A Framework for Understanding Credibility: What Makes Credible Messengers “Credible” in a New York City–Based Sample of Gun Violence Intervention Programs?

• Published date: 01 February 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241291032
• Author: Jason Szkola,Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill
• Date: 01 February 2025
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2025, Vol. 52, No. 2, February 2025, 294 –312.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241291032

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

294

A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING

CREDIBILITY

What Makes Credible Messengers “Credible” in

a New York City–Based Sample of Gun Violence

Intervention Programs?

JASON SZKOLA

Rowan University

KWAN-LAMAR BLOUNT-HILL

Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University

The use of credible messengers to deliver violence reduction programs has spread rapidly since it was first used in a criminal

justice context by Cure Violence in 1999. However, there is no clear conceptualization of what a credible messenger is, aside

from vague definitions contained in the evaluation literature. We provide a “broad strokes” framework for developing a

general theory of credibility that might extend from criminal justice across disciplines. The framework also provides the basis

for developing a middle theory on credibility within the area of violence intervention. We demonstrate how this might be

done, using the theoretical framework to explore a set of 22 interviews with credible messenger staff.

Keywords: credibility; credible messenger; community violence; legitimacy; trust

The use of credible messengers in community violence intervention (CVI) has grown rap-

idly since its adoption in 1999 by proponents of Chicago CeaseFire, now Cure Violence

(CV; Skogan et al., 2009). CV is just one credible messenger-based gun violence intervention

model used across the United States and internationally (Cure Violence Global [CVG], n.d.).

Others include New York City’s Young Men’s Initiative and Washington, D.C.’s Credible

Messenger Mentoring Movement. In the United States, “credible messenger” has come to

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors contributed equally, and author order was selected randomly; first authorship

should be attributed to us both. This work draws from data used in the first-listed author’s dissertation. The

authors thank the Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice for permitting the use

of these data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason Szkola, Department of Law

and Justice Studies, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028; e-mail: szkola@rowan.edu.

JASON SZKOLA and KWAN-LAMAR BLOUNT-HILL are also affiliated with the Community Violence

Prevention Project.

1291032CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241291032Criminal Justice and BehaviorSzkola and Blount-Hill / A CREDIBILITY FRAMEWORK

research-article2024

Szkola and Blount-Hill / A CREDIBILITY FRAMEWORK 295

mean someone with similar lived experiences to individuals at “high risk” of perpetrating

violence (Martinez et al., 2022; Szkola, 2022; Whitehill et al., 2014).

Credible messengers take on many roles depending on the CVI model. In CV, violence

interrupters (VIs) interrupt violence through conflict mediation. Outreach workers (OWSs)

are responsible for longer-term engagement, relationship-building, and ongoing case man-

agement with program participants. Outreach worker supervisors (OWSs) and program

managers (PMs) oversee and facilitate the work of these “frontline” staff. An OWS super-

vises OWs and directly manages a smaller caseload of participants, while PMs manage

overall program sites. While PMs do not maintain a caseload, they may interact with par-

ticipants in various contexts, casually, ad hoc, or more formally. These staff are all typically

credible messengers.

Program evaluators have demonstrated strong interest in testing the efficacy of credible

messenger-based models (Buggs et al., 2022; Delgado et al., 2018; Lynch et al., 2018). Yet,

despite rapid growth in use of the term, there is no standard for what makes a messenger

“credible.” How can program effectiveness be assessed without operationalizations allow-

ing for correlating variation in credibility with variation in intended outcomes? How can the

felt, perceived, or experienced reality of credibility in context be understood without clear

conceptualization? Without a common understanding of credibility and established criteria

to judge by, we cannot convincingly determine credibility, compare across credible mes-

sengers or individuals’ credibility across time, or even judge whether a program is truly

“credible messenger-based.”

We seek to define credible messengers beyond simply declaring them so. We propose a

definition of credibility and credible messenger. Using thematic analysis, we explore 22 inter-

views with credible messengers in two New York City CV programs, from which we illustrate

five proposed bases for attributions of credibility. We note, credibility can only be conferred

by those one intends to influence—in this case, individuals at high risk for engaging in vio-

lence. However, practitioners rely on their ability to assess client cognitions and are therefore

an important source for understanding how staff credibility is obtained. We conclude with

limitations and suggestions for policy, practice, future research, and theorization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

WHAT IS A CREDIBLE MESSENGER?

Defining “Credibility”

Lock and Seele (2017) conclude: “A credible communicator is one whom audiences

believe” (p. 585). To believe is to accept something as true (i.e., in accordance with reality)

or truthful (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-e). While credibility is used synonymously with believ-

ability (e.g., Cheung et al., 2012; Wathen & Burkell, 2002), it is inadvisable to populate

scientific language with synonyms: “Precision in the use of language . . . is a reflection of

precision in scientific thought” (Sarnat, 2007, p. 1245). If believability means “capable of

being believed,” credibility instead refers to “the quality . . . of inspiring belief” (Merriam-

Webster, n.d.-b; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c). To be credible is to inspire belief. Within CVI,

to be credible often means inspiring belief that one can—and should—successfully pursue

alternatives to violence.