Don't Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, And The End of Violence in Inner-City America

by David M. Kennedy

Gang- and drug-related inner-city violence, with its attendant epidemic of incarceration, is the defining crime problem in our country. In some neighborhoods in America, one out of every two hundred young black men is shot to death every year, and few initiatives of government and law enforcement have made much difference. But when David Kennedy, a self-taught and then-unknown criminologist, engineered the "Boston Miracle" in the mid-1990s, he pointed the way toward what few had a solution.Don't Shoot tells the story of Kennedy's long journey. Riding with beat cops, hanging with gang members, and stoop-sitting with grandmothers, Kennedy found that all parties misunderstood each other, caught in a spiral of racialized anger and distrust. He envisioned an approach in which everyone-gang members, cops, and community members-comes together in what is essentially a huge intervention. Offenders are told that the violence must stop, that even the cops want them

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, Crime, History, Social Justice, Psychology

320 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2011

Reviews

[Nate Hendrix · Rating 5 out of 5]

A completely different way to think about crime and punishment. It should be required reading for anyone in law enforcement or anyone else for that matter. No matter what you beleive should be done about the drug gang problem, this book will make you think. It really seems like the main problem is not so much the gangbanger with a gun, but the politicians and bureaucrats that foul thing up. Kennedy has these amazing ideas that have worked in some dangerous cities. The bad guys he knows how to control, it's the good guys that can be a problem.

[rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The strength of this book is not just in providing a workable fix to the problem of gun violence in drug market areas, but in the way David Kennedy lays out the core beliefs of the police and of the mostly black communities/black lives that are affected by the violence and then tells us how each side's beliefs are right and wrong.

The gist of his idea to stop gun violence this: a lot of people in the community might be involved in drugs, but there's only a handful of shooters. Investigate, figure which gangs and individuals are behind the shooting, then focus on them. Bring them to a meeting, prove to them you know they're moving drugs, tell them you will go full force after them for felonies if they or their gang shoot even once. Tell them then that you will work with them to help them get jobs or apartments if that's what they need to get out of the street dealer life and give them a chance to change. All they have to do is not shoot and use their influence in the gang to keep their friends from shooting too. All crime will never be stopped, but we can lower homicide rates significantly this way, says Kennedy.

That we may come to a middleground where these black urban communities are no longer facing huge incarceration rates, poor earning potential, and (earned) distrust of those meant to protect them is very hopeful. That we may come to a middleground where police get better at being the servers and protectors of their communities and not the thing that (unintentionally) drives communities down is also very hopeful.



I'm also sending a personal wish out into the world that pundits stop inciting racial tension with current events. Shaping the greater public opinion with radical, nasty views is hurting America, period. I got a headline in my inbox today about the federal investigation into Ferguson that stated "Darren Wilson -- Free At Last!" (an editorial by Pat Buchanan), and I thought "This is what is wrong with America. This right here, this ignorance is just it in a nutshell."

Listen more to David Kennedy, listen less to Pat Buchanan. Please.

[Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm about half way through this book, and it's a good read from an information standpoint. However, the author has a very distinct style of writing that you'll either love, or be driven insane by. He will never use one word if he can use 50, often saying with a paragraph what could have been said in a sentence. If you can get past that, it's worth your time.

[Gary Braham · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's said that once a person has a set opinion on something, they spend about 90% of their intelligence trying to justify their belief, and only about 10% on whether or not they are even correct to begin with. This book is about the 10%, it's a real opinion changer on how we deal with crime, and policing in America. I had recently read "How Brute Force Fails" by Mark Kleinman, which is basically a much less well told version of this book. I had given it a poor review, and a friend of mine recommended this one to me.

This book is a narrative, told by the author, David Kennedy, and his experiences in the shift in perspective of law enforcement. Kennedy, as a professor at Harvard University, was well aware of the crime epidemic in Boston as a result of the crack epidemic. He is someone who respects police, and policework, even if he doesn't always agree with them. He understands they are not racist, and not looking to ruin communities, and that they are only doing their job the best way they know how. He also understands that the communities do not condone the drugs and the violence, but they do not trust the police, and they don't know how to get it to stop either.

