of color located in low-income areas is a critical issue and requires a concerted and community-informed effort to increase community safety (Buggs et al., 2023).

The current study adds to the literature by offering a context-specific examination of community-specified safety concerns in two urban low-income communities with high rates of firearm violence exposure. Relatively few qualitative studies have examined what would make community members feel safe. One exception is Rigg et al. (2019), where youth living in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago identified the importance of decreasing community violence to address structural risk factors (e.g., the need for safe outdoor spaces), which have been linked to youth violence prevention. The current study contributed to the literature by including multiple perspectives of youth, caregivers (CGs), and community partners (CPs). CGs and adolescents living in the two communities have a deep understanding of safety concerns and the ways in which they impact their daily lives. Community partners included service providers (e.g., who offered resources and intervention services) and organizational leaders who typically were decision-makers (e.g., regarding resource distribution) and/or had experience in areas of violence prevention or positive youth development (PYD). The goals of the current study were to: (a) identify changes that youth, CGs, and CPs would like to see in terms of safety, (b) compare the similarities and differences in responses across participant groups. Identifying specific goals for change is important for providing a framework in which desired changes can be mapped across various levels of the social ecology and the related risk and protective processes can be determined. It also supports community members and partners in developing action plans for violence prevention initiatives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Setting and Participants

Qualitative data were collected as part of a larger study evaluating community strategies for youth violence prevention that were selected using community-based participatory research and focused on two low-income urban communities within the same mid-sized southeastern U.S. city. All youth and caregivers identified as Black or African American; all caregivers (age range 26–61; M_age = 42) and 47% of youth (age range 12–17; M_age = 15) were female. For youth, 27% were in grades 7–8 and 73% were in grades 9–12 (see

Table 1. Demographics information for youth, caregivers, and community partners.

	Youth (n = 11)	Caregivers (n = 20)	Community Partners (n = 41)
Race	100% (African American/Black)	100% (African American/Black)	78% (African American/Black) 20% (European American/White) 2% (Multiracial)
Gender	53% Male 47% Female	100% Female	68% Female 32% Male
Age Range	12–17 (M = 15)	26–61 (M = 41.91)	27–78 (M = 46.89)
Highest level of education	27%—Grades 7–8 73%—Grades 9–12	27% Some high school classes 27% Completed high school 23% Some college classes 18% 2-year college degree 5% Completed bachelor’s degree	58% Advanced degree 23% Completed bachelor’s degree 2% Some advanced classes 10% Some college classes 7% Completed high school

). In most cases, a CG and youth pair from the same family participated and, in a few cases, only a CG or a youth from the family participated. Around two-thirds of CGs reported household incomes equal to or less than the Federal Poverty Level (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). For CPs, 78% identified as Black or African American, 20% as White or European American, and 2% as Multiracial (68% female; age range 27–78, M_age = 47). A total of 11 youth, 20 CGs, and 41 CPs including 20 direct service providers and 21 organizational leaders responded to study questions as part of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Youth and CGs directly experienced issues related to safety in their communities on a day-to-day basis. CPs included organizational leaders and service providers who worked with youth and CGs across sectors (e.g., education, health, law enforcement/justice, government, social services, faith, culture/diversity, and youth-serving organizations). Youth, CGs, and CPs offered perspectives on changes to address safety based on their own experiences as residents and/or service providers to enhance the understanding of these needed changes.

2.2. Recruitment and Procedures

All study procedures and materials were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Data collection spanned November 2020 to May 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adult consent, parental permission, and youth assent were obtained before completing interviews. We used a purposeful sampling procedure to recruit participants based on the three group characteristics. The sample was specifically recruited for the qualitative data collection. We identified participants in collaboration with the community outreach coordinator, who worked on our research team and has over twenty years of experience engaging residents who live in the focal communities and CPs. People who opted to participate were asked to provide referrals for community members and partners who may be interested in the current study. Data were collected using the Zoom meeting platform by research team members. We found this data collection method had benefits, including participants’ comfort being in familiar settings (e.g., at home), familiarity with this type of online platform (e.g., based on virtual school or work), and the ability to offer more flexible interview schedules. Because the data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Zoom meeting platform also provided a safe way to interview participants. For participating in the interview, CGs and CPs received $40, and youth received $25 to compensate them for their time and effort.

