Can new crisis teams curb youth violence? study aims to find out
NCT ID NCT07494019
First seen Jun 26, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This study examines community-centered safety models (CCSMs) used in U.S. cities to prevent violence among youth and young adults. Researchers will analyze data from 15 cities to see how these alternative crisis response approaches impact homicide and assault rates. The goal is to understand what works best and why, but this is an observational study, not a treatment trial.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this could provide evidence on which crisis response models best reduce community violence, guiding future policies.
- What could go wrong
- This is an observational study, not a clinical trial testing a treatment. Results may not show clear cause-and-effect, and findings may vary across cities.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Participants
-
About 15 people
The number the study aims to enrol. It can still change while the study runs.
- Started
-
Sep 2025
- Expected to finish
-
Sep 2028
An estimate. End dates often move.
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
Who is studied
This protocol does not involve prospective enrollment or direct interaction with individuals. The "participants" in this study are: 1. Jurisdictions/sites (U.S. cities/counties) operating fully implemented community-centered safety models (CCSMs)-co-response, alternative response, or community violence intervention; and 2. Community populations within those jurisdictions, represented only through secondary, de-identified or limited administrative datasets (e.g., violent deaths, nonfatal injury encounters, crime/arrest records) used for population-level analyses. Youth and young adults (YYA; \~ages 10-34) are a focal analytic subgroup because they bear a disproportionate burden of community violence. No individuals are recruited, contacted, or intervened upon.
- Ages
-
Children (under 18), adults (18 to 64) and older adults (65 and over)
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Not accepted
This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
Inclusion Criteria for Jurisdiction/Sites: 1. Intervention modality clarity: A single, identifiable CCSM-Co-Response (CRM), Alternative Response (ARM), or Community Violence Intervention (CVI)-implemented at city/county level. 2. Documented launch date \& scope: Public or official documentation specifying program start date, catchment, operating hours, staffing, eligibility, and core activities. 3. Observation window: ≥24 months pre-implementation and ≥12 months post-implementation of outcome data (monthly preferred; annual acceptable for fatal outcomes). 4. Outcomes coverage: Availability of primary outcomes (fatal and nonfatal violent injury) and at least one secondary justice outcome at the jurisdiction level. 5. Data quality: Stable geographic boundaries, consistent reporting practices, and no catastrophic breaks that preclude credible counterfactual fit. 6. Donor comparability: Jurisdiction characteristics and data cadence compatible with a pooled augmented synthetic control design (i.e., can be matched to a synthetic control and included in permutation tests). Exclusion Criteria: 1. Pilot-only or indeterminate programs: Short-lived pilots, ambiguous or multi-modality rollouts where treatment timing or content cannot be reliably defined. 2. Severe data discontinuity: Major boundary changes, reporting suspensions, coding overhauls, or dataset gaps that undermine time-series integrity (e.g., prolonged outages during system migration) and cannot be addressed with standard remedies. 3. Overlapping major interventions: Concurrent, poorly measured citywide initiatives (e.g., sweeping policy bundles) that coincide with the CCSM start and make identification infeasible. 4. Insufficient pre-period: \<24 months pre-implementation data for primary outcomes. 5. Incompatible cadence/aggregation: Outcomes only available at spatial or temporal units that cannot be aligned with other sites or donors.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Community-centered safety are added.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
How to take part
Only the study team decides who joins. These are the ways to reach them.
-
The places running it
1 site. The list below names each one and where it is.
-
The official record
ClinicalTrials.gov lists the study team's own contact details, including names and phone numbers. We don't republish those.
-
A doctor treating you
A doctor who knows your case can contact a study site on your behalf, and can tell you whether this study is worth pursuing at all.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
NYU Langone Health
RECRUITINGNew York, New York, 10016, United States