A Specialty Court Response to Gun Violence: Implementation and Pilot Outcomes

Abstract

Firearm-related injuries are the leading cause of death for children, adolescents, and young adults in the United States, yet empirically evaluated court-based intervention models targeting firearm offenders remain rare in the peer-reviewed literature. This exploratory pilot study evaluates the implementation and pilot outcomes of the Violence Intervention Program (VIP), a court-based specialty docket designed to address gun violence through a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary model. This descriptive pilot evaluation utilized administrative court records, program data, and clinical service logs among 77 enrolled participants with felony-level, non-violent gun-related charges. Participants were entirely male, majority Black (87%), with a median age of 22 years, and primarily residents of high-poverty Cleveland, OH neighborhoods. Descriptive statistics and independent-samples t-tests were used to compare service utilization and drug screen outcomes between program participants who successfully completed and those who were unsuccessfully terminated from the program. Successful completion was contingent upon fulfillment of three program phase requirements, including consistent adherence to court-mandated supervision and active engagement in clinical and program services. Of 48 participants who exited the program during the pilot period, 34 successfully completed (67.3%). The one-year recidivism rate was 29.5%. Successful program completers received significantly higher monthly peer mentorship services than those who were unsuccessfully terminated, while counseling dosage and drug screen results did not significantly differ between groups. Findings suggest that multidisciplinary, trauma-informed, court-based models can safely intervene with justice-involved young adults and may serve as a replicable public health strategy for reducing gun violence.

1. Introduction

In 2020, firearm-related deaths surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children, adolescents, and young adults (youth) aged 1–24 in the United States (Goldstick et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2022a). This shift was driven primarily by a 13.5% increase in the crude firearm death rate between 2019 and 2020, with homicides accounting for 58% of all youth firearm deaths between 2010–2020, followed by suicides (37%), unintentional shootings (2%), and legal interventions (1%) (Lee et al., 2022b). Although rates spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, they have remained elevated (Miller et al., 2025). Firearm mortality data alone, however, underrepresents the scope of this public health crisis. Nonfatal injuries occur two to four times more often than firearm deaths (Iantorno et al., 2023; Panchal & Zitter, 2025). Youth who sustain nonfatal firearm injuries are 50% more likely to receive a new mental health diagnosis in the subsequent year compared to youth injured in motor vehicle crashes (Ehrlich et al., 2022). Beyond physical injury, nearly 10% of U.S. youth report at least one gun violence victimization in their lifetime, with well-documented consequences for behavioral, social, emotional, educational, and physical health (Flannery et al., 2007; Kann et al., 2014; Singer et al., 1995; Taylor et al., 2025).

The burden of firearm violence among youth in the U.S. is unequally distributed. Black male youth and young adults are disproportionately represented, with data from 2021 firearm-related mortality showing that 82.6% were aged 15 to 19 years old, 84.8% were male, 49.9% were Black, and 64.3% died by homicide (Roberts et al., 2023). In 2023 these trends continued with 46% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. being among Black youth despite representing only 14% of the youth population (Panchal & Zitter, 2025). This disparity extends beyond childhood and adolescent years into young adulthood, with Black non-Hispanic males aged 20–24 experiencing the highest firearm-related fatalities of any demographic with a 2021 rate of 141.8 per 100,000.

Geography and socioeconomics also play a key role. Studies examining county-level data show a relationship between rising rates of poverty and firearm-related deaths. Overall firearm death rates in high poverty counties were 2.3 times higher than their more socioeconomically advanced counterparts (Chen & Chen, 2025). Youth firearm-related homicide rates were 3.6 times higher, suicides were 1.5 times higher, and unintentional deaths were 9.3 times higher (Barrett et al., 2022). Urbanicity is a likely contributor to this dynamic, with half of the U.S. youth population now living in central high-risk metropolitan areas (Chen & Chen, 2025).