In the mid 1990's, Boston began to come up with an alternative solution to the gun violence that was plaguing certain neighborhoods. Kennedy played a small role in organizing the data that law enforcement was already coming up with. Some of the reviews complain that Kennedy makes it too much about himself, when it was really a team effort, which it needs to be in order to succed. But it is Kennedy's story, and he very much puts his point of view in it. Once the work succeds in Boston, he is the one to play an important role in teaching it to other cities across America.

The program works by making and delivering on promises and threats to at risk neighborhoods. They called in the gang members of violence infested parts of the city and told them that the violence needed to end. There were community and government groups who could help gang members find a way out of the life. Should a gun crime be committed, the full force of law enforcement would be brought down upon their entire gang. There was a special task force to make sure this would happen. The legal system, including the Feds, were also in on this. The drug trade could continue, and if one of the other police units catches them, then it's business as usual, but the special task force only gets involved once a gun crime is committed. The gangs do operate somewhat rationally. They can continue to sell drugs, and most likely get away with it. But if they start shooting at other gang members, the full force of the law rains down on them. They understood it. Especially when a few gangs had this happen to them, and the law enforcement response was exactly what they said it would be. The streets would go quiet.

In order to work, the program needed a lot of cooperation, at one point, the authors says he had learned how to control the bad guys, but he didn't know how to control the good guys. This represented a change in law enforcement philosophy, so law enforcement needed to be on board. You also needed the help of several different levels of the legal system, who all had to work together, as well as whatever city government was there. You needed members of the community, who didn't trust the police, to go along with the plan. In many cities, they simply couldn't get organized enough to make this work. As members of the police department or legal system get promoted, demoted, move to a different city, lose an election, or retire, there's a chance the system could fall apart. Kennedy shares the successes and failures of the different cities this has been tried in.

He also goes into his stradegy for how to close down a drug market. This was also a real opinion changer for me. "When Brute Force Fails" told this story, but didn't really explain it well enough to change my mind, this one did.

The studies have been done, this has been put in place, and we know it works. It's now up to each community to learn what this is, and to make it work.

[Frank Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressive and thought-provoking cri de coeur about the lamentable state of inner city America, our previous failed attempts to help it, and a new strategy that just might change things.

Kennedy, a self-described "long hair" originally from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (he is no relation to THAT Kennedy family) and now at NYU, believes he has found a new method that will seriously reduce violence and crime in troubled communities. He thinks that if cops find the most dangerous gangs and gang-members in an area, collect evidence on them, and threaten them with arrest unless they amend their ways, police can begin to change the social mores of a neighborhood without arrests and build a new and trusting relationship with the community. He believes that the problem with the typical police-community-gang relationship is that nobody believes anybody. Gangs certainly don't believe the cops when they say they are going to bust them every time they sell drugs or break parole. They don't, after all. The result, the gang members keep doing doing the same things, taking what amounts to a bad gamble. Kennedy had the great insight to say that these gang-members are fundamentally rational; they don't want to be put in jail for life, and when you threaten them with real and concrete consequences and let them know that you mean it, they don't backslide. This gives space for the community to reassert itself against the gangs dominance and builds trust with the police by showing that they aren't simply out there to lock young black men up.

I'll say now that I think he's right. From when his strategy first began as Operation Ceasefire in Boston in 1996 to when he accomplished his most notable success as adviser to the police in High Point, North Carolina in 2002, his methods have brought undeniable results. The question is are they as great as he seems to hope. He notes that a few dozen violent gang members caused almost 25% of the shootings in Boston, and said that if you ended that one basically had solved the violent crime problem in the city. But 25% is hardly the entirety of the problem. And when he also notes that in cities like Baltimore up to half of young black men are either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation RIGHT NOW, it becomes hard to say that the only problem is a few hard-core gang-bangers. He's right that his method accomplishes a great deal, but he perhaps oversells its effectiveness.

Still, the book is filled with great insights into the strangely intertwined worlds of inner city minority communities, academia, and the local police. There are great anecdotes like when a man breaks into Operation Ceasefire's office in Boston to tell them that he just saw a fist fight outside. He was ecstatic. He hadn't seen a fist-fight in years. It meant the easy resort to guns that once defined the gang-world was ending. Once the book lays down its first principles and original story line though, the tales about taking the method "on the road" and "building out" can get extremely repetitive. Also, sometimes Kennedy's outrage can lead to extended and predictable rants.

