Community violence intervention (CVI) programs rely on credible messengers, violence interrupters, outreach workers, and support staff who are often embedded in the very communities they serve. They mediate conflicts, respond to shootings, support grieving families, and work to break cycles of retaliation. This work demands proximity to trauma, and that proximity carries a cost.
Yet the research field has paid relatively little attention to what CVI practitioners carry home. Studies are few, narrowly focused on frontline roles, and inconsistent in how they define and measure trauma. The broader CVI workforce, including administrative staff and volunteers, remains largely invisible in the literature. This study was designed to address that gap directly.
This study employed a two-part design. The first part was a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s established framework. We searched seven databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, CINAHL, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Academic Search Complete, and Scopus, along with Google Scholar, for peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2024. We focused on empirical and conceptual articles examining secondary traumatic stress (STS), vicarious trauma (VT), or related forms of indirect trauma among CVI practitioners across hospital-based and street outreach models. Of 103 records screened, 10 studies met our inclusion criteria.
The second part was a pilot cross-sectional survey administered to 75 CVI practitioners recruited nationally across 24 states. Participants completed the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS) and the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL-5), which together assess STS symptom clusters, burnout, and compassion satisfaction. The survey was fielded between March and April 2025 and included verification measures to ensure response integrity.
The scoping review revealed significant gaps in both knowledge and practice. The 10 studies that met criteria varied widely in methodology, population, and how trauma was defined. Terms like secondary traumatic stress, vicarious trauma, and burnout were frequently used interchangeably, making it difficult to compare findings across studies or draw firm conclusions about the scope of the problem.
Most studies concentrated on frontline violence interrupters and street outreach workers. Administrative staff and volunteers received almost no attention despite their sustained exposure to trauma narratives, case files, and organizational stress. Longitudinal research was absent entirely. Intervention strategies, when mentioned, were rarely evaluated with rigor.
The success of CVI programs depends as much on supporting practitioner well-being as it does on innovative strategies to prevent violence.
CVI programs have gained significant policy traction at the federal level and in cities across the country. Their effectiveness depends on practitioners who can sustain trusting relationships within communities, respond in real time to violence, and maintain the credibility that makes their work possible. When secondary trauma goes unaddressed, those capacities erode.
Turnover among CVI practitioners is a known and persistent challenge. The emotional and psychological costs documented in this study are directly relevant to why. Without standardized, evidence-based approaches to trauma mitigation, programs risk losing their most experienced and effective staff. The communities those programs serve absorb that loss.
This study also raises an equity concern. Many CVI practitioners share the racial, socioeconomic, and geographic identities of the people they serve and may enter this work already carrying personal histories of trauma. The dual burden of prior lived trauma and occupational indirect trauma compounds over time. Organizational responses that treat worker wellness as an afterthought cannot adequately address this reality.
Trauma in CVI environments is workforce-wide, multidimensional, and insufficiently addressed. Sustaining the practitioners who interrupt violence is inseparable from sustaining the communities they serve. Leadership, funders, and researchers must treat practitioner resilience as a program outcome, not a peripheral concern.
Title: Mapping Trauma Exposure in Community Violence Intervention Programs: A Scoping Review With Pilot Data Integration
Authors: Jennifer Wyatt Bourgeois, Howard Henderson, Denise Brown, Larry D. Brown Jr., and Deshara L. Goss
Journal: Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2026)
Institutional Affiliations: Center for Justice Research, Texas Southern University; University of Wisconsin-Madison; DGI Consulting
Funding: Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Federal Award No. 15POV-23-GK-02766-NONF)
Methods: Scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework; pilot cross-sectional survey using the STSS (DSM-5 Version) and ProQOL-5; n=75 practitioners across 24 states