One of the strongest predictors of exposure to gun violence is gun carrying (Pardini et al., 2021). In a nationally representative sample of over 5000 youth and young adults aged 10–34, reported lifetime gun carrying rates were 26.7%, and 7.6% reported carrying before the age of 18 (Taylor et al., 2025). From a developmental perspective, firearm carrying and use peak in the early 20s and decline in young adulthood, mirroring the broader trajectory of delinquent behavior (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Lizotte et al., 2000; Nagin & Farrington, 1992; Pardini et al., 2021). Ongoing brain development drives this age-related risk through immature executive functioning, impulse control, psychosocial maturity, and vulnerability to peer influence. These developmental vulnerabilities intersect with individual and structural risk factors including antisocial traits, fear and need for self-protection from violence exposure, and socialization of gun carrying within family and social networks, further compounding risk among youth and young adults (Allen et al., 2025).

The convergence of these structural, environmental, social, and individual factors driving youth firearm violence place many youth at risk for injury, disease, and death. Taking into account this context, public health approaches aimed at reducing youth gun violence should develop targeted intervention and prevention strategies across a variety of systems (Furnari et al., 2025). Novel solutions will likely need to be developed that integrate relevant evidence-based interventions across community, clinical, and justice settings. Existing points of system contact where high-risk individuals can be identified and engaged represent a particularly promising opportunity for targeted intervention.

Relevant Approaches to Gun Violence Prevention

This study explored the development and implementation of a targeted justice-based gun violence intervention program within a low-income, urban, majority Black community with elevated risk for interpersonal violence (Cleveland Department of Public Health, 2024). The program integrated existing approaches to violence intervention from community, psychosocial, and specialty docket/treatment court programs.

Community-based approaches utilize a participatory approach that engages members of the local community in partnership with government, business, law enforcement, and other relevant stakeholders to develop localized solutions to drive change (Sullivan et al., 2025). One example model is community violence interventions (CVIs), which take on various forms including independent organizations advancing programs within local communities or in partnership with traditional law enforcement, criminal justice systems, healthcare, schools, and other points of interception. CVIs typically utilize direct outreach efforts often through credible messengers who have lived experience and work as mentors, organizers, and case managers. Their goals usually include changing beliefs, attitudes, norms, and decision-making around gun carrying and use through relationship-building (Corburn et al., 2022). While peer-reviewed literature is limited, there is promising outcome data from community-based models that show reductions in high-risk attitudes regarding gun carrying and use (Milam et al., 2016), reductions in overall incidence of gun violence (McCarthy, 2023), and reductions in homicides and non-fatal shootings (Bates, 2025).

Psychosocial approaches target the social and emotional risk factors underlying violent, disruptive conduct, and antisocial behavior. These approaches typically involve referral to individual clinical mental health services that use diagnostic assessment, treatment planning, and evidence-based therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Motivational Interviewing (MI), Trauma-Focused CBT, and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). For youth under 18, family-based interventions are frequently used to engage caregivers to address family systems dynamics that can contribute to violent behavior, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST), Parent Management Training (PMT), Intensive Home-Based Treatment (IHBT), and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Some programs combine individual and family-based approaches (McCart & Sheidow, 2016). While nearly all these psychosocial interventions have been rigorously studied with strong evidence for efficacy for the underlying social and emotional problems (Selph et al., 2026), there is little to no research on their use specifically targeting gun violence prevention or intervention (Goulter & Fleming, 2025). Psychosocial approaches rely on existing evidence for their effectiveness in addressing the underlying social and emotional risk factors that overlap with violent behaviors and engagement with firearm carrying and use.

Specialty court programs, also known as problem-solving or treatment courts, are specialized dockets within the justice system that provide judicial oversight, mandatory treatment, and rehabilitation services. These programs target offenders with underlying issues like substance use, mental health, or veteran status with evidence for reducing the likelihood of recidivism (All Rise, 2026; Kretschmar et al., 2018; Williams, 2023). Despite there being gun-related specialized docket programs in existence for more than 20 years (Sheppard & Kelly, 2002), very little peer-reviewed research has evaluated their impact. The justice system is a frequent point of interception for youth offenders engaging with firearm carrying and use. In theory, courts would be an effective point of interception with high-risk individuals who enter the justice system. There is clear need for this type of targeted intervention. Over a four-year period, individuals released from prison for gun-related offenses were nearly twice as likely to be rearrested, and were rearrested 196 days sooner compared to other offense types (Ostermann & Hashimi, 2023).

