The Waterbury Health Department is seeking $2 million in state funding to address the city’s escalating gun violence. Their approach? Treat it like an infectious disease.

The proposal, part of the Gun Violence Prevention Partnership, aims to deploy evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies for individuals aged 10 to 34—especially young Black men, who are disproportionately affected. The plan includes neighborhood “violence interrupters,” mentorship, youth-led projects, gun safety events, and a gun violence review panel to analyze deaths of those under 25.

The initiative has received backing from city leaders and the police department. But after a visit to the Health Department seeking clarity on the program’s direction, we left with more questions than answers—and, to date, we have yet to be contacted for follow-up.

The Promise and the Peril of a Public Health Model

Framing gun violence as a public health crisis has gained traction nationwide. The logic is that violence can spread through communities much like a virus—through exposure, trauma, and retaliation—and therefore can be interrupted.

Programs like Cure Violence, first launched in Chicago, have had success in reducing shootings by hiring individuals from the community to mediate conflict before it erupts into violence.

But is that metaphor truly fitting—or helpful?

Why This Classification Deserves Scrutiny

1. Oversimplification of Root Causes
Violence stems from poverty, generational trauma, systemic racism, lack of opportunity, and broken institutions. Labeling it as a disease risks ignoring these deeper, systemic issues in favor of surface-level solutions.

2. Risk of Stigmatization
If violence is “contagious,” then who are the infected? Communities already suffering under surveillance, underfunded schools, and over-policing could be further stigmatized—painted not as victims or survivors, but as carriers of a social plague.

3. Funding Without Structure
Waterbury’s proposal appears well-intentioned, but without transparency and community accountability, it risks becoming another well-funded initiative that doesn’t reach the people who need it most. Our attempt to follow up with the Health Department after a site visit—during which no specific details or personnel could clarify the program—has gone unanswered.

4. Narrow Focus Could Undermine Broader Change
The infectious disease model often centers on changing individual behavior rather than transforming the conditions that create desperation, hopelessness, and violence. What happens when the funding dries up but the root causes remain?

A Call for Accountability and Inclusion

Waterbury’s effort to reframe gun violence as a health issue is bold—but boldness without clarity can breed mistrust. If the city is serious about healing, it must engage residents as more than statistics. The community deserves transparency, follow-through, and a seat at the table—not just headlines.

Treating violence like a disease might sound innovative, but if not carefully implemented, it risks becoming just another diagnosis—with no cure in sight.

Share your thoughts with us on the matter. Should gun violence be classified as an infectious disease in Waterbury?