Participants responded to the interview question: “What would you like to see changed in [community name] in terms of safety?” Members of the research team included the principal investigator, a postdoctoral fellow, one master’s and two doctoral students, one postbaccalaureate, and one undergraduate research assistant. Interviews were conducted by four team members, including the postdoctoral fellow and graduate students. The analysis was conducted by the entire team. Perspectives of the research team included developmental and clinical psychology and sociology. Members identified as cisgender women who were white and Latina. Training in qualitative interviewing and data analysis was conducted by the postdoctoral fellow who had substantial experience in conducting qualitative research with minoritized youth and families. The postdoctoral fellow had also engaged in qualitative work in the two focal communities for several years prior to the current study. The training provided to the research team focused on qualitative approaches (thematic analysis and grounded theory; Guest et al., 2011; Strauss & Corbin, 1994), interviewing and data coding with iterative practice and feedback, culturally responsive research with minoritized populations, and reflecting on positionality during the research process (e.g., intentional talks about ways that the collection and analysis of the data were approached and perceived).

2.3. Data Analysis

For all interviews, audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, checked for accuracy by a research team member, and uploaded to NVivo version 12 for analysis (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2018). We used a data-driven, iterative inductive thematic analysis to code data derived from the research question (Guest et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2021; Sullivan et al., 2024; Walsh et al., 2024). First, two research team members were randomly assigned to open code a transcript. They then merged their interview files and compared codes to reach consensus on what constitutes a meaningful segment of text and which code to apply to each segment. Once all transcripts were coded, data were pulled for the relevant research question. Next, two research team members were assigned to independently examine codes across all data for this question and develop themes. The pair then worked together to resolve discrepancies and co-developed the theme names, definitions, examples of quotes, and the percentage of participants in each group (i.e., youth, CGs, and CPs). This draft was presented and discussed with the research team members, who provided feedback that informed revisions. The pair of coders then revised the data structure and themes based on the feedback. This iterative and collaborative process increases trustworthiness of analyses, given that each piece of data was coded by at least two team members and all team members’ perspectives were engaged and incorporated throughout the process (Cascio et al., 2019). One team member then conducted selective coding to further condense and refine the themes, presented the results to the research team, and addressed their suggestions to finalize the data analysis. We triangulated the data from each interview question between participant types to increase its trustworthiness (Patton, 1999). For the frequency counts, the percentage of participants endorsing each subtheme was also represented in the overall theme percentages. Participants could endorse a theme alone or multiple subthemes within a theme.

3. Results

Youth, CGs, and CPs identified changes they would like to see related to safety that were represented across four themes: (1) Changes to policing, (2) Increasing safety, (3) More opportunity for youth and family programs and activities, (4) Structural and resource investments in communities.

Table 2. Definitions of Main and Subthemes for Identified Changes Related to Safety by Youth, CGs, and CPs.

