Skip to Main Content

Community violence intervention programs prevent shootings by interrupting the cycle of violence in the country’s most impacted communities.

Community violence is a major driver of the gun violence epidemic in the US and takes a disproportionate toll on underserved Black and Latino communities. One of the most effective ways to address this form of violence is through community violence intervention (CVI). CVI programs rely on concerned community members, commonly referred to as CVI workers, who are willing to accept the role of peacemaker. They work tirelessly to interrupt and prevent violent conflicts while connecting people at high risk of violent injury or involvement with violence to services and support. 


Our nation is experiencing a deadly surge in gun violence. Gun homicides rose 35% between 2019 and 2020 alone.1 Over 24,000 lives were taken by homicide in 2022—almost 80% of which were committed with firearms. Tens of thousands more were injured severely enough to require hospitalization.2

The troubling spike comes on the heels of several years of rising gun homicide rates. Gun homicides rose 30% from 2014 to 2019, reversing a more than two-decades-long trend of a relatively steady decline in violence.3 According to police department data compiled by Giffords Law Center, all but five of the country’s 50 largest cities saw an increase in homicides in 2020.4

Though the impact of shootings and homicides is felt broadly in communities that experience high rates of gun violence, gun violence is highly concentrated within cities. Roughly half of all gun homicides take place in just 127 cities, comprising less than a quarter of the total US population.5 Within these cities violence is further concentrated among a small fraction of the population. According to analyses of homicides and nonfatal shootings in several cities, less than one percent of a city’s population is connected to at least 50% of violent incidents.6

This small segment of the population is often group or gang-involved and is likely to be part of social networks where someone has experienced violence. Research has determined that young people engaged in such networks are 900% more likely to become a victim of gun violence.7


We’re in this together. To build a safer America—one where children and parents in every neighborhood can learn, play, work, and worship without fear of gun violence—we need you standing beside us in this fight.

The Disproportionate Impact of Interpersonal Gun Violence

Due to a historical lack of investment, systemic racism, and discriminatory practices, many neighborhoods with high levels of violence routinely face multiple compounding traumas. These factors, including residential and economic segregation, limited availability or access to quality jobs, and a lack of safe and affordable housing, create community conditions that foster gun violence.8

As a result, the burden of community violence tends to fall hardest on communities of color. Despite making up less than a third of the US population, Black and Latino residents account for nearly three-quarters of gun homicide victims in the US. Compared to their white counterparts, Latinos are two times as likely to be in a gun homicide in the US, while Black residents are nearly 13 times more likely to be killed by a firearm homicide.9

This disparity is even more acute when looking at Black men, who make up 52% of all gun homicide victims, though they comprise less than six percent of the US population.10 In fact, firearm homicide is the leading cause of death for black males ages 15 to 34.11

It cannot be emphasized enough that Black and Brown communities experience the harm and trauma of community violence at alarmingly high rates. As such, in order to be effective, efforts to reduce violence must be culturally competent in nature and utilize a diverse, equitable, and inclusive lens. 

Historically, the distribution of funding and other government resources has strongly favored law enforcement efforts that aim to reduce community violence at the expense of investing in community-led programs that have a proven track record of reducing violence when appropriately supported. In the last year, the federal government has recognized the power and impact of community-based approaches and has instructed agencies to “consult with members of communities that have been historically underrepresented in the Federal Government and underserved by, or subject to discrimination in, Federal policies and programs.”12 This explicit effort to strengthen diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workforce should be reflected at all levels of government and organizational design so that all voices are represented in strategic discussions about how to reduce community violence.

Outreach Workers: Connecting Those Most at Risk to Available Services

For as long as there has been community violence, there have been homegrown peacemakers. CVI workers can include concerned parents, faith-based leaders, civil rights activists, previously incarcerated individuals, and survivors of violence who have risked their lives to save others.

