ICM framework

Public Safety Architecture

Connect the people, resources, and decisions that have to work together for safety.

What this helps you see

Public safety architecture is the plan underneath the programs: who is responsible, how decisions get made, what information is shared, and how prevention, intervention, response, and recovery fit together.

The problem underneath

Most jurisdictions have pieces of the answer, but the pieces do not always connect. Agencies follow separate mandates, funding rules, timelines, and data practices. People feel the gaps, duplicated work, and handoffs nobody owns.

The structure around a CVI program

A community violence intervention (CVI) program is one part of the wider public-safety system. This graphic from the Soren Tsui episode shows the support structure that program needs.

Soren Tsui episode infographic showing six foundations beneath visible frontline CVI work: local violence analysis, program design, operating structure, workforce support, institutional support, and a learning loop. — From the Soren Tsui episode: the structure supporting frontline community violence intervention.
View full-size graphic (opens in a new tab)
Read graphic text
Credible messengers are essential. Outreach works inside a full operating system; the visible worker is only part of the intervention.
Local violence analysis: understand who is most impacted, where violence is happening, and what patterns drive it.
Program design: define the theory of change, target population, and intervention match.
Operating structure: build participant criteria, assessments, service pathways, policies, and procedures.
Workforce support: staffing, training, supervision, debriefing, and wellness support make delivery consistent.
Institutional support: contracts, funding, administrative alignment, and partnerships create the conditions to operate.
Learning loop: data review, participant feedback, adaptation, and improvement cycles help the work get better.
Funding frontline positions without supporting the surrounding structure funds activity without a repeatable intervention. A credible messenger can open the door; program architecture determines whether the intervention works more than once.

ICM field application · illustrative

Trace one part at a time

Select a part to see what it does, where it can break down, and a next step your team can try. These are ICM planning examples drawn from the episode.

Local violence analysis

Identify the people, places, and patterns the response is meant to reach.

Where it breaks: The program targets a broad area without a shared picture of the harm or who is most affected.
Next move: Compare incident patterns with community knowledge and document the population and problem to address.
Who needs to act: Program lead, local analysts, and people close to the harm.
Check the delivery: Can partners explain why this population and response were chosen?

See the episode context and illustrative example

Illustrative local situation · ICM application

Put the framework against a decision.

Residents near an apartment complex describe repeated threats. Outreach workers, the housing provider, and emergency responders each hear part of the story, but no one knows whether a person reached support after a referral.

The decision: Map the path from first contact through immediate safety, voluntary support, and follow-up. Write down when a partner may share information and who confirms that a connection happened.
Who can act: The office convenes the partners; each agency and provider names someone who can approve its own procedure and resources. Residents and workers test whether the route is usable.
Check what happened: Review missed connections, time to contact, and what people say happened. Do not treat the number of referrals as proof of safety.

Map the implementation chain

These are parts of the picture to examine, not a complete plan for a jurisdiction or organization. The right design depends on local conditions, authority, resources, and the people who must carry it out.

How the pieces connect

Shared outcomes define the results every partner is working toward.
The plan connects early prevention, immediate intervention, emergency response, and recovery.
Write down who can make each decision, who does the work, and who answers when it falls through. This is the governance structure.
Shared data helps partners understand the problem and track results together.
Regular reviews allow leaders and communities to adjust the plan.

Where the work can break down

Partners cannot describe one shared strategy.
People are referred from one service to another without coordinated support.
Community organizations receive short-term funding without the staffing, systems, or support needed to deliver consistently.
Success is measured one program at a time instead of across the entire public-safety plan.

Explore the parts behind this idea.

Search the library

Framework

Community Safety Councils

A structure for agencies, community partners, practitioners, and residents to make and carry out shared public-safety decisions.

System Map

Right Responder to the Right Call

An overview of the coordination needed to match a call with the right response, authority, and follow-through.

Implementation Guide

From Safety Council to Violence Reduction Plan

An overview of how a community safety council can turn shared priorities into an accountable violence-reduction plan.

Episode Insight

A Safety Council Needs Real Authority

Community participation changes decisions only when residents and practitioners have defined authority, information, and a route to act.

Check the evidence for your place.

This framework organizes decisions. Local data and research still have to match the harm, people, and setting.

Open Research & Evidence

Build the approach for your context.

Turning this framework into a workable strategy takes local analysis, decisions about ownership and resources, and a way to test whether the response reaches people as intended.

Explore systems design with Jonathan