Theme and Subtheme Definitions	Total n = 72	CG n = 20	CP n = 41	Y n = 11
Theme 1: Changes to Policing: Refers to changes in the amount of police presence, enhancing police–community relationships, and the need for structural changes in policing.	48 (66.6%)	15 (75.0%)	29 (70.7%)	4 (36.4%)
Subtheme 1.1 Changes to Police Presence: Refers to thoughts and feelings about increasing (e.g., more consistent police patrols and patrols at night) or decreasing (e.g., feeling that more police will not improve safety) police presence.	25 (34.7%)	12 (60.0%)	10 (24.4%)	3 (27.3%)
Subtheme 1.2 Improve police–community relationships: Refers to changes to improve police relationships with community members such as positive engagement, understanding community trauma, and collaborative strategies to make a more trustworthy and safer environment.	15 (20.8%)	2 (10.0%)	12 (29.3%)	1 (9.1%)
Subtheme 1.3 Structure and role changes: Refers to structural changes in the way the police operate, including less policing, residents policing themselves, more community ownership and control over law enforcement in their neighborhood.	8 (11.1%)	1 (5.0%)	7 (17.1%)	0 (0.0%)
Theme 2: Increasing Safety: Refers to wanting community members to feel safe, to reduce gun violence, and to change community norms surrounding safety.	30 (41.7%)	12 (60.0%)	13 (31.7%)	4 (45.5%)
Subtheme 2.1 Community members feel safe: Refers to wanting community members to feel safe, including youth being able to play outside, residents feeling comfortable and safe outside, and generally wanting a safer community environment.	12 (16.7%)	4 (20.0%)	7 (17.0%)	1 (9.1%)
Subtheme 2.2 Efforts to reduce gun access and crime: Refers to changes to decrease the accessibility and presence of weapons in the community, and to address gun reform and community norms around safety.	18 (25.0%)	8 (40.0%)	6 (14.6%)	3 (27.3%)
Theme 3: Youth programs, activities, and opportunities: Refers to increasing positive development opportunities for youth, family-focused programs, and developing mentorship relationships.	22 (30.6%)	5 (25.0%)	17 (41.5%)	0 (0.0%)
Subtheme 3.1 Positive outlets for youth: Refers to improving accessibility to existing youth programs and creating more positive programs and activities for youth including experiences inside and outside of their community. Additionally, it refers to offering opportunities and safe spaces for emotional management and conflict resolution.	12 (16.7%)	4 (20.0%)	8 (19.5%)	0 (0.0%)
Subtheme 3.2 Caregiver and family-focused programs: Refers to changes to increase caregiver-focused programs that offer parenting skills education, fun activities for families, and empower residents.	6 (8.3%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (14.6%)	0 (0.0%)
Subtheme 3.3 Developing relationships with mentors: Refers to having more mentors and role models to build relationships with community members.	4 (5.6%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (7.3%)	0 (0.0%)
Theme 4: Structural and resource investment in communities: Refers to investments in communities to promote safety and well-being. Specific references to structural investments included the need for updated housing and facilities, more lighting and security cameras, better street and road maintenance, and improvement in the physical environment (e.g., increases in recreational spaces and play areas, less trash and pollution in the neighborhood, and increased green spaces). Specific references to resource investments included the need for accessible resources, job opportunities, and training.	34 (47.2)	3 (15.0%)	28 (68.3%)	3 (27.3%)
Subtheme 4.1: Structural investments in communities: to structural investments includthe need for updated housing and facilities, more lighting and security cameras, better street and road maintenance, and improvement in the physical environment (e.g., increases in recreational spaces and play areas, less trash and pollution in the neighborhood, and increased green spaces).	16 (22.2%)	2 (10.0%)	11 (26.8%)	3 (27.3%)
Subtheme 4.2 Resource investments in communities: Refers to increased accessible resources that are consistently available to community members (e.g., resources that provide wraparound supports, and address food deserts and general health and environmental issues), and having more job opportunities and training, including more youth jobs and opportunities for youth and adults to learn career skills.	18 (25.0%)	1 (5.0%)	17 (41.5%)	0 (0.0%)

includes the definitions and percentage of youth, CGs, and CPs who discussed each theme and subtheme. For each theme/subtheme, quotes were selected for their representativeness across participants and to highlight different aspects of the theme/subtheme that emerged from the data.

3.1. Changes to Policing

This theme included three subthemes: (1) Changes to police presence, (2) Improve police–community relationships, (3) Structure and role changes. Participants across groups discussed how more frequent and consistent police presence could improve community security (e.g., Youth: “I would like to see more police patrolling outside to make sure everything good”). CGs expressed the need for more patrols and security at night (e.g., “after hours security, then we need more people patrolling”) and that more police presence (e.g., “have police out here every day”) could prevent crime. One CG described feeling under-protected, stating that, “No one is going to create a crime if there’s a police on that corner…but that doesn’t happen. They always come after the fact that something already happened. But had they already been there, it would’ve never happened.” In contrast, some participants in each group described that an increased police presence would not help with safety concerns (e.g., Youth: “I feel like more police wouldn’t help,” CP: “I think that definitely not police- additional policing,” and CG: “It’s just not the police”). Last, one CP described that safety does not come from increased policing, stating:

I want us to get away from the thought that safety means policing, more police… neighborhoods that are safe are not safe because the police is sitting on every corner. I want to take what makes a community safe and make it a reality in their community.