Not that Kennedy's outrage is not justified. The anger is all based on the undeniable fact that we in America have let our cities, and especially our urban black communities, decay into realms of violence, degradation, and poverty unequaled in the developed world. His anger leads him to sprinkle italics liberally throughout the book, and to use the term "bullshit" as a common response. He calls bullshit on the idea that cops are racist thugs and on the idea that black communities don't care about the violence and on the idea that gang members are merely immoral "super-predators." The anger is Kennedy's way of demanding that we as a society reengage with America's most forgotten corners. It's wonderful that someone as insightful as Kennedy is making that plea.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book rings out.

I live in Oakland, CA, a highly charged city of 440,000 people with no shortage of opinions on what to do about crime. I would argue that the problem of inner city violence is understood by Oakland residents more earnestly than most; what isn't so well understood it seems, are successful approaches taken elsewhere to address the same problems.

When a body drops in Oakland, members of the community demand action -- more jobs for the economically disadvantaged, more cops for the hotter streets, better schools to bring up the next generation, better parenting, more individual responsibility, more prisons or more community outreach and social services -- these are just some of the common refrains here.

This book doesn't refute any of that, though, and that is what makes it so great. What it does, instead, is explain a course of action that has reduced one very specific crime - homicide - in every city that it has been implemented. Not a theory - not anymore. Not a feeling - not since the mid 90s. Not a judgment or an abstract plan, but an equation: If X happens, fewer homicides will be the result. And data to prove it: from Metro Boston to Rural North Carolina, Cincinnati to Baltimore and beyond. It explains all of it masterfully, actually, in a highly compelling narrative.

Starting in 1996 (when these ideas *were* a theory) the book outlines the coordination and execution of Operation Ceasefire in Boston, MA. Kennedy walks the reader through the discussions and the struggle to establish a new approach in homicide prevention. Working with normally disparate agencies--as diverse as the District US Attorney Generals office and Patrol Officers on one end of the spectrum & church leaders and street outreach coordinators on the other end--striving to get them to talk *and LISTEN* to one another, Kennedy does a masterful job showing (not telling) the work behind keeping things together when politics, missions, beliefs, feelings, values and all manner of other interests are not so perfectly aligned. In relating these efforts, an incredible amount of insight is delivered from a cast so dramatically diverse that I would reckon it impossible for any reader to not be continually shocked, impressed, and definitely challenged.

This book is 283 pages of the best non-fiction I've read this year and a great case study in public policy. I would recommend this to any civic leader, anyone in a community trying to prevent violence and homicide in particular, and to anyone who simply wants to be better informed on effective strategies in crime reduction.

[Meadow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was really mind blowing. I had no idea that there was a program like the one the author describes. The fact that there is an effective and simple way to stop violent crime and yet it's not being used everywhere and shouted from the rooftops is shocking! Of course, when you understand the humility required to implement the program it makes a little more sense.

I think this is an excellent book for anyone interested in public safety, inner cities, race relations, and crime. I learned things I never knew before, and also had things confirmed that I have suspected but had no evidence to prove. The writing style is a little tough to follow sometimes. I understand the author wants to give credit to everyone involved, but I definitely got lost in the names and details at least once a chapter. Not quite as many names as a Russian novel, but close.

If the writing had been smoother and with less uninteresting details I would definitely give the book a 5 star rating. It gets 5 stars for categories like fascinating subject, passionate author, important information, etc.

Read and enjoy!

[Kristin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is it possible to drastically lower homicide rates in inner-city communities and begin to repair the damage violence has caused? Where many people see a situation that will never change, criminologist David Kennedy shows us that rapid change is possible. He explains a strategy where law enforcement (police officers, probation and parole officers, district attorneys, and federal agents) create partnerships with the community. Working with local researchers, police identify the small number of group involved people connected to the majority of murders and call in people on probation or parole that are members of violent drug crews. Community leaders tell them that their behavior is wrong and they want them to change, service providers offer help, and police officers explain the evidence that they already have against the participants and what will happen to every member of their group if anyone in the group continues killing. Kennedy emphasizes the depth of distrust between inner-city communities and the police; how random and ineffective, not to mention wrong police strategies such as clearing corners are; and the need for police departments to establish legitimacy in many communities and steps they can take to do this. He makes a convincing argument that we don't need to fix all of the problems in an area to stop the killing and that this strategy will calm down neighborhoods to allow people to focus on education, poverty, and other issues. I learned a lot from this book and I really liked the author's engaging writing style, moral outrage at the current situation in many communities, and willingness to explore issues that many white people run from. The author's ideas make sense and he proves that they work. (In Boston these methods cut the homicide rate in half without increasing resources.) I think every police chief in America should read this book. This book gave me hope and makes me wonder what other seemingly insolvable problems we could solve if we think creatively and work together.