CVI workers leverage their credibility to develop relationships with community members and groups that might cause violence with the goal of preventing its spread and building peace in a community; they are not responsible for enforcing the law. In an effort to professionalize the work, there are certain characteristics and qualifications a CVI worker must possess in order to be appropriately equipped to do the work of reducing violence in their community which are outlined below. 

Outreach Worker Characteristics
  • Commitment to working towards peace in the community
  • Willingness to work with rival groups
  • Ability to intervene in existing conflict
  • Background working at the community level
  • Experience working with individuals at highest risk for violence
  • In-depth knowledge of community dynamics and culture of violence
  • Awareness of existing risk and protective factors
  • Credibility to engage violence producers 
  • Mobility across boundaries and territories
  • Excellent communication skills
  • In good standing with the community
  • Positive and energetic work ethic
  • Patience and dedication to promoting forgiveness
  • Professionalism and ability not to take things personally
  • Ability to collaborate and work with others
  • Culturally competent
  • Lack of bias, bitterness, or anger toward any group
Outreach Worker Preferred Qualifications
  • High school diploma or equivalent
  • Basic computer skills
  • Entry-level violence intervention training
  • Ability to navigate social media
  • Ability to pass drug screening
  • Lack of pending criminal cases


Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level.

Learn More

Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs

A promising strategy to reduce gun violence specifically focuses on reaching high-risk individuals who have been recently admitted to a hospital for treatment of a serious violent injury. This strategy, referred to as a Hospital-based Violence Intervention Program (HVIP), is built upon the premise that the strongest risk factor for violent injury is a history of previous violent injury, with the chances of injury recidivism as high as 45% within the first five years.13 In fact, a previous violent injury makes future death from violent injury nearly twice as likely, and being the victim of violence also significantly increases the chances of a person becoming a perpetrator of violence.14

Hospitalization for a serious injury presents a unique “teachable moment” when an individual may be open to positive intervention.15 Oftentimes, HVIPs leverage credible messengers—individuals in good standing with their community who typically have been personally impacted by violence—to meet survivors at bedside during a vulnerable time in their life and offer them resources with the mission to decrease the likelihood of re-injury or retaliation.16 This approach has been shown to stop the revolving door of violent injury seen in too many American hospitals and trauma centers.17

Examples of Success
lower injury recidivism rate following HVIPs
The injury recidivism rate for participants of a Chicago-based hospital-based violence intervention program (HVIP) was 7%, compared to 16% for non-participants.


George, P. et al. (2022). Evaluation of a hospital-based violence intervention program on pediatric gunshot wound recidivism in Chicago. PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square

When comparing rehospitalization rates for individuals who received HVIP services in the aftermath of violent injury to those who did not, a Baltimore-based trial found that only five percent of those in the HVIP group were rehospitalized versus 36% in the control group.18

With HVIP services, an evaluation of the San Francisco Wraparound Project demonstrates that patients who received HVIP services were four times less likely to be violently reinjured compared to similar patients without access to HVIP services.

Street Outreach & Violence Interruption

Street outreach and violence interruption are proactive approaches that employ trained workers to identify and mediate conflicts in their community. Traditionally, outreach workers come from the communities they serve and as such are aware of local needs and gaps in community care. The ability of violence interrupters to build trust uniquely positions them to work closely with local residents and develop strong personal relationships needed to mediate conflict and connect people to the supportive social services they need.19

These strategies work to prevent violence before it happens and de-escalate conflict before it potentially turns fatal. However, when properly resourced, programs can go beyond conflict mediation to proactively approach other debilitating community issues such as poverty, trauma, and exclusion from networks.20 Although specific characteristics of these approaches can vary by region, evaluations of street outreach programs from across the country credit this type of work with double-digit reductions in violence in cities large and small.21

Examples of Success
decrease in gun deaths & injuries
The number of gun deaths and injuries for participants in CRED, a Chicago-based street outreach program, fell nearly 50% in the first 18 months of participation.