Participants from all groups discussed that building police–community relationships through increased “community engagement” could improve safety. One CG wanted to see “more police officers coming out, walking around, getting to know the residents on a more positive note, than more so negative.” CPs discussed the importance of relationship building efforts and seeing more “proactive community engagement.” One CP stated:

You don’t always have to have uniformed officers walking the community because of impact or the triggers that may be present…they can show up at events that are not connected to yellow tape, cameras, action…be present in those communities, in those schools, where people live, work, and play, and I think that would change the safety.

Another CP shared that “police involvement” is different than “police presence” in building community relationships and promoting safety:

Police presence is you guys…in uniform rolling through a police car and just, you know, policing patrolling…but instead, parking the cars, getting out of vehicles and being involved in community…as a part of, a member of the community …there’s a kid’s birthday party going on, hey, show up…If you have the time come back and play football…That’s one of the big things I would see change as far as safety as less of a police presence, more of a police involvement.

CPs and one CG discussed the need for structure and role changes in the way the police operate, including community members policing themselves. One CP discussed the need to dismantle legal system practices to “build structurally a different way of responding…change in the sense that folks are not victimized, folks are not targeted…folks are not continually oppressed, based on policies—outdated policies, outdated practices…that clearly maintain an oppressive dynamic.” Another CP noted the importance of creating buffers between the community members and the police, having more “liaisons between members of a community and the police …an intermediary that comes from the community… and just kind of works in between…and then we hear, okay, they need this…they don’t really need that, and so how do we mesh it.” Last, several CPs described how community connectedness and self-governance could increase collective safety more than traditional policing, stating the need for more “community ownership of the neighborhood” and “less policing from police officers.” One CP described the importance of “community having a say in how things happen in their neighborhood, setting rules for what we don’t tolerate and how we’re going to enforce that as a community and not having external forces come in…to enforce and control.”

3.2. Increasing Safety

This theme included two subthemes: (1) Community members feel safe, (2) Efforts to reduce gun access and crime. Participants across groups expressed a desire for “all people living in the community [to] feel safe.” One CG described wanting “a big vibrant, colorful community, a safer environment where everybody is comfortable to come outside and sit on the porch and mingle.” Similarly, a CP stated that youth should “feel safe to ride their bikes in the community” and CGs should “feel like they can allow their [children] to go outside.” One youth talked about being able to be outside when it snowed, saying, “It just gonna be no more violence…‘Cause it supposed to snow tonight. And it’s supposed to snow the weekend. And when that stuff stick, ain’t gonna be nobody outside. But me.” Finally, one CP spoke about the link between safety and stability:

The lack of feeling safe makes it more unsafe, right, if you’re feeling unsafe, it’s creating this instability and this fear and this sort of uncertainty. And so then that creates, well leads to risky behavior. So it’s all kind of tied together.

Participants from all groups discussed the need to “reduce gun violence.” Some youth expressed wanting to see “less people having guns” and to “take out guns in the community.” A CP discussed that guns are purchased and sold in “straight street transactions” and highlighted that “the relative ease of purchasing and acquiring guns illegally is a huge problem.” A youth discussed the need for gun registration and less visibility of guns as a means to increase safety in the community:

Dudes with unregistered guns…if they have a gun, it should at least be registered to them, and less seen because they will have their guns on their hip with no nothing to cover it…They’ll just have it out and kids will be afraid of it.

CGs reiterated wanting to see a change in the accessibility and presence of guns within the community and connected this to the need for more youth activities. One CG stated, “We need to get these guns off the street…have more activity for the kids. It’s nothing for them to venture to. So, of course they’re gonna go out there and listen to what they hear or see.” Finally, a CG discussed the changes needed in safety precautions including “keeping guns on safety or taking bullets out of the gun” and storing guns so “it does not get placed in the hands of kids or somebody else.” This CG also discussed the need to “eliminate the guns but at the same time you have to have something out there that’s going to protect us.”

CGs and CPs discussed the need for changes in existing community norms around safety. Participants expressed wanting to see more strictly enforced leasing rules and to be more aware that there is “a whole lot that’s going on…people in a lot of other people home, they shouldn’t be there.” Participants also described the need to hold people accountable when negative things are happening in the community. One CP stated:

I think hold- holding accountable and really- and really coming together, being able to get away from the snitch rule. Not realizing that if something is bringing your community down, or harming your residents, that you need to speak up if you know something…that’s been one of the stigmas…be quiet and it’ll go away, which is not true, you be quiet and it just gets bigger. It just grows.