[Andy · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Don't Shoot" is a remarkable story of a paradigm shift in dealing with street violence. David Kennedy describes how he and his colleagues collaborated to develop a particular intervention strategy to reduce crime in poor neighborhoods. His team found that with careful research, they could determine that most of the murders in a given neighborhood were done by a relatively small group, generally gang members. Kennedy also describes the unique narratives held by distinct communities in these neighborhoods - law enforcement, gangs, and neighbors. Kennedy points out that the inability of these groups to truly listen to each other is at the root of much of the stagnation in these neighborhoods In my mind, Kennedy's great contribution is to show that when the gang members are engaged in a targeted way, demonstrating that a) people care about their neighborhoods and want the violence to stop, and b) that there will be decisive action taken by law enforcement the next time there is a murder, the crime rate will drop dramatically.

The book is careful to point out that even after these interventions, the neighborhoods are still poor, and still have many typical urban problems. The difference is, these neighborhoods are no longer war zones. People can once again do what we take for granted - sit on their porches, send the kids out to play, etc. Kennedy's point is that only when the feeling of being under siege is gone, can the other problems be addressed.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decided to attend the new book reading at Greenlight on a whim. David Kennedy was incredibly engaging. What he had to say was most exciting: it is possible to end street violence that is killing so many young black men; we know how to do it. The book is the antithesis of a dry academic tome. I'm only on the third chapter, but it is compelling reading. One caveat: perhaps a little too compelling. Kennedy writes as he talks, in a punchy polemical style. But what he has to say is so important, it seems like unfair carping to complain about a somewhat breathless writing style. Don't let this comment put you off the book. It is very accessible and, if the first 2 chapters are any indication, should be widely read.

Having now finished the book, I continue to recommend it. The chapter on Baltimore was particularly intriguing and discouraging for fans of The Wire. I think Kennedy's discussion of legitimacy is a key concept that applies to virtually any situation involving policing and application of the law. Am looking forward to exploring how these ideas can be applied effectively.

[Lori · Rating 5 out of 5]

one of the best, most hopeful books i've read ever. PLEASE COME TO DETROIT. this guy and his coworkers have figured out how to reduce gun violence in inner cities and have proven that it works. in boston, CA, down south, in Minn. over and over again they get gangs to renounce violence. PLEASE COME TO DETROIT. they do it by getting everyone to buy in to the solution: politicians, cops, social workers, employers, families, educators. everyone becomes part of the solution. this is so common sense it's amazing.
one thing they didn't touch on enough was how disrespected young men are in poor areas. a constant barrage of disrespect from everywhere - schools, police, employers, lack of services. a gun creates instant respect. give them an alternate way to get it and they'll give up the violence they don't even like.
i hope these people come to detroit soon. we need them.

[Paul Elliott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kennedy serves as a helpful guide in understanding violence/law enforcement/gangs/racism in some of America’s most violent cities. I was struck by the importance of communication and empathy in addition to actual policy changes.

[Paul Goble · Rating 5 out of 5]

If your community depends on you to reduce violence and serious crime, this book is essential reading. If you wonder what your community could be doing differently to reduce violence and serious crime, this book will open your eyes.

Before proceeding, I'd like to offer my perspective on Kennedy's informal, conversational writing style. Some readers find it a significant distraction. I found it brilliant. The style allows the author to highlight his personal perspective on a policing strategy which has not only been controversial, but is often misrepresented by both the media and by law enforcement leaders. He pulls it off successfully because he has already proven his credibility and because the strategy he describes has been affirmed through formal, rigorous academic studies. Kennedy is not a lazy writer; his style is carefully tuned to meet his objectives for the book.