Northwestern Neighborhood & Network Initiative (N3). 2021 (August 25). Reaching and Connecting: Preliminary Results from Chicago CRED’s Impact on Gun Violence Involvement. Institute for Policy Research Rapid Research Report.

Chicago CRED’s comprehensive street outreach strategy is associated with reducing the likelihood of injury or death among program participants by nearly 50%, according to early findings from the Northwestern Neighborhood and Network Initiative (N3) at Northwestern University. Participants were also 48% less likely to be arrested for a violent crime 18 months after starting the program. 

By emphasizing outreach, conflict mediation, and community engagement, Save Our Streets (SOS) was able to contribute to reductions in gun victimization upwards of 63% in its initial years of implementation in certain areas of the South Bronx.22

Case Management & Transformational Mentoring Programs 

Case management and transformational mentoring programs function to provide individuals impacted by community violence with the appropriate social service supports that are tailored to their needs. In some cases, this may look like developing an individualized service plan that incorporates cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mentoring or life coaching by a trained professional, or helping an individual apply for jobs or legal documents, among other services that function to utilize strategies and protocols that curb the perpetuation of community violence.

Similar to outreach workers, the success of a case manager or transformational mentor is predicated on their ability to form a trusted relationship with their client. They are seen as critical supports during the difficult period of time following a violent injury and ideally serve as a dependable resource that helps move an individual to a place of safety and stability. Programs that incorporate case management and transformational mentoring in their models have been associated with positive outcomes such as reductions in recidivism for violent offenses and increased likelihood of job placement.23

Examples of Success
decline in gun homicides & assaults
The Advance Peace intervention program in Sacramento correlated with a reduction in gun homicides and assaults of up to 46% in areas where the program was implemented.


Jason Corburn and Amanda Fukutome-Lopez, “Outcome Evaluation of Advance Peace, Sacramento, 2018–2019,” UC Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development, March 2020,

Through outreach, case management, cognitive behavior therapy, and the provision of support services, Roca has helped reduce the likelihood of recidivism for participants by 42–46% over a three-year period compared to a similar population. Furthermore, though young people with violent offenses often recidivate with similar or more violent offenses, among Roca participants—66% of which had a violent history—only 18% recidivated for a violent offense within three years.24

Findings from the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship (OPF) in Richmond, California, where fellows receive person-specific mentorship, cognitive behavioral therapy, internship opportunities, and stipends up to $1,000 per month for achieving program goals, indicated that program was associated with 55% fewer homicides and 43% fewer assaults when compared to its pre-implementation period.25

Supporting a Comprehensive CVI Approach 

No singular CVI approach is going to eliminate community violence; rather, the success of a CVI strategy is only as strong as its coordinated community networks. Effective CVI efforts are those that draw from a menu of approaches, utilize different touchpoints to recruit participants in need, and provide wraparound services through a comprehensive strategy that engages local governments and community organizations. Local governments are best positioned to support comprehensive CVI strategies by providing sustainable funding and resources to programs that offer those at highest risk the opportunity to explore alternatives to engaging in violent activities.

Los Angeles

Since 2007, Los Angeles’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) has implemented a coordinated, city-funded gang reduction strategy that consists of an array of components including: violence prevention, intervention, interruption, and community engagement. This comprehensive approach has been associated with approximately 27 less retaliatory gang homicides and 87 less retaliatory gang aggravated assaults per year.26 Even after recent increases in violence in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Los Angeles homicides are still down more than 20% from their average level in the years prior to the implementation of GRYD.27


In Massachusetts, which has the lowest gun death rate of any state,28 the Executive Office of Health and Human Services operates the Safe and Successful Youth Initiative (SSYI) in 21 communities throughout the state. SSYI offers young men who have committed a gun or gang-related crime services that include case management, employment support, and behavioral health services, and it is associated with reducing violent crime in the state by preventing more than 800 violent crime victimizations per year.29 

SSYI was added to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Crime Solutions and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model Programs Guide as a “Promising Practice” in 2021.30

Federal Funding for Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Strategies

Federal funding for violent crime prevention has been insufficient, unfocused, and sometimes harmful, contributing to the mass incarceration that has hollowed out communities of color while failing to significantly decrease homicides. However, with the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations and the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, federal funding to address community violence reached a high-water mark in 2022, with $100M appropriated to the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative, and an additional $45 million in Congressionally Directed Spending, known as “earmarks,” to support local community violence reduction projects.

