Safe Summer SitesMilwaukee County • 2026

SUMMER 2026 • INTERACTIVE EVALUATION

Investing in the
spaces where
youth belong.

Safe Summer Sites expanded MPS Twilight and existing community spaces with longer hours, enhanced programming, trusted adults, and paid youth leadership.

Shaped by youth input and a shared commitment across Milwaukee, the initiative created more opportunities to learn, connect, and feel safe during evening and weekend hours.

Explore the summer Read the full evaluation ↗

June 22 to August 30, 2026 • Ages 12 to 20 • Supplied evaluation draft

A SHARED FOUNDATION
12

places to belong

Six MPS schools. Six community locations.
One coordinated summer investment.

 PEOPLE BEHIND THE WORK184individuals employed
for the initiative YOUTH INTENT TO RETURN96%of respondents would probably
or definitely attend again
THE SUMMER AT A GLANCE$3.14M funding and shared resources4,870 recorded MPS visits0 reported violence during programming

01 / THE APPROACH

Building on what was here.
Listening to what was needed.

Safe Summer Sites connected existing places, relationships, and expertise to a focused summer response. The investment strengthened a foundation that schools and community organizations had already built.

WHY THIS MATTERED

Prevention begins before harm.

By early June 2026, homicides and nonfatal shootings had already fallen more than 25% overall and more than 20% among youth and young adults. Partners wanted to sustain that progress during a season that often brings higher levels of violence.

The response focused on mental health, healing, trusted relationships, and positive opportunities, with spaces open when young people had fewer alternatives.

01

Start with youth voice

Spring convenings, a youth survey, and focus groups informed what young people wanted and needed. Paid youth ambassadors helped shape and deliver the summer.

02

Extend trusted spaces

MPS Twilight locations and community programs gained hours, enrichment, staffing, outreach, and support rather than starting from scratch.

03

Follow the time and place data

VR PHAST analysis guided locations and hours using patterns of violence from previous summers, with priority given to areas where investment could matter most.

04

Share responsibility

City and county agencies, schools, healthcare organizations, and community partners contributed resources and practical expertise. Evaluation was planned from the beginning.

NOVEMBER 2025

A call to action

Partners convened around keeping youth safe from gun violence and a collective response.

MARCH 2026

Continued convening

A second convening deepened the collaboration across public and community partners.

SPRING 2026

Youth input and planning

Young people contributed through convenings, surveys, and focus groups. Full planning began in late spring.

JUNE TO AUGUST 2026

A summer in action

Funding, design, and launch came together in approximately two months, followed by implementation and evaluation.

Initial conveners included Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee Public Schools, Greater Milwaukee Urban League, and Milwaukee Healthcare Partnership, in collaboration with the city, county, and community partners. Children’s Wisconsin is the area’s pediatric Level 1 trauma center.

WHAT THIS COLLABORATION REPRESENTED

Existing infrastructure became a shared platform for prevention.

Public funding, school resources, community relationships, and youth leadership worked together. The evaluation’s lessons point toward a lasting change in how partners plan, fund, and coordinate opportunities for young people.

02 / SHARED INVESTMENT

The commitment
behind the summer.

Five direct funders contributed $1.14 million. Milwaukee Public Schools added approximately $2 million in staff time, facilities, and shared resources. Together, the available investment was valued at $3.14 million.

DIRECT FUNDING$1.14M

Programming, staffing, and related support

MPS SHARED RESOURCES$2M

Time, resources, and facilities

COMBINED VALUE$3.14M

Available funding and shared resources

FOLLOW THE INVESTMENT

Who invested, and what it supported

Source: Table 1 and Figure 1. Shared resources are a valuation, not additional cash funding. Spending percentages are rounded and refer to approximately $902,000 used during the summer.

PEOPLE MADE IT POSSIBLE

A workforce rooted in
community and youth leadership.

184individuals employed
for SSS implementation
64paid youth ambassadors
helping develop and deliver activities
24Safe Passage team members
supporting safe departures

Existing MPS and community organization staff also supported the work. Employment, youth ambassador, and Safe Passage counts are reported separately and should not be added as an unduplicated workforce total.

Administration

Safe & Sound administered CDBG and Children’s Wisconsin support. INPOWER administered Milwaukee County DHHS and Medical College of Wisconsin support.

Staffing and facilities

Staffing subcontracts included Five Star Educational Training, INPOWER, MPS, Owen’s Place, and Boys & Girls Club. Facility costs included Five Star, Kosciuszko and MLK community centers, and youth memberships.