Although existing approaches to gun violence prevention show promise, the literature reveals a critical gap with limited literature systematically examining the integration of these strategies to target high-risk individuals. Community-based, psychosocial, and specialty court approaches each address different dimensions of the risk profile that characterizes justice-involved young adults who carry firearms, yet they are rarely implemented in combination. Empirical evidence for the effectiveness of court-based specialty docket programs as a gun violence reduction mechanism is also sparse. The present study addresses this gap by describing the development and implementation of the Violence Intervention Program (VIP), a specialty docket pilot launched in 2018 by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The aim of the present study is to provide a descriptive analysis of VIP outcomes including participant demographics, assessment and screening results, program completion status, and recidivism rates. Based on the program’s theoretical framework and design, it was hypothesized that participants who successfully completed the program would demonstrate higher rates of service engagement, fewer positive drug screen results, and lower rates of recidivism compared to those who did not complete and were unsuccessfully terminated from VIP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Primary inclusion criteria were felony-level, non-violent gun-related charges such as carrying concealed weapons, having weapons under disability, using weapons while intoxicated, or improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. Felony-level charges were targeted because they represent the highest-risk entry point within the justice system for gun-involved individuals (Ostermann & Hashimi, 2023). Age eligibility was between 18 and 30, consistent with the developmental trajectory of peak risk for firearm carrying and violence in young adulthood and the anticipated decline in risk with age (Lizotte et al., 2000; Pardini et al., 2021).

All potential participants were screened using the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), a widely utilized measure in the criminal justice system across multiple U.S. states to evaluate individual risk for recidivism. Preference was given to ORAS assessment results of “Moderate” to “High” risk for recidivism, as these individuals historically present the greatest challenge for diversionary programs and carry the highest likelihood of reoffending (Latessa et al., 2010). Cleveland residents were also given preference due to its higher concentration of poverty and gun violence. Consideration for age, ORAS, and residence were made on a case-by-case basis and reviewed by the VIP team. Factors for review included risks and needs identified during screening including prior convictions, evidence of violence and trauma exposure, poverty, unemployment, and housing instability. Within specialty docket programs like VIP, judicial oversight allows for discretionary inclusion and exclusion decisions on a case-by-case basis that extend beyond the outlined eligibility criteria.

Exclusion criteria included any pending violent offenses, evidence of gang involvement, or use of a firearm to facilitate an offense (e.g., armed robbery). Any individuals with a documented violent criminal history (e.g., domestic violence) were reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine program eligibility, weighing the nature and recency of the offense, potential risk to community safety, and overall fit with the program’s non-punitive, rehabilitation-focused model.

2.2. Participant Characteristics

The population included 77 participants who enrolled in the VIP pilot between November 2018 and September 2025. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for demographic and ORAS risk level result variables outlined in Table 1. The sample was entirely male, and most were Black/African American (n = 67, 87%). Participant age range was 18 to 29 years old with an average of 21.8 years. A majority (n = 51) screened as “Moderate” risk for recidivism. Participants were primarily Cleveland residents from high-poverty neighborhoods with a statistically high prevalence of gun-related homicides within their communities.

Table 1. VIP enrollment and demographics.

Demographics	Category	n	%
Sex	Male	77	100
Age	18–21	46	59.7
	22–25	19	24.7
	26–29	12	15.6
Race and ethnicity	Black/African American	67	87
	White	5	6.5
	Hispanic/Latino	3	3.9
	Asian American	1	1.3
	Multiracial	1	1.3
ORAS risk level	Low	13	16.9
	Moderate	51	66.2
	High	13	16.9

2.3. Sampling Procedures

Participation in the VIP was voluntary. Referral and enrollment outcomes are reported in the Results. Systematic comparison of individuals who declined participation was not possible, as administrative records were limited to enrolled participants. Following a screening process that included gathering basic demographic information along with existing universally utilized screening tools including the ORAS, a multidisciplinary team including the Judge, Prosecutor, Public Defender, Specialty Docket Coordinator, and Probation Department reviewed eligible cases for participation. Upon determination of eligibility, an invitation was extended for enrollment through a formal legal plea process within the VIP specialized docket.