Annual Appropriations

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022,31 which provides the federal government budget for Fiscal Year 2022, marked the largest dedicated federal investment for funding to specifically support community violence intervention programs. 

Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative

Within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Congress appropriated $50 million for the establishment of the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), which is administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. CVIPI is a new grant program intended to support communities in developing comprehensive, evidence-based violence intervention and prevention programs, including efforts to address gang and gun violence, based on partnerships between community residents, law enforcement, local government agencies, and other community stakeholders.32

Furthermore, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 advised the Department of Justice to prioritize awarding grants to communities with the highest number of homicides and the highest number of homicides per capita, enabling this federal funding to go to communities in most dire need of CVI programming.33 

The creation of CVIPI builds upon the work of previous federal grant programs within the Department of Justice like the Byne Criminal Justice Innovation program, Community Based Violence Prevention program, and the Innovations in Community-Based Crime Reduction program in two distinct ways. 

  • CVIPI received a substantially higher level of funding for Fiscal Year 2022 than any of the above noted programs received, and includes funding specifically for technical assistance and training, project evaluation, and for intermediary organizations to support the development of grassroots CVI organizations. 
  • CVIPI also includes a directive from Congress for the Department of Justice to prioritize funding community-based violence intervention programs to the fullest extent possible. The above noted grant programs sought to address community violence with an emphasis on restoring community trust with law enforcement, which limited the number of community violence organizations that could apply if their programmatic work did not include a partnership with a law enforcement agency.

Congressionally Directed Spending (also known as “earmarks”)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 also included more than $45 million of Congressionally Directed Spending (colloquially known as earmarks) in discrete funding for at least 67 community projects that support community violence intervention efforts. This funding provided a critical mechanism for Congress to provide funding for one year to support local or state-level efforts to address violence in their communities.

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

In 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA),34 which, among other things, invests $250 million in a  community based violence intervention and prevention initiative and funds other programs across the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Education (ED) that may help support communities most impacted by gun violence.

The BSCA appropriated $1.6 billion for the DOJ.35 In particular, the BSCA appropriated:

  • $250 million (over five fiscal years) for the new Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative, which includes a $50M increase in available grant funds for FY22.
  • $200 million (over five fiscal years) for the Bureau of Justice Assistance grants authorized by the STOP School Violence Act of 2018 to implement crisis intervention teams and hire school support personnel such as school-based violence interrupters.
  • $100 million (over five fiscal years) for the Community Oriented Policing Services Office competitive grants authorized by the STOP School Violence Act of 2018 to improve school security by providing students and teachers with the tools they need to recognize, respond quickly to, and prevent acts of violence.

The BSCA appropriated $990 million to HHS, including $800 million for HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration36 and $190 million for HHS’s Office of the Secretary’s Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund.37 In particular, the BSCA appropriated:

  • $40 million (over four fiscal years) for the National Child Traumatic Stress Network38 to improve treatment and services for children, adolescents, and families who have experienced traumatic events.
  • $240 million (over four fiscal years) for activities and services under Project AWARE,39 with $28 million to be used for grants to support trauma care in schools.
  • $120 million (over four fiscal years) for Mental Health Awareness Training to prepare and train community members and first responders on how to adequately recognize and respond to individuals with mental disorders.
  • $60 million (over five fiscal years) for the Primary Care Training and Enhancement Program to provide mental and behavioral health care training as a part of pediatric training and other clinicians who provide care for pediatric populations and other vulnerable populations, including individuals with mental health or substance use disorder.
  • $80 million (over four fiscal years) for pediatric mental health care access.