Kennedy's strategy has been proven to cut murder rates in half and to eliminate open drug markets in cities around the US, and is now the centerpiece of the Department of Justice's National Network for Safe Communities. It can be implemented with existing resources--there are no extra costs, other than the personal costs that come with humility and interagency cooperation. Not only does the strategy reduce targeted crimes, it reduces incarceration rates and contributes to the healing of racial divides.

The strategy is based on the value of data-driven decision making, and an unwavering focus on what is actually possible. The two key concepts are legitimacy--doing what you say you will do, and communication--saying what you will do.

In a way, this strategy is too simple--police departments have difficulty implementing it without adding "improvements" which render it ineffective. It's not really innovative; it's based on what Kennedy learned from successful street cops. But it works, it travels (it can be implemented in a wide range of communities), and it is sustainable.

The lessons learned have applications beyond law enforcement. Parents and teachers will find that the principles apply to how they deal with kids. Kennedy's research into the sociology of violent criminal groups bears amazing parallels with the better descriptions of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the strategy may well be adaptable to bring peace to those regions.

[jennifer]

definitely worth it. on the down side, the guy's a little histrionic, loves cops/bill bratton a bit too unreservedly, and got too far along in the text dismissing minorities' belief that drug policy/policing/sentencing as an economic conspiracy to reinstate slavery, before admitting that is actually justified in part (though i still don't think he had time, or maybe inclination, to really process the work that michelle alexander and others have been doing, or the increasingly documented revelations regarding ALEC/private prison companies' direct role in keeping the flow of minorities and immigrants in detention beds).

apart from all that, which i'm okay setting a little bit aside, it's definitely the kind of book that retroactively argues how you were right about everything and which maps out whose fault it was when things didn't work. so, grain of salt, these theories have been in play for a while now and i'd need a lot of independent research to decide if he's really right that "it CAN work here. we KNOW how to do this." (i'm mocking, but i actually like the histrionics.)

moving on from the negatives, i think the theories he is laying out of community-engaged targeted enforcement with the goal of specific deterrence (no indiscriminate broken-windows stop and frisk stuff) - it's basically the only thing that makes any sense to me based on what i know and have seen on the ground. the first part looks at interventions aimed at gun violence, the second at open air drug markets. now we get to start trying to pitch picking up some of it here in philly. which will likely look a lot like the sections about how politics make these initiatives totally implode. the parts that describe how people pick up the bits and pieces that match their own preconceptions of the causes, and thus solutions, of violence and drug activity, and turn around and totally mis-deploy them, hit home pretty hard. sigh.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Kennedy argues that urban communities with high crime have a breakdown between three different parts of the community. Kennedy believes that the police, those participating in illegal activity, and those living in the community all have false perceptions about each other that keep each other from working together to deal with crime in a healthy way. Ironically these perceptions cause each group to act in a certain way that only reinforce those perceptions in the other groups. Thereby it creates a spiraling cycle of tension and distrust within a community. (Kennedy argues that the suburbs have plenty of illegal activity but they don't have the chaotic behaviors that go with high crime communities.)

Kennedy leads you through his own inductive epiphany of this dynamic, through the different cities he has worked with and what he learned from it. Some will have a difficulty with sections of the book, sometimes his style is a little difficult to read (though when those sections arose I simply sped read them). However this book has some really good things in it, and I found to be a really good read.

It especially built on some things that I have learned/learning, specifically regarding asset based development and reconciliation. Kennedy argues that he is not promoting “hug a thug” however he is also advocating something that takes a page from the Civil Rights movement, “The goal is Justice and Reconciliation, not Victory.”

Ultimately this book is about communities working together in a way that respects everyone, and thereby dealing with crime/illegal activity in healthier ways. I highly recommend.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's something slightly strange about enjoying reading a book concerned with serious issues like inner city violence, gang killings and drug markets. There's something even more strange when you come to see that what is ultimately a very simple strategy can have such a dramatic impact on these types of crime.

It's amazing to hear stories of cynical police departments, DA offices, community activists who have to re-evaluate the way they work when their eyes are opened to how successul Kennedy's Ceasefire approach can be. The narrative almost reads like a mystery novel, as Kennedy discovers what works and refines his ideas over the years until finally he manages to pull everything together on a large scale in Cincinnati.