The primary incentive for many individuals for participation was the opportunity to enroll in a diversionary track which promises the offense(s) sealed upon successful completion of the program. Additional incentives were access to services and resources including credible messenger peer mentorship, mental health counseling, case management, life-skills coaching, prosocial events, access to harm reduction resources, employment and education programs, transportation assistance, and a supportive specialized docket.

Requirements for participation in VIP included: (1) regular contact with the judge, attorneys, and multidisciplinary specialty docket team for supervision and review of progress, (2) a minimum of twelve months of Community Control (can complete earlier based on progress and multidisciplinary team recommendations) and adherence to collaborative case plan requirements, (3) random drug screening, (4) attendance and participation with Probation Officer (PO), Case Manager, Counselor, Credible Messenger mentor, and court hearings, and (5) attendance at prosocial, vocational, and educational programming as directed.

2.4. Program Structure, Sequencing, and Discharge

VIP’s structure followed a phase-based progression model consistent with established specialty docket standards, as outlined by All Rise and adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio (All Rise, 2026; Kennedy et al., 2025). Phase models provide a clear framework that defines timing, sequencing, requirements, and participant expectations, creating a structured pathway toward program graduation. VIP was structured with three phases, with advancement and successful discharge (graduation) contingent upon sustained compliance with program requirements. Phase progression served as an incentive for continued engagement and as a mechanism for accountability. Unsuccessful termination (discharge) could occur for several reasons, including engagement in violence, new criminal charges, repeated and unremedied noncompliance with program requirements, sustained disengagement, or judicial discretion.

VIP was grounded in a non-punitive, trauma-informed approach designed to balance individual rehabilitation with participant and community safety. Community and clinical partner organizations were integrated into program delivery, providing credible messenger peer support, mental health services, housing assistance, and employment services. A distinctive feature of VIP was its roundtable hearing format, in which the participant, judge, attorneys, probation officer, program coordinator, and community partners convened for consistent progress updates and collaboratively address participant challenges.

2.5. Services and Drug Screening

Engagement in community-based services including case management, mental health counseling, and peer mentorship was individualized based on participant goals and compliance. Goals were developed collaboratively between participants and the VIP multidisciplinary team using the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2003; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990). Consistent with RNR principles, interventions were scaffolded sequentially: addressing safety and stability needs first (e.g., housing, food security, violence exposure mitigation), followed by dynamic criminogenic needs (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, substance use), and concluding with maintenance needs (e.g., employment, transportation, social supports). Drug screens were conducted as part of a program safety and accountability mechanism. Progress review and violation response occurred at regularly scheduled roundtable court hearings attended by all members of the interdisciplinary VIP team.

2.6. Data Collection and Measures

Data utilized for this evaluation included demographic information, ORAS assessment scores, drug screen results, VIP program dosage including counseling, peer mentorship, and case management, and recidivism data including any new arrests and the details of those charges. Demographic information was collected by court administration as part of the initial processing and arraignment and maintained within their internal records system. The ORAS assessment was completed by Probation Officers and was utilized as part of the screening process for inclusion and exclusion.

Drug screen tests were conducted by the Court’s Adult Probation Department’s Urinalysis Drug Laboratory, which served as an on-site drug testing center. Results were documented through the Court’s internal case management software and notification of testing was available to the Probation Officer and VIP docket coordinator and maintained as part of the internal records system. VIP program dosing was reported by community partners and data was tracked by the VIP docket coordinator. Dosage data included counseling hours, peer mentorship hours, and case management contacts. Recidivism was tracked by the Court through a computerized criminal history review.

2.7. Data Diagnostics and Analytic Strategy

Primary data for this evaluation were derived from administrative records maintained by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and supplemental clinical service logs reported by community program partners. To ensure data integrity, data were cleaned and double-checked with court records to remedy discrepancies between court records and partner-reported data. Missing data points were either remedied with assistance from court administration or treated as null and excluded from calculations to avoid skewing results.

The analysis utilized a combination of descriptives and inferential statistics to examine program outcomes. To account for varying lengths of stay among participants, service dosage was standardized into monthly rates. Mentorship rate and counseling rate were calculated by dividing the total hours or sessions by the participant’s total days in the program and multiplying by 30. Similarly, a standardized drug positivity ratio was established by dividing the total number of positive screens by the total number of tests administered.