Responsive funding

Approximately $902,000 was used by August 29. Approximately $238,000 remained for additional youth programming beyond the summer.

THE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONSExplore the partnership directory

Organizations named in the report’s funding table, community partner table, embedded enrichment and operations diagrams, and convening narrative.

Names follow the supplied report. Some organizations appear in more than one role, and the report uses different name variants in different sections. Role labels organize the report references rather than establish a complete contractual roster.

03 / PLACES AND PARTICIPATION

A network of spaces.
A wider set of possibilities.

Twelve anchor locations offered youth centered enrichment, creativity, mentoring, healing, and fun. Trusted adults supported connection and safety in priority areas across Milwaukee.

4,870

Recorded MPS visits

June 22 to August 6
Repeat visits are included.

1,300+

Unique youth at MPS sites

Minimum reported individual count
across the school locations.

1,766

Community site attendees

Reported as unique attendees
June 22 to August 30.

TWELVE ANCHOR LOCATIONS

Original evaluation map. Explorer numbers follow this map’s key. Organization name variants in the map are retained in the source viewer.

Explore the locations

PARTICIPATION BY LOCATION

Attendance across the network

MPS data CSV ↗Community data CSV ↗

WHEN SPACES WERE OPEN

Two phases, one summer.

Primary hours were 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. Sundays were reserved for rest and family connection.

Phase 2 moved away from MPS buildings as schools prepared for the new year. Some sites began later than the planned June 22 launch because of funding and implementation timing. Flexible community events and pop ups supplemented the regular sites.

WHERE PARTICIPANTS LIVED

Neighborhoods represented

The most common MPS attendee ZIP codes were 53208, 53218, 53209, 53216, and 53206. Fourteen of the top fifteen attendee ZIP codes also appeared among the top fifteen survey ZIP codes.

Top fifteen ZIP codes in the report. Survey ZIP codes are a separate dataset. Age was not available for all MPS attendees; ages are described through the participant survey.

Attendance ZIP data ↗Survey ZIP data ↗

THE ACTIVITIES

From first skills to new connections.

Basketball, boxing, cooking, photography, music, art, mindfulness, wellness, poetry, and open gym. The report’s activity table offers examples, rather than an exhaustive record of everything delivered.

All thirty rows from Table 14 are preserved, including the repeated Teen Poetry & Self Expression Workshop row. Attendance is estimated and is not a unique participant total. Category labels are for browsing.

Download the complete activity table ↗
BEYOND THE ANCHOR SITESTen of the highest attended community events

These events reached families and others beyond the youth and young adult audience. Counts are estimates from Table 13 and may include repeat participants.

Download event data ↗

04 / THE YOUTH EXPERIENCE

Safety was the starting point.
Connection made it meaningful.

Young people described learning skills, meeting people, feeling welcomed by staff, and enjoying sports, cooking, and creative activities. The participant survey captured 283 voluntary responses.

96%would probably or
definitely attend again

MORE THAN A FIRST VISIT

Most wanted to come back.

65% of survey respondents were attending for the first time. 87% were ages 12 to 17. Among respondents to the relevant questions, 92% felt safe and 94% would recommend the program to a friend.

Questions were randomized to keep the survey short. Approximately 109 responses were received per randomized question. Responses may include the same young person on different days.

WHAT YOUNG PEOPLE REPORTED

Explore the participant feedback

Download survey findings ↗

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Anonymous feedback in the supplied evaluation

THE STAFF AND PARTNER VIEW

85%+

rated SSS very or
somewhat successful

Forty one staff and partners responded across programming, site coordination, mentorship, security, community work, and other roles.

What staff saw

Figure 11’s rounded values total 85% for very and somewhat successful; the narrative describes more than 85%. Success ratings reflect a voluntary staff and partner survey.

Strengths included safe spaces, enriching activities, positive relationships and behavior, and operations and safety. Concerns included heat and air conditioning, food and drinks, outreach and accurate information, activity choices and hours, staffing, organization, training, and earlier partner contracting.

05 / OUTREACH AND ACCESS

Reach young people.
Reach the adults they trust.

Digital campaigns created substantial visibility, but caregivers were the most common source of information for the youth who responded to the survey. Outreach to adults mattered alongside outreach to young people.