The revelation that violent crime in run down areas of cities is driven by a very small hardcore group of people means that police resources can be targeted against these people, rather than being sporadic and affecting the whole community. The cooperation between police and community, and the use of deterrence, provides a platform for the programme to succeed. The key seems to be having a focussed strategy and, ultimately, having the oversight to prevent political manoeuvring or a key individual who doesn't buy into the programme destroying the work everyone is trying to do.

Kennedy is certainly very pleased with himself, but that's not surprising given that he's convinced he has solved the issue of how to deal with violent crime in inner cities. Fascinating read.

[John Pappas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Passionate and polemical, Kennedy challenges basic assumptions about the role of police in taking back communities ravaged by violence. Here is the script for Operation Ceasefire, a multi-agency effort (but one spearheaded by Kennedy's team and governed by his research) begun in Boston to reduce the level of violence in Boston's most dangerous communities. Kennedy's tone is straight-forward and down-to-earth: It doesn't take a genius to engineer some fantastical weapon to shift the political and racial tectonics of these dangerous neighborhoods, says Kennedy. Tell people to stop shooting. Bring all your law enforcement resources to bear on the next shooter and any of his affiliates. Broadcast that effort to other groups. Give resources to people who want to get help. Continue that effort. Don't let up. As simple as it sounds, and perhaps its controversial nature lies in its apparent simplicity, it seems to work from the data Kennedy provides. Kennedy shows, in multiple examples how rapidly homicide drops when this model is applied, how it can be adapted to drug markets and domestic violence situations, what happens when the model is abandoned (as it was in Boston) and, more importantly, what happens if the effort is sustained.

[Little-g · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It's a logic that says, someone can be doing terrible things and still be a victim; someone can have done wrong and still deserve help; someone can have been the victim of history and neglect and it's still right to demand that they stop..."

I have to give this book all the stars I can, because I am convinced of what Kennedy is convinced of: this stuff works. It just does. I am reminded of all the blocks people have thrown up in the face of change -- let's get real, the blocks I throw up for myself before I even consider considering a new approach. And I think of myself as open. What's crazy here is that his (team's) approach has been shown to work, time after time. If only we can learn to let go and to consider trusting...at least once more...then we could see see it through. What could it hurt? Pride? That seems a small price to pay for less killings and more human dignity. For everyone.

[Jeff Golick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A powerful & passionate plea from an academic who has taken his study of crime from the academy to the streets. Kennedy writes like a man possessed -- which he is. He is possessed with an idea of how to effectively eliminate gun violence in the most troubled neighborhoods in US cities. Working across many groups with a variety of goals -- sometimes conflicting, sometimes complementary -- Kennedy persuades DAs, cops, social service workers, probation officers, and gang members alike to come together in common cause. In the process, he offers compelling evidence to upset any number of commonly held beliefs.

I would think that anyone concerned with inner city violence, or working to stop it, in whatever capacity, would find this book invaluable, if not essential. At this point, given the case Kennedy makes, it would be an act of irresponsibility not to read it.

[Elyssa · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most hopeful and solution-oriented books I've ever read about ending inner city violence and drug dealing. Having read this, I don't understand why this program isn't being funded and replicated at a more rapid pace, but as the author points out, old ideas about the causes of crime and its prevention die hard.

The chapters entitled 'Across the Race Divide' and 'High Point: Truth Telling and Reconciliation' are insightful and brilliant. Kennedy clearly grasps the role that racial inequality plays in the problems of the inner city, mostly stemming from misunderstandings and assumptions we have about one another. He also illustrates that when people come together from all roles, races, and backgrounds for a common cause, the results are dramatic.

[Olivia · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a personal, passionate voice, the author lays out practical and innovative step-by-step instructions for reducing gun violence in the most dangerous neighborhoods. The book chronicles years of intense fieldwork and iterations on these new policing techniques. Kudos to Kennedy for giving so much of his life to this important cause - makes me want to send a copy of this to the Philadelphia District Attorney and drop everything to start working on this.

[The dramatic style is annoying at times but the content is so important that I still gave it 5 stars. Also, it's quite dense. I admit to skimming a few times!]

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

While the writing is not the best and the pace drags in spots, I still HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone in America. It totally changed my perspective on the perpetual gang violence that seems to plague our urban environments. This books lifts us out of a good guys vs. bad guys mentality and shows instead how the standard law enforcement tactics and lack of community response serves to perpetuate this unfortunate violence. Best of all Kennedy offers plenty of example of cities that have turned things around through true partnerships between law enforcement, courts, community organizations and the gang members themselves.

