Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
This summer U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy issued an advisory declaring firearm violence in the United States a public health crisis. Murthy cited data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as evidence of the widespread and long-lasting effects of gun violence across communities.
This advisory builds on the Biden administration’s 2023 establishment of the first-ever national Office of Gun Violence Prevention at the White House. Recognizing that meaningful action to prevent and address gun violence is being undertaken at the state and local levels, one of the office’s first acts was releasing the Safer States Policy Agenda, which sets out strategies states can employ to prevent gun violence. No. 1 on the list? Establish a state Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
To date, 13 states have established such an office. We believe the creation of an Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) will help streamline efforts across state government and with community partners to effectively support the most at-risk individuals and communities in preventing and responding to instances of gun violence. These offices are an emerging strategy, limiting the availability of research. However, a recently released report by the Joyce Foundation provides an overview of existing offices and considerations for establishing a state office of gun violence prevention.
The key benefits of establishing an Minnesota OGVP:
1) Centralized coordination and implementation: The office would serve as a centralized body to coordinate statewide efforts, ensuring consistency and efficiency in implementing gun violence prevention laws and programs. Building partnerships with community members, law enforcement, judges, violence intervention programs and prosecutors would amplify the reach and impact of gun violence prevention efforts.
2) Data-driven policies: In the advisory, Murthy acknowledged that data collection on firearm-related deaths and injuries underestimates actual counts. By collecting and analyzing up-to-date data, either themselves or through partnerships with research universities, on firearm mortality, nonfatal shooting and crime trace data, the office can provide evidence-based recommendations to policymakers and systems actors. It should facilitate data sharing among various state agencies, improving access to quality data and ensuring a fuller picture of gun violence. Using the public health approach in this way will enhance the implementation and impact of firearm-related legislation and interventions.