3.3. Youth Programs, Activities, and Opportunities

This theme included three subthemes: (1) positive outlets for youth, (2) caregiver and family-focused programs, (3) developing relationships with mentors. CGs and CPs discussed the need for more PYD opportunities in the community that could “put something out there that’s going to block the negative.” A CP described that positive outlets offer “more supports for young people” and “more opportunities to make better choices, but the opportunities don’t always exist or are not presented to them in a way that feels like it’s accessible to them.” The lack of program accessibility was discussed by several CPs including needing more “community activities to participate in that would be free or low cost” and “easing up the access so that kids can easily get to another program.” Several CPs and one CG described the need for skill building programs and education (e.g., CPs: “how to manage emotions,” “mental health,” and “life skills,” CG: “Some kind of space to open up…to speak about their feelings, with no judgment…and work through their emotions.” Some CPs highlighted the importance of youths’ exposure to new experiences outside of their community (e.g., “We need to get kids out of the area so they can see other stuff because your imagination gets to going. Kids don’t understand everything that’s out there”).

Several CPs stated the need for more caregiver and family-focused programs that empowered caregivers. One CP discussed community empowerment in terms of “upliftment that would give people real bread and butter skills.” Another CP described the importance of empowering CGs as a way to support youth, stating, “We can’t talk about empowering our youth and not talk about empowering their parents, because our youth is going to be influenced by what they see every day.” CPs expressed the need for resources and supports for “young parents…there’s been no type of parenting course for them” and “parent–child things that they can engage in.” Last, a CG and CP described the importance of developing relationships with mentors. A CG reflected on the gap related to mentorship, stating, “What happened to the positive role model, big sister, big brother program, the mentors…?” One CP shared how personal experiences with mentorship growing up in the same community shaped who they are, stating, “I remember the programs that were conducted by [name] at the playground. That helped me, that encouraged me…that has had a lasting influence in my life.”

3.4. Structural and Resource Investments in Communities

Participants across groups discussed the need for both structural and resource investments in communities. For structural investments, participants discussed the role of community environment changes including improving community experiences, updated housing and improved facilities, more lighting and cameras, and street and road changes as a means of increasing community safety. Primarily CPs described the need to improve community experiences through “the benefit of great green spaces…gardens and areas for outdoor living,” and “designated areas for kids” that caregivers could monitor together to create “more of a village way of keeping track of how their kids were playing,” “a recreation center,” and having “less trash and stuff on the ground.” Soley CPs described the need for updated housing and the safety implications of current housing conditions. One CP stated:

I would like to see the right kind of safety features put in place to provide for open-air environments…that people have safe, healthy environments to live in…I like to see laundromats because we don’t have washers and dryers in any of these units. We don’t have central air in any of these units. Those are the kinds of safety things that need to be done to provide more equality living environment which will bring about more community safety in and of itself.

Relatedly, CPs and CGs discussed safety “in terms of safety, cameras…to help divert, right, because visibility makes these things that are not welcoming, and conducive to a positive community…to move. Um a lot more lighting um, in those communities actually.” Finally, all participant groups described the need for street and road changes (e.g., CG: “The streets that have the most traffic. I would love to see them be one ways”).

For resource investments, participants reported that more access to crucial resources would contribute to increased safety. This included accessible resources, and increased job opportunities and training. CPs and CGs discussed obtaining accessible resources as “the key to reducing some of this violence and getting some safety is making sure that resources are not just available, but consistently available and abundant for people…a lot of times violence happens because of lack of resources.” Other resources mentioned included “mental health support,” “free public transportation,” and other “basic needs.” CPs also spoke about needing more job opportunities, trainings, and general “access to employment.” One CP stated resources providing “an opportunity to learn a skill, a trade…that they would be able to use to then make a better life for themselves and their children.”