Finally, the BSCA appropriated $2.050 billion to ED.40 In particular, the BSCA appropriated:

  • $50 million (to remain available until September 30, 2023) to improve and expand 21st Century Community Learning Center programs, which provideacademic enrichment and youth development opportunities during non-school hours for low-income households.
  • $1 billion (to remain available until September 30, 2025) to increase funding for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants for Safe and Healthy Student Programs that provide mental health resources, drug and violence prevention programs, mentoring and school counseling, and positive behavioral interventions and supports.
  • $500M (over five fiscal years) for School Based Mental Health Services Grants to increase the number of and reduce the turnover of qualified mental health service providers who provide school-based mental health services to students in school districts with demonstrated need.
  • $500M (over five fiscal years) for Mental Health Services Professional Demonstration Grants to support innovative partnerships between institutions of higher education and school districts to prepare school-based mental health service providers for employment in high-need schools.

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER), “Underlying Cause of Death, 2018-2022, Single Race,” last accessed May 9, 2022. See also Rosanna Smart et al., “Geographic Disparities in Rising Rates of Firearm-Related Homicide,” The New England Journal of Medicine 387, (July 2022) doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2203322,[]
  2.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER), “Underlying Cause of Death, 2018-2022, Single Race,” last accessed May 14, 2024. last accessed on May 9, 2024.[]
  3. Kelly Drane, “Surging Gun Violence: Where We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We Go Next,” Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, May 4, 2022,[]
  4. Id.[]
  5. Aliza Aufrichtig et al., “Want to Fix Gun Violence in America? Go Local,” Guardian, January 9, 2017,[]
  6. Stephen Lurie et al., “The Less Than 1%: Groups and the Extreme Concentration of Urban Violence,” National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College, November 14, 2018,[]
  7. Andrew V. Papachristos and Christopher Wildeman, “Network Exposure and Homicide Victimization in an African American Community,” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 1 (2014): 143–150.[]
  8. See, e.g., Anita Knopov et al., “The Role of Racial Residential Segregation in Black-White Disparities in Firearm Homicide at the State Level in the United States, 1991-2015,” Journal of the National Medical Association 111, no.1 (2019); Sara F. Jacoby et al., “The Enduring Impact of Historical and Structural Racism on Urban Violence in Philadelphia,” Social Science & Medicine 199 (2018); Zinzi D. Bailey et al., “Structural Racism and Health Inequities in the USA: Evidence and Interventions,” The Lancet 389, no. 10077 (2017): 1453–1463; August Houghton et al., “Firearm Homicide Mortality is Influenced by Structural Racism in US Metropolitan Areas,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 91, no. 1 (2021): 64–71; Marcus Burrell, et al., “Depicting “the System”: How Structural Racism and Disenfranchisement in the United States Can Cause Dynamics in Community Violence Among Males in Urban Black Communities,” Social Science & Medicine 272 (2021); Ali Rowhani-Rahbar et al. “Income Inequality and Firearm Homicide in the US: a County-Level Cohort Study,” Injury Prevention 25, no. Suppl 1 (2019): i25–i30.[]
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER), “Underlying Cause of Death, 2018-2022, Single Race,” last accessed May 9, 2024. Figures represent an average of the five years of most recent available data: 2018 to 2022.[]
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER), “Underlying Cause of Death, 2018-2022, Single Race,” last accessed May 9, 2024. Figures represent an average of the five years of most recent available data: 2018 to 2022.[]