[Christopher Obie · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone serious about tackling the violence in the Black community, this book might just be the most important and eye-opening book you can read! Not that you're going to agree with everything that's written, but you will definitely not be able to look at drug or gang-fostered violence the same way again. Mr. Kennedy does not seem to care about who agrees or disagrees with his conclusions, he tells it straight as he sees it, but more importantly, he offers a real and proven solution. It's his brash honesty that is the basis of his authenticity, unlike so many who claim to genuinely care about finding a solution but are really only interested in furthering their own personal agenda.

[Jacob · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author is trying too hard to write. What is an interesting and perhaps vital message about strategies to reduce urban gun violence gets completely lost due to the author's interest in spinning a story of the metamorpheses of his own thinking on the subject. I suspect I am not the only reader who comes to this subject with a lot more interest in Kennedy's ideas and less interest in his attempts to bring drama to think-tank meetings and police superintendent offices.

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is pretty interesting, although it could probably have been a long magazine article instead of a whole book. Kennedy really lays it on thick with the rhetorical devices, trying to lead you in one direction so he can SHOCK you with his counterintuitive insight that's not actually that counterintuitive at all.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book had a lot of interesting ideas and for that I'd give it 5 stars. The ideas are repeated often and probably could have been summarised with half the examples it provides, because of that, I'd give it 2 stars. If you have the time to spend reading example after example than go for it.

[Marc Joanisse · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book about the sociology of crime and law enforcement. You should just read it, and marvel at how interesting and compelling this guy's story is.

[Lynn Schlatter · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We'll help you if you let us. We'll stop you if you make us." It's hard to understand why every city in the country hasn't implemented David Kennedy's research-based, systematic, no-nonsense approach to reducing inner-city crime, until you realize that there are two pervasive forms of nonsense people have engaged in when trying to solve this problem:

1. They think too small. They fail to understand that the kind of crime that destroys a community (Kennedy focuses on gang warfare and open air drug markets) is entirely group-based, so you have to change the behavior of groups, and not just the groups engaging in crime. It turns out that permanently changing the behavior of those guys isn't possible without changing the behavior of two other communities: non-gang-affiliated people in the neighborhood and law enforcement. Stakeholders persistently try to pull just one lever (big gang sweeps, National Night Out, eliminating racist policing procedures) without working on the other two, which leads to a classic "Why should I change if he won't?" conundrum.

2. They think too big. They want to eliminate all crime, all poverty, all racism, or God help us, all everything, at once, so anything that looks like half measures is immediately rejected. Here's the example I think a lot of us who are accustomed to the War on Drugs will find hard to swallow: the strategies laid out in this book are only calculated to eliminate drug transactions between strangers, not your sister-in-law scoring Ecstasy from her yoga instructor and selling some of it to you. Again, Kennedy is interested in the kind of crime that destroys communities, and his research shows that where drugs are concerned, that's when white people blow into a black neighborhood to buy them and then leave.

The great thing about Don't Shoot is that it's David Kennedy's account of how he and the people he worked with found out about these obstacles and either overcame them or didn't in several American cities (all of which started the process by saying, "That thing that worked over there won't work here, because we're way different"), so it's half non-fiction criminology treatise and half edge-of-your-seat "Will it work this time? Will these people get their freakin' acts together?" drama. It's educational, inspirational, and highly readable. Go get it, already!

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

kennedy tells the fascinating and engaging story of his effort to design, implement, evaluate and disseminate violence-prevention interventions in collaboration with law enforcement, social services, and government at all levels. in so doing, kennedy relates a number of remarkable and powerful anecdotes of people coming to grips with their imperfect understanding of violence and of the "other" side in the war on violence. the conceptual framework underlying the interventions is quite compelling — focus on violence to the exclusion of less serious offenses, intensely focus on the most violent gangs and lay down a legitimate and credible red line — if there is more violence, you will go to jail for a long time. key components of the intervention include the moral emphasis of the community itself that violence is intolerance and enhancing the legitimacy of law enforcement in the eyes of the community.