4. Discussion

In the current qualitative study, youth and CGs living in two communities, and CPs serving these communities identified changes they wanted to see related to safety. There is a need for qualitative research including youths’ perspectives that address factors affecting their well-being and safety related to living in areas with high rates of firearm violence (e.g., Solar & Irwin, 2010). Similarly, relatively little qualitative research has connected PYD opportunities to violence prevention and increased safety at the community level (Allison et al., 2011; Moss et al., 2024; Rigg et al., 2019). The current study included multiple perspectives of community members who are most impacted by decisions about the prioritization and selection of prevention strategies and CPs comprising service providers and organizational leaders within local community organizations. Little qualitative research exists on needed changes in safety that are inclusive of youth, CG, and CP perspectives. Importantly, the current study offered a context specific examination of safety-related focal areas for change while also highlighting a coherent narrative across the three subgroup perspectives. We situated findings within the broader literature and highlighted similarities and differences across participant perspectives for the major study findings.

One strength of the present study was the triangulation of data including the perspectives of youth, CGs, and CPs that enhanced the trustworthiness and complexity of our understanding of community members’ and partners’ viewpoints on focal areas for change (Patton, 1999). For changes related to safety, there was agreement across the three participant groups on areas including the need for (1) community members to feel safe, (2) improving the built environment, (3) improving police community relationships and conflicting feelings across participants about police presence, (4) addressing the accessibility and presence of guns. A key social determinant of health (SDOH) that supports community members’ health and well-being is living in a neighborhood where residents have high-quality stable housing, can move freely and enjoy their surroundings, and have opportunities to make and strengthen social connections (Healthy People 2030, n.d.). Our findings offer an example of how systemic disinvestment destabilizes low-income urban communities at the cost of community members’ physical, emotional, and behavioral health.

Changes identified by participants focused primarily on the community level of social ecology and spoke about needed systemic changes (e.g., government allocation of funds and policy change). Consistent with the Healthy People 2030 Framework (Healthy People 2030, n.d.), several issues described by participants focused on the importance of addressing SDOH (e.g., identified barriers related to economic instability, need to improve the built environment, and increase PYD opportunities). Participants described inequities in policing along with the ease of accessing guns and subsequent prevalence of firearms in the community. These findings are consistent with the literature on underpolicing and overpolicing and gun exposure in low-income urban communities (Jackson et al., 2023). Consistent with the WHO’s conceptual framework, the current study findings reflect how systemic disinvestment creates social stratification and community contexts that lead to increased firearm and community violence exposure (Nation et al., 2021; Solar & Irwin, 2010).

The study findings showed differing perspectives on the appropriate level of police presence in communities. Some participants in each group (i.e., youth, CGs, and CPs) expressed either the need for increased or decreased police presence in the community to address safety concerns. Participants’ descriptions of needing increased police presence are consistent with literature on Black residents feeling under-protected by the police (i.e., the absence of police presence when needed; Jackson et al., 2023). For example, participants described the need for more proactive efforts such as consistent patrols at night and police presence during the day to prevent versus respond to incidents that compromised community members’ safety. In contrast, other participants across groups shared reservations that increasing police presence in the community would address safety concerns. Overall, Jackson et al. (2023) highlighted the paradox of coexisting overpolicing and underpolicing in Black communities. In addition, CGs and CPs discussed the need for structural reforms in policies related to policing and moving toward community-led and governed efforts to promote safety. These perspectives are consistent with proposed reforms to policing, including having community identified needs regarding safety be the focus of police training (Jones-Brown & Williams, 2021). Last, although addressed by all groups, CPs more frequently stressed the importance of improving relationships between police and community members as a key to enhancing safety. This underscored the difference between presence in terms of police patrols versus involvement in the form of police investment in relationships with community members and being a part of the community.

Participants across all groups discussed the ongoing impact of community disinvestment and related changes necessary to improve community safety, particularly in the built environment (Healthy People 2030, n.d.; Solar & Irwin, 2010). They discussed how chronic exposure to community violence fosters fear and uncertainty, restricting community members’ ability to feel safe and move freely outdoors. This sense of safety was closely tied to broader structural factors, including decreasing the accessibility of guns (e.g., through reducing ease of access and increasing safety precautions). Effectively addressing these two objectives was perceived as a needed change related to safety. These findings are consistent with a qualitative study where youth living in New Orleans identified gun violence as a distressing and disruptive feature of their neighborhood (Moss et al., 2024). These environmental changes are represented among youth violence prevention strategies (e.g., greening and building remediation and first-generation strategies of crime prevention through environmental design; Branas et al., 2016; Saville & Mihinjac, 2022) that have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing the prevalence of violent incidents.