7.68Mdigital impressions
2.74Mreported reach
114,051link clicks
143,081post engagements

Reach can include duplicate people across sites and formats. Impressions count displays on screens; engagements include actions such as likes, comments, and shares. These are campaign metrics, not attendance counts.

DIGITAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY

Where the visibility came from

Source: INPOWER campaign tracking, Table 7. Enrichment activity post engagements were not reported.

View the audience demographics

Table 8. The listed age percentages do not always add to 100%; unlisted groups are not inferred. The report notes that 48% to 52% of audiences for enrichment, adaptive events, and Tap In were ages 25 to 44. Anchor site outreach reached an older audience, with 51% ages 45 and older.

Download campaign data ↗
37%

heard about SSS from
a parent or guardian

Caregivers opened the door.

Figure 5. Other family members and seeing an activity underway each accounted for 8%. Percentages shown are the source’s displayed categories and are not inferred to total 100%.

06 / COMMUNITY SAFETY

A promising summer.
A careful reading of the evidence.

Milwaukee recorded fewer homicide and nonfatal shooting victims during the summer comparison period. No violence was reported at SSS locations while programming was underway.

0

reported violence at SSS
during programming

No incident involving ages 12 to 20 was recorded within 400 meters of a site during operating hours.

20%

fewer citywide victims
compared with 2025

117 homicide and nonfatal shooting victims, all ages, June 22 to August 29, 2026.

22%

fewer victims
ages 12 to 20

29 victims during the same comparison period, the second lowest count in the report’s twelve year comparison.

What the evaluation can tell us

These are observed trends and experiences. The analysis cannot establish that Safe Summer Sites caused the citywide decline. Violence changes for many reasons, progress was already underway before the summer, and one summer is a short follow up period.

THE SUMMER COMPARISON

Homicide and nonfatal shooting victims

June 22 to August 29 in each year shown

Homicide victimsNonfatal shooting victimsSelect a year for details
View the complete chart data
Download trend data ↗

Transcribed from Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 displays 2016 through 2026; Figure 14 displays 2015 through 2026. The narrative describes a twelve year comparison. In 2026, the all ages total was the lowest reported comparison count; the youth total was second lowest, after 2019.

AROUND THE SITES

Place and operating hours
change the picture.

There were seven victims in each year within 400 meters of the anchor sites, across all ages and all hours. The overall count was unchanged from 2025, even though the locations shifted.

For ages 12 to 20, one incident occurred within 400 meters of Washington High School, outside SSS hours. None occurred in that radius during operating hours.

400 meters is approximately one quarter mile. Original Maps 4, 5, and 6.

THE COVERAGE GAP

80%+

of incidents involving youth
occurred outside SSS hours

Incidents were concentrated on Saturdays, Sundays, and in late evening and early morning hours. Most, 72%, occurred outside in a vehicle, street, alley, or parking lot.

The most common reported primary reason was an argument or fight, 38%, followed by retaliation, 17%. These patterns can inform future coverage, conflict prevention, and outreach.

INCIDENT CONTEXTDemographics, relationships, and geography

These describe the recorded violence incidents involving ages 12 to 20 during June 22 to August 29, 2026. They do not describe Safe Summer Sites participants.

CharacteristicPeople experiencing violencePeople suspected of engaging in violence
Male76%84%
Black86%90%
Ages 12 to 1414%3%
Ages 15 to 1738%39%
Ages 18 to 2048%58%

Reported relationships were an acquaintance, family member, parent, or partner in 38%; stranger in 32%; and unknown in 29%. The original figure’s rounded percentages are preserved. Violence involving youth was concentrated in the center of the city in or near the VR PHAST focus area.

07 / SYSTEMS AND CULTURE

What the summer taught us.
What the next chapter needs.

The initiative showed what engaged partners could put in motion quickly. Its challenges also showed where funding practices, planning, and youth engagement can become more responsive and consistent.

01Make room to plan together

The short timeline made launch possible through strong commitment, but more lead time would improve coordination. Establish partners, contracts, operational expectations, and communication earlier.

Youth and staff feedback also pointed to accurate event information, training, staffing, heat, food, and activity choices as practical priorities.

02Fund the work at the speed of need

Flexible Milwaukee County DHHS and Children’s Wisconsin support helped cover upfront expenses and launch activities. CDBG reimbursement requirements created timing and administrative challenges and contributed to delayed starts and remaining funds.

Smaller organizations may have trusted relationships and effective programming without the reserves to carry costs. Discuss advance payments, unrestricted resources, spending rules, documentation, and accountability before implementation.