it seems like a sensible theory. kennedy, then, interweaves the story of his work to implement variations of the intervention across the country (and on efforts to apply similar principles to community-disruptive, non-violent crime, like drug markets) with his generally insightful understanding of the community and law enforcement factors that drive the violence. while its hard to rigorously evaluate the evidence that the interventions work from this book — and kennedy often comes as a true believer who doesn't really need to be convinced of the intervention's efficacy — on the whole, it seems quite likely that this approach is effective in reducing violence. its far less clear that its uniquely effective or how broad or lasting its effective may be...but, if i was responsible for reducing violent crime in a community, it sure seems like this is where you'd start.

there are two main weaknesses of kennedy's account that i found frustrating. first, he's entirely too glib about the effectiveness of his interventions and far too easily blows off his critics. its really hard to show that a violence-reduction initiative actually works. look at murder trends in any major city over the last 50 years — its routine for rates to shoot up by 50% of all by 50% year over year, without obvious causes. this is problematic for kennedy's evaluation of efficacy — his interventions were largely conducted in a period where violent crime was falling massively across the country...both in the cities where he was intervening, where others were intervening (i.e. NYC) and where nobody seemed to be intervening. it seems quite possible, then, that many of his positive evaluations may have been luckily well timed as opposed to truly efficacious. but, that was only the start of my frustration with his account. its very hard to define what the "intervention" is — where was it deployed? when did it start? was one city's implementation truly "the" intervention or did they just steal a couple principles? kennedy has a habit of discounting failed attempts as not really representing the real intervention, while seemingly more willing to take credit for incomplete implementations that happen to be successful. while those criticisms may be valid, given that they're made after the fact, it raises the genuine possibility that the intervention doesn't work nearly as well as kennedy thinks it does. i was similarly frustrated that kennedy didn't seem to consider the possibility that the intervention worked differently in different places. he spoke as a true believer — "it" works if you really do "it". all of the variation in efficacy is accounted for by how well you delivered the intervention. but, "it" worked really amazingly well in some communities, less well in others and not at all in yet others. maybe, as he constantly recalls people telling him, "it" works better in some places/situations/etc. than in others. this trend was most frustrating when thinking about the durability of the intervention. lots of social interventions work for awhile and then, for a long list of reasons, stop working very well. kennedy never considers that limited durability may be a characteristic of his preferred interventions...if they stop working its always because people stopped implementing them. throughout the book, i found myself guessing that kennedy is probably right on the whole, but that he's less right than he thinks is.

my other major frustration is related. kennedy glibly dismisses those that focus on root causes for violence. his argument is partly persuasive — as soon as you show me a root cause based intervention that actually reduces violence, i'll sign up. but, given that we don't know how to prevent violence via root causes, if violence, per se, is the target, then focus on violence using my intervention. i think that argument is sound as long as violence per se, should be the target. but, here is where things get murky. isn't is plausible that violence-focused interventions work for a little while...but, the effect falls off because of the failure to address root causes? if so, the lack of durability that we see with kennedy's intervention may be inevitable without simultaneously addressing root causes. until we can get violent gang members not just to stop shooting, but to have real opportunities, violence is going to reemerge when the underlying hopelessness remanifests itself. kennedy likes simple medical metaphors. it seems quite possible to me that his interventions cut out the tumor only for it to regrow six months later.

it doesn't mean that if my community has a spike in murders that i shouldn't use kennedy's intervention. it doesn't mean that short term reductions in murders aren't self-evidently good in themselves. but, it does mean that i shouldn't think of it as a panacea. kennedy has a habit of concluding that his intervention is the key step in fixing not just violence but in fixing communities more broadly. but, unless i'm mistaken i heard as much evidence that his interventions improve employment, education or quality of life as i heard that root cause intervention reduce violence (i.e. none). kennedy seems weirdly deaf to this argument — even as his collaborators seem to have been screaming this message to him in some places (i.e. the pediatric surgeon in cincy). its also important for considering the potential net societal impact of kennedy-style interventions. he seems to endorse the idea that if we rolled these interventions out nationwide that we'd have a large sustained reduction in violent crime...and, its far from obvious that's the case.

here's hoping he's right. godspeed and all that, but i'm not holding my breath...

[Alex Etheridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Turns out violence, gang activity and policing are quite complex. This was a helpful resource.