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare service utilization (counseling, peer mentorship) and drug screen positivity ratios between successful and unsuccessful participants. Based on the theoretical framework and program design of VIP, directional hypotheses were specified for each comparison. Consistent with the hypotheses stated above, one-tailed p-values are reported for these analyses. Data management and organization was completed in Microsoft Excel for Windows, and statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 31.0.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Referrals and Enrollment

A total of 105 individuals were referred to VIP between November 2018 and September 2025. Of the 105 referrals, 77 (73.3%) were accepted and successfully enrolled in the program. Unsuccessful referrals occurred for a variety of reasons, the most common included case dismissal, referral to more appropriate specialty docket (e.g., Drug Court), “Low” ORAS risk assessment, violent offense, age, no response to invitation, no gun-related offense with charge, and sentenced to prison.

3.2. Completion Outcomes and Recidivism

At the time of analysis, 35.1% (n = 27) of participants remained actively enrolled in VIP. Of the 48 participants who had been discharged, 70.8% (n = 34) successfully completed the program and 29.2% (n = 14) were unsuccessful terminations. Two participants died during enrollment, one from a drug overdose and one from a drive-by shooting while attending a family event.

Criminal records checks were conducted in July 2025 for all participants discharged at the time of analysis. Four of the 48 discharged participants were excluded from recidivism analysis because their discharges had occurred within the preceding two months and remained administratively unprocessed, yielding an analytic sample of 44 participants. Of these, 13 (29.5%) had been charged with a new offense. Ten of the 13 who recidivated (76.9%) were individuals who had successfully graduated from the program.

Among participants with new charges, seven were felonies and six were misdemeanors. Two individuals were charged with firearm-related offenses including Having Weapons While Under Disability and Using a Weapon While Intoxicated. The most serious non-firearm felony charges included Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs, Failure to Comply, Aggravated Burglary, Grand Theft, and Aggravated Robbery.

ORAS risk classification scores did not appear to be associated with recidivism within this sample, χ²(2, n = 44) = 0.01, p = 0.995. Among the 13 participants who recidivated, two (15.4%) were classified as Low risk, nine (69.2%) as Moderate risk, and two (15.4%) as High risk at intake.

3.3. Program Progression and Length

Phase completion data for the population (N = 77) indicated that 58 participants completed Phase 1 (M = 157.6 days, SD = 124.4, range = 49–812), 46 completed Phase 2 (M = 208.3 days, SD = 115.8, range = 70–589), and 34 completed Phase 3 (M = 170.1 days, SD = 100.1, range = 77–504). The substantial standard deviations and wide ranges across all three phases reflect variability in the pace of participant program progression. Across all participants regardless of completion status, mean total enrollment length was 511.1 days (SD = 229.7, range = 224–1260).

Enrollment length for discharged participants was calculated by excluding actively enrolled and deceased participants. Successful participants averaged fewer days in the program (M = 500.5, SD = 195, range = 245–1050, n = 34) than those who were unsuccessfully terminated (M = 564.5, SD = 304.5, range = 224–1260, n = 14), though the overlap in ranges and the larger variability among unsuccessful participants suggests this difference should be interpreted cautiously.

3.4. Service Dosage and Drug Screens

Service dosage and drug screen results at the time of analysis among all participants (N = 77) showed that a majority completed drug screens (n = 58, 75.3%) and engaged in counseling (n = 47, 61%) and peer mentor (n = 54, 70.1%) services. Counseling utilization was consistently lower compared to peer mentorship regardless of enrollment status.

To compare drug screen results and service utilization among successful (n = 34) and unsuccessful (n = 14) participants, descriptives were calculated and results indicated that 38 participants completed drug screens, 45 engaged in peer mentorship, and 42 utilized counseling services as shown in Table 2. Variability in drug screening and service utilization was due to variation in individualized treatment goals and program requirements established with the participants and VIP team. To account for variability in enrollment progression and length, both service dosage and drug screen rates were standardized per unit of time. Standardized rates were then used to compare outcomes between successful and unsuccessful participants to explore the relationship between service engagement, substance use, and program outcomes.

