How Foundations Can Stop Gun Violence

As the recent high-school shootings in Colorado and Georgia vividly illustrate, guns in the hands of children pose a direct threat to many of the social causes that philanthropy cares deeply about.

Not only have gun wounds become the second-leading cause of death among young people in America, but access to guns by children has caused a serious deterioration in the quality of life in many urban and rural areas. Any foundation concerned about youth, community health and development, or popular culture should therefore also be concerned with — if not directly involved in — abating gun violence.

Some grant makers — such as the Joyce, California Wellness, and Venice (Fla.) Foundations and George Soros’s Open Society Institute — have recognized that connection and given millions of dollars to organizations that work to prevent gun violence. Other philanthropies and donors, though, have stayed away from the issue, perhaps because they worry that getting involved would be controversial.

Indeed, the recent Senate debates on gun legislation have been very heated, and the votes have been very close. It is too soon to know if any of the proposals will become law, but the process provides an important lesson: In the early votes, the National Rifle Association and its friends prevailed on the majority to pass only weak provisions; after Senators heard a roar of protest from back home, they reopened debate.

Outside Washington, more consensus on the issue prevails than is commonly recognized. Earlier this year, Join Together, the drug- and violence-prevention program that I run, conducted a national survey of community leaders and found them to be remarkably united in their views on issues related to gun violence. More than 90 per cent of the 1,500 respondents to the survey want to require safety training for all gun owners, make all guns childproof, hold the firearm industry liable for safety defects in their products, and increase taxes on ammunition. Three-quarters of the respondents believe that private citizens should not be permitted to carry concealed weapons, and 50 per cent want gun shows to be banned.

Their positions provide significant encouragement for those who want to get more involved in the issue. And there are many ways that foundations and individual philanthropists can do so. Among them:

Support local activists. Although local groups are working on gun-violence prevention in every state in the country, they currently receive less than 5 per cent of their funds from foundations. This kind of community action can be effective. In Boston, for example, a partnership involving the police, religious leaders, and community groups developed a strategy that has reduced gun deaths among teen-agers in the city by more than 80 per cent in the last three years. Such state and local efforts need philanthropic support to provide training to staff and community members, as well as to provide jobs, mentors, and after-school activities for youths who seem most likely to get involved in gun violence.

Finance student-led efforts. Foundations can support projects that encourage young people to keep their peers away from guns. Such projects can include youth-led community organizing, obtaining pledges from young people to not carry or use weapons, and training kids in ways to resolve disputes without violence. Too many such programs now operate on a tiny scale.

Develop educational materials. Another way foundations can help is by supporting the development and dissemination of educational materials for parents and children about guns, gun safety, and policies that will make cities and towns safer. There currently is a dire shortage of practical guidance to show parents, teachers, and community youth workers what they can do to prevent gun violence. A simple guide that contained questions that parents should ask about guns in the houses where their kids play would make a remarkable difference in raising knowledge and awareness about gun safety.

Encourage research. Foundations can also foster studies on gun safety, design, and consumer protection. The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission is authorized by law to study and regulate teddy bears and lawn mowers to protect consumers from flawed designs, but it is prohibited from regulating gun safety. No federal or state agency, in fact, has the authority to study or regulate that topic.

Partly as a result, almost no work is being done on how to make guns significantly safer, even though technologies exist to accomplish that objective. For example, some triggers are loose enough for a 3-year-old to pull, while others require an adult’s strength. Some guns have a clear indicator that shows when a bullet is in the chamber, while others do not. The technology also exists to prevent anyone other than the owner from firing a gun.

Would widespread application of those technologies save lives? A privately financed group could provide needed knowledge and leadership in that area. It could conduct research and draft legislative standards for gun safety and design. Donors or foundations could sponsor programs throughout the country to raise awareness that safer guns are possible.

Beyond that, foundations could support an independent body that would study incidents of gun violence in great detail to learn how to reduce future mayhem. Such a body should be modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board: a multidisciplinary group of experts who study every aspect of a tragedy. Its goal would be not to lay blame but to understand the causes and contributing factors to incidents of gun violence and to make recommendations for changes in products, procedures, training, and the law.

In an ideal world, the government should assume that role as part of its responsibility to protect the public safety. But since that is not going to happen in the present political climate, philanthropy must take the lead in establishing and financing such a body.

A number of cities have sued gun manufacturers and distributors to hold them liable for unsafe guns and negligent distribution policies that enable criminals and children to get guns. Foundations and individual philanthropists could finance the development of a nationwide center to support those efforts, similar to the support that was provided in some of the tobacco litigation. Such support may be particularly important because the gun cases are not likely to lead to huge financial settlements — so financial incentives for lawyers to develop strong cases are small. There is no Philip Morris in the gun industry.

If philanthropy takes the lead, community groups, local officials, parents, and young people can effectively prevent further gun violence. We can do more than cry for the dead and worry about who will be next.

David L. Rosenbloom is director of Join Together (http://www.jointogether.org), which is based at the Boston University School of Public Health.