Jessi LaRose, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Missouri Foundation for Health
Talia Wright, Vice President of Philanthropic Engagement, Fund for a Safer Future
Discussions about firearms in the US are often focused on urban gun violence and mass shootings. But firearm injury and death is a public health crisis that touches every community—urban and rural, red states and blue—and it intersects with issues many health funders care about: mental health, suicide prevention, and health equity.
For many health funders, the question isn’t whether to engage in the work of preventing gun violence and death; it is about how to do so effectively, especially in politically complex environments. The answer increasingly lies in collaboration, both with community partners and with other funders facing similar challenges. In this article, we explore how the partnership between a national funder collaborative and a place-based health foundation is addressing firearm injury and death, particularly in communities often overlooked in national conversations.
The Health Case for Gun Violence Prevention
Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teens and the fear of gun violence permeates our schools. Overall, gun violence kills tens of thousands of Americans annually and firearm suicide is the leading cause of those deaths (Gramlich, 2025). For health funders, addressing firearm risk—and the chronic and systemic conditions that intersect with it—is increasingly critical for achieving health equity goals.
Yet many health funders remain uncertain about their role in this space. Gun violence can feel politically fraught, policy pathways may seem blocked, and the connections to traditional health programs may not be obvious. These concerns are particularly acute for funders working in conservative states or rural communities, where gun ownership is common and residents may be skeptical of prevention efforts perceived as threatening Second Amendment rights.
Community-Centered Prevention
Missouri Foundation for Health (MFH) faced exactly these challenges when they began exploring gun violence prevention work in 2016. As a health funder serving three-quarters of Missouri—including urban St. Louis, rural farming communities, and everything in between—MFH needed an approach that would resonate across diverse political and cultural regions.
With service areas spanning vastly different communities—geographically, racially, and socioeconomically—MFH recognized that no single approach would work everywhere. So they invested in community-based organizations that developed locally driven prevention strategies tailored to their specific contexts. MFH engaged eight community organizations across seven grants, primarily in rural and small-town areas to address firearm suicide specifically. These programs—many led by gun owners themselves—asked fundamental questions: How do we start this conversation in our community? Who needs to be at the table? What populations are most at risk? Rather than imposing solutions, MFH provided the resources and flexibility for communities to develop approaches that fit their local situation.
The results have been transformative. Grantees who were initially afraid to even mention firearms in the context of suicide prevention have become confident local leaders, developing innovative programs and advocating for change in their communities. In rural Shelby County, for example, Shelby County Cares is working with trusted messengers—farmers and faith leaders—in conversations about gun safety and suicide prevention. Their work has generated national media attention and demonstrated that this issue can be addressed effectively in deeply conservative communities when the approach places local voices and relationships at the center.
The Value of National Networks for Place-Based Funders
As MFH expanded its work on preventing gun injury and death, it recognized the value of connecting with other funders working on similar issues. In 2023, MFH joined the Fund for a Safer Future (FSF), the nation’s largest donor collaborative focused on preventing firearm injury and death. It soon became clear that funders across the country are tackling similar challenges, and MFH could learn from and with other regional and national funders. Membership in FSF has provided this and other advantages:
- Peer Learning: Through FSF convenings and other learning opportunities, MFH has gained insights from those working in similarly complex political environments. These exchanges have helped MFH refine its own strategies while providing valuable intelligence to share with Missouri-based grantees.
- Field-Building Support: FSF was elevating firearm suicide prevention as a priority area just as MFH was deepening its work on the issue. This alignment created opportunities for MFH to contribute to national conversations and share what they were learning, all while accessing resources and expertise that strengthened their local efforts. MFH now serves on FSF’s Firearm Suicide Prevention Committee, facilitating that two-way exchange of knowledge.
- Cross-Sector Connections: Through FSF, MFH has built relationships with funders focused on community violence intervention, leading to new insights about how seemingly distinct issues—homicide vs. suicide, urban vs. rural—actually have much in common. Both involve firearm access during moments of crisis, both require community-based responses, and both disproportionately affect communities facing systemic inequities. With these similarities, funders focused on one area are learning from funders focused on another.
- Validation and Community: Working on gun injury and death can be daunting and progress can feel fleeting. Connecting with peers facing similar challenges provides both practical and moral support. The relationships built through FSF have led to collaborations beyond the fund itself, including partnerships with other national funders and learning collaboratives.
Lessons from Health Funders
The learning has been mutual. FSF leaders have learned a great deal from MFH and other health-focused and place-based members. Lessons FSF has learned from its members:
- Frame gun injury and death as a health issue: Gun violence is a public health crisis with clear connections to issues health funders already address. When framed through a health lens and centered on community well-being rather than controlling firearms, the work becomes more accessible even in conservative contexts.
- Involving health funders is broadening and improving our grantmaking strategy: Involving a diverse set of stakeholders, including the health funders and health care providers, improves the quality and range of solutions we collectively develop and fund. That’s why FSF funds a range of programs created by and for health care providers, including Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs that are showing great results.
- Community-based work is critical on its own and can ladder up to broader policy change: While policy change may not be immediately feasible in some places, community-based prevention work can happen anywhere. Building local capacity, shifting narratives, and supporting community organizations can create meaningful change and lay groundwork for future policy opportunities.
- Start where communities are: Successful community engagement on firearms requires meeting people where they are—working with gun owners, respecting cultural contexts, and building trust over time. Organizations led by community members, including those who own firearms, are often best positioned to lead this work.
- Flexibility and partnership matter: Supporting community organizations as partners rather than just grantees—providing flexible funding, trusting local expertise, and committing to multi-year support—enables the relationship-building and experimentation necessary for this complex work.
- National networks complement local work: Even for place-based funders, participation in national collaboratives provides valuable peer learning, field intelligence, and relationship-building opportunities. These connections can strengthen local strategies and create pathways for joint funding and shared learning.
Broadening the Tent
FSF works to expand gun violence prevention philanthropy by engaging funders who may not have traditionally worked on this issue. Health funders are natural partners in this expansion. FSF offers health funders multiple pathways for engagement:
- Aligned grantmaking that allows funders to support gun violence prevention work within their own program areas while benefiting from FSF’s research and convening work.
- Pooled grants that enable smaller investments to support larger initiatives. Whether pooling funds with us or making their own independent grants, our members are recognizing the greater impact we can have collectively by coordinating our grantmaking strategies.
- Learning communities focused on specific topics like firearm suicide prevention or community violence intervention.
- Access to expertise and research that can inform individual foundation strategies.
- Peer networks connecting funders working in similar contexts or on similar issues.
For health funders concerned about political complexity, it’s worth noting that FSF’s membership spans the political and geographic spectrum, with members successfully funding gun violence prevention work in blue and red states, and urban and rural communities.
Moving Forward
For health funders considering engagement in this work, the path forward begins with recognizing that gun violence prevention is health work—and that you don’t have to navigate it alone. Whether through joining funder collaboratives, building partnerships with community organizations, or simply beginning conversations with peers about how to approach this issue, there are multiple entry points for engagement.
The field of gun violence prevention needs the expertise, relationships, and resources that health funders bring, including place-based funders. The question is no longer whether health funders have a role to play, but how quickly we can expand the tent to include more voices, more strategies, and more communities in the work of preventing firearm injury and death.
Resources:
Gramlich, John. “What the Data Says About Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, March 5, 2025.