Table 2. Service Engagement and Drug Screen Outcomes by Termination Status.

Variable	Successful			Unsuccessful			t	df	p	Cohen’s d
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Drug screen positivity ratio a	24	0.40	0.24	14	0.47	0.33	−0.63	20.63	0.268	−0.23
Peer mentorship rate (hours/month)	33	4.21	2.83	12	2.14	1.58	2.386	43	0.011 *	0.804
Counseling rate (sessions/month)	32	0.60	0.39	10	0.45	0.31	1.074	40	0.145	0.389

Note. Analyses restricted to discharged participants (successful, n = 34; unsuccessful, n = 14). One-tailed p-values are reported based on a priori directional hypotheses. ^a Equal variances not assumed (Levene’s F = 4.78, p = 0.035). * p < 0.05.

Inferential analyses were calculated to examine whether drug screen positivity ratios differed between successful and unsuccessful participants who submitted drug screens (n = 38). Successfully discharged participants (n = 24) averaged a positivity ratio of 0.40 (SD = 0.24) compared to 0.47 (SD = 0.33) for unsuccessful participants (n = 14). Due to violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption (Levene’s F = 4.78, p = 0.035), equal variances were not assumed. Results indicated no statistically significant difference between groups, t(20.63) = −0.63, p = 0.268, one-tailed, d = −0.23, 95% CI [−0.28, 0.15].

A parallel analysis was conducted to examine whether peer mentorship utilization differed between successful and unsuccessful participants. Successful participants averaged 69.7 total mentorship hours (SD = 43.9) compared to 36.4 h (SD = 26.9) for unsuccessful participants. To account for variability in program enrollment length, a standardized peer mentor rate was used in the independent-samples t-test. Results indicated a statistically significant difference between groups, t(43) = 2.386, p = 0.011, one-tailed, d = 0.8, 95% CI [0.32, 3.81], with successful completers demonstrating a significantly higher standardized mentorship rate than those who were unsuccessfully terminated.

Finally, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine whether counseling utilization differed between successful and unsuccessful participants. Successful participants averaged 8.4 counseling sessions (SD = 4.0) compared to 8 sessions (SD = 3.3) for unsuccessful participants. To account for variability in enrollment length, a standardized counseling rate was used in the t-test. Results indicated no statistically significant difference between groups, t(40) = 1.074, p = 0.145, one-tailed, d = 0.39, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.42].

4. Discussion

The evaluation of the VIP pilot provides preliminary evidence for the feasibility of a court-based specialty docket intervention as a response to gun violence as a public health crisis. Benchmarking recidivism rates for this population is challenging, as no existing peer-reviewed literature reports recidivism rates specifically for court-based gun violence intervention programs of this kind. With that context in mind, VIP’s overall one-year recidivism rate of 29.5%, and a nearly identical rate of 29.4% among those who successfully completed the program, appear promising when considered alongside comparable population benchmarks. Direct comparisons must be interpreted with caution given differences in follow-up periods, recidivism definitions, and population characteristics.

National data indicate that firearms offenders are among the highest recidivating populations in the justice system, with over two-thirds (68.1%) of federal firearms offenders rearrested during an eight-year follow-up period compared to less than half of non-firearms offenders (46.3%) (Iaconetti et al., 2019). Among justice-involved individuals under age 24, 81% were rearrested within five years of release (Durose & Antenangeli, 2021). In specialty court literature, meta-analytic evidence suggests that drug court participation reduces recidivism from approximately 50% to 38% on average (Mitchell et al., 2012). Taken together, these benchmarks suggest that VIP’s one-year recidivism rates for both the full discharged sample and successful completers are promising for this high-risk population. However, the absence of a control group and the short follow-up window temper drawing causal conclusions.

Future research in collaboration with similar interventions should explore the transition from court-based community supervision to reentry after discharge. The findings in this preliminary study that successful completers can still struggle and recidivate in this preliminary pilot study are consistent with other literature that has identified that returning to high-risk environments without ongoing support can present challenges (Liu et al., 2022; Ostermann & Hashimi, 2023).