Community members and partners repeatedly stressed the consequences of limited PYD opportunities for youth (e.g., challenges in the areas of emotional and behavioral health). Similar to prior literature, participants shared beliefs that lack of youth programming, mentorship, and out-of-school time activities or youth employment opportunities contributed to increased violence exposure in the community as well as community members’ feeling of disinvestment by the broader community (Walsh et al., 2024). Opportunity structures for PYD can be limited in minoritized low-income communities because of economic disinvestment. Studies of PYD program implementation have found long-term positive outcomes for youth including increased emotional well-being (Onyeka et al., 2022) and improved physical health, higher education achievement, and increased economic status (Sheehan et al., 2022). Investment and development of culturally relevant PYD opportunities are essential in preventing youth violence (Allison et al., 2011). Further, building the infrastructure to provide ample PYD opportunities, that include positive relationships with caring adults, can decrease risk for violence exposure, especially during out-of-school time (David-Ferdon et al., 2016).

To further promote PYD opportunities for youth in low-income urban communities, it is important for scientists, practitioners, and policymakers to reframe PYD as a SDOH. Specifically, PYD can be conceptualized as an element of youths’ social and built environments that influences their positive development, physical and mental health, and access to educational opportunities (Healthy People 2030, n.d.; Solar & Irwin, 2010). More broadly, SDOH received increased attention from federal funding bodies (CDC, 2024) and national media (Gollust et al., 2025). For example, in fall 2021, CDC initiated a process to expand collaborative agency efforts to target SDOH (CDC, 2024), and a scoping review focusing on 2021–2022 showed an increase in the U.S. news media references to broader, systemic issues (Gollust et al., 2025). Studies have highlighted how inequities at a systems level contribute to SDOH disparities in minoritized low-income communities (Artiga & Hinton, 2018). By shifting PYD opportunities away from being the exclusive responsibility of the social and educational services sectors and into the health policy realm, greater attention and funding may follow. Such a shift may help reduce PYD disparities, expand PYD opportunities, and minimize negative health outcomes associated with violence exposure.

4.1. Limitations

One current study limitation is that the context-specific nature of this study limits its generalizability to urban contexts with similar socio-demographics. However, we feel that context-specific studies of communities that experience a disproportionate burden of violence exposure in the U.S. are critical to identifying community-led prevention efforts that can decrease rates of community violence. The study also took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and participating in qualitative interviews at this time may have influenced participants’ responses. However, it is important to recognize that the needs described by participants (e.g., for PYD opportunities and resources) are long-standing issues in both participating communities (Ross et al., 2021). Another limitation is that there was not an even split between youth, CGs, and CPs in the sample. While not a limitation, it is possible that some CPs were also community members. In this case, CPs could be speaking from multiple perspectives as community members and partners.

4.2. Implications for Policy and Practice

We provide several recommendations for applying these findings to policy and practice, emphasizing the importance of intentional and community-focused reinvestment in urban, low-income communities of color. Local governments should focus on supporting community-led funding, business growth, and access to quality jobs and education through established local organizations (Baker, 2022). Other structural investments may involve the improvement of the physical environment, such as urban greening, minimization of blighted structures, and vacant lots (e.g., Branas et al., 2016). Further, city- and neighborhood-facilitated reinvestment should be led by residents and local community organizations at each step of the process (Kingston et al., 2021). For instance, youth and families can share experiences and preferences that shape the types of PYD and family programs that are funded, aiding in the relevancy and usefulness of new programs, as well as youth and families’ investment and future program utilization. Together, these recommendations for reinvestment and community voice can improve day-to-day life, community safety, and the long-term development of skills and interests among youth and families.

5. Conclusions

Youth, CGs, and CPs identified focal areas for change to promote safety that included improving SDOH, systemic changes in policing, and enhancing opportunity structures for PYD (Allison et al., 2011; Solar & Irwin, 2010). Community-driven approaches, where the voice of community members is centered and magnified, are needed to create relevant and meaningful community change. In addition, policy changes are needed to begin to rectify the long-standing impact of community disinvestment through substantial infrastructure investment that focuses on improving SDOH. These identified focal areas for change can contribute to a framework for change, action plans, and the selection of prevention strategies (CDC, 2024).