  11. Garen J. Wintemute, “The Epidemiology of Firearm Violence in the Twenty-First Century United States,” Annual Review of Public Health 36 (2015): 5–19,[]
  12. “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” The White House, June 25, 2021,[]
  13. J. Purtle et al., “Hospital-based Violence Intervention Programs Save Lives and Money,” J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 75, no. 2 (2013): 331–333.[]
  14. Jeffrey B. Bingenheimer, Robert T. Brennan, and Felton J. Earls, “Firearm Violence, Exposure and Serious Violent Behavior,” Science 308 (2005): 1323-1326.[]
  15. Rebecca Cunningham et al., “Before and After the Trauma Bay: The Prevention of Violent Injury among Youth,” Ann Emerg. Med. 53 (2009): 490–500,; see also SB Johnson et al., “Characterizing the Teachable Moment: Is an Emergency Department Visit a Teachable Moment for Intervention Among Assault-injured Youth and Their Parents?,” Pediatr. Emerg. Care 23 (2007): 553–559.[]
  16. William Wical, Joseph Richardson, and Che Bullock, ”A Credible Messenger: The Role of the Violence Intervention Specialist in the Lives of Young Black Male Survivors of Violence, Violence and Gender 7, no. 2 (June 2020):66-69,[]
  17. Carnell Cooper, Dawn M. Eslinger, and Paul D. Stolley, “Hospital-based violence intervention programs work,” J Trauma 61, no. 3 (2006): 534-540.[]
  18. C. Cooper, DM Eslinger, and PD Stolley, “Hospital-based violence intervention programs work,” J Trauma 61, no. 3.(2006):534-537; discussion 537-540.[]
  19. Jahdziah St. Julien, “Community-Based Violence Interruption Programs Can Reduce Gun Violence,” Center for American Progress, July 14, 2022,[]
  20. Id.[]
  21. “The Evidence of Effectiveness,” Cure Violence Global, August 2021,[]
  22. Sheyla A. Delgado et al., “The Effects Of Cure Violence In The South Bronx And East New York, Brooklyn,” Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, October 2, 2017, https://Johnjayrec.Nyc/2017/10/02/Cvinsobronxeastny/.[]
  23. Jorja Leap et al., “Exploring The Role Of Case Management Within GRYD Prevention And Intervention Services,” The City Of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office Of Gang Reduction And Youth Development (GRYD), June 2020,[]
  24. Abt Associates Implementation Study, 2018–21.[]
  25. Ellicott C. Matthay et al., “Firearm and non firearm violence after operation peacemaker fellowship in Richmond, California, 1996-2016,” American Journal of Public Health 109, no.11 (2019): 1605–1611.[]
  26. Anne C. Tremblay et al., “The City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) Comprehensive Strategy,” LA GRYD, June 2020,[]
  27. Compared the average of 2003 to 2006 to the number in 2021. “Murder in Los Angeles,” UCLA Blueprint, Spring 2015,; Jon Regardie, “Los Angeles records 397 murders in 2021,” Crosstown, January 10, 2022,[]
  28. “Gun Violence in Massachusetts,” Everytown for Gun Safety, January 2021,[]
  29. Patricia E. Campie, “Safe and Successful Youth Initiative (SSYI) Evaluation: 2018–19 Final Programmatic Report,” Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, 2019,[]
  30. “Program Profile: Safe and Successful Youth Initiative (SSYI) (Massachusetts),” National Institute of Justice, April 9, 2021,[]
  31. Pub. L. No 117-103, 136 Stat. 49.[]
  32. United States. Congress. Conference Committees 2022. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 2471: Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 117th Congress, Second Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2022.[]
  33. Id.[]
  34. Pub. L. No. 117-159, 136 Stat. 1313.[]
  35. Id. at 1338-1339.[]
  36. Id. at 1340.[]
  37. Id. at 1341.[]
  38. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network is a national network of grantees who develop and promote effective community practices for children and adolescents exposed to a wide array of traumatic events.[]
  39. Project AWARE is designed to identify and provide services to children and youth in need of mental health services in their school.[]
  40. Id. at 1341-1342.[]