Recent successes at harnessing firearms violence data need more visibility and investment.

The Center on Public Safety & Justice at NORC at the University of Chicago aims to improve public safety using the best available research methods and data. Before joining the Center, I worked at a national foundation committed to supporting efforts to ensure data-driven decisions and rigorous evidence. While I was at the foundation, we partnered with NORC to convene an expert panel in 2019 to offer practical, implementable recommendations on how we can start collecting these critical data. Our goal was to put data in the focus of the firearms policy discussion, as researchers have a vital role in helping policymakers and the public understand that investing in firearms data infrastructure is essential to decreasing firearms violence. 

The expert panel was purposefully diverse, including some researchers but also practitioners, clinicians, and data and implementation scientists. The panel interviewed leaders in the field and reviewed guidance on best practices in data across substantive domains. Before issuing its recommendations, the panel systematically documented the current data evidence and created a framework for measuring change and assessing success in advancing firearms data. 

The expert panel issued recommendations that address several key problems: Firearms data are often difficult to access; collections are narrow in scope; public release of data can lag by years; and few datasets and systems can be integrated. Working toward implementing these recommendations is critical to creating a robust firearms data infrastructure to improve policy outcomes and evidence-based solutions.

The National Violent Death Reporting System is a model for effective data collection and use.

Another example of foundations and researchers partnering on firearms data solutions was in the late 1990s when researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Center created the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) pilot with support from private foundations. Today, over 600 data elements are collected, allowing researchers and practitioners to better understand the factors contributing to violent deaths. Even though there are limitations, the NVDRS is now considered an essential data source. 

For example, because of the NVDRS, police agencies can now better understand emerging issues and patterns of violent deaths, which allows agencies to potentially deploy resources more effectively, as highlighted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. In addition, the CDC recently featured multiple examples of states using NVDRS to inform violence prevention initiatives. For example, Arizona used NVDRS data to identify populations, locations, and circumstances associated with suicides and expanded its veteran suicide prevention campaign based on its findings.

Progress takes time, but better data lead to a better understanding of key questions that need to be asked and answered to advance on decreasing firearms violence. Luckily, we don’t need to start from scratch when seeking ways to improve firearms data infrastructure. Foundations, states, and the federal government can look to lessons from NVDRS and the NORC expert panel action-orientated recommendations as a pathway to support efforts to improve data collection on firearms violence.