03Bring youth in earlier and more widely

Youth participation in planning, launch, and implementation was central. The compressed timeline limited how broadly and early young people and organizations could be engaged.

Future outreach and evaluation can better assess whether the initiative reaches young people at risk of experiencing or engaging in gun violence. Age and ZIP code alone could not establish that.

04Use feedback to improve the next response

Anonymous surveys and direct partner feedback showed both what worked and what could improve. Keep the strengths while responding to concerns about facilities, food, communication, hours, participation, safety, and planning.

Follow violence data over time and conduct additional analysis to better understand both immediate and longer term outcomes.

THE REPORT’S NEXT STEPS

Turn a summer collaboration
into a more consistent practice.

  1. Give greater focus and priority to grassroots support.
  2. Work with philanthropic organizations on future support and continued programming.
  3. Make it easier for trusted community partners to put resources to work when and where young people need them.
  4. Continue centering youth and young adults in planning and implementation.
  5. Use the initial engagement as a call to action for ongoing collaboration.

Approximately $238,000 remained for youth and young adult programming beyond the summer. The evaluation describes promising progress and a new approach to collaborative prevention in Milwaukee.

08 / THE EVIDENCE

Explore the detail.
Keep the context.

The full source report, every original figure and map, and downloadable data tables are available here. The evaluation combines program records, attendance, surveys, digital reach, partner feedback, observations, and violence data.

The full evaluation

Developed by Constance Kostelac and Charles Vear, Medical College of Wisconsin, Institute for Health and Humanity and Comprehensive Injury Center, with partner and stakeholder input.

Read the complete report ↗Download original DOCX ↓

FOUR EVALUATION QUESTIONS

  1. To what extent are youth and young adults attending and participating?
  2. Are participants engaged and satisfied with the programming?
  3. Does SSS increase access to safe spaces during evening hours when risk is higher?
  4. Are community safety and violence indicators changing citywide and near sites?

HOW THE INFORMATION WAS GATHERED

MPS and community organizations provided daily attendance records to INPOWER. INPOWER provided campaign and staffing data. Evaluators observed planning and implementation and received partner feedback through meetings, including VR PHAST.

Participant surveys used age, ZIP code, and three questions randomly selected from eight. Staff surveys captured forty one voluntary responses. Violence data came through ongoing collaboration with Milwaukee Police Department and VR PHAST.

METHODS AND LIMITATIONSHow to interpret the results

Measures and analysis

The narrative describes six categories, while Table 3 lists seven; the table is reproduced in full. Quantitative analysis focused on counts, percentages, averages, and rating categories. Evaluators grouped open responses into themes and removed identifying details from quotes. Program records and observations supplied implementation context.

Attendance and reach

Repeat participation across days, events, and locations makes an exact unduplicated total impossible without individual identifiers. Some manual attendance records may contain errors. Digital reach depends on platform measurement tools and can contain duplicates across sources.

Voluntary survey responses

The participant survey was anonymous and voluntary; it may not represent everyone who attended. Not every participant received every question, and the same person could respond on different days. Only age group and ZIP code were collected. The staff survey also reflects those who chose to respond.

Community safety

The comparison used homicide and nonfatal shooting victims for the same summer dates in previous years, citywide and within 400 meters of anchor sites. The analysis does not establish causation. Evaluators plan additional follow up and analysis.

Staff survey roles

Roles overlap and therefore do not total 100%.

About the supplied draft

The supplied report is marked DRAFT, has an unfinished date and acknowledgement section, and references Appendices A, B, and C that are not included. The source viewer preserves the supplied material; no missing appendices or survey instruments have been invented. Original figures may use wording, colors, and name variants different from this microsite.

Every original figure and map

Figures 2 and 4 were embedded partner diagrams, and Figure 3 contained workforce text. Their complete text appears in the full report viewer and partnership directory; all eighteen raster charts and maps are shown here.

REUSABLE DATADownload the data tables
Funding contributions CSV ↗Activities CSV ↗Community events CSV ↗MPS attendance CSV ↗Community attendance CSV ↗Attendance by ZIP CSV ↗Survey ZIP codes CSV ↗Digital outreach CSV ↗Outreach demographics CSV ↗Survey findings CSV ↗Staff survey roles CSV ↗Violence trends CSV ↗Partnership directory CSV ↗Evaluation measures CSV ↗Programming schedule CSV ↗Microsite dataset JSON ↗

Download original image ↓