Findings on service dosage and drug screens should be interpreted with caution due to the sample size and administrative data sourcing. Preliminary results from this pilot study contribute to the existing literature on community violence intervention (CVI) models by demonstrating the potential role of participatory approaches in addressing the complex needs of this population. Those who successfully completed VIP received more credible messenger mentorship hours per month than unsuccessful participants, suggesting that greater engagement with peer mentorship services may be associated with more favorable program outcomes. This finding is consistent with the theoretical foundations of the credible messenger model, which posits that mentors with shared lived experience, including prior justice involvement and residence in the same communities as participants, are uniquely positioned to build trust, provide culturally relevant guidance, and model prosocial pathways in ways that traditional clinical providers may not (Corburn et al., 2022; White et al., 2023). For a population of young Black males from high-poverty urban neighborhoods with elevated exposure to community violence, the salience of a mentor who has navigated similar circumstances may enhance engagement and receptivity. The multidisciplinary structure of VIP, which integrates credible messenger support alongside clinical counseling and judicial oversight, reflects growing recognition that no single intervention modality is sufficient to address the complex, intersecting needs of justice-involved young adults who carry firearms (Sullivan et al., 2025). Future research should examine peer mentor characteristics, including lived experience, cultural relatability, and matching criteria, as potential moderators of program engagement and outcomes.

Outcomes in counseling services should be interpreted with caution due to small sample data. It will be worth exploring drivers of low mental health counseling utilization if it arises in future studies. Despite the relatively small sample size, the absence of a statistically significant difference in drug screen results between successful and unsuccessful participants is a noteworthy finding and aligns with the VIP commitment to a trauma-informed, non-punitive approach. Rather than pursuing termination in response to substance use violations, the VIP team prioritized maintaining engagement without forfeiting accountability. This reflects a broader programmatic emphasis on long-term community safety over strict short-term compliance.

Limitations of this pilot study include reliance upon court administrative records and clinical service logs from third-party partners, resulting in missing or incomplete data. Administrative records were also limited to those who enrolled in VIP. Therefore, no outcome data (e.g., recidivism) was available for those who were eligible and did not enroll. Access to those records has the potential to create a natural comparison group for VIP participants to strengthen confidence in findings. In addition, this evaluation only included one measure outside of demographic, service, and drug screen data, and recidivism outcomes. While the ORAS assessment is widely used, it has limited peer-reviewed literature to support its reliability and validity. Additional measures tied to VIP program outcomes utilizing a quasi-experimental design would strengthen confidence in the findings. Finally, the sample size for this pilot study was relatively small, particularly for significance testing on the associations among drug screens, counseling, and peer mentorship and program outcomes. Further examination of these relationships with larger samples in future studies is warranted.

One strength of this evaluation lies in the novel nature of this program that integrates community-based, psychosocial, and specialty court programs into one intervention strategy within the justice system as a strategic point of interception. By embedding services within a specialized court docket, the VIP model engaged “hard to reach” individuals and provided longitudinal tracking of official records.

Findings from the VIP pilot evaluation have implications for criminal justice policy and programs. The VIP model demonstrates that felony-offending young adults with moderate to high risk for recidivism can be intercepted within the legal system and safely managed in the community through an intensive, collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach. These findings suggest that this model may be adaptable to other settings.

The next phase of the VIP initiative involves expanding the model from the young adult population to the Cuyahoga County juvenile justice system. In 2025 the VIP program model was launched as a specialty program (rather than a specialized docket) and began enrolling high-risk youth between the ages of 13–17. With a small sample size of actively enrolled participants and limited interventions provided thus far, future research will evaluate the efficacy of this model among an adolescent population.

Future research should prioritize more robust data collection and evaluation of similar justice-involved programs across diverse geographic regions, with attention to the participant, program, and environmental factors that promote successful completion and reduce recidivism. Community-led, participatory approaches represent a particularly promising avenue for addressing gun violence among urban, majority Black youth and young adult males. Further investigation into the mechanisms of change driving these community-based models is needed to move the field toward evidence-based practice. Ultimately, reversing the rising rates of gun violence injuries and fatalities will require coordinated, public health-oriented, collaborative leadership across